Players saying no

[username1]

Last session I ran for my players I discovered a bit of a problem. My players would about 50% disagree with what I said. One round I would tell them 7 archers pop out of the trees and begin firing and the round later my players would tell me no, that the archers were still behind the trees and they couldn't shoot at them. And then we would have a argument over if I had said they came out of the trees, which I can prove they did as they were moved out of the trees on the battle map. Another problem I have is when the players disagree on some fact about an object. For example they were going up to a caravan in battle and I told them the only entry into the caravan is in the back of the cart through the cloth opening. We then had a argument about if there would be a opening at the front, which at a point I just said no, it doesn't and showed them the map I had drawn the day before. I understand I need to talk to them, I already have, but I want to know what you think of this. Do the players have the right to disagree about stuff that they didn't know that happened(Like when they get snuck up by a assassin who they thought was lying uncounsios on the ground, but was faking it and we have a argument about how he got up) or disagree about where something would be on a cart?

[Greywander]

As the DM you wield incredible power of the game, and I think it's only fair to allow players to voice their concerns and attempt to negotiate with you when they feel they're not being treated fairly. In many cases, this can lead to a better game because players can find solutions to puzzles/encounters that you didn't consider, or can assist with worldbuilding to make the world more varied and interesting.

On the other hand, you as the DM are the final authority in the game. If the players refuse to accept your final judgements, then it becomes impossible to play the game. When you say, "This is how it is," your word must be Law. You can negotiate, but when you put your foot down they must abide by your ruling. Otherwise you may as well abdicate your position as DM and let the players co-DM their own game.

I know some RPGs actually make it part of the system that players can help decide things that would normally be reserved for the DM. For example, the DM might say, "Archers start shooting you from the top of the cliff," and a player might spend a "plot token" to say, "But there's a ladder we can climb up to get to them." You might ask your players if they would like to try something kind of like that to allow them to decide a limited number of aspects of the world they're playing in. Basically, this helps the players to feel like they have more control over their play experience, and helps to delineate the boundaries of what they can influence and how often.

[Yerok LliGcam]

ive experimented with plot tokens, most the time players get used to using those, but look for opportunities to get them.


in an effort to avoid players "gaming" a rpg where its just about having fun and enjoying the story, i think at some point you have to say no back.

i'm a parent, and in my experience when you DM sometimes its like parenting. you have to accept the fact that they have their own minds and make their own decisions, but if they start saying "no, that didn't happen, i do this instead" you as the DM can most the time tell if they are being genuine about something, or if they just want to avoid ramifications for their decisions.

case in point: today during a lunch campaign my werebear paladin went to go take a piss off this pyramid. in my mind i went down the stairs going down the outside leading to the desert. in my DM's mind i was peeing INTO the pyraminds stairs going down.

he asks me to roll perception, i see something, and say "i go investigate" thinking i'm going into the sand, he says "as you enter into the pyramid" i go "wait wait wait, i thoguht i was peeing OUTSIDE down the OUTSIDE stairs."

after a quick "oh" moment, he allowed me to change what my guy did.

i think that was fair, but if my DM had said "no you went to these stairs" i think its fair for me as the player to say "...well sure. okay. what does it really matter. the story is progressing and i should accept that.

your example with the archers is a great point too, your players seem to be unwilling to accept danger. when adventuring is a career that leads to death and agony sometimes. they just need to learn to accept that.

out of curiosity. how "old" to ttrpg's is your group of players?

[lawgnome]

I agree. DM's word is law (with exceptions).

If you say "these guys jump out of the trees in an ambush", then those guys jumped out of the trees in an ambush. If the players didn't do anything about it, that is typically on them.

All that being said, the game is a collaborative one. It isn't "the DM vs the players", it is "the DM and the players playing together to make a fun story". If the players are pushing against things that you do as DM, ask them why. Get a conversation going, figure out what everyone does and does not want to do. At the same point, if you're railroading things to happen that come out of left field, then you are removing agency from them, meaning it is understandable that they would be annoyed.


Best thing I can think of doing is talking with your players about it.

