PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Help with an Argumentative player



Ixidor92
2018-02-15, 03:51 PM
I'm currently in a bit of a difficult situation with one of my regular players, specifically my brother. It seems that any time I am DM for a game, and he is a player, an argument breaks out over some rule or decision on my part. These are not quick 10-minute disagreements over a decision where we talk about it with the full table and then move on after a final decision is reached. These are specifically just him and I arguing with each other for 30+ minutes while the rest of the table just has to sit and listen to a brothers' quarrel. He simply refuses to give up his point of view until I give him what he wants, or someone else finally steps in and helps me after at least 20 minutes. But the experience isn't fun for anyone involved, and it detracted from every session that he was participating in.

Here are a couple of examples of situations that have caused this:
-5e one shot session: Characters are going through an enchanted forest where a green dragon has laired. At a certain point, the dragon starts blocking them off from heading a certain way by using his lair ability to throw up thorny walls (the green dragon is not physically present nearby for this). My brother is leading the party (as an eldritch knight) and after taking the brunt of one wall, burns through it and moves more carefully. Another wall pops up and he argues that he should have advantage on his saving throw because he was moving carefully, even though there was no physical trap to notice, or any real sign he could look for that would allow him to take advantage. After 20 minutes of arguing back and forth: I leave the table, couple of friends talk with him. The party moves around the walls and heads into a maze I made on the fly, and I never use that lair ability for the rest of the session.

-3.5 gestalt campaign: Party is ambushed by a group of assassins. Over the course of the battle, brother's character closes in against an enemy using a bow. I have the character make a tumble check to try and leave his square without an opportunity attack and he fails. I reduce his movement to a 5-foot step so he still doesn't provoke the attack but can't move as far away. This is something I have done before, and fully intended on letting the players do if they wanted. Brother argues against this, saying that since his opponent tried to tumble, that the 5-foot movement would still provoke an attack of opportunity. Argue back and forth for about 20 minutes, friend steps in and says he agrees with my brother, I relent and give him the opportunity attack, with the acknowledgement that it will work that way for the players in the future.

-3.5 gestalt campaign (same as above): Players are in the underdark, fighting off a weird combination of creatures (spoiler: there is a mind flayer involved, though the party has not figured that out at this point). Brother is currently engaged with a gargoyle in a large, roughly circular cavern with a couple of passages in/out. Rest of the party is dealing with a group of drow. Out of one passage appears a basilisk. I tell the party in front (which includes brother) to either make fortitude saves or cover their eyes, thereby blinding themselves, to avoid turning to stone as a result of the basilisk's gaze. Brother says he instead would just like to turn his back to the basilisk, and keep fighting the gargoyle without penalty. We argue over the logistics of what he wants to do. After 20 minutes, I put my foot down and say as the DM I am giving him the two options stated. He refuses to take either one. I throw my headset on my desk (online game) and storm off. Over the next couple of hours, friends, myself, and brother talk about the ramifications of this. The session does not continue for that night (in fact we haven't managed to pull together for another session since) and we toss around solutions for the continued issues between me and brother when it comes to D&D.


Hopefully this illustrates the problem somewhat. I am a very rules-oriented individual. I am not against bending them when a player requires it, but generally prefer to stick with what is written for simplicity's sake. Brother is a very story-oriented person. And continually comes up with role-playing reasons for why his character should be given some kind of advantage in a situation. Perhaps due to the fact we are brothers, one cannot simply concede the point to the other in a simple manner, even if one of us is in the DM's chair.
Our current "solution" has been to avoid a situation where I am DM and he is player. My brother does not DM ever, so if he is in a game, someone else in our friend group has to be DM. This is difficult as the only other person with a sizable degree of DM experience is already doing so for a couple of other campaigns, and has less free time than I do. There was a suggestion that Brother tries DMing a session himself, so that he can be on the other side of the arguments and decision-making, but he has refused that idea. We have also suggested the idea of using whatever my ruling is and then talking about the decision after the game. He has refused that as well.

I'm stumped at this point. I don't want to just be out of most games with my brother, as we still do legitimately enjoy playing with each other. If both of us are PC's in a game, we have no issues at all. But the arguments we have are not fun, they take up a lot of time that at least 3 other people have set aside to play, and it's not fair to everyone else at the table when something like this happens. If anyone can give any ideas to help with the situation, or maybe share their own stories, it would be much appreciated.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-02-15, 03:56 PM
Agree on a cap of five minutes of debate and then just have a group vote after that.

War_lord
2018-02-15, 04:01 PM
Ultimatum, he needs to either respect your role as the DM, or you're not DMing for him any more. He's not respecting you as a DM or as a person, he's acting like a child, and it can't continue.

Cluedrew
2018-02-15, 04:44 PM
Yeah, I know there are GM's that abuse it, but this is exactly the reason so many systems have the "final decision goes to GM" rule. And if he can't trust you to make good calls, he should be leaving this game faster than you could kick him out.

And unless someone is so dedicated that they come up with role-playing reasons while they should have disadvantages in this situation, I always err on the side of "just go with the rules say".

RFLS
2018-02-15, 04:56 PM
The required reading. (https://imgur.com/EwiChyD)


-3.5 gestalt campaign: Party is ambushed by a group of assassins. Over the course of the battle, brother's character closes in against an enemy using a bow. I have the character make a tumble check to try and leave his square without an opportunity attack and he fails. I reduce his movement to a 5-foot step so he still doesn't provoke the attack but can't move as far away. This is something I have done before, and fully intended on letting the players do if they wanted. Brother argues against this, saying that since his opponent tried to tumble, that the 5-foot movement would still provoke an attack of opportunity. Argue back and forth for about 20 minutes, friend steps in and says he agrees with my brother, I relent and give him the opportunity attack, with the acknowledgement that it will work that way for the players in the future.

This one is actually on you. You've introduced a (fairly powerful) houserule that so far only you have gained a benefit from, and it doesn't sound as though the players are fully aware that they can do it as well. The rules everyone has agreed upon by entering the game have been violated.


-3.5 gestalt campaign (same as above): Players are in the underdark, fighting off a weird combination of creatures (spoiler: there is a mind flayer involved, though the party has not figured that out at this point). Brother is currently engaged with a gargoyle in a large, roughly circular cavern with a couple of passages in/out. Rest of the party is dealing with a group of drow. Out of one passage appears a basilisk. I tell the party in front (which includes brother) to either make fortitude saves or cover their eyes, thereby blinding themselves, to avoid turning to stone as a result of the basilisk's gaze. Brother says he instead would just like to turn his back to the basilisk, and keep fighting the gargoyle without penalty. We argue over the logistics of what he wants to do. After 20 minutes, I put my foot down and say as the DM I am giving him the two options stated. He refuses to take either one. I throw my headset on my desk (online game) and storm off. Over the next couple of hours, friends, myself, and brother talk about the ramifications of this. The session does not continue for that night (in fact we haven't managed to pull together for another session since) and we toss around solutions for the continued issues between me and brother when it comes to D&D.

That's a case of "these are the rules, suck it up." That being said...storming off is one of the absolute worst ways to handle this kind of situation. If you want to resolve this, you need to not pull that kind of stuff. It doesn't get anyone anywhere.


