How do you know if you are one of "those players?"

[shimmercat]

Hi everyone, this is my first post! Although I've been lurking for awhile.

I would like to solicit some impartial opinions from the people of this board. I am currently in a 3.5e D&D game being DMed by my husband, a game set in the world that he and I have created. My husband and I are the only players in the game who have played D&D before. Because of this, and because I'm a bit of a loudmouth, my character ended up being party leader. It's a pretty casual "let's get together for dinner and roll dice and talk in funny accents" sort of game. It's a sailing game, and as of a few sessions ago, we'd been traveling on a borrowed caravel my character had dubbed The Good Fortune. We usually refer to the campaign as The Good Fortune Game, and our party as the Crew of the Good Fortune.

Now, the ship had been lent to us by a country's government for a specific quest, and we finished that quest. We were given a plothook that would have kept us working for that country, but the players decided as a whole to not take that plothook (it involved buying and transporting slaves, which our primarily Good party wasn't so fond of, even though slaves are common in this world). We figured out what we WERE going to do instead, told the DM with plenty of time for him to make his plans, and thought we were ready to go.

Well, of course now that we are no longer on errands from the government, they decided to recall our ship.

When we discovered this, I panicked. I couldn't imagine this game without the Good Fortune. Some of the other players/characters weren't so happy either, but mine was by far the most upset (he was, after all, the captain of the ship). This resulted in quick brainstorming of ways to keep the ship: Maybe we SHOULD go get the slaves. Maybe we could buy the ship off of them. Maybe we should beat up the crew and take the ship, or intimidate them into giving it to us. Maybe we can use some other clout we have.

The DM shot down every idea, and handed us an NPC and a pinnace (a much, MUCH smaller ship). While I understand that some of the ideas weren't really an option for a (mostly) Good party, we were also told that we couldn't change our mind and get the slaves or buy the ship off the government because we "were so rude, you burned those bridges when you told them you weren't going to get the slaves." (We hadn't actually RPed the scene where we told them that, we only said that we had done it.)

I took this as DM bullying, or punishing the party for not taking his plothook and coming up with other ways around the problem. The DM took my being upset as player whining because I didn't get my way. Cue our first marital argument about D&D. It wasn't in session, although I did let him know in session that I was not pleased.

He eventually let me buy the ship for half again the cost of a caravel, and we didn't get the cannons (I have no problem with the extra cost, even though my character had to borrow money. When you want something really bad and the seller knows it, they will raise the price). He definitely is treating the whole issue like I was throwing a temper tantrum, and he's the saint who compromised to maintain marital harmony.

I'm very relieved that we have the ship again. After all, the ship was practically a member of the party, and we had named the campaign after it. But I can't help but wonder if I really DID just throw a temper tantrum to get my way, or if he was being a jerk of a DM who wouldn't let the PCs come up with their own solutions to the problem presented. I don't really want to ask the other players, as that drags my friends into our argument. So how do I know if I'm being "one of those players?"

tl;dr version: How do you know if your DM is being a jerk when the players come up with alternatives to his plan, or if the player is throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way?

[Telonius]

There are also other possibilities: the DM is being a jerk and the player is throwing a temper tantrum; or the DM is not being a jerk and neither is the player throwing a tantrum, but they're perceiving the other as doing so.

My best advice is to try to handle it as diplomatically and maturely as possible. I would suggest waiting a few days until the emotions have calmed down a little, and going to the DM privately to ask what went wrong. He might have a good reason for you not to have the ship you wanted. Part of the problem seems to be that you didn't expect the boat to be taken away; suggest that some advanced warning on such a major change might make planning a little easier, and that springing it on the whole group during the session might have led to the emotional response. Let him know that you're fine with making reasonable changes to suit his campaign, but you just need some more notice than "Rocks fall, your boat's gone."

[Kurald Galain]

tl;dr version: How do you know if your DM is being a jerk when the players come up with alternatives to his plan, or if the player is throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way?

Tough question, and of course hearing one side of the story might not be completely objective. Nevertheless, I personally feel that a DM who has a "his plan" to begin with is, by definition, railroading, and that is not something I care for.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Record your session and come back to the problem with a clear head later on.

I've recently started recording all of my games mostly for entertainment value but also so any arguements can be properly cited later.

First thing I learned when listening to myself playing the game: I am way to loud. I talk over other players, I feedback on the mike, and my voice nearly always the one being heard. Gives me something to work on in the future.