[LudicSavant]

If your players are regularly surprised by details that would, in-character, be in fairly plain sight, you could probably stand to describe events better.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

If your players are regularly surprised by details that would, in-character, be in fairly plain sight, you could probably stand to describe events better.

Right. Either you have really disagreeable players or you're not describing the scene precisely.

[Demonslayer666]

They need to trust you or the game will fall apart.

Let everyone know your expectations and that you want to make a ruling and move on. Tell them if they have an issue to bring it up with you after the game, not during. You say what happens (not them) and they tell you what they do.

Remember, you are directing the game, so don't let arguments carry on. Make a ruling, right or wrong, and move on by asking the next person what they do.

[DMThac0]

One other thing to do is to assess what type of DM you are, just like players there are different types of DMs and they each come with their own risks. Reading your lament I got an impression that you might be a generous DM, giving the players the things they want more often than having them earn it. It's also possible you started the game generous, during creation and the first few sessions you said yes to a lot of the players' requests. Now that it's getting more serious, they've started to receive less of the yes and it's causing issue. If that's the case, communication is the key to bridging that gap, let them know that there is a shift in how the game is being handled.

On the other hand it may be that you have players who are bullying, which needs to be nipped quickly. Bullying players are common when they feel that their actions and decisions have more priority than the DMs. They feel that the DM is giving them things to defeat and overcome no matter what. When their plans don't work they will push to make it happen the way they want. As before, communication is the key here, but less about compromise and more about making it known that you are the DM and you are the one who relays what happens when they act.

Creating lines in the sand is hard, and unfortunately necessary. Talk to your players, get an understanding of what's causing the problem, and start to get everyone on the same page. Usually there's a simple misunderstanding that can be addressed, from there things will settle in and the game will run smoothly. Like the time my players were getting agitated about how slow the game was going, it took almost 3 weeks before I managed to drag it out of them that they felt that they weren't leveling fast enough. After talking to them I figured out I had missed giving them the level they had earned...they'd been stuck at level 4 for almost 3 months.

[Batou1976]

Last session I ran for my players I discovered a bit of a problem. My players would about 50% disagree with what I said. One round I would tell them 7 archers pop out of the trees and begin firing and the round later my players would tell me no, that the archers were still behind the trees and they couldn't shoot at them. And then we would have a argument over if I had said they came out of the trees, which I can prove they did as they were moved out of the trees on the battle map. Another problem I have is when the players disagree on some fact about an object. For example they were going up to a caravan in battle and I told them the only entry into the caravan is in the back of the cart through the cloth opening. We then had a argument about if there would be a opening at the front, which at a point I just said no, it doesn't and showed them the map I had drawn the day before. I understand I need to talk to them, I already have, but I want to know what you think of this. Do the players have the right to disagree about stuff that they didn't know that happened(Like when they get snuck up by a assassin who they thought was lying uncounsios on the ground, but was faking it and we have a argument about how he got up) or disagree about where something would be on a cart?

This sounds sort of like the reverse of a situation someone I gamed with for a while back in the 90s had. In her case, she would give the DM her action or response to what he said was happening, and then he would tell her “nah, YourPC does [something else] instead”… AND he was often a creep about it, too, apparently. Like: Player- “I go up the hill to see if I see any signs of a nearby settlement we can resupply at.” DM- “Nah, YourPC and Randy McDMPC go off into the woods a ways and totally do the nasty for like 2 hours.” … plus tell her specific, errrm, “actions” her character took or was subjected to during. :smalleek: Her boyfriend was also a player in this game, so he was present when this DM was pulling this crap. The DM did this to him a bit as well (mainly in an effort to kill off his PC I think) but she was by far the most frequent target; she had almost ZERO agency in deciding anything for her PC. Obviously, they didn’t stay in this game for very long. Like, one (waaaaaay too long) session only, IIRC.

Aaaaaaaanywho…

When situations like the archers happen, there’s a few things that could be going on. Did the players perhaps misunderstand your narration of what had happened? Be sure to give clear and adequate details of appearances, actions, movement, etc. Were one or more of them just not paying attention, perhaps doing something else? That really is rude and inconsiderate to you the DM, who spends their FREE TIME crafting adventures THEY SAID they wanted to play. Could they be gaslighting you? They might be trying to con their way into some sort of advantage for themselves or mitigate a disadvantage.