Hopefully this illustrates the problem somewhat. I am a very rules-oriented individual. I am not against bending them when a player requires it, but generally prefer to stick with what is written for simplicity's sake. Brother is a very story-oriented person. And continually comes up with role-playing reasons for why his character should be given some kind of advantage in a situation. Perhaps due to the fact we are brothers, one cannot simply concede the point to the other in a simple manner, even if one of us is in the DM's chair.
Our current "solution" has been to avoid a situation where I am DM and he is player. My brother does not DM ever, so if he is in a game, someone else in our friend group has to be DM. This is difficult as the only other person with a sizable degree of DM experience is already doing so for a couple of other campaigns, and has less free time than I do. There was a suggestion that Brother tries DMing a session himself, so that he can be on the other side of the arguments and decision-making, but he has refused that idea. We have also suggested the idea of using whatever my ruling is and then talking about the decision after the game. He has refused that as well.

I'm stumped at this point. I don't want to just be out of most games with my brother, as we still do legitimately enjoy playing with each other. If both of us are PC's in a game, we have no issues at all. But the arguments we have are not fun, they take up a lot of time that at least 3 other people have set aside to play, and it's not fair to everyone else at the table when something like this happens. If anyone can give any ideas to help with the situation, or maybe share their own stories, it would be much appreciated.

My advice is that you're not being honest with yourself about actually enjoying the game overall with him present. You seem to enjoy parts of the game, but the fallout you've described indicates that the benefits are far outweighed by the cost at this point.

TL;DR: Give the required reading from above a go. Remember that everyone needs to keep their calm for it to work. Be sure to address the root issue; using specific cases (as above) won't solve anything. Be willing to end up with any of the listed end points.


Agree on a cap of five minutes of debate and then just have a group vote after that.

A reasonable suggestion as a bandaid, but I think it would just lead to things stewing; especially if there was a noticeable trend in the votes.


Ultimatum, he needs to either respect your role as the DM, or you're not DMing for him any more. He's not respecting you as a DM or as a person, he's acting like a child, and it can't continue.

Ultimatums are a garbage way to handle social situations. Don't do it.

War_lord
2018-02-15, 05:02 PM
Ultimatums are a garbage way to handle social situations. Don't do it.

Negotiations have been attempted, DM's brother continues to be a jerk, and sounds like they'll always be a jerk when they don't get their own way. At some point you just have to accept they're a jerk and move on.

RFLS
2018-02-15, 05:07 PM
Negotiations have been attempted, DM's brother continues to be a jerk, and sounds like they'll always be a jerk when they don't get their own way. At some point you just have to accept they're a jerk and move on.

So...we've only got one side of the story. Not saying the OP is the one at fault, but it is rarely the work of just one person in any sort of relationship problem.

Ultimatums are bad because they essentially give the issuing party all of the power at that moment in the relationship, with the understanding that the relationship will be terminated (in this case, in the context of RPGs, but it would have fallout into other areas as well) if the issuer does not get their way. Putting anyone in a situation in which they have no real power is one of the least respectful things you can do, and, even if they accept the ultimatum, will still lead to a damaged relationship. There are better ways. If the OP deems that the relationship with respect to RPGs is over, then he should be the one to terminate it, instead of forcing his brother to to keep his hands clean.

War_lord
2018-02-15, 05:17 PM
So...we've only got one side of the story. Not saying the OP is the one at fault, but it is rarely the work of just one person in any sort of relationship problem.

Ultimatums are bad because they essentially give the issuing party all of the power at that moment in the relationship, with the understanding that the relationship will be terminated (in this case, in the context of RPGs, but it would have fallout into other areas as well) if the issuer does not get their way. Putting anyone in a situation in which they have no real power is one of the least respectful things you can do, and, even if they accept the ultimatum, will still lead to a damaged relationship.

Multiple screaming matches in front of an audience is a damaged relationship. The brother publicly undermining the DM's authority is a power play that holds not only the DM, but the entire group hostage. There's no respect in this relationship, the OP's complaints are just a symptom of that lack of respect. Never play D&D with someone who doesn't respect the table.

RFLS
2018-02-15, 05:20 PM
Multiple screaming matches in front of an audience is a damaged relationship. The brother publicly undermining the DM's authority is a power play that holds not only the DM, but the entire group hostage. There's no respect in this relationship, the OP's complaints are just a symptom of that lack of respect. Never play D&D with someone who doesn't respect the table.

Please refer to the required reading. (https://imgur.com/EwiChyD)

War_lord
2018-02-15, 05:25 PM
See: "Kick the Nerd out"

RFLS
2018-02-15, 05:30 PM
See: "Kick the Nerd out"

Which is not an ultimatum. It's the DM's choice. Which is what my advice was.

denthor
2018-02-15, 05:31 PM
In the 3.5 tumble what blocked movement 15 feet?

If the tumble was just straight back with nothing inbetween that would block movement. (Another person friend or foe, table, wall ) then tumble is a full round action if you blow the roll you give up a blow of opportunity. You would end up in the square you wanted to. If something see above stopped your tumble you are in the square you started in.

2nd 3.5 he stated turn my back. Does that mean the gargle was in a position to not see the basilisk? If you make him make a roll you creature(s) needs to make the same role or is the gargoyle 's back to the basilisk and at what angle from the gargoyle opponent is he or is he giving his back to the gargoyle either way some sort of penalty applies and a major plus to avoid stoning.

So I basically agree with him

Segev
2018-02-15, 05:32 PM
I agree; if the arguments are detracting from the game, just shut them down by saying, "I'm the DM, and I'm ruling this way for now. We can discuss how to handle it in the future when the game is over."

If he tries to argue further, don't let him. Enforce the authority of your position. If he continues, kick him out of the session.

I'm not a fan of heavy-handed GMing, but ultimately there comes a point where the GM is the one running the game and if he makes a ruling, you go with it. It's perfectly fine, if it's that big of a deal, to come to him when it won't disrupt the game and ask for him to reconsider for future incidents. Discuss the pros and cons. Make a final decision between games.

But, if you make a final decision, make sure the players know what it is and that that's how you'll run those rules in the future. Make your rules clear, and then be consistent. Since you're rules-oriented, this likely won't be a problem, but I call it out as a general warning to all GMs.

RFLS
2018-02-15, 05:33 PM
In the 3.5 tumble what blocked movement 15 feet?

If the tumble was just straight back with nothing inbetween that would block movement. (Another person friend or foe, table, wall ) then tumble is a full round action if you blow the roll you give up a blow of opportunity. You would end up in the square you wanted to. If something see above stopped your tumble you are in the square you started in.

2nd 3.5 he stated turn my back. Does that mean the gargle was in a position to not see the basilisk? If you make him make a roll you creature(s) needs to make the same role or he back to the monster and at an angle from the other opponent or giving his back to the gargoyle either way some sort of penalty applies and a major plus to avoid stoning.

So I basically agree with him

I probably shouldn't have addressed it as thoroughly as I did in my initial post, but I think the specific rules situations are besides the point. The reactions and negative feelings surrounding them are the problem.

Ixidor92
2018-02-15, 06:02 PM
I probably shouldn't have addressed it as thoroughly as I did in my initial post, but I think the specific rules situations are besides the point. The reactions and negative feelings surrounding them are the problem.

I do thank everyone for their notes on the specific situations, but those were more to give some context as to how most disagreements arise. I'm less looking for help on those specific rulings and more how to allow for better cooperation between me and this player.

Thanks to everyone for their input on this so far, I will likely be talking with the game group in question regarding this soon. I'll keep checking back on this thread for future suggestions, but thanks to everyone who has already given their own.

