Ok everyone I just have a question on how to handle a situation revolving around one of my players. First I'll give a little bit of backstory
I've only been playing D&D for about 3 years and it's my first tabletop RPG and I've dived in head first. I've tried a number of others since and within the last year I got my feet wet running games. The group I play with is the group that introduced me to the game and we mostly play in a multi year campaign run by our mainmDM (who I'll reference as Bob). Bob is the one who has introduced all of us to D&D.
Now my "trouble player" referenced as Steve is also a fellow player in Bob's campaign and he is 100% a Power Gamer/rules lawyer. He enjoys finding the best combos he can get to completely maximize his character and he also looks for loop holes to try and gain as many abilities and advantages as he can. Now I'm a more narrative driven player, I have no problem with min/maxing or making your character as efficient as you can (if it's not game breaking) if that's what's fun for you.
However I am bothered by people making character choices that make absolutely no sense from a narrative standpoint purely for mechanical gain. So I've made it in my campaign that you can't just pick a class and multiclass into it when you level up you have to actually do it in game (i.e want to be a monk? Gotta go find someone to train you). Because of that he has decided he isn't going to Multiclassing because it isn't going to just be a snap of the fingers, again no problem.
Now we get to the issues.
First is his rules lawyering, he's gotten a lot better at it in Bob's campaign but in mine he is constantly questioning my decisions especially if they go against what the books say. If there's something we're not quiet sure about I'll make a table ruling for the instance and then look it up later with an official verdict so the game can keep going. However every time I do that Steve is pulling out his copy of the rulebook and looking for the official rule which he then announces as soon as he finds (even though we've moved past that point).
He's moved figures from where I've placed them on the battle grid because based on my description he thought they where in the wrong place. He also will argue and question whatbl i say without giving me time to fully speak. For instance his character was down and an AOF went off nearby, he immediately said his character was dead and before i could explain that all the damage from the robot was non lethal he cut me off and starting quoting rules from the book as if he knew better than what I had planned for that entire encounter.
Recently he has started trying to apply features to abilities that they don't have. So in our current campaign he's playing as the UA Mystic (I know it's playtest but I love the class and have no issue with him playing it). For those who don't know Mystics have different types of psychic "schools" where you gain your powers from. If you know a type of school you can focus on it and gain a specific benefit for the duration of your focus.
One focus allows you to specifically read and write a language of your choice for as long as you maintain that focus. Now we where hanging out and he asked me if I thought that if you can read and write a language then you can speak it and understand it, believing he was asking a general question I said yes (because for the most part i agree). However i found out later that he was asking so he could use the ability beyond it's intended purpose. I realized why he had asked that when he tried to use that ability to eaves drop on a conversation that was in a language his character didn't speak. When I asked him how he could understand the language he referenced the ability and what I'd said. Mind you at no point in our original conversation did he mention anything about this being a class ability or even d&d related.
I'm starting to get really frustrated with this player especially because he doesn't do even 2/3rds of this in Bob's campaign. Just in mine, so am I over reacting to this or what? If not how should I handle it aside from the number of conversations I've already had with him
I appreciate your problem, it's often not easy to deal with someone like this. What this guy wants is control--he wants to be the one directing how things happen, to whatever degree he can manage to force on other people. Min/Maxing is one way of doing that--the better your character is, the more of the scenario you control, right?
How is your relationship with Bob? I would think about asking him for advice. You don't want Bob stepping in to take over while you're DM either, but 1) asking Bob will let Bob know how much Steve is bothering you. There are things that other players can do to help control someone like Steve. Even another player saying something like "Steve, we get it, that's not important now" or "Steve, leave the miniatures where they are, you aren't the DM" can help impress on Steve that he's causing a problem.
One thing to keep an eye on is to make sure that you're not doing anything that's biased against Steve because you're tired of his attitude. It doesn't sound like you are--telling him he's not dead, letting him play a playtest class, etc. But it's only going to encourage him if, even unconsciously, you're shutting down legitimate things he's trying. And it would be very understandable to do that with an annoying player :)
That said--at some point you may need to just lay down the law. If getting Bob or other players on board doesn't work, and as you say talking to him (I'm assuming calmly) doesn't work, you may just need to say "Steve, the next time you move the minis, you lose 100 exp." I don't know Steve, but sometimes guys like this only react to a public calling out. "Steve, constantly questioning my and everyone else's decisions is pissing people off." Now: that may cause him to leave the game. But it may also cause him to calm down.
But I'd start with talking to Bob, see what he has to say. Did he do anything in particular to get Steve to calm down for his DMing?
It seems like Steve and you aren't playing the same game. Steve wants to play a by-the-book version of D&D 5e, and you want to play a looser, more narrative-based version of D&D 5e. Steve isn't the problem. The problem is an expectation mismatch. Steve might be moving your tokens in the map not because it benefits him, or his character, and maybe not because he wants control, but maybe because he honestly thinks you made a mistake, and is trying to helpfully correct it.
One thing a lot of people don't realize about rules lawyers is that many of us don't do it out of a need for control, or as a way to look for advantage in the game, or as a power play, but because we feel that's how the game is supposed to go, and it bothers us when mistakes are made. Breaking the rules is cheating, even if unintentionally, and even if not done for personal gain. If the DM allows a character to live after having failed 3 Death Saving Throws, it's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. If a DM moves a token of a monster with 30' speed 7 squares, and then attacks, that's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. Rules lawyers are very annoyed by that, and will work to correct it. On the other hand, while rules lawyers want rules to be followed, many of us have no problems with changing the set of rules that are to be followed, as long as it's done deliberately and openly. I, for example, have no problems with a DM ruling that "it now takes 4 failed death saves to die permanently". I mean, in some cases I might disagree, and will try to convince the DM to rule differently, but not because "the book says otherwise", but rather because I feel the rule is bad in some way. For example, if a DM decided to rule that "concentration can be maintained even when taking damage without having to roll for it", I'd disagree with that rule, because it makes Concentration spells significantly more powerful, so it creates an imbalance in the game.
On the other hand, if the DM is ignoring rules arbitrarily, without openly stating so beforehand, players, and especially rules lawyers, will feel their agency is restricted. A player who moves his character to a distance of 40' from an enemy, knowing that the enemy's speed is 30', and so therefore won't be a able to reach their character and attack in melee, will feel shortchanged and cheated when the DM arbitrarily ignores the movement rules and places the enemy's token adjacent to their character's token, and proceeds to attack. The DM's intention might not be to screw the player over, they might have made an honest mistake. A rules lawyer will probably assume a mistake has been made and work to correct it. In general, rules lawyers often question the DM's actions out of worry of mistakes being made. Take that into consideration when dealing with Steve.