You can learn alot about yourself and your fellow players by listening a second time.

[poxjedi]

just retcon the whole incident, then steal the ship Jack Sparrow style.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd say that the DM is being unreasonable here - he gives you a sidequest he should know your characters won't take, he assumes your characters acted in a certain way that works against them, and he doesn't seem to have any good reasons for taking your cool ship away from you.

[Starbuck_II]

I'd say that the DM is being unreasonable here - he gives you a sidequest he should know your characters won't take, he assumes your characters acted in a certain way that works against them, and he doesn't seem to have any good reasons for taking your cool ship away from you.

To OP:
1) Well, technically, he may have forgot you guys wouldn't do that.

But you could have pulled a Jack Sparrow: Take slaves to trade but free them instead. That way you get a free boat (though the Govt may want to kill you)
That was why the British Navy hated Jack in movies: Jack can't stand slavery.

2) I agree here: he doesn't know how you'd rp the situation. Unless you usually are rude when speaking with that govt: how does he know you'll act that way.

3) This borrowed ship: do you have to give it back?
Are any of you Lawful? Because heck, you could have just go somewhere else with the ship.
They can't take what they can't find.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Wow, touchy situation.

So, the best thing to do is to let everyone calm down - which you're doing, so good!

I like the idea of recording your sessions, though that may be a bit too complex for many people. The truth is that these situations are either pretty clear cut (either the DM is just being a jerk, or the player is throwing a tantrum) or more difficult (both parties acting badly). It is generally best to just "let things ride" if you find your DM is acting "off" (particularly when he is your spouse) and to talk to him later about the situation; talk about what happened and what the DM was feeling at that point.

If you'd like to head off these situations in the future, here's some advice:
(1) Always RP all major decisions
Accepting or rejecting a plothook must be RP'd for both sides to be resolved without miscommunication. In general, intra-party discussions are not major decisions - your DM should have said "do you tell them you won't take the job?" at the very least. If you did, then the fallout ("well, then we're taking back your ship") should be immediately identified.

This prevents anything from being "sprung" on either party, and prevents either side from losing the context of the decision-making.

(2) As a DM, give the PCs enough rope
If your PCs have a plan, let them try it. Never say "you can't do that" unless you have a very good reason why. DO tell them things they may have forgotten ("your ship is owned by the company that you are deciding not to work for") and offer suggestions to guide their decision-making, but never to the point of "Do this, don't do that."

Let the PCs try their plan; if it works, they'll be very happy. If it fails, then they will also be satisfied - or at least not angry at you.

(3) As a PC, always defer to the DM - after making your point
The DM is running your game; he knows more about the world then you do. Telling him "no, you're doing it wrong" is just going to tick him off. DO raise objections, but when he makes a decision, let it ride. If he later regrets his decision, he can always retconn it; but if you dig-in and hold up the game, he's going to become increasingly unreasonable.

EDIT:
Since everyone is judging the right-and-wrong of the situation presented, here's my two-cents:

The DM was correct for withdrawing the ship - if the slavers lent you the ship for their missions, then when you stop working for them, they'll take it back - but he was incorrect for refusing to let you renegotiate. Aside from cutting off potentially interesting PC action (do they steal the ship? Bargain for it?), any time the DM doesn't let you try something, he's doing it wrong. Doubly so if it's a strictly RP plan!

[xPANCAKEx]

There was nothing to stop you naming the pinacle "the good fortune II" - it was the players choice to express their emotional attachment to the ship (which, after all, is an inanimate object that you were gifted by the campaign)

i wouldnt go as far as to record sessions - for me, what happens at the gaming table in session, stays there

Think of all the gaming opertunities you've missed. As a good party, you could used to pinacle (and maybe some hired help) to raid the good fortune, freeing slaves from their captors, and reclaiming the boat from an oppressive government, becoming symbols of hope against slavers and oppression. Now surely THAT would have been a solution to all your problems, and be totally character appropriate

in future - see what options the DM presents and see how each of those can be bent to your desires

[Prometheus]

Sometimes DMs are so afraid of favoritism that they act the opposite way - bending over backwards to avoid playing favorites and thereby acting unfairly to the one player they want the most to be happy. I'm not sure if that's what's going on here, but he may be trying to be a good DM even when it ends up backfiring.