Segev
2018-02-15, 06:25 PM
I do thank everyone for their notes on the specific situations, but those were more to give some context as to how most disagreements arise. I'm less looking for help on those specific rulings and more how to allow for better cooperation between me and this player.

Thanks to everyone for their input on this so far, I will likely be talking with the game group in question regarding this soon. I'll keep checking back on this thread for future suggestions, but thanks to everyone who has already given their own.

How well do you get along with your brother, in general?

If "well," then the solution is to tell him that you're going to make rulings in-game, and if he dislikes them, he can make a single argument for a different one. You'll either accept or reject the argument for the moment, and rule. After the game, he can argue more strenuously if he doesn't like the ruling you gave.

Explain to him that this is so the game keeps moving. After a while, you should develop a list of established rules for these things that will cut down on them.

Calthropstu
2018-02-15, 06:25 PM
Here's my response.
"Ok, you're walking along carefully, but it seems no amount of preperation can help. The thorns form up make a reflex."
"I should get a bonus because I am prepared. I said I was."
"Sorry, that's insufficient. Make a save."
"But I should get a bonus."
"You have opted to not make a saving throw. Take X damage."
"What? But I get a saving throw."
"Which you didn't take. Now..."
"Hey, you can't do that!"
"Yes I can. Moving on..."
"Hey, you can't do that. J get a reflex save."
"5 more damage, no save."
"What?"
"You heard."

As he continues, add more damage. If he persists, he's at negative 1 and bleeding. At that point, carry on like he's not there.
Do this a few times and your brother will get the picture. If it still continues, run a campaign that he isn't invited to.

Edit: please note that this is something to use as a last resort. The game is not a democracy. You are god. You create the story and ultimately you make the decision. Arguments can be brought up, but once it is clear you have rendered a decision, it needs to be accepted.
Getting disresprectful and pushing the issue like what you describe is unacceptable and needs to stop. Respect your brother's arguments if they are good, but you can't let it disrupt the game.

RFLS
2018-02-15, 06:27 PM
Here's my response.
"Ok, you're walking along carefully, but it seems no amount of preperation can help. The thorns form up make a reflex."
"I should get a bonus because I am prepared. I said I was."
"Sorry, that's insufficient. Make a save."
"But I should get a bonus."
"You have opted to not make a saving throw. Take X damage."
"What? But I get a saving throw."
"Which you didn't take. Now..."
"Hey, you can't do that!"
"Yes I can. Moving on..."
"Hey, you can't do that. J get a reflex save."
"5 more damage, no save."
"What?"
"You heard."

As he continues, add more damage. If he persists, he's at negative 1 and bleeding. At that point, carry on like he's not there.
Do this a few times and your brother will get the picture. If it still continues, run a campaign that he isn't invited to.

That's...probably one of the best ways to exacerbate the issue. Congrats.

Calthropstu
2018-02-15, 06:39 PM
That's...probably one of the best ways to exacerbate the issue. Congrats.

Really? Because that is exactly how ALL authority figures act. Police, teachers, parents, bosses, forum moderators...
Sit down, shut up or suffer the consequences.

RFLS
2018-02-15, 06:52 PM
Really? Because that is exactly how ALL authority figures act. Police, teachers, parents, bosses, forum moderators...
Sit down, shut up or suffer the consequences.

And followed up with one of the worst arguments for why you should do something. "That's how it's always done."

Calthropstu
2018-02-15, 06:54 PM
And followed up with one of the worst arguments for why you should do something. "That's how it's always done."

It's done that way because it WORKS.

Quertus
2018-02-15, 07:02 PM
I'm currently in a bit of a difficult situation with one of my regular players, specifically my brother. It seems that any time I am DM for a game, and he is a player, an argument breaks out over some rule or decision on my part. These are not quick 10-minute disagreements over a decision where we talk about it with the full table and then move on after a final decision is reached. These are specifically just him and I arguing with each other for 30+ minutes while the rest of the table just has to sit and listen to a brothers' quarrel. He simply refuses to give up his point of view until I give him what he wants, or someone else finally steps in and helps me after at least 20 minutes. But the experience isn't fun for anyone involved, and it detracted from every session that he was participating in.

We have also suggested the idea of using whatever my ruling is and then talking about the decision after the game. He has refused that as well.

When my brother and I get together, we've been known to argue one rule in a D&D game for in excess of three hours. Difference is, we'll then say, "Best. Session. Ever!". Because we both love that interaction, we love actually accomplishing something real and tangible in the session. So, one possible problem is, he loves debate, you don't.

Others have already pointed out that, rule-wise and attitude wise, even hearing only your side, you aren't blameless here. Take that to heart.

I find it very interesting that you say that you are rules oriented, while he is story oriented... because, from your post, I had guessed that he was a stickler for rules. Whatever the case, a difference of styles may be responsible for your problems, or at least for exacerbating them. See if you can (educate yourself on gaming styles, and) have a discussion with your brother about this. See if there's something that can make everyone happy.

Me, I'm a rules person. I want to do things the right way. Nothing kills an epic story like finding out that, actually, by the rules, that shouldn't have worked, and your character should have died. So I want the rules to be correct while we game. And don't even get me started on the stupidity of tabling a ruling until after the game, only to have to retcon the entire session!

However, I played with a group that had a simple rule: anyone (including the GM, btw) was allowed to question any rule. They were allowed 5 minutes to make their case. Two types of arguments were valid: "the rule is X, and here it is", and "but if we allow Y, then Z, and we don't want Z". If the case was made within that timeframe, then we had our rule. However, if after 5 minutes it was still inconclusive, the GM would flip a duplex cookie. White side up, it worked however was most beneficial to the party at this moment, and became a permanent house rule. Black side up, it worked the way that was last beneficial to the party at this moment, and became a permanent house rule.

Under this system, you never had long arguments, never had wrong rules if you could find the correct one, never had bad rules if you could argue how it was bad, and never had to retcon.

I suggest mentioning this story to your brother, and getting his reaction.

Also, y'all seem to respond to the peer pressure of The Group. Kudos! You should care about the fun of the group. One solution is to talk with the group about how to leverage their opinion sooner in your arguments with your brother...


Agree on a cap of five minutes of debate and then just have a group vote after that.

like this, for example. :smallwink:

Vance_Nevada
2018-02-15, 07:45 PM
Well, if you still want to play together, one of you needs to concede the argument. At the vast majority of tables, it accepted that the DM's call trumps the players if an agreement hasn't been reached by X time, so concessions tend to be towards the DM's side. But your players don't seem prepared to work like this. Nor do you seem prepared to remove players who won't accept the DM's authority.

At this point, you're pretty much down to a neutral or random arbiter for any disputes. Whenever you have a dispute that lasts longer than 10 seconds, settle it immediately. You won't be following the rules, but the game will proceed faster. I can think of several methods:
- Another player is responsible for making the call, or the entire table votes in a simple thumbs up / thumbs down vote.
- Player rolls a d20. High side, the rules call goes in his favour. Low side, your favour.
- Have a Victory Chip. He can pass it to you at any time to win a rules argument. Then you can pass it back to him to win a rules argument. Trade your victories, and it also ensures you're only arguing for things that are of particular important.

Of course, there's even flaws in that (neither side will accept what the dice says, nobody can agree on who should start with the Victory Chip), but at the point where one or the other of you can't accept the method of resolving an argument, it's pretty much game over. You can't play a game of imagination like DnD if you only accept exactly what is written in a rulebook at all times.