Regarding the mystic focus reading/writing vs speaking/understanding... I honestly don't understand why you're upset. You agree that being able to read and write a language should allow you understand and speak it. The character has a feature that allows him to read and write a language of the player's choice. Therefore, while using that feature, under your rules, the character should be able to speak and understand that language. You might feel cheated or shortchanged because you did not expect it to go that way, but if you specifically designed the encounter to exclude possible understanding by all characters involved, you should have taken that into consideration. It's as if you were upset at a Wizard's player for bypassing your clever trap by using a Dimension Door you hadn't counted on. Bummer, sure... but that's just the players using all their available resources to solve problems in the game.
So... if your intention is to run a more loose game, using the game's rules more as general guidelines than actual rules, state so clearly, make sure all the players understand and are on board with that. If your intention is to run a tighter game, and you still don't know the rules by heart so much, then welcome Steve's corrections, thank him for them, and realize that as you keep DMing, you'll learn the rules better and make fewer rules mistakes, and it should eventually stop being a problem.
One last thing... I'm always concerned when people express dislike, annoyance, or disagreement over "multiclass choices that make no sense [narratively]". It often means "I can't think of a way to make that work, narratively, so I'm saying it doesn't work". A Human (race) deciding to be a Battle Master Warrior (class) in order to be a better Soldier in his nation's army (background) makes as much sense as a Gnome (race) deciding to be an Arcane Trickster Rogue / Forge Cleric (class) to be a champion of his village (background - Folk Hero), and as much sense as a Fallen Aasimar (race) who used to be a non-Fallen Aasimar Conquest Paladin (class) but ended up consorting with Fiends (becoming a Fallen Aasimar, and picking up multiclass levels in Fiend Warlock) in his quest to defend his noble family's honor (Noble background). Requiring players to present justifications for some choices while not for others is unfair. Some people assume that because a choice was made with mechanics or optimization in mind, it breaks with the narrative, while in fact it is orthogonal to narrative. If you can't think of a narrative which explains a player's choice, and need one for immersion or story development, by all means ask the player. But don't set it as a requirement for some, but not all, choices.
Now, you mentioned you don't outright ban, or require special justification, for "non-standard" multiclassing, but rather you require that every character that decides to multiclass find a trainer or other source for getting their first level in a new class. I don't agree with that choice, but it is fair and equitable, and, as expected, Steve has no problem with it, and gladly works around it and adjusts.
I think Tonio and Brotherbock bring up some really thoughtful and good points. It helps to keep an open mind and an eye on the big picture which can be tough to do when we get frustrated. My question to you is: have you let Steve know that you are getting frustrated? Sometimes a frank heart to heart clears up some of the frustrations and show where there may be misunderstandings. For me, I have learned that a direct conversation with a rules lawyer tends to be the easiest way to fix problems. Typically the rules lawyers I've gamed with feel that they are helping out by clearing up game mechanic issues. To be fair, most of the rules lawyers that I have gamed with have been either family or long time friends so it may have been easier for me to have those conversations with them. I hope you find something that works well for you, best of luck!
It seems that you need to put your foot down and let Steve know that it is your game and while you understand that a narrative focused game is not his thing, he has to back off and let you run it without interference. That being said you owe it to your players to know the rules. It is absolutely fine for you to step away from RAW and change things to suit the style of game you are playing. However you need to be consistent and be clear about what you have changed.
Meeting player expectations is important. Maybe you will have to decide that you are not the DM he needs and his playing style won’t work in your game. But there should be a middle ground if you both sit down and be flexible. After all you both want the same thing - to have an immersive and fun game.
It seems like Steve and you aren't playing the same game. Steve wants to play a by-the-book version of D&D 5e, and you want to play a looser, more narrative-based version of D&D 5e. Steve isn't the problem. The problem is an expectation mismatch. Steve might be moving your tokens in the map not because it benefits him, or his character, and maybe not because he wants control, but maybe because he honestly thinks you made a mistake, and is trying to helpfully correct it.
One thing a lot of people don't realize about rules lawyers is that many of us don't do it out of a need for control, or as a way to look for advantage in the game, or as a power play, but because we feel that's how the game is supposed to go, and it bothers us when mistakes are made. Breaking the rules is cheating, even if unintentionally, and even if not done for personal gain. If the DM allows a character to live after having failed 3 Death Saving Throws, it's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. If a DM moves a token of a monster with 30' speed 7 squares, and then attacks, that's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. Rules lawyers are very annoyed by that, and will work to correct it. On the other hand, while rules lawyers want rules to be followed, many of us have no problems with changing the set of rules that are to be followed, as long as it's done deliberately and openly. I, for example, have no problems with a DM ruling that "it now takes 4 failed death saves to die permanently". I mean, in some cases I might disagree, and will try to convince the DM to rule differently, but not because "the book says otherwise", but rather because I feel the rule is bad in some way. For example, if a DM decided to rule that "concentration can be maintained even when taking damage without having to roll for it", I'd disagree with that rule, because it makes Concentration spells significantly more powerful, so it creates an imbalance in the game.
On the other hand, if the DM is ignoring rules arbitrarily, without openly stating so beforehand, players, and especially rules lawyers, will feel their agency is restricted. A player who moves his character to a distance of 40' from an enemy, knowing that the enemy's speed is 30', and so therefore won't be a able to reach their character and attack in melee, will feel shortchanged and cheated when the DM arbitrarily ignores the movement rules and places the enemy's token adjacent to their character's token, and proceeds to attack. The DM's intention might not be to screw the player over, they might have made an honest mistake. A rules lawyer will probably assume a mistake has been made and work to correct it. In general, rules lawyers often question the DM's actions out of worry of mistakes being made. Take that into consideration when dealing with Steve.
You're making some good points here, and I didn't mean to imply that Steve is a jerk or something. But wanting to make sure that everyone follows the rules as he sees them is wanting control. If OP is presenting what's actually happening (not an insult, just saying there can always be bias), Steve is trying to mandate things that the DM and the rest of the party are not concerned with. If that's the case, then Steve is trying to force his particular method of gaming on a group that seems fine without it. That's seeking control.
It's fine to want everyone to move accurately during combat, to have people placed on the map accurately, etc. But when a player starts moving pieces around on the map without the GM's okay, that's stepping out of bounds. The GM says "Okay, so the ogre is here" and places a mini, and a player says "No, the ogre is here" and then moves the mini on his own--that needs to be shut down. That's going beyond just wanting rules to be followed, and has stepped into mandating that the player's way is the way it's going to be. It would be like the GM saying "Okay, you take 10 points of damage from the attack", and Steve saying "No, I know those monster stats, it can't do 10 points, I'm only taking 8."
Steve's motivation might be just a concern for rules, but Steve is attempting to do things and make decisions that are DM decisions. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, you're making sense. :) But the term 'rules lawyer', in my experience, doesn't get applied to people who just want the rules to be followed. People get called rules lawyers when they refuse to accept DM rulings, and when they alone are the ones who are trying to mandate RAW when the rest of the group is okay without it.
