Rusvul
2015-11-05, 12:53 AM
I run a 5th edition game over Roll20. The party consists of several IRL friends, as well as a friend-of-a-friend who wanted to play. We've done seven or eight sessions, one player has had a death and the party is doing quite well for itself- levels 2-4 at the moment. It's also worth noting that I'm not a good DM- I know the rules fairly well, but I've only been playing for a few years and my DMing experience is sharply limited. This manifests mostly in the form of shallow descriptions, long DM loading screens, and choppy dialogue, as I scramble to look up what that NPC's name was again.
Most of the party is composed of new players, with one 3.5/PF player. Because of this, and because I had been reading up 5e, I decided to give it a try, seeing as 5e is a lot simpler and easier to learn. I kind of like 5e. Apparently one of my players hates it.
The whole campaign, he seemed like he was legitimately having a good time. In the most recent session, though, he got rather frustrated. The party was invading an ancient tower built by an advanced civilization a long time ago. They crushed the weak security construct-drones (Slightly refluffed Modrons) on the first level, and observed that the drones started off neutral and targeted the character who was aggressive first- If they were out of range or incapacitated, the drones would target the next most aggressive. They solved a simple puzzle with some help from a Comprehend Languages spell, and progressed to the next floor.
Cue the tougher drones- Animated Armor this time, with the same sort of behaviour. The player who quit (the Cleric from here on out) did a quick investigation of a statue and decided to attack it. Creepy construct-overseer voice tells him to cut it out, he attacks again... Roll initiative. He gets cornered by constructs and knocked to zero pretty quickly- They have two slam attacks for 1d6 each, flanking gives them advantage, and I kept rolling criticals. He got knocked down to exact 0- He was frustrated because he apparently likes 3.5's death rules a lot better (I personally disagree, I find 5e's solution elegant) and in this case they would've been to his advantage- He would've dropped to zero and been free to use his action to heal himself. In the end, all was fine, the party had some difficulty beating down the constructs, but it wasn't too bad. An NPC healer (who had so far been entirely pacifistic, and as such not a target) stabilized him a round into his bleeding, and he didn't die. Still, the Cleric insisted he'd rather play 3.5. I told him that we were playing 5e because it was easier to learn and we had newbies, and that we had all agreed upon the system. (When we had chosen 5e, he hadn't put up resistance, he was cool with it then.)
The party made sure he was alright, then they looted the room. They found a number of mundane materials... As well as a few pounds of mithral and adamantine ore. Another character the Cleric's player plays has an adamantine axe and he really likes it- So his immediate reaction is 'Yes! I can get a cool sword!' As part of introducing the adamantine, I said it was three pounds worth- And since admantine is denser than iron or steel, coupled with the fact that it's unrefined ore and not ingots, it wouldn't get very far.
There are no official rules for adamantine in 5e. I ad-libbed something along the lines of 'When used to make a weapon, it's nonmagical, has a +1 to hit and damage, and deals double damage to items.' Which may have been a little overpowered, but whatever.
From here the player overreacted, I think. (Perhaps not. I am biased.) He got into an argument with the Rogue about who should get an adamantine weapon. They got rather ahead of themselves, and I think letting them do that without a 'Well, you can talk about that later, you need to find a town and a blacksmith before it's relevant,' was a mistake. That may have defused the whole thing. The Cleric wanted a shiny (Or matte, as the case may be) new weapon because he likes adamantine. The Rogue wanted a new weapon because he dual wields and has a low-grade dagger, while the Cleric has a named mithral greatsword with fey powers pillaged from an unseelie knight. Which I think is reasonable... Thinking that was a mistake, I let myself become biased.
I told them again that it was a small quantity of metal- After refining, maybe enough for a dagger or a pikehead or something. This caused a discussion about realism, versimilitude, and how the Cleric should totally be allowed to make a longsword or a morningstar out of it because they're 3 pounds-ish- and that's with a handle. I kind of shut him down on that. He then drew assumptions based on 3.5, (that a Rogue can only sneak attack constructs with an adamantine weapon,) complained about how damage reduction doesn't work identically to in 3.5, and declared he hates 5e. He assumed that sneak attacking from flank was a 5e thing, I told him that no, that's in 3.5 as well... A conversation about how you should only be allowed to sneak attack from stealth (or that it should be called something different, like Vital Attack) followed.
Then he asked if he could leave. (As in, quit the campaign.) I told him that I wouldn't try to stop him, but that "I like playing with you and I would urge you to reconsider." "Okay, bye, then." He hung up.
What the heck do I do with this? I know him in real life, he's a good friend of mine, he's usually a pretty cool guy. He overreacts sometimes, but usually not to this extent. His leaving won't kill the game or anything, but I'd really rather he stay- He's fun to play with.)