Mr Beer
2018-02-16, 12:45 AM
I agree; if the arguments are detracting from the game, just shut them down by saying, "I'm the DM, and I'm ruling this way for now. We can discuss how to handle it in the future when the game is over."

If he tries to argue further, don't let him. Enforce the authority of your position. If he continues, kick him out of the session.

Pretty much how I'd handle it and I'm not talking after 5 minutes either, this is after 30 seconds:

"Fast game's a good game. This is how I'm ruling. We can talk it over after the game."

then move on.

Yllin
2018-02-16, 02:29 AM
It's done that way because it WORKS.

It works if you want a subordinate to perform some specific actions. It doesn't work if you want your table to enjoy the game tho. Players are not DM's subordinates also. The problem at hand is "how to resolve an ethical situation", not "how to make a broken machine work"

Regarding the OP's table situation, you can talk to your brother out of the game. During the conversation first explain that you prefer to run a game that follows the rules, even when they conflict situational logic. It's your decision as a DM what type and flavor of campaign you want to run. Ask your brother to keep his suggestions non-confrontational and not to turn them into arguments if you refuse, because the arguments are bad for the whole table. If there is anything serious, you can discuss it after the game. Also, make sure to listen to what he has to say to you: it might be that in his eyes you only follow the rules when it's convenient for you. If that's the case, you should pay more attention to the matter during the games. You might have to admit that you made a wrong decision in a handful of situations.

If the dialog doesn't resolve the situation, you can either accept the situation as is, or tell your brother that you don't want to DM for him anymore. Again, you don't have to make a conflict out of it. But don't try to press him into doing what you want, that leads neither to a comfortable game nor to a healthy relationship.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-16, 05:32 AM
There are two ways to handle these situations. One is to stand your ground, the other is to give in. Neither one is suitable all the time.

Sometimes the correct answer for taking a specific action is to say 'yes, but...'. For example, 'yes, you avoid the basilisk's gaze by putting yourself between him and the gargolye, but because you're focusing so intently on not seeing the basilisk other monsters will be able to attack from behind'.

Other times it's best to say 'no, and we're moving on'. I would put a hard limit on arguing, and if he doesn't capitulate move on. In a 'save for half damage, I should have advantage' situation (for example) I'd honestly just roll damage assuming he'd made his save after a couple of minutes, but you'll have to find your own preferred way.

Sometimes the correct answer is just to say yes.

In one example you committed a big mistake. You added a houserule (can turn a failed tumble into a five foot step) without telling the players. This is a major change, and the players should have been told so they could have taken advantage of it. They can't use the houserule if they don't know it, and that's problematic.

Now in both your 3.5 examples I'd say you should have polled the group and gone with the majority. Sure, it might mean you'll have to give your brother his way more, but when the group agrees with you your brother is suddenly under more pressure than just the GM. The group thinks it's more fun this way. It might not make him stop arguing, but it's a good incentive.

Quertus
2018-02-16, 05:48 AM
It works if you want a subordinate to perform some specific actions. It doesn't work if you want your table to enjoy the game tho. Players are not DM's subordinates also. The problem at hand is "how to resolve an ethical situation", not "how to make a broken machine work"

+1 this.

Also, this is the OP's brother. I'm rather horrified at the prospect that "beat them into submission" is actually something anyone would ever suggest as a reasonable course of action. Just no.

Lorsa
2018-02-16, 06:16 AM
It's done that way because it WORKS.

It's not the only way that works, nor is it the only way used.

Darth Ultron
2018-02-16, 08:20 AM
And now for my different take on Everything:

I note that in your examples your making and using house rules. In general, you might want to avoid this. Once you start down the path of ''houserule X for Y'', you can quickly get lost in a jumple of ''if'' and ''ands'' and ''what ifs'' and such. But there is a simple way to avoid this: don't have houserules. Just use the Rules As Written.

If you. as the DM, really want to do ''X'', don't house rule it. Just use the rules of the game. In most editions of D&D this is easy to do with things like potions, for example.


I always have a Game Rule of players can't complain/argue/whatever during a game session. IF a player really wants to make some sort of point, I'm willing to set up a meeting after the game, or any time we are not playing the game.


But the best thing you could do is........just let him think he is getting his way. It's simple enough...he demands he gets a +5 advantage because he is cool, then you simply give his foes a +5 advantage for coolness too. But don't tell the player. Just let them sit there and be happy as a clam.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-16, 08:51 AM
On houserules.

Make sure all your houserules are in a document. Make sure this document is legible, and easy to refer to in-game. Make sure the players have access to this document, and that at least one printed copy is available at the table while playing. Keep the document manageable, a side of A4 is fine, two might be a bit excessive (this guideline will vary a lot for different groups, I could probably deal with 4 pages of A4, front and back, while I know people who'd struggle with a single side).

Now there is a difference between houserules and homebrew. Houserules change the game as written, homebrew provides new choices. As an example, 'reach weapons can hit those 5ft away from the user' is a valid houserule in 3.5, another might be 'alter self is permanent (concentration)' in 5e. Homebrew would be adding in a sex change spell (which I do need to talk about, considering my 5e character is now a caster and has been trangender since I came up with him).

Also, contrary to Darth Ultron, I recommend trying to be an adult about it. Childishness gets you nowhere in the long run.

Pleh
2018-02-16, 09:03 AM
I would take this whole conversation to the group. Meet for session as normal, but work this out before play. Emphasize that the bickering and defiance can't continue. Get some of the other players to weigh in.

If the conversation continues to be stuck, you might have to retire the game. You just tell them you won't keep putting them through this and if the group can't find resolution, the game will not continue under your leadership. Maybe another player can DM a different game.

On the gargoyle vs basilisk, I'd remind him that the rules don't allow what he's trying to do, so I'd play good cop and give him what he wants for a price.

3.5 assumes characters are free to move and look around, so by limiting himself, it's the same as if someone else was forcing him to look one particular way. This seems pretty clear that he's flanked by the basilisk and the gargoyle and the basilisk has full concealment. If he protests the cost, then remind him the alternative is fort save or voluntary blindness.

From there, if he continues to refuse, you let the game go. There's no point trying to move forward with uncooperative players.

Florian
2018-02-16, 10:39 AM
Classic no-go and egoism. One person is there in the dual role of GM and referee to handle rules matters and the time to discuss stuff more in-depth is before or after the game. Wanting to have a 30 mins. argument right now is not only disrespectful towards the gm, it also forces the other participating players to sit around and play with their thumps, being disrespectful to their time and commitment to the game.

Just say no. No arguments during the game, there's time after that.

Segev
2018-02-16, 11:37 AM
In one example you committed a big mistake. You added a houserule (can turn a failed tumble into a five foot step) without telling the players. This is a major change, and the players should have been told so they could have taken advantage of it. They can't use the houserule if they don't know it, and that's problematic.You are right in that, if the question was, "How do I rule on this?" he ruled wrong and should have ruled the other way. This is why allowing SOME argument from the players is valuable. However, this is missing the point of the thread, which is that the argumentation is going on far too long. Maybe, yes, the GM OP should have caved on this one, because the player was right. That doesn't help in the scenarios where the player should have caved because he was wrong (e.g. the Lair ability that doesn't give him free Advantage just because he "was prepared").

In the heat of the game, when the debate is going to go on for too long because neither side agrees with the others' presentation of the RAW as available in the time they have to look it up, the correct answer is to rule however the DM decides to rule for now, and come back to it later, after the game. Sure, this might mean the DM erroneously made that failed tumble->free 5 ft. step house rule for that one instance. In the future, he won't make that mistake, after discussing it between sessions. But at least the game kept moving.