The notion that Steve also doesn't do the same things when the other DM is running the same also seems like very good evidence of a problem of control. Bob introduced OP and Steve to the game--so Steve may see Bob as 'an authority'. But from the story as presented, it seems reasonable to conclude that Steve does not accept OP as the authority. And, regardless of motivation, that's a problem. Because if OP is the DM, OP is the authority.
On the issue of multiclassing, I see what the OP is saying, and I'm sympathetic there. I think this is what he's getting at--say there's a player in my campaign who's playing a rogue. Urban thief, joined a party to go adventuring. Gains a few levels, travels around, gets into the plot, etc. And then the player says "For my next level, I'm going to take a level of warlock." Well...how exactly did you make a pact with a fiend? That hasn't come up in the campaign. You haven't met any fiends. You haven't learned any methods to contact fiends. You're currently traveling between two towns, trying to track down the mystic amulet of blahblah. And you just stepped behind some trees and called out "Hey, any fiends? I'd like to make a pact!"? :) Maybe fiends are being treated in a particular way in my campaign--maybe what you're going to find out is that fiends are always and only the enemies of all other life, and never in fact would make a pact. Or have been sealed away in the past and need very special means to communicate with them. It's not something you can just do between sessions. If I'm the DM, your warlock level is going to take some explaining. It would be the same if that thief, who has been in my entirely urban campaign and was born and raised in the largest city on the continent, said that he'd like to 'dip' into barbarian. Yeah, okay. How?
The idea is that, for people who are focused on the story, your character's individual story needs to make sense. In fact, the word 'dip' (very very very) mildly irritates me, because to me, it implies "I'm going to do this thing for a very meta reason". For someone like me and my focus on story, it would be an exceeding rare and strange person in a fantasy world who, as she is growing up, thinks "What will I do with my life?" and comes to the conclusion "Okay, so, I'll become a thief for a few years here in town with the guild, so I can learn to surprise attack people, which will really help me when I make a pact with a Fey creature, which I'm doing so that, when I get in touch with nature and become a druid, I'll be really good at..."
That's how I read OP's take on multiclassing. If your character starts as a ranger, I want a backstory to explain that. The need for a backstory doesn't go away when you decide to multiclass. It's just that now, the 'backstory' is what's been happening during the campaign. And if that hasn't included you doing anything at all 'barbarian-like', then multiclassing into barbarian doesn't make sense.
Even 13th Age is a different rule system, it has some good advice on how to treat player expectations and narrative gameplay. In every aspect, the game should be funnfor everyone. However it‘s not easy to achieve. You can‘t give all characters the same attentiveness at once, but once in a row normally. If one player pleads to take all your attention most time, he‘s blaming it on not granting the other characters having the same fun. If someone disturbs the group in such a way, you should clarify it first outside of gameplay, as mentioned earlier. If it persists, it might be better to find another player who‘s a better match for the whole party. At the very least and stated in the core books, the rules are just for guidance and the GM has the ultimate saying, regardless of rules. If you want just 2 death saving throws, so be it. If you want to fake the dice not to end up with a total party kill, so be it. You should just be fair saying what you‘d expect and what house rules you‘d apply in the beginning - if possible.
At the very least and stated in the core books, the rules are just for guidance and the GM has the ultimate saying, regardless of rules.
That's the ultimate rule to quote back to the obstinate rules lawyer. DMG page 4, paragraph 5. "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them." RAW. :D
Talk to them about it up front. Make sure you say things like, "Hi, I need you to stop bringing up the rules and halting the progress of the game, I know you want to stick strictly to the rules, but I run the game and I'm doing the best I can to keep things moving."
Talk to them about it up front. Make sure you say things like, "Hi, I need you to stop bringing up the rules and halting the progress of the game, I know you want to stick strictly to the rules, but I run the game and I'm doing the best I can to keep things moving."
That's a great way to say it--I noticed I didn't really give any specific things to say, and this is really well stated. If the guy takes it well, adding something like "I know you know a lot of the rules well, and I appreciate being able to rely on you a lot of the time" can help. If the guy does want some control, or wants to be noticed, or just wants to make sure things are 'correct', letting him know you're not trying to shut his opinion down completely is good. But OrcLuck's way of phrasing this is really nice. Saying 'I need you to' makes it not negotiable, 'halting the progress' is an understandable complaint, 'I know you want to...' shows that you understand his motives. Really good.
If he feels you're doing it wrong, then roll up a character and let him DM
Yes. Changing perspectives can help.Btw. all those things I‘ve been through (e.g. rule lawyers/players wanting to roll 5d6 for attributes instead of 4d6 and such, or those we let DM themselves). Surely it depends on the DM, but you can invest alot of time and effort to make it a wholesome experience for everyone. Mostly, that’s not visible to the players, being prepped. Do you know Mat‘s Videos? If not, have a look. They can really help make your life as a DM easier: https://youtu.be/e-YZvLUXcR8
But keep in mind that Steve maybe is okay with battles taking forever as every single rule is looked up twice to confirm it. If you tell him "Okay, you DM", you may end up with a session that drags on in the way no one else wants, but that Steve looks at and says "There, wasn't that fun!?"
In the end, the best thing is still for someone other than the OP to step in and also tell Steve that he's got to knock it off. Either after his session that turns out bad (as we're expecting) or now, after he's already been acting a bit boorish. OP needs to show that it's not just 'him vs Steve', that others agree with him too, and that it's Steve who's the one not fitting in.
Gonna run through a couple's things I've seen in here and they won't be in any particular order (I know I could quote them but there's a lot and it'll be as I re-read them).
I'd like to clarify that Steve is in no way a bad player, he does tend to lean towards the combat/mechanics side of gameplay with just a small toe in the realm of RP and story and as far as I'm concerned THATS OK. He's actually very good at the tactical combat side of things and as both a player and a DM it's been nice having him around because 1 there's been a couple times he's saved the party and 2 as a DM it challenges me to up my game.
In addition he knows the rules just as well as Bob and I do which leads me to my second thing I'd like to address. While I may be more narratively driven I in no means ignore, am inconsistent or break the rules. There are instances where I have made home rules or have tweaked existing rules but I don't just spring those changes on my players, they're informed about them before the campaign starts. Also I encourage all of my players to talk to me about things that they like and don't like and to give me feedback.
As stated before I require my players to validate their (big) game choices by what happens in game. They are all aware of this going in and those who have turned into it have enjoyed it because it has created some cool rp and story elements. In addition my players know that if they think they're going to multiclass at some point to let me know ahead of time and I will absolutely work the opportunity to achieve that multiclass into the campaign. Also I use the milestone leveling system to help facilitate this, Bob uses XP leveling and I noticed in our group it tends to lead to "grind for XP" moments where the party focuses more on getting XP then what's going on in the game. Or instead of engaging in roleplay with a NPC or villain they opt to just kill it and get the XP.