Do players “have the right” to argue with you about how a cart is constructed? Unless they’re cartwrights, they likely know just as much about carts as you do, and even if by some weird chance one or more of them ARE… well, it’s your game. YOU decide how YOUR cart in YOUR game is made. For them to quibble like that over such details is just petty.
With the assassin- did they check to verify he WAS in fact KOed? If not, they deserve whatever they got. OTOH, if they did their due diligence and you gave them every indication he was well and truly out of commission, then had him hop up and gank them, they were right to call BS on your shenanigans.

In short- be fair, impartial, reasonable, and consistent in your rulings and how you run the game. If you do that and they still are giving you this kind of static, they’re being jerkwads and need to stop. :smallconfused:

[intregus]

Based off of your examples I'd say the players need to be taught a lesson.

The dm decides what happens and what the setting looks like. If you're playing skyrim and find a covered wagon with 1 opening in the back you can't argue with the game to magically make an opening in the front. If the dm says there's only 1 opening then that's it, there's only 1 opening.

If they were to argue with me about the archers I'd apologize and say "You're right those archers can't shoot you yet they're behind the trees. I'm talking about these surprise archers that were under the effects of the spell invisibility and they're shooting at you."

The players don't get a say in those situations, your the dm if you want an ancient green dragon to show up out of a portal and kidnapp a player, they don't get to argue with you.

[Tawmis]

Last session I ran for my players I discovered a bit of a problem. My players would about 50% disagree with what I said. One round I would tell them 7 archers pop out of the trees and begin firing and the round later my players would tell me no, that the archers were still behind the trees and they couldn't shoot at them. And then we would have a argument over if I had said they came out of the trees, which I can prove they did as they were moved out of the trees on the battle map. Another problem I have is when the players disagree on some fact about an object. For example they were going up to a caravan in battle and I told them the only entry into the caravan is in the back of the cart through the cloth opening. We then had a argument about if there would be a opening at the front, which at a point I just said no, it doesn't and showed them the map I had drawn the day before. I understand I need to talk to them, I already have, but I want to know what you think of this. Do the players have the right to disagree about stuff that they didn't know that happened(Like when they get snuck up by a assassin who they thought was lying uncounsios on the ground, but was faking it and we have a argument about how he got up) or disagree about where something would be on a cart?

As the others have said - as the DM, your word is the final word. But abusing this power can make the game fall apart rapidly, also.

So finding a common ground is what's going to hopefully work best.

It could be that - in your head, you already know how the scene plays out - so you're not giving a lot of details. So the player(s) are painting a different vision in their head. I am notorious for doing this when I do my writing (for my book I've been working on for years upon years). In my head, I see the evergreen trees swaying in the gentle, crisp breeze of the mountain air - but when I write it down, it's very basic ("The trees sway in the wind.") I am still getting the message across - but it's not the same one that's in my head. So I've made this mistake as a DM also. So I try to be much more conscious of what I am describing - for example in the situation of the caravan, maybe they envisioned the old "western" caravans of the goldrush days and imagine where there's an opening in the front and the back.

Visuals, if not words, can always help - even if it's drawing it on a map. Draw the tree line, and then move the figures outside of the trees. Draw the caravan and show there's only one entrance. This might help those who may not be strong oral visualizers and require a physical visualization.

[Hotketchup]

Last session I ran for my players I discovered a bit of a problem. My players would about 50% disagree with what I said. One round I would tell them 7 archers pop out of the trees and begin firing and the round later my players would tell me no, that the archers were still behind the trees and they couldn't shoot at them. And then we would have a argument over if I had said they came out of the trees, which I can prove they did as they were moved out of the trees on the battle map. Another problem I have is when the players disagree on some fact about an object. For example they were going up to a caravan in battle and I told them the only entry into the caravan is in the back of the cart through the cloth opening. We then had a argument about if there would be a opening at the front, which at a point I just said no, it doesn't and showed them the map