Quertus
2018-02-16, 12:04 PM
But at least the game kept moving.

This implies that there is value in moving in the wrong direction. All my life, I've had to deal with morons who would do medical harm to others just to have "done something", rather than spend the time to figure out what the correct procedure would be, or otherwise be harmful to themselves, others, or their company through willful ignorance. I find this human behavior baffling - thus, I will doubtless have to create a character based on the concept some day.

Segev
2018-02-16, 12:07 PM
This implies that there is value in moving in the wrong direction. All my life, I've had to deal with morons who would do medical harm to others just to have "done something", rather than spend the time to figure out what the correct procedure would be, or otherwise be harmful to themselves, others, or their company through willful ignorance. I find this human behavior baffling - thus, I will doubtless have to create a character based on the concept some day.

...that's a rather off-base analogy.

Keeping a game session going by not arguing over whether or not a single AoO should be had or not is hardly the same as keeping a surgery going by feeding more opiate to the patient when you're not sure if he's allergic to it or not. O_o

There IS value to keeping the CURRENT GAME SESSION moving rather than stopping it to debate a relatively minor point of rules for thirty minutes (as the OP described) and terminating said discussion with multiple people angry and not enjoying themselves.

There's a reason my recommendations also include discussing it AFTER THE SESSION to make sure it isn't going to lead to larger problems down the line.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-16, 01:10 PM
You are right in that, if the question was, "How do I rule on this?" he ruled wrong and should have ruled the other way. This is why allowing SOME argument from the players is valuable. However, this is missing the point of the thread, which is that the argumentation is going on far too long. Maybe, yes, the GM OP should have caved on this one, because the player was right. That doesn't help in the scenarios where the player should have caved because he was wrong (e.g. the Lair ability that doesn't give him free Advantage just because he "was prepared").

In the heat of the game, when the debate is going to go on for too long because neither side agrees with the others' presentation of the RAW as available in the time they have to look it up, the correct answer is to rule however the DM decides to rule for now, and come back to it later, after the game. Sure, this might mean the DM erroneously made that failed tumble->free 5 ft. step house rule for that one instance. In the future, he won't make that mistake, after discussing it between sessions. But at least the game kept moving.

The wording of the example states it wasn't a spur of the moment decision, it was something that had happened before. Therefore it was essentially an established houserule, and I was trying to make the point that you can reduce the number of arguments by being open with your houserules.

This thread is asking for help with somebody who a) seems to start an argument often and b) seems to be unwilling to let arguments end. My proposed solution which I should have laid out explicitly, is to make sure all 'official' house rules are given to players beforehand to reduce the number of arguments interrupting game time and to come up with a system to avoid the arguments dragging out (my suggestion to be to try polling the group when arguments drag on).

FWIW I agree with you that the game moving is preferable to arguing over the rules. The problem is this player doesn't seem to agree with that, and the problem can be mitigated partially through avoiding potential argument situations. Not perfectly, but it's the start.

Heck, after discussion with my 5e group I've switched from playing a Barb to playing a homebrew class, and the GM is likely going to have to make several on-the-fly rulings with regards to my abilities to make everything work out fine. I'm fine with this, I understand it's the compromise for wanting to use an option WotC hasn't given official support to.

Segev
2018-02-16, 01:47 PM
Oh, yes, having house rules clearly stated and printed out would be helpful. I didn't get the same notion that this was a recurring house rule that you did. Regardless, my advice applies to arguments when they come up.

Clearly setting expectations about rules ahead of time, or fixing them between sessions, is preventative towards future sessions being interrupted by disagreements. But for the specific problem of "a disagreement has arisen," the solution is to let thme make their case quickly, consider it as fairly as possible, then make a ruling and move on for now. The trust that it will be open to review later is important to helping the player let go of it, I think.

Quertus
2018-02-16, 03:29 PM
...that's a rather off-base analogy.

Keeping a game session going by not arguing over whether or not a single AoO should be had or not is hardly the same as keeping a surgery going by feeding more opiate to the patient when you're not sure if he's allergic to it or not. O_o

There IS value to keeping the CURRENT GAME SESSION moving rather than stopping it to debate a relatively minor point of rules for thirty minutes (as the OP described) and terminating said discussion with multiple people angry and not enjoying themselves.

There's a reason my recommendations also include discussing it AFTER THE SESSION to make sure it isn't going to lead to larger problems down the line.

Ah, sorry, my bias makes it rather difficult to see my point. Most of my post was not analogy, but explaining my bias. So let me try again, this time with an analogy.

Even in professional sports, there are sports / situations where the referee will give an immediate ruling, and the game will continue. Other times / sports / situations, there will be an extended review before a decision is reached. It isn't a clear cut case of one being strictly superior to the other. In fact, there is still room for debate about whether the current implementation is optimal in many cases.

Similarly, to execute someone requires extensive legal review. But police, military, etc, are empowered to make snap calls about when lethal force may be used. Even in matters of life and death, there isn't just one right answer.

And, yes, any of these may be subject to review later, and may result in the removal of bad cops / judges / referees / GMs.

So, my point was, it felt like your statement was predicated on an unspoken assumption of there being only one right answer here. My intention was to simultaneously make that assumption spoken, and to question it... while pointing out my bias, to say that I am probably not the best one to come to an unbiased conclusion of the correct answer.

Cluedrew
2018-02-16, 03:38 PM
On Nothing Happens: There is a very critical difference between medicine and role-playing in regards to nothing happens. In medicine it is the best outcome for a healthy person, a middling outcome for a sick person (between gets better and gets worse) and the only outcome for a dead person. In role-playing it is the worst outcome, at least for the people outside the game. Whether good or bad, things happening is much more interesting than nothing happening.

... I would say more but I appear to have been swordsaged in a way that makes the post rather irrelevant, but I will just leave what I had.

Friv
2018-02-16, 04:02 PM
It's done that way because it WORKS.

It works only in the moment that you do it, at the cost of poisoning the relationship for the next time. Because now they know that they can't trust you, which means that the goal in the future becomes "outmaneuver / trick them" instead of "talk to them".

That applies to pretty much every example you gave. Police do better when they have the trust of their communities than when they wade in with the threat of violence for every suspected violation. Students do better when teachers work with and inspire them, not when they act as bullies and reflexively shut down debate. Parents who try the "in my house you live by my rules" end up with kids who lie to them and try to avoid attention. And so on.

And it wouldn't be any different here. The best case is that this guy's brother develops a seething resentment and quits. The worst case is that he stays and just starts passive-aggressively interacting with everyone, until either he gets kicked out or he drains the group's enthusiasm to the point that the whole group dissolves.

Segev
2018-02-16, 04:31 PM
Ah, sorry, my bias makes it rather difficult to see my point. Most of my post was not analogy, but explaining my bias. So let me try again, this time with an analogy.

Even in professional sports, there are sports / situations where the referee will give an immediate ruling, and the game will continue. Other times / sports / situations, there will be an extended review before a decision is reached. It isn't a clear cut case of one being strictly superior to the other. In fact, there is still room for debate about whether the current implementation is optimal in many cases.

Similarly, to execute someone requires extensive legal review. But police, military, etc, are empowered to make snap calls about when lethal force may be used. Even in matters of life and death, there isn't just one right answer.

And, yes, any of these may be subject to review later, and may result in the removal of bad cops / judges / referees / GMs.