Now I have no problem with someone doing a multiclass based off an element of their backstory or obviously the experiences of their character! But when Steve multiclassed his samurai themed battle master fighter who has no wilderness experience (either in back story or campaign) and has maybe spent 4 days total in the underdark into a Gloomstalker revised ranger with the Mariner fighting style (no history as a sailor or martime experience) purely for the plethora of mechanical benefits he'd get from it, then yes that I have a problem with.
As for the Mystic focus issue. In case I didn't clarify when Steve asked me what he did about reading and writing and language at no point did he present his question as having anything to do with D&D. We where all at a bar watching football having a conversation about my son. He then took what I said (an answer given when I thought he was asking just a random question that had nothing to do with D&D) and tried to apply it to his ability in game as if I'd made a game ruling. Even for a rules lawyer the ability does not allow you to speak or understand the verbal languages chosen. RAW it allows you to read it and write it, which is the answer I would have given him if he'd been up front about his question. He knew that would be my answer and tried to back door his way around it.
It seems like Steve and you aren't playing the same game. Steve wants to play a by-the-book version of D&D 5e, and you want to play a looser, more narrative-based version of D&D 5e. Steve isn't the problem. The problem is an expectation mismatch. Steve might be moving your tokens in the map not because it benefits him, or his character, and maybe not because he wants control, but maybe because he honestly thinks you made a mistake, and is trying to helpfully correct it.
One thing a lot of people don't realize about rules lawyers is that many of us don't do it out of a need for control, or as a way to look for advantage in the game, or as a power play, but because we feel that's how the game is supposed to go, and it bothers us when mistakes are made. Breaking the rules is cheating, even if unintentionally, and even if not done for personal gain. If the DM allows a character to live after having failed 3 Death Saving Throws, it's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. If a DM moves a token of a monster with 30' speed 7 squares, and then attacks, that's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. Rules lawyers are very annoyed by that, and will work to correct it. On the other hand, while rules lawyers want rules to be followed, many of us have no problems with changing the set of rules that are to be followed, as long as it's done deliberately and openly. I, for example, have no problems with a DM ruling that "it now takes 4 failed death saves to die permanently". I mean, in some cases I might disagree, and will try to convince the DM to rule differently, but not because "the book says otherwise", but rather because I feel the rule is bad in some way. For example, if a DM decided to rule that "concentration can be maintained even when taking damage without having to roll for it", I'd disagree with that rule, because it makes Concentration spells significantly more powerful, so it creates an imbalance in the game.
On the other hand, if the DM is ignoring rules arbitrarily, without openly stating so beforehand, players, and especially rules lawyers, will feel their agency is restricted. A player who moves his character to a distance of 40' from an enemy, knowing that the enemy's speed is 30', and so therefore won't be a able to reach their character and attack in melee, will feel shortchanged and cheated when the DM arbitrarily ignores the movement rules and places the enemy's token adjacent to their character's token, and proceeds to attack. The DM's intention might not be to screw the player over, they might have made an honest mistake. A rules lawyer will probably assume a mistake has been made and work to correct it. In general, rules lawyers often question the DM's actions out of worry of mistakes being made. Take that into consideration when dealing with Steve.
You're making some good points here, and I didn't mean to imply that Steve is a jerk or something. But wanting to make sure that everyone follows the rules as he sees them is wanting control. If OP is presenting what's actually happening (not an insult, just saying there can always be bias), Steve is trying to mandate things that the DM and the rest of the party are not concerned with. If that's the case, then Steve is trying to force his particular method of gaming on a group that seems fine without it. That's seeking control.
It's fine to want everyone to move accurately during combat, to have people placed on the map accurately, etc. But when a player starts moving pieces around on the map without the GM's okay, that's stepping out of bounds. The GM says "Okay, so the ogre is here" and places a mini, and a player says "No, the ogre is here" and then moves the mini on his own--that needs to be shut down. That's going beyond just wanting rules to be followed, and has stepped into mandating that the player's way is the way it's going to be. It would be like the GM saying "Okay, you take 10 points of damage from the attack", and Steve saying "No, I know those monster stats, it can't do 10 points, I'm only taking 8."
Steve's motivation might be just a concern for rules, but Steve is attempting to do things and make decisions that are DM decisions. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, you're making sense. :) But the term 'rules lawyer', in my experience, doesn't get applied to people who just want the rules to be followed. People get called rules lawyers when they refuse to accept DM rulings, and when they alone are the ones who are trying to mandate RAW when the rest of the group is okay without it.
The notion that Steve also doesn't do the same things when the other DM is running the same also seems like very good evidence of a problem of control. Bob introduced OP and Steve to the game--so Steve may see Bob as 'an authority'. But from the story as presented, it seems reasonable to conclude that Steve does not accept OP as the authority. And, regardless of motivation, that's a problem. Because if OP is the DM, OP is the authority.
On the issue of multiclassing, I see what the OP is saying, and I'm sympathetic there. I think this is what he's getting at--say there's a player in my campaign who's playing a rogue. Urban thief, joined a party to go adventuring. Gains a few levels, travels around, gets into the plot, etc. And then the player says "For my next level, I'm going to take a level of warlock." Well...how exactly did you make a pact with a fiend? That hasn't come up in the campaign. You haven't met any fiends. You haven't learned any methods to contact fiends. You're currently traveling between two towns, trying to track down the mystic amulet of blahblah. And you just stepped behind some trees and called out "Hey, any fiends? I'd like to make a pact!"? :) Maybe fiends are being treated in a particular way in my campaign--maybe what you're going to find out is that fiends are always and only the enemies of all other life, and never in fact would make a pact. Or have been sealed away in the past and need very special means to communicate with them. It's not something you can just do between sessions. If I'm the DM, your warlock level is going to take some explaining. It would be the same if that thief, who has been in my entirely urban campaign and was born and raised in the largest city on the continent, said that he'd like to 'dip' into barbarian. Yeah, okay. How?
The idea is that, for people who are focused on the story, your character's individual story needs to make sense. In fact, the word 'dip' (very very very) mildly irritates me, because to me, it implies "I'm going to do this thing for a very meta reason". For someone like me and my focus on story, it would be an exceeding rare and strange person in a fantasy world who, as she is growing up, thinks "What will I do with my life?" and comes to the conclusion "Okay, so, I'll become a thief for a few years here in town with the guild, so I can learn to surprise attack people, which will really help me when I make a pact with a Fey creature, which I'm doing so that, when I get in touch with nature and become a druid, I'll be really good at..."
That's how I read OP's take on multiclassing. If your character starts as a ranger, I want a backstory to explain that. The need for a backstory doesn't go away when you decide to multiclass. It's just that now, the 'backstory' is what's been happening during the campaign. And if that hasn't included you doing anything at all 'barbarian-like', then multiclassing into barbarian doesn't make sense.