What the DM did was not the best. DMs should want to keep things in the game that interest the players or at the very least, make them a proportional part of the plot. For example, if the swore enemies of the PCs (who didn't really interest you guys at this point) destroyed or stole your ship, it would provide a nice out of character motivation to complement the in character motivation. Instead it was taken away from you, without any other possibilities considered, and not as a penalty for player actions or a vital part of the plot.

However, the DM has control over the plot for the express purpose of making the game fun for everyone. If he knew something you didn't and it was important for weaving a good story or if you were the only player that cared about it than he would remain in the right. In fact, players are supposed to generally go with the flow and accept whatever the DM told them happened actually happened.

In summary, the problem that occurred was one that doesn't have a formal solution because it's not suppose to occur: The DM was wrong (lol). The best way to have handled it would be to make your case to the DM, calmly but firmly, that the game/story would be better with the boat in it and that there would be ways to play the game to accommodate that. Once you felt like you were completely heard and he understood the point that you were trying to make, accept the decision. Of course that is hard to do, but if that is something like what you did or what you attempted to do, than you were definitely in the right. If you were highly rude about it and completely unreceptive of his control over the plot, than probably the best thing you can claim is that he made the first mistake or that you were right even while going about it the wrong way.

If you think this will help him and that he can take the criticism - show him this thread after it goes a while. Of course, if it looks like you told a bias side of the story just to take a cheap shot at him, well, it probably won't help.

[Jarawara]

...and he doesn't seem to have any good reasons for taking your cool ship away from you.

Actually, I think he has a perfectly good reason to take the cool ship away from them - it wasn't their ship. It was the government's ship, and if the party is not going to work for the government, then the government wants it back.

Some times the DM simply considers the idea and posits the logical outcomes of such a course of action. I've made that *mistake* several times, and most of the time, it's not a mistake! Players do this - these things happen in reaction. Cause and Effect. However, sometimes the DM has to think beyond cause and effect, and consider Desire vs Logic. Players desire this, logic dictates that. Desire sometimes trumps logic, for the good of the game.

*~*

I do think the DM could allow one of the various ideas the players presented work, to get the ship back. Buying it, Stealing it, doing other jobs, etc. I use a general rule of thumb: If the players come up with an idea, I'm probably going to allow it to work, at least once. That way, it encourages them to come up with ideas!

But what if the players have been doing this kind of stuff for a long time, and the DM's starting to get ancy about it? I don't allow players to pull the same idea regurgitated over and over, just to allow them their latest fancy. So the OP has to consider the history that came up to this point as well - maybe this issue is more about what's come before, and less about the specifics of what happened now.

*~*

Also... sometimes it's about the history of DM vs player... but not this particular match up of DM and player. Perhaps a DM is fed up about allowing every single thing the players cry and moan about - from another group. He hears it again, assumes it's the same scenario replaying again, and reacts badly. Players do that too, based on what their last DM did. Sometimes you have to assure them that you are not the same as 'that last guy', to get the DM or player to give you a fair shake in this situation.

However, as this is a husband and wife team, I doubt this applies here.

*~*

Edit: Probably ninja'd, as it took me so long to get this to post. :)

[Tengu_temp]

Actually, I think he has a perfectly good reason to take the cool ship away from them - it wasn't their ship. It was the government's ship, and if the party is not going to work for the government, then the government wants it back.

Some times the DM simply considers the idea and posits the logical outcomes of such a course of action. I've made that *mistake* several times, and most of the time, it's not a mistake! Players do this - these things happen in reaction. Cause and Effect. However, sometimes the DM has to think beyond cause and effect, and consider Desire vs Logic. Players desire this, logic dictates that. Desire sometimes trumps logic, for the good of the game.


I said the DM, not the government. It is obvious and logical that the government should want their ship back, but the DM should be open to player suggestions of ways of keeping this ship and cooperate with them (by letting them buy it, steal it, or give them as a reward for a mission that's not completely against all the characters' morality), instead of bombing all available options for no apparent reason.

What the DM wants and what his NPCs want should often not be the same.

[AslanCross]

I think this situation is incredibly thorny because the DM is also her husband.

As with all interpersonal issues in D&D, I think the problem is really best resolved by calming down and then talking about it.

It does seem like railroading to me, so I think the players should talk to the DM about this.

[shimmercat]

Thank you everyone, for reading my wall of text and forming such well-thought-out responses. :smallsmile:

I did show this to my husband, and he said that it's MOSTLY pretty representative of what happened. What I left out that might make people understand his side a little better was that the party was dragging their heels and he was trying to move everyone along, and that all the players AND the DM were really tired and cranky that night (which is completely and totally true -- it was one of the crankiest sessions we've played).