So, my point was, it felt like your statement was predicated on an unspoken assumption of there being only one right answer here. My intention was to simultaneously make that assumption spoken, and to question it... while pointing out my bias, to say that I am probably not the best one to come to an unbiased conclusion of the correct answer.
Ah.

Yes, if the consequences are more dire than a few hp being dealt/not dealt, a little longer review is probably warranted. Unless that AoO means life or death for the PC(s) involved, however, I don't think it likely to have long-term impact on the game whether that particular time the AoO was allowed/denied.

Perhaps it isn't obvious, but I was assuming these weren't genuine PC-dies-or-lives-based-on-this-ruling situations.

Quertus
2018-02-16, 06:23 PM
Ah.

Yes, if the consequences are more dire than a few hp being dealt/not dealt, a little longer review is probably warranted. Unless that AoO means life or death for the PC(s) involved, however, I don't think it likely to have long-term impact on the game whether that particular time the AoO was allowed/denied.

Perhaps it isn't obvious, but I was assuming these weren't genuine PC-dies-or-lives-based-on-this-ruling situations.

Here you have several issues.

The first is, if it's a pitched battle, maybe that single attack could end up being the difference between one or more of the PCs living and dying. Do you really want to have to consider a retcon of the emotional aftermath of multiple character deaths because, oops, maybe I shouldn't have ruled that way? Or not doing the retcon, and having multiple characters die because of a bad call? Note: I once had a character die because of 3 unhealed damage from a previous battle. Even little things have the potential to have a huge impact later on.

Also, there's the issue of "I'm just going to railroad a little / just going to make the world inconsistent a little / just going to whatever a little". Even a little may be enough to kill the player's enjoyment of the game.

Which is why I'm suggesting having a thorough conversation, and getting all these unspoken assumptions out in the open.

1337 b4k4
2018-02-16, 06:31 PM
Ther is value in having concensus and agreement on issues of dispute in these games. After all we’re all contributing our precious time to this activity so we should be happy with how that activity is being conducted. That said, “at the table in the middle of a game” is the absolute wrong time and place to reach consensus. After all you’re all contributing your precious time to gaming, you didn’t come to have arguments. It’s your table and it’s your game. You’re the GM and the players are looking to you for guidance and you’re letting these arguments drag on too long.

The rule at my tables is you get one chance (of a short time) to make your case if you think I’ve adjudicated something wrong. I get to ask any follow up questions which I will allow you to answer and then I make a ruling and that ruling sticks for the remainder of the session. No further discussion on the issue is tolerated at the table. In exchange for this, I promise to personally re-review such disputes after the game myself, and will gladly discuss issues outside the game. If I determine that I have indeed ruled in error, I also promise to correct that error via whatever retcon is necessary. Nothing decided at the table is so important it can’t be undone after the fact.

This allows the game to move forward, eliminates heated arguments during game time and allows adequate out of the heat of the moment consideration. It also takes the dispute offline, and contrary to a lot of the advice you got here I’m going to suggest you don’t discuss these issues with the group as a whole. Disputes between the GM and a player over rules are between the GM and the player. Involving other people puts unfair pressure on them and may lead you or the player into being hot headed to save face.

Gently but firmly stop all at table arguments, and then fairly and calmly review them after the fact.

Cluedrew
2018-02-16, 07:27 PM
Also, there's the issue of "I'm just going to railroad a little / just going to make the world inconsistent a little / just going to whatever a little". Even a little may be enough to kill the player's enjoyment of the game.I would just like to point out "even just a little" applies to "even just a little bit of rules debate" especially if it happens part way through a tense moment.

Also don't you play D&D? Any you are worried about small world building inconsistences? You must play with some home brew masters my friend.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-16, 08:25 PM
Also, there's the issue of "I'm just going to railroad a little / just going to make the world inconsistent a little / just going to whatever a little". Even a little may be enough to kill the player's enjoyment of the game.Sure. But excessive amounts of arguing and rules discussion at a table WILL kill players' enjoyment of the game, since there is no game to enjoy.

I'm not going to say that EVERYONE'S game is the same as mine, since there may perhaps be some players out there who would rather spend a whole session discussing the right rules resolution to a minor situation instead of actually playing the game. But that isn't my table, and it isn't any table I've ever played at, and I wouldn't suggest that any other table handle things that way unless everyone was actively on board with that kind of prioritization of time.

Usually I have major trouble finding any time at all to game, and I'm happy to just smooth over differences or rules minutiae during play (even ones I disagree with or that harm my character) because the alternative is wasting precious game hours not gaming! I'm not judging people with different ideas on that issue, but I am saying that if a table worked that way, I simply wouldn't find that game worth my own time (and others might feel the inverse about my gaming groups).

Darth Ultron
2018-02-16, 09:38 PM
Sure. But excessive amounts of arguing and rules discussion at a table WILL kill players' enjoyment of the game, since there is no game to enjoy.



This is exactly way I don't allow the players to argue or debate during the game. If they don't like something...fine...bring it up any time other then during the game.

RFLS
2018-02-16, 11:26 PM
It's done that way because it WORKS.


It works if you want a subordinate to perform some specific actions. It doesn't work if you want your table to enjoy the game tho. Players are not DM's subordinates also. The problem at hand is "how to resolve an ethical situation", not "how to make a broken machine work"

That's a pretty succinct way of putting it. It works in boss/subordinate situations. However, for housekeeping things (say, disputes over rulings) the discussion should be as equals. Telling someone "this is how it is because I am X" is a really terrible way to treat any of your peers.


And now for my different take on Everything:

I note that in your examples your making and using house rules. In general, you might want to avoid this. Once you start down the path of ''houserule X for Y'', you can quickly get lost in a jumple of ''if'' and ''ands'' and ''what ifs'' and such. But there is a simple way to avoid this: don't have houserules. Just use the Rules As Written.

If you. as the DM, really want to do ''X'', don't house rule it. Just use the rules of the game. In most editions of D&D this is easy to do with things like potions, for example.


I always have a Game Rule of players can't complain/argue/whatever during a game session. IF a player really wants to make some sort of point, I'm willing to set up a meeting after the game, or any time we are not playing the game.


But the best thing you could do is........just let him think he is getting his way. It's simple enough...he demands he gets a +5 advantage because he is cool, then you simply give his foes a +5 advantage for coolness too. But don't tell the player. Just let them sit there and be happy as a clam.

I think that was an at least 50% cogent response. I disagree with the conclusion - lying to your players about how you're handling a situation is not great - especially in this circumstance, where you are teaching them that they can get X when they say they deserve X because Y situational aspect. You're setting yourself up for further trouble down the road when there is not a mechanical way to balance behind the screen.

Darth Ultron
2018-02-17, 12:26 AM
I think that was an at least 50% cogent response. I disagree with the conclusion - lying to your players about how you're handling a situation is not great - especially in this circumstance, where you are teaching them that they can get X when they say they deserve X because Y situational aspect. You're setting yourself up for further trouble down the road when there is not a mechanical way to balance behind the screen.

I do agree it's not the best way. The Best Way is the way I normally do: players can't argue/complain during the game.

But the ''let them have their delusion'' does work sometimes. And a good DM can balance anything out.

Like once upon a time I had Vance, the Player That Must Go First. He was Crazy Insane Obsessed with always Acting First in Combat. And he was always doing the Stupid Continuations Spot Roll and Demanding that his character Always detected Everything from like a Mile Away, so he could Always Attack First. So it was just easier to say ''you always attack first" and then just ignore the damage from his characters first attack....and then just have normal combat after that.