This is exactly my intent of my issues with Steve. The things he's doing are bad etiquette, and even IF I am wrong (I'm not perfect and do make mistakes) that does not excuse some of the things he's done. Picking up and moving a figure from where I've placed them as I reveled the battle grid to the players is not ok.
Now I don't mind when he (or any of my players) brings up rules or asks me for clarification about something, and like I said he's gotten a lot better about that. What I mind is when he challenges my rulings or things I've specifically planned for the session because he doesn't trust that I know what I'm doing.
I have talked to Bob about it (I DM when he takes a break from RPGs so he doesn't play in my campaigns) and he didn't have any ideas besides what I've already done because he's not had to deal with it from Steve. I have tried talking to Steve multiple times and the issue seems to be that he takes that talk as one instance, so he may quit doing what was an issue in that instance but he doesn't apply that talk to all of his behaviors.
The other players know I'm getting fed up with Steve's issues (mind you they tend to agree with me) and I think since I've talked with him one on one I'm going to have a group discussion about it with him there. We're all friends and some of them have known him longer than myself so I'm hoping that if he has the whole group (respectfully) address his player etiquette then it might sink in and he'll chill out (we had to do this in Bob's campaign with a player who would threaten to quit playing anytime his PC or a NPC important to him died/came close to dying). If not then I'll probably have to ask him to leave the campaign and I won't invite him back to my games.
I hope my players enjoy the game and have as much fun as I do no matter what their play styles but as has been stated the DM is the final authority on the game. Even IF I where to arbitrarily change or ignore a rule as the DM that's my perogative (obviously within reason), every player who plays D&D enters into the game knowing that and personally if they can't abide by that (rules lawyer or not) they're playing the wrong game.
I think talking as a group is a good idea. I would just say to make sure that you stress (a number of times if you have to) the value Steve brings to the group. For every "dude, you have to stop doing X", I'd try to include a "You know a lot about Z, and it's really helpful that you're on top of those rules". He's trying to powergame in a non-powergame campaign (and he knows it, that's why he tried the 'casual' approach on the language thing), and who knows what the motivation is overall, but it might be helped through simple recognition--he's a good player, has a good grip on the rules, the group relies on him at times.
Good luck :)
(Side note--doesn't Bob give XP for 'defeating' enemies through RP and negotiation? If I stick a hill giant in the way of my players, and they talk or trick their way past him, they still get full XP value for the hill giant.)
I think talking as a group is a good idea. I would just say to make sure that you stress (a number of times if you have to) the value Steve brings to the group. For every "dude, you have to stop doing X", I'd try to include a "You know a lot about Z, and it's really helpful that you're on top of those rules". He's trying to powergame in a non-powergame campaign (and he knows it, that's why he tried the 'casual' approach on the language thing), and who knows what the motivation is overall, but it might be helped through simple recognition--he's a good player, has a good grip on the rules, the group relies on him at times.
Good luck :)
(Side note--doesn't Bob give XP for 'defeating' enemies through RP and negotiation? If I stick a hill giant in the way of my players, and they talk or trick their way past him, they still get full XP value for the hill giant.)
He does give XP for completing an encounter through non combat means but for some reason it's not as much as through combat. I also don't know how he computes his XP through rp because it's always considerably less
Abit OffTopic, but I appreciate players being creative and therefore give them same XP for killing, as for evading, cleverly persuading, or otherwise defeating an encounter.
Lately I sometimes forgot to hand out XP at once, even straight after the session. The players didn‘t complain, and even at the end of a session did not ask for it. Therefore I switched over to the milestone level up option in one campaign. The bargain is, the session is not interrupted, and focus is more on having fun and not grinding XP. Do as the player like, but eliminating interruptions will give more room for more important roleplaying experiences.
Yeah some of my players say "oh if we stay here and keep fighting we'll get more XP" thinking that I'm actually using XP behind the scenes, they just make things harder for themselves by weakening their characters
Yeah some of my players say "oh if we stay here and keep fighting we'll get more XP" thinking that I'm actually using XP behind the scenes, they just make things harder for themselves by weakening their characters
Well...in the old Rolemaster RPG, dying would get you XP. Only useful if you came back from the dead, of course. But it was XP. I don't know how milestone would work with dying. :)
I have a number of results of what happens during death based on how they die and what's going on in the story. Dying doesn't really factor in to their leveling, the exception is an event that would kill the whole party. They don't know it but soon an event will happen that will prevent the spirits of the dead from passing on so if by chance the party tpks they'll have an opportunity to come back by making their way from the underworld up to the moral plane. When they reach the surface they'll be "alive" and that will be a milestone
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok everyone I just have a question on how to handle a situation revolving around one of my players. First I'll give a little bit of backstory
I've only been playing D&D for about 3 years and it's my first tabletop RPG and I've dived in head first. I've tried a number of others since and within the last year I got my feet wet running games. The group I play with is the group that introduced me to the game and we mostly play in a multi year campaign run by our mainmDM (who I'll reference as Bob). Bob is the one who has introduced all of us to D&D.
Now my "trouble player" referenced as Steve is also a fellow player in Bob's campaign and he is 100% a Power Gamer/rules lawyer. He enjoys finding the best combos he can get to completely maximize his character and he also looks for loop holes to try and gain as many abilities and advantages as he can. Now I'm a more narrative driven player, I have no problem with min/maxing or making your character as efficient as you can (if it's not game breaking) if that's what's fun for you.
However I am bothered by people making character choices that make absolutely no sense from a narrative standpoint purely for mechanical gain. So I've made it in my campaign that you can't just pick a class and multiclass into it when you level up you have to actually do it in game (i.e want to be a monk? Gotta go find someone to train you). Because of that he has decided he isn't going to Multiclassing because it isn't going to just be a snap of the fingers, again no problem.
Now we get to the issues.
First is his rules lawyering, he's gotten a lot better at it in Bob's campaign but in mine he is constantly questioning my decisions especially if they go against what the books say. If there's something we're not quiet sure about I'll make a table ruling for the instance and then look it up later with an official verdict so the game can keep going. However every time I do that Steve is pulling out his copy of the rulebook and looking for the official rule which he then announces as soon as he finds (even though we've moved past that point).
He's moved figures from where I've placed them on the battle grid because based on my description he thought they where in the wrong place. He also will argue and question whatbl i say without giving me time to fully speak. For instance his character was down and an AOF went off nearby, he immediately said his character was dead and before i could explain that all the damage from the robot was non lethal he cut me off and starting quoting rules from the book as if he knew better than what I had planned for that entire encounter.
Recently he has started trying to apply features to abilities that they don't have. So in our current campaign he's playing as the UA Mystic (I know it's playtest but I love the class and have no issue with him playing it). For those who don't know Mystics have different types of psychic "schools" where you gain your powers from. If you know a type of school you can focus on it and gain a specific benefit for the duration of your focus.