I left him alone for the rest of the night, figuring that he was upset and I should let him cool off. I don't know what to do next. ...Help me please?
TL;DR: A good friend (who seemed to be enjoying the game) got mad about loot distribution and system differences between 5e and 3.5, he quit the game really suddenly, and now I don't know what to do.
Most of the party is composed of new players, with one 3.5/PF player. Because of this, and because I had been reading up 5e, I decided to give it a try, seeing as 5e is a lot simpler and easier to learn. I kind of like 5e. Apparently one of my players hates it.
The whole campaign, he seemed like he was legitimately having a good time. In the most recent session, though, he got rather frustrated. The party was invading an ancient tower built by an advanced civilization a long time ago. They crushed the weak security construct-drones (Slightly refluffed Modrons) on the first level, and observed that the drones started off neutral and targeted the character who was aggressive first- If they were out of range or incapacitated, the drones would target the next most aggressive. They solved a simple puzzle with some help from a Comprehend Languages spell, and progressed to the next floor.
Cue the tougher drones- Animated Armor this time, with the same sort of behaviour. The player who quit (the Cleric from here on out) did a quick investigation of a statue and decided to attack it. Creepy construct-overseer voice tells him to cut it out, he attacks again... Roll initiative. He gets cornered by constructs and knocked to zero pretty quickly- They have two slam attacks for 1d6 each, flanking gives them advantage, and I kept rolling criticals. He got knocked down to exact 0- He was frustrated because he apparently likes 3.5's death rules a lot better (I personally disagree, I find 5e's solution elegant) and in this case they would've been to his advantage- He would've dropped to zero and been free to use his action to heal himself. In the end, all was fine, the party had some difficulty beating down the constructs, but it wasn't too bad. An NPC healer (who had so far been entirely pacifistic, and as such not a target) stabilized him a round into his bleeding, and he didn't die. Still, the Cleric insisted he'd rather play 3.5. I told him that we were playing 5e because it was easier to learn and we had newbies, and that we had all agreed upon the system. (When we had chosen 5e, he hadn't put up resistance, he was cool with it then.)
The party made sure he was alright, then they looted the room. They found a number of mundane materials... As well as a few pounds of mithral and adamantine ore. Another character the Cleric's player plays has an adamantine axe and he really likes it- So his immediate reaction is 'Yes! I can get a cool sword!' As part of introducing the adamantine, I said it was three pounds worth- And since admantine is denser than iron or steel, coupled with the fact that it's unrefined ore and not ingots, it wouldn't get very far.
There are no official rules for adamantine in 5e. I ad-libbed something along the lines of 'When used to make a weapon, it's nonmagical, has a +1 to hit and damage, and deals double damage to items.' Which may have been a little overpowered, but whatever.
From here the player overreacted, I think. (Perhaps not. I am biased.) He got into an argument with the Rogue about who should get an adamantine weapon. They got rather ahead of themselves, and I think letting them do that without a 'Well, you can talk about that later, you need to find a town and a blacksmith before it's relevant,' was a mistake. That may have defused the whole thing. The Cleric wanted a shiny (Or matte, as the case may be) new weapon because he likes adamantine. The Rogue wanted a new weapon because he dual wields and has a low-grade dagger, while the Cleric has a named mithral greatsword with fey powers pillaged from an unseelie knight. Which I think is reasonable... Thinking that was a mistake, I let myself become biased.
I told them again that it was a small quantity of metal- After refining, maybe enough for a dagger or a pikehead or something. This caused a discussion about realism, versimilitude, and how the Cleric should totally be allowed to make a longsword or a morningstar out of it because they're 3 pounds-ish- and that's with a handle. I kind of shut him down on that. He then drew assumptions based on 3.5, (that a Rogue can only sneak attack constructs with an adamantine weapon,) complained about how damage reduction doesn't work identically to in 3.5, and declared he hates 5e. He assumed that sneak attacking from flank was a 5e thing, I told him that no, that's in 3.5 as well... A conversation about how you should only be allowed to sneak attack from stealth (or that it should be called something different, like Vital Attack) followed.
Then he asked if he could leave. (As in, quit the campaign.) I told him that I wouldn't try to stop him, but that "I like playing with you and I would urge you to reconsider." "Okay, bye, then." He hung up.
What the heck do I do with this? I know him in real life, he's a good friend of mine, he's usually a pretty cool guy. He overreacts sometimes, but usually not to this extent. His leaving won't kill the game or anything, but I'd really rather he stay- He's fun to play with.)
I left him alone for the rest of the night, figuring that he was upset and I should let him cool off. I don't know what to do next. ...Help me please?
TL;DR: A good friend (who seemed to be enjoying the game) got mad about loot distribution and system differences between 5e and 3.5, he quit the game really suddenly, and now I don't know what to do.