RFLS
2018-02-17, 12:35 AM
I do agree it's not the best way. The Best Way is the way I normally do: players can't argue/complain during the game.

But the ''let them have their delusion'' does work sometimes. And a good DM can balance anything out.

Like once upon a time I had Vance, the Player That Must Go First. He was Crazy Insane Obsessed with always Acting First in Combat. And he was always doing the Stupid Continuations Spot Roll and Demanding that his character Always detected Everything from like a Mile Away, so he could Always Attack First. So it was just easier to say ''you always attack first" and then just ignore the damage from his characters first attack....and then just have normal combat after that.

I mean...you could also have just talked to him about it out of game. The required reading. (https://imgur.com/EwiChyD)

War_lord
2018-02-17, 01:47 AM
The worst case is that he stays and just starts passive-aggressively interacting with everyone, until either he gets kicked out or he drains the group's enthusiasm to the point that the whole group dissolves.

He's already doing that, did you miss the part were, when told to choose between the options provided, he just refused to make any choice?

Quertus
2018-02-17, 02:04 AM
I would just like to point out "even just a little" applies to "even just a little bit of rules debate" especially if it happens part way through a tense moment.

Also don't you play D&D? Any you are worried about small world building inconsistences? You must play with some home brew masters my friend.

Lol, true. Different groups care about different things. I never explicitly said I was a fanatic for world-building consistency, but some people are.

Now, if I'm in a group that has zero tolerance for rules debates mid game, then they'd best well give me absolutely no reason to have a rules debate, and always get the rules 100% right! Otherwise, they've set up a scenario where it's guaranteed that someone at the table won't be having fun.


Sure. But excessive amounts of arguing and rules discussion at a table WILL kill players' enjoyment of the game, since there is no game to enjoy.

I'm not going to say that EVERYONE'S game is the same as mine,

But that isn't my table, and it isn't any table I've ever played at, and I wouldn't suggest that any other table handle things that way unless everyone was actively on board with that kind of prioritization of time.


Excessive anything is bad, but what qualifies as excessive will vary from table to table. How much time should be spent on combat vs talky bits vs puzzles vs etc will vary from group to group. How important separation of player and character knowledge is, and the roll of player skills, will vary from group to group. What range of optimization, and what range of difference in capabilities between the PCs is acceptable will vary from group to group. Etc etc. Even little social things, like food or drinks at the table, will vary from group to group.

It behooves everyone to be prepared to have, and capable of having, a reasonable discussion about the dynamics and expectations of their group, and not just assume that what they're used to or expecting is somehow the One True Way.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-17, 02:41 AM
It behooves everyone to be prepared to have, and capable of having, a reasonable discussion about the dynamics and expectations of their group, and not just assume that what they're used to or expecting is somehow the One True Way.Wow, that's an interesting way of editing my post in order to imply that I'm espousing some sort of One True Wayism. I'll add back what I actually said just in case you missed it before (emphasis added).

But that isn't my table, and it isn't any table I've ever played at, and I wouldn't suggest that any other table handle things that way unless everyone was actively on board with that kind of prioritization of time.

<snip>

I'm not judging people with different ideas on that issue, but I am saying that if a table worked that way, I simply wouldn't find that game worth my own time (and others might feel the inverse about my gaming groups).I'm giving my own opinion about the issue, and the way my own groups have handled it, but I did explicitly say that people who do it differently are well within their rights, as long as the group is all on board with whatever choice they make.

Saying "oh it varies from group to group" is fine, and true, but doesn't rate well on the scale of actually useful, actionable advice.

In any case, while such discussions are a good thing to have, the time for them (in most tables, including every group I've personally ever gamed with) is before or after a game, not taking up time that should be spent on more enjoyable endeavors. And generally speaking, the GM is the one who is in charge of calling when those discussions should be cut short, since she or he is the person with the greatest position of authority in the group.

EDIT: I probably got a bit too prickly there, but it does get to me when people accuse me of One True Wayism or otherwise denigrating other people's fun when I go pretty far out of my way to make clear that I'm just talking about my games, what works for me and my friends, and that people who do it differently are just as valid so long as they aren't forcing their standards on anyone else. If you didn't mean to say that's what I was doing, I apologize, though it sure seems like that's what you're implying.

Davrix
2018-02-17, 05:07 AM
Best solution to this, sense we have a little fault to spread around on both sides here. Talk to him before your next game and say, Hey bro we cant keep arguing like that at the table so lets make a new rule between you and me.

You both make your case, if a choice cant be made. You flip a coin and that rule stands for the night and when the game is over you can both either sit down later and look up the rules better or post the case here online and get an answer from other people. Either way your avoiding the toxic condition your setting up at the table right now.

If he cant agree to this method simply say ok but I'm not Dm'ing anymore then because your unwilling to see my point or view or compromise on the matter. As always no DnD is better than bad DnD

If he agree's to said rule above, announce it at the table as well as how things are handle from now on. It keeps the game moving, no one gets but hurt and when you have time to correct the issue later, you can do so without taking up everyone else's time and patience.

Quertus
2018-02-17, 09:33 AM
Wow, that's an interesting way of editing my post in order to imply that I'm espousing some sort of One True Wayism. I'll add back what I actually said just in case you missed it before (emphasis added).

Saying "oh it varies from group to group" is fine, and true, but doesn't rate well on the scale of actually useful, actionable advice.

EDIT: I probably got a bit too prickly there, but it does get to me when people accuse me of One True Wayism

If you didn't mean to say that's what I was doing, I apologize, though it sure seems like that's what you're implying.

No, I completely got that you weren't espousing One True Wayism. Sorry that it came off as such an accusation - that was totally not my intent! EDIT: and sorry if my edits seemed designed to paint the wrong picture - IIRC, I tried to grab the parts where you were explicitly against One True Way. :smallredface:

I was agreeing with you in that respect (by emphasizing the fail state of the opposite stance?), but saying that knowing / learning what's going on with your group (which I consider an actionable item, btw) is the best first step to an optimal resolution.

Alcore
2018-02-17, 10:04 AM
That applies to pretty much every example you gave. Police do better when they have the trust of their communities than when they wade in with the threat of violence for every suspected violation. Students do better when teachers work with and inspire them, not when they act as bullies and reflexively shut down debate. Parents who try the "in my house you live by my rules" end up with kids who lie to them and try to avoid attention. And so on.

And it wouldn't be any different here. The best case is that this guy's brother develops a seething resentment and quits. The worst case is that he stays and just starts passive-aggressively interacting with everyone, until either he gets kicked out or he drains the group's enthusiasm to the point that the whole group dissolves.
I have lived under parent and teacher figures like that; strangely they never once seemed to realize they might be at some fault for the situation. They are the authority figures i was the child, they were right i was wrong unless i agreed with both truth and their lies/ignorance, the sky is blue and grass is green.


Another thing i noticed: the one serious problem player i had still cannot understand how he could ever have been at fault. My response to all of them was rarely an enlightened one but i could still look back and say "i was wrong."


It's something that they can't do or can't admit to doing.



Kick him out of the group. He has problems. With you, himself and the RPG table. Respect must be established but it must be earned rather than demanded. Perhaps some space will put things in perspective?