One focus allows you to specifically read and write a language of your choice for as long as you maintain that focus. Now we where hanging out and he asked me if I thought that if you can read and write a language then you can speak it and understand it, believing he was asking a general question I said yes (because for the most part i agree). However i found out later that he was asking so he could use the ability beyond it's intended purpose. I realized why he had asked that when he tried to use that ability to eaves drop on a conversation that was in a language his character didn't speak. When I asked him how he could understand the language he referenced the ability and what I'd said. Mind you at no point in our original conversation did he mention anything about this being a class ability or even d&d related.
I'm starting to get really frustrated with this player especially because he doesn't do even 2/3rds of this in Bob's campaign. Just in mine, so am I over reacting to this or what? If not how should I handle it aside from the number of conversations I've already had with him
I appreciate your problem, it's often not easy to deal with someone like this. What this guy wants is control--he wants to be the one directing how things happen, to whatever degree he can manage to force on other people. Min/Maxing is one way of doing that--the better your character is, the more of the scenario you control, right?
How is your relationship with Bob? I would think about asking him for advice. You don't want Bob stepping in to take over while you're DM either, but 1) asking Bob will let Bob know how much Steve is bothering you. There are things that other players can do to help control someone like Steve. Even another player saying something like "Steve, we get it, that's not important now" or "Steve, leave the miniatures where they are, you aren't the DM" can help impress on Steve that he's causing a problem.
One thing to keep an eye on is to make sure that you're not doing anything that's biased against Steve because you're tired of his attitude. It doesn't sound like you are--telling him he's not dead, letting him play a playtest class, etc. But it's only going to encourage him if, even unconsciously, you're shutting down legitimate things he's trying. And it would be very understandable to do that with an annoying player :)
That said--at some point you may need to just lay down the law. If getting Bob or other players on board doesn't work, and as you say talking to him (I'm assuming calmly) doesn't work, you may just need to say "Steve, the next time you move the minis, you lose 100 exp." I don't know Steve, but sometimes guys like this only react to a public calling out. "Steve, constantly questioning my and everyone else's decisions is pissing people off." Now: that may cause him to leave the game. But it may also cause him to calm down.
But I'd start with talking to Bob, see what he has to say. Did he do anything in particular to get Steve to calm down for his DMing?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
It seems like Steve and you aren't playing the same game. Steve wants to play a by-the-book version of D&D 5e, and you want to play a looser, more narrative-based version of D&D 5e. Steve isn't the problem. The problem is an expectation mismatch. Steve might be moving your tokens in the map not because it benefits him, or his character, and maybe not because he wants control, but maybe because he honestly thinks you made a mistake, and is trying to helpfully correct it.
One thing a lot of people don't realize about rules lawyers is that many of us don't do it out of a need for control, or as a way to look for advantage in the game, or as a power play, but because we feel that's how the game is supposed to go, and it bothers us when mistakes are made. Breaking the rules is cheating, even if unintentionally, and even if not done for personal gain. If the DM allows a character to live after having failed 3 Death Saving Throws, it's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. If a DM moves a token of a monster with 30' speed 7 squares, and then attacks, that's breaking a rule, and therefore cheating. Rules lawyers are very annoyed by that, and will work to correct it. On the other hand, while rules lawyers want rules to be followed, many of us have no problems with changing the set of rules that are to be followed, as long as it's done deliberately and openly. I, for example, have no problems with a DM ruling that "it now takes 4 failed death saves to die permanently". I mean, in some cases I might disagree, and will try to convince the DM to rule differently, but not because "the book says otherwise", but rather because I feel the rule is bad in some way. For example, if a DM decided to rule that "concentration can be maintained even when taking damage without having to roll for it", I'd disagree with that rule, because it makes Concentration spells significantly more powerful, so it creates an imbalance in the game.
On the other hand, if the DM is ignoring rules arbitrarily, without openly stating so beforehand, players, and especially rules lawyers, will feel their agency is restricted. A player who moves his character to a distance of 40' from an enemy, knowing that the enemy's speed is 30', and so therefore won't be a able to reach their character and attack in melee, will feel shortchanged and cheated when the DM arbitrarily ignores the movement rules and places the enemy's token adjacent to their character's token, and proceeds to attack. The DM's intention might not be to screw the player over, they might have made an honest mistake. A rules lawyer will probably assume a mistake has been made and work to correct it. In general, rules lawyers often question the DM's actions out of worry of mistakes being made. Take that into consideration when dealing with Steve.
Regarding the mystic focus reading/writing vs speaking/understanding... I honestly don't understand why you're upset. You agree that being able to read and write a language should allow you understand and speak it. The character has a feature that allows him to read and write a language of the player's choice. Therefore, while using that feature, under your rules, the character should be able to speak and understand that language. You might feel cheated or shortchanged because you did not expect it to go that way, but if you specifically designed the encounter to exclude possible understanding by all characters involved, you should have taken that into consideration. It's as if you were upset at a Wizard's player for bypassing your clever trap by using a Dimension Door you hadn't counted on. Bummer, sure... but that's just the players using all their available resources to solve problems in the game.
So... if your intention is to run a more loose game, using the game's rules more as general guidelines than actual rules, state so clearly, make sure all the players understand and are on board with that. If your intention is to run a tighter game, and you still don't know the rules by heart so much, then welcome Steve's corrections, thank him for them, and realize that as you keep DMing, you'll learn the rules better and make fewer rules mistakes, and it should eventually stop being a problem.
One last thing... I'm always concerned when people express dislike, annoyance, or disagreement over "multiclass choices that make no sense [narratively]". It often means "I can't think of a way to make that work, narratively, so I'm saying it doesn't work". A Human (race) deciding to be a Battle Master Warrior (class) in order to be a better Soldier in his nation's army (background) makes as much sense as a Gnome (race) deciding to be an Arcane Trickster Rogue / Forge Cleric (class) to be a champion of his village (background - Folk Hero), and as much sense as a Fallen Aasimar (race) who used to be a non-Fallen Aasimar Conquest Paladin (class) but ended up consorting with Fiends (becoming a Fallen Aasimar, and picking up multiclass levels in Fiend Warlock) in his quest to defend his noble family's honor (Noble background). Requiring players to present justifications for some choices while not for others is unfair. Some people assume that because a choice was made with mechanics or optimization in mind, it breaks with the narrative, while in fact it is orthogonal to narrative. If you can't think of a narrative which explains a player's choice, and need one for immersion or story development, by all means ask the player. But don't set it as a requirement for some, but not all, choices.
Now, you mentioned you don't outright ban, or require special justification, for "non-standard" multiclassing, but rather you require that every character that decides to multiclass find a trainer or other source for getting their first level in a new class. I don't agree with that choice, but it is fair and equitable, and, as expected, Steve has no problem with it, and gladly works around it and adjusts.