I don't think that "having a plan" is railroading in and of itself. Improvisation is not this DM's strong point and while he's working on it and getting better, he still needs a pretty well-thought-out plan or he flounders. However, his plan wouldn't have been changed significantly if we'd found a way to keep the ship.

I also don't think that he was wrong to have the government recall it. It was, after all, their ship! I was just angry that he didn't give us the option to get it back.

Prometheus, you made an excellent point about the reverse favoritism, although I'm not sure that's what was going on here.

We do have a Lawful character in the party -- a paladin, in fact. He's pretty good about turning his head the other way when we want to do something a little unclean, but he wouldn't have put up with straight out stealing the ship or saying we would go on the slaving mission and not actually doing it. A large part of the DMs argument was that so many of the ideas presented would be against the paladin's wishes. Buying the ship or taking the mission, however, would not have been.

[Baidas Kebante]

I feel this is just a case of a plot hook being unexpectedly ignored and the DM's series of bandaids to try and get the players to take the hook. This is, of course, assuming that neither players nor the DM are being jerks in this case.

I think that the DM actually expected the players to take the Jack Sparrow route. Given that they are a good-aligned party, the DM may have thought that they would somehow attempt to free the slaves and that the best way to do it would be to pretend to take the mission and then rebel. This would lead to other hooks where they become Robin Hood types with the government chasing after their heels.

When the players turned down the plot hook, chances are the DM tried to give them a "deal or no deal" scenario - take the plot or lose the ship. This is where the railroading begins. Chances are he expected that given this situation the players would reluctantly take the hook and then smoothly move back into the DM's plans. He never may have actually wanted to take away the ship. As such, every attempt to rectify the situation outside of this deal was shot down to force the players back into it.

After a while, he probably realized that the players weren't taking the bait or that he was railroading, so he decided to give up on that plot hook and now had to face the repercussions of the two sides fighting over the ship now. Being a DM, he's got to do it in such a way that it doesn't look like he's giving in.

I'd say that the root of the problems here are a lack of out of character communication and, as mentioned by others, railroading. What should probably have been done was as soon as the railroading was beginning, players or the DM should have stopped the game and worked a compromise from there while explaining what each side was expecting.

[Raum]

tl;dr version: How do you know if your DM is being a jerk when the players come up with alternatives to his plan, or if the player is throwing a temper tantrum for not getting their way?If, at the end of the day, you can't shrug and say "It's a game we'll try something different next time." you may be taking it too personally. That said, don't be passive aggressive either. When you disagree with something, say so. Just don't let it devolve into accusations.

Good communication will make gaming (among other things) far smoother. Both GM and players should explicitly state expectations and assumptions. Then work out a gaming style which works for all.

Just as the GM should tell you he expects you to follow every plot hook (if that's his expectation) the players should let him know how much, if any, control over character choices they're willing to give the GM. It sounds like your husband expected the players to cheerfully follow any plot hook and allow him cut scene control when he wished. Yet the players appear to expect control over character actions and choice of hooks to follow. You'll need to work out a compromise. From experience, doing so explicitly will save both time and stress.

[Grady]

It sounds a bit like the DM was annoyed that you wouldn't take his carefully planned plothook, so he responded to that by aggressively taking away your boat, which you then responded to his aggression with aggression of your own.

Your DM also seems to be in the mindset that his story is how it goes, regardless of how the players act. You may want to remind him that although the DM makes the story, the players ultimately make the decisions. A DM can't just say "No. You're not allowed to try to go take the boat back, we're going to go do this now instead.", it doesn't work that way. A good DM gives an illusion of a free world to the players while still getting them to stick to the story.

The DM did have reason to take the ship, but if the PCs decided to act on one of their decisions they brainstormed he can't just say "No. Not allowed. End of story."

But honestly you could view this from a million different angles and you still wouldn't be having fun. One of the great things about D&D is the DM-PC interaction that weaves the storyline, if you and your DM don't work together and instead only the DM tries to work together the whole storyline, it isn't fun. If that's how the game is played then you might as well read a book and stop every few minutes to roll some dice.

[Who_Da_Halfling]

We do have a Lawful character in the party -- a paladin, in fact. He's pretty good about turning his head the other way when we want to do something a little unclean, but he wouldn't have put up with straight out stealing the ship or saying we would go on the slaving mission and not actually doing it. A large part of the DMs argument was that so many of the ideas presented would be against the paladin's wishes. Buying the ship or taking the mission, however, would not have been.

That's interesting. It's not often that you see the DM being the one responsible for making the paladin a pain in the butt :smallbiggrin:

Improvisation can be one of the harder skills for a DM to master. I know that I myself have issues scrambling to figure out what will happen when the PCs screw up my plans. Just tell him to keep working at it. The alternative (trying to plan out everything the PCs might do) is a lot of work and ultimately not worth it, since the players invariably come up with something that you didn't think of.

Sounds like a fun campaign, in any case. Good Fortune to you!

-JM

[shimmercat]

He's apologized to me for disallowing our plans to get the ship back, which is what I wanted. And I've apologized for getting so angry that he did it. :3 Thanks for your help, everyone!

I know he's still learning and that DMing isn't easy -- I've done it before and it did not go well! He's railroaded before and I've yelled at him before, but I don't think he realized that this incident fell into that category. So it's been good to hear some less subjective opinions.

And yes, it's usually a really fun game. :smalltongue:

[Vonriel]

We do have a Lawful character in the party -- a paladin, in fact. He's pretty good about turning his head the other way when we want to do something a little unclean, but he wouldn't have put up with straight out stealing the ship or saying we would go on the slaving mission and not actually doing it. A large part of the DMs argument was that so many of the ideas presented would be against the paladin's wishes. Buying the ship or taking the mission, however, would not have been.

This part bothers me the most out of what you've written about the incident. Did the DM ask or even think about whether or not the paladin was against the idea of slavery? He can't make that decision for the player, because that's one thing where the character believes what the player wants the character to believe. If the player says his character is against the idea of slavery, why would he have expected the group to go with the mission in the first place?

Essentially, the DM should never, ever tell a player what their character thinks, no matter how new to the game they are. He can lead them into it, ask them questions about what their character would feel and why, explain the situation to them from their character's point of view and let them make a decision, but the moment the DM makes the decision for the player, they've crossed a threshold that should immediately interrupt any goings-on in game (for me) for an OOC discussion about what is and isn't acceptable behavior on the DM's part.

Edit: Good to hear cooler heads prevailed, and I hope it remains fun for you guys in the future.

[Shraik]

There are also other possibilities: the DM is being a jerk and the player is throwing a temper tantrum; or the DM is not being a jerk and neither is the player throwing a tantrum, but they're perceiving the other as doing so.


I misread that as "Neither the player or DM is throwing a Taun Taun"

[LordZarth]

Well, you seem to have different perspectives--you seem to have really got into your character and game, as I would; I would guess that your DM isn't understanding this because he doesn't play like that.

Did you try explaining how deep you are into the game?

[Shalizar]

Im going to make this short and sweet:

For being a mostly good party, you did make the right choice, but from how it seems I think that the DM reacted correctly, unless your party had owned the ship, then thats diffrent, but in the end, yes the ship is important and maybe the DM should have throught about not taking it away, but in the end it would depend on how the Government in that country is.

[OneFamiliarFace]

What I left out that might make people understand his side a little better was that the party was dragging their heels and he was trying to move everyone along, and that all the players AND the DM were really tired and cranky that night (which is completely and totally true -- it was one of the crankiest sessions we've played).

I think one of the absolute hardest things to do as a DM is to realize when the game-table is cranky and then quietly shut-down the session for the evening in order to prevent arguments. Since it is a game, and the point of a game is to have fun, I see a lot of merit in being able to calmly set it aside for an evening and just watch Braveheart or play Munchkins or something instead. This stinks to have to do when players can only get together so often, but it is better than causing the interpersonal arguments that can arise from such an evening.

That said, it sounds like you all handled it very well. Arguments are probably going to happen. Indeed, one of the reasons I (and probably most of us) like RPing is because of the intense emotions it inspires. So being able to calmly deal with arguments after they have happened is admirable.


A large part of the DMs argument was that so many of the ideas presented would be against the paladin's wishes. Buying the ship or taking the mission, however, would not have been.

This article is referred to quite a bit on these boards, but the Giant has written something up on the notion of alignment and how it should (or shouldn't) effect behavior. It can be found here: Making Tough Decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)

It is an absolutely excellent write-up which can be extrapolated into all decision making made by people at the table (not just the players). Essentially, it states that no one's decision is dictated by anything other than him/herself. Background, alignment, history, and even logic are secondary to ensuring that all the players and the DM have fun and are satisfied.