Steel Mirror
2018-02-17, 10:52 AM
No, I completely got that you weren't espousing One True Wayism. Sorry that it came off as such an accusation - that was totally not my intent! EDIT: and sorry if my edits seemed designed to paint the wrong picture - IIRC, I tried to grab the parts where you were explicitly against One True Way. :smallredface:Then that was my problem that's what you get for replying late at night when you really should just be going to bed! :smallredface: I'll stick to commenting on the threads from now on, I'm getting too old and my inner grump is coming out.

That's another thing, when you cut off debate at the table in order to keep the game moving, you are well within your rights and are doing the table a favor (probably, unless everyone is more on board with dealing with these issues in game time, etc). But you should be prepared to complete the conversation later, in order to establish a more proper way to rule going forward, and part of that is ALSO to be prepared to be wrong. After rhetoric has cooled and you get some space from the situation, if you look back and realize you did an oopsie, you'll get a lot more credit from your fellow players if you own up to that and solidify the ruling going forward, and you'll have a better game both from rules perspectives and from group dynamics.

Calthropstu
2018-02-17, 11:25 PM
+1 this.

Also, this is the OP's brother. I'm rather horrified at the prospect that "beat them into submission" is actually something anyone would ever suggest as a reasonable course of action. Just no.

Your point? So what if he's his brother? That means he should get special treatment?
Sorry, I don't believe that one bit. If my brother tried this kind of crap, I'd boot him without a second thought. Disrupting the game like that ruins the fun for half a dozen people. If he's the gm, he has a responsibility to those people, and if that means reigning in or booting his brother then that's what he needs to do.

It works if you want a subordinate to perform some specific actions. It doesn't work if you want your table to enjoy the game tho. Players are not DM's subordinates also. The problem at hand is "how to resolve an ethical situation"...

Players ARE the GM's subordinates though. The GM is the adjudicator. He is the one with authority. No, he shouldn't abuse it but it does need to be exercised when needed.
I agree with everyone that dialog should be used first. But the op has said he tried that. Now it's time for the banhammer.


It's not the only way that works, nor is it the only way used.

True, but in this instance it's the one to use. His brother doesn't respect his authority and so it needs to be exercised.

ZeroSpace9000
2018-02-19, 01:34 AM
Your point? So what if he's his brother? That means he should get special treatment?


I think the idea is that the OP is expected to have to deal with their brother on the reg outside of game. Without knowing the OP's living arrangement, this could cause a whole bunch of drama at home. That's not to say the issue shouldn't be addressed, just that it requires more tact.

Quertus
2018-02-19, 02:27 AM
I think the idea is that the OP is expected to have to deal with their brother on the reg outside of game. Without knowing the OP's living arrangement, this could cause a whole bunch of drama at home. That's not to say the issue shouldn't be addressed, just that it requires more tact.

You put the subtext much better than I would have. Thank you.

Florian
2018-02-19, 06:28 AM
I think the idea is that the OP is expected to have to deal with their brother on the reg outside of game. Without knowing the OP's living arrangement, this could cause a whole bunch of drama at home. That's not to say the issue shouldn't be addressed, just that it requires more tact.

You've ever heard this one: "Injury is more quickly forgotten than insult"? There's truth in that.

MarkVIIIMarc
2018-02-19, 09:57 AM
Ey, brothers fight. If you two (him?) just aren't at the point in your relationship you can get along then maintain some distance.

Fighting over rules that much just doesn't happen at my table. Its awkward and makes other people bored.

Tell him out of character alone that in the next game you want to work with him on game flow then after the session you will look up whatever he has questions about.

************
On a side note, figure out how to get along if at all possible. If one of you two moves away or something worse happens its an opportunity lost you'll regret.

Ixidor92
2018-02-19, 12:08 PM
Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread and offered their input for a solution.

Since my relationship with my brother is still great (outside of this situation) I'll try a number of the solutions given for talking before and/or after the game. The last time we discussed solutions was immediately after another one of these arguments, so emotions were still heated at the time.

Again I'd like to thank everyone for helping with a problem that was intensely personal to me. I never expected this much feedback.

martixy
2018-02-19, 03:02 PM
On houserules.

Make sure all your houserules are in a document. Make sure this document is legible, and easy to refer to in-game. Make sure the players have access to this document, and that at least one printed copy is available at the table while playing. Keep the document manageable, a side of A4 is fine, two might be a bit excessive (this guideline will vary a lot for different groups, I could probably deal with 4 pages of A4, front and back, while I know people who'd struggle with a single side).

Now there is a difference between houserules and homebrew. Houserules change the game as written, homebrew provides new choices. As an example, 'reach weapons can hit those 5ft away from the user' is a valid houserule in 3.5, another might be 'alter self is permanent (concentration)' in 5e. Homebrew would be adding in a sex change spell (which I do need to talk about, considering my 5e character is now a caster and has been trangender since I came up with him).

Also, contrary to Darth Ultron, I recommend trying to be an adult about it. Childishness gets you nowhere in the long run.

Let me tell you, this does not always work. You can lead a horse to water...

Like for example the argument I just had.

I run a 3.P game, hence borrowing bits from both PF and 3.5.
I very clearly stated in my hourserule document how traits and flaws work in a game where both systems interact.
Yet my players insisted on asking me, only to have me point out that it's in the document.
Then I pasted the relevant bit in the chat we were in. Then I had to read it outloud and explain.

And an argument still ensued because they wouldn't understand 3 simple sentences.

Segev
2018-02-20, 12:21 PM
Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread and offered their input for a solution.

Since my relationship with my brother is still great (outside of this situation) I'll try a number of the solutions given for talking before and/or after the game. The last time we discussed solutions was immediately after another one of these arguments, so emotions were still heated at the time.

Again I'd like to thank everyone for helping with a problem that was intensely personal to me. I never expected this much feedback.

We're glad to help, so you're quite welcome. It's also nice to see somebody ask for advice and then consider and try to take it.

Definitely talk to him about it when you're not IN the heat of the moment. Explain why it's a problem, and that when you put your foot down during game, it's not to shut him down, but to move on with that session.

Do talk about it after the session. Figure out the rules you want to use going forward.

In corner cases where it really does make a difference to the playability of the PC or PCs involved going forward, I also suggest erring on the side of pro-PC. This isn't "bend the rules to keep the PCs alive," so much as "if you must make a call, make the call that doesn't cause major changes to the game going forward."

When it's not a PC-changing occurrence, go with whatever your gut tells you if you can't QUICKLY find rules that make sense.

Good luck!

Pex
2018-02-20, 01:28 PM
I'm not getting past he's your brother. There are argumentative players not related to the DM. Eventually either the player knocks it off or he's no longer playing whether he quits or is kicked out. That he's your brother gives him a failsafe. He can't be kicked out of the game. Technically he could, but family trumps everything. You need to convince him to knock it off as a brother, not DM.

Kelb_Panthera
2018-02-21, 04:33 AM
That being said...storming off is one of the absolute worst ways to handle this kind of situation. If you want to resolve this, you need to not pull that kind of stuff. It doesn't get anyone anywhere.

I get where you're coming from but this is advice you should be careful with.

I don't have a brother but I have had some very close friends and, I gotta tell ya, if things have become heated enough that I'm storming out then I'm doing so because it's the last thing I can do before things get physical. Even over an internet connection, the things that would follow if I didn't storm off would be a hell of a lot worse than just cutting the connection.

Patience and calm discourse are, of course, the preferred method for dealing with these things but telling people that may be at the end of their rope to just keep swinging isn't necessarily a good plan.

Short-version: storming off isn't always just being dramatic. Just sayin'.