I think Tonio and Brotherbock bring up some really thoughtful and good points. It helps to keep an open mind and an eye on the big picture which can be tough to do when we get frustrated. My question to you is: have you let Steve know that you are getting frustrated? Sometimes a frank heart to heart clears up some of the frustrations and show where there may be misunderstandings. For me, I have learned that a direct conversation with a rules lawyer tends to be the easiest way to fix problems. Typically the rules lawyers I've gamed with feel that they are helping out by clearing up game mechanic issues. To be fair, most of the rules lawyers that I have gamed with have been either family or long time friends so it may have been easier for me to have those conversations with them. I hope you find something that works well for you, best of luck!
It seems that you need to put your foot down and let Steve know that it is your game and while you understand that a narrative focused game is not his thing, he has to back off and let you run it without interference. That being said you owe it to your players to know the rules. It is absolutely fine for you to step away from RAW and change things to suit the style of game you are playing. However you need to be consistent and be clear about what you have changed.
Meeting player expectations is important. Maybe you will have to decide that you are not the DM he needs and his playing style won’t work in your game. But there should be a middle ground if you both sit down and be flexible. After all you both want the same thing - to have an immersive and fun game.
You're making some good points here, and I didn't mean to imply that Steve is a jerk or something. But wanting to make sure that everyone follows the rules as he sees them is wanting control. If OP is presenting what's actually happening (not an insult, just saying there can always be bias), Steve is trying to mandate things that the DM and the rest of the party are not concerned with. If that's the case, then Steve is trying to force his particular method of gaming on a group that seems fine without it. That's seeking control.
It's fine to want everyone to move accurately during combat, to have people placed on the map accurately, etc. But when a player starts moving pieces around on the map without the GM's okay, that's stepping out of bounds. The GM says "Okay, so the ogre is here" and places a mini, and a player says "No, the ogre is here" and then moves the mini on his own--that needs to be shut down. That's going beyond just wanting rules to be followed, and has stepped into mandating that the player's way is the way it's going to be. It would be like the GM saying "Okay, you take 10 points of damage from the attack", and Steve saying "No, I know those monster stats, it can't do 10 points, I'm only taking 8."
Steve's motivation might be just a concern for rules, but Steve is attempting to do things and make decisions that are DM decisions. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, you're making sense. :) But the term 'rules lawyer', in my experience, doesn't get applied to people who just want the rules to be followed. People get called rules lawyers when they refuse to accept DM rulings, and when they alone are the ones who are trying to mandate RAW when the rest of the group is okay without it.
The notion that Steve also doesn't do the same things when the other DM is running the same also seems like very good evidence of a problem of control. Bob introduced OP and Steve to the game--so Steve may see Bob as 'an authority'. But from the story as presented, it seems reasonable to conclude that Steve does not accept OP as the authority. And, regardless of motivation, that's a problem. Because if OP is the DM, OP is the authority.
On the issue of multiclassing, I see what the OP is saying, and I'm sympathetic there. I think this is what he's getting at--say there's a player in my campaign who's playing a rogue. Urban thief, joined a party to go adventuring. Gains a few levels, travels around, gets into the plot, etc. And then the player says "For my next level, I'm going to take a level of warlock." Well...how exactly did you make a pact with a fiend? That hasn't come up in the campaign. You haven't met any fiends. You haven't learned any methods to contact fiends. You're currently traveling between two towns, trying to track down the mystic amulet of blahblah. And you just stepped behind some trees and called out "Hey, any fiends? I'd like to make a pact!"? :) Maybe fiends are being treated in a particular way in my campaign--maybe what you're going to find out is that fiends are always and only the enemies of all other life, and never in fact would make a pact. Or have been sealed away in the past and need very special means to communicate with them. It's not something you can just do between sessions. If I'm the DM, your warlock level is going to take some explaining. It would be the same if that thief, who has been in my entirely urban campaign and was born and raised in the largest city on the continent, said that he'd like to 'dip' into barbarian. Yeah, okay. How?
The idea is that, for people who are focused on the story, your character's individual story needs to make sense. In fact, the word 'dip' (very very very) mildly irritates me, because to me, it implies "I'm going to do this thing for a very meta reason". For someone like me and my focus on story, it would be an exceeding rare and strange person in a fantasy world who, as she is growing up, thinks "What will I do with my life?" and comes to the conclusion "Okay, so, I'll become a thief for a few years here in town with the guild, so I can learn to surprise attack people, which will really help me when I make a pact with a Fey creature, which I'm doing so that, when I get in touch with nature and become a druid, I'll be really good at..."
That's how I read OP's take on multiclassing. If your character starts as a ranger, I want a backstory to explain that. The need for a backstory doesn't go away when you decide to multiclass. It's just that now, the 'backstory' is what's been happening during the campaign. And if that hasn't included you doing anything at all 'barbarian-like', then multiclassing into barbarian doesn't make sense.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Even 13th Age is a different rule system, it has some good advice on how to treat player expectations and narrative gameplay. In every aspect, the game should be funnfor everyone. However it‘s not easy to achieve. You can‘t give all characters the same attentiveness at once, but once in a row normally. If one player pleads to take all your attention most time, he‘s blaming it on not granting the other characters having the same fun. If someone disturbs the group in such a way, you should clarify it first outside of gameplay, as mentioned earlier. If it persists, it might be better to find another player who‘s a better match for the whole party. At the very least and stated in the core books, the rules are just for guidance and the GM has the ultimate saying, regardless of rules. If you want just 2 death saving throws, so be it. If you want to fake the dice not to end up with a total party kill, so be it. You should just be fair saying what you‘d expect and what house rules you‘d apply in the beginning - if possible.
That's the ultimate rule to quote back to the obstinate rules lawyer. DMG page 4, paragraph 5. "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them." RAW. :D
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Talk to them about it up front. Make sure you say things like, "Hi, I need you to stop bringing up the rules and halting the progress of the game, I know you want to stick strictly to the rules, but I run the game and I'm doing the best I can to keep things moving."
That's a great way to say it--I noticed I didn't really give any specific things to say, and this is really well stated. If the guy takes it well, adding something like "I know you know a lot of the rules well, and I appreciate being able to rely on you a lot of the time" can help. If the guy does want some control, or wants to be noticed, or just wants to make sure things are 'correct', letting him know you're not trying to shut his opinion down completely is good. But OrcLuck's way of phrasing this is really nice. Saying 'I need you to' makes it not negotiable, 'halting the progress' is an understandable complaint, 'I know you want to...' shows that you understand his motives. Really good.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
If he feels you're doing it wrong, then roll up a character and let him DM
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Yes. Changing perspectives can help.Btw. all those things I‘ve been through (e.g. rule lawyers/players wanting to roll 5d6 for attributes instead of 4d6 and such, or those we let DM themselves). Surely it depends on the DM, but you can invest alot of time and effort to make it a wholesome experience for everyone. Mostly, that’s not visible to the players, being prepped. Do you know Mat‘s Videos? If not, have a look. They can really help make your life as a DM easier: https://youtu.be/e-YZvLUXcR8
But keep in mind that Steve maybe is okay with battles taking forever as every single rule is looked up twice to confirm it. If you tell him "Okay, you DM", you may end up with a session that drags on in the way no one else wants, but that Steve looks at and says "There, wasn't that fun!?"
In the end, the best thing is still for someone other than the OP to step in and also tell Steve that he's got to knock it off. Either after his session that turns out bad (as we're expecting) or now, after he's already been acting a bit boorish. OP needs to show that it's not just 'him vs Steve', that others agree with him too, and that it's Steve who's the one not fitting in.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Thanks everyone for the responses!
Gonna run through a couple's things I've seen in here and they won't be in any particular order (I know I could quote them but there's a lot and it'll be as I re-read them).
I'd like to clarify that Steve is in no way a bad player, he does tend to lean towards the combat/mechanics side of gameplay with just a small toe in the realm of RP and story and as far as I'm concerned THATS OK. He's actually very good at the tactical combat side of things and as both a player and a DM it's been nice having him around because 1 there's been a couple times he's saved the party and 2 as a DM it challenges me to up my game.
In addition he knows the rules just as well as Bob and I do which leads me to my second thing I'd like to address. While I may be more narratively driven I in no means ignore, am inconsistent or break the rules. There are instances where I have made home rules or have tweaked existing rules but I don't just spring those changes on my players, they're informed about them before the campaign starts. Also I encourage all of my players to talk to me about things that they like and don't like and to give me feedback.
As stated before I require my players to validate their (big) game choices by what happens in game. They are all aware of this going in and those who have turned into it have enjoyed it because it has created some cool rp and story elements. In addition my players know that if they think they're going to multiclass at some point to let me know ahead of time and I will absolutely work the opportunity to achieve that multiclass into the campaign. Also I use the milestone leveling system to help facilitate this, Bob uses XP leveling and I noticed in our group it tends to lead to "grind for XP" moments where the party focuses more on getting XP then what's going on in the game. Or instead of engaging in roleplay with a NPC or villain they opt to just kill it and get the XP.
Now I have no problem with someone doing a multiclass based off an element of their backstory or obviously the experiences of their character! But when Steve multiclassed his samurai themed battle master fighter who has no wilderness experience (either in back story or campaign) and has maybe spent 4 days total in the underdark into a Gloomstalker revised ranger with the Mariner fighting style (no history as a sailor or martime experience) purely for the plethora of mechanical benefits he'd get from it, then yes that I have a problem with.
As for the Mystic focus issue. In case I didn't clarify when Steve asked me what he did about reading and writing and language at no point did he present his question as having anything to do with D&D. We where all at a bar watching football having a conversation about my son. He then took what I said (an answer given when I thought he was asking just a random question that had nothing to do with D&D) and tried to apply it to his ability in game as if I'd made a game ruling. Even for a rules lawyer the ability does not allow you to speak or understand the verbal languages chosen. RAW it allows you to read it and write it, which is the answer I would have given him if he'd been up front about his question. He knew that would be my answer and tried to back door his way around it.
This is exactly my intent of my issues with Steve. The things he's doing are bad etiquette, and even IF I am wrong (I'm not perfect and do make mistakes) that does not excuse some of the things he's done. Picking up and moving a figure from where I've placed them as I reveled the battle grid to the players is not ok.
Now I don't mind when he (or any of my players) brings up rules or asks me for clarification about something, and like I said he's gotten a lot better about that. What I mind is when he challenges my rulings or things I've specifically planned for the session because he doesn't trust that I know what I'm doing.
I have talked to Bob about it (I DM when he takes a break from RPGs so he doesn't play in my campaigns) and he didn't have any ideas besides what I've already done because he's not had to deal with it from Steve. I have tried talking to Steve multiple times and the issue seems to be that he takes that talk as one instance, so he may quit doing what was an issue in that instance but he doesn't apply that talk to all of his behaviors.
The other players know I'm getting fed up with Steve's issues (mind you they tend to agree with me) and I think since I've talked with him one on one I'm going to have a group discussion about it with him there. We're all friends and some of them have known him longer than myself so I'm hoping that if he has the whole group (respectfully) address his player etiquette then it might sink in and he'll chill out (we had to do this in Bob's campaign with a player who would threaten to quit playing anytime his PC or a NPC important to him died/came close to dying). If not then I'll probably have to ask him to leave the campaign and I won't invite him back to my games.
I hope my players enjoy the game and have as much fun as I do no matter what their play styles but as has been stated the DM is the final authority on the game. Even IF I where to arbitrarily change or ignore a rule as the DM that's my perogative (obviously within reason), every player who plays D&D enters into the game knowing that and personally if they can't abide by that (rules lawyer or not) they're playing the wrong game.
Thanks for the clarification and info :)
I think talking as a group is a good idea. I would just say to make sure that you stress (a number of times if you have to) the value Steve brings to the group. For every "dude, you have to stop doing X", I'd try to include a "You know a lot about Z, and it's really helpful that you're on top of those rules". He's trying to powergame in a non-powergame campaign (and he knows it, that's why he tried the 'casual' approach on the language thing), and who knows what the motivation is overall, but it might be helped through simple recognition--he's a good player, has a good grip on the rules, the group relies on him at times.
Good luck :)
(Side note--doesn't Bob give XP for 'defeating' enemies through RP and negotiation? If I stick a hill giant in the way of my players, and they talk or trick their way past him, they still get full XP value for the hill giant.)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
He does give XP for completing an encounter through non combat means but for some reason it's not as much as through combat. I also don't know how he computes his XP through rp because it's always considerably less
Abit OffTopic, but I appreciate players being creative and therefore give them same XP for killing, as for evading, cleverly persuading, or otherwise defeating an encounter.
Lately I sometimes forgot to hand out XP at once, even straight after the session. The players didn‘t complain, and even at the end of a session did not ask for it. Therefore I switched over to the milestone level up option in one campaign. The bargain is, the session is not interrupted, and focus is more on having fun and not grinding XP. Do as the player like, but eliminating interruptions will give more room for more important roleplaying experiences.
Yeah some of my players say "oh if we stay here and keep fighting we'll get more XP" thinking that I'm actually using XP behind the scenes, they just make things harder for themselves by weakening their characters
Well...in the old Rolemaster RPG, dying would get you XP. Only useful if you came back from the dead, of course. But it was XP. I don't know how milestone would work with dying. :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I have a number of results of what happens during death based on how they die and what's going on in the story. Dying doesn't really factor in to their leveling, the exception is an event that would kill the whole party. They don't know it but soon an event will happen that will prevent the spirits of the dead from passing on so if by chance the party tpks they'll have an opportunity to come back by making their way from the underworld up to the moral plane. When they reach the surface they'll be "alive" and that will be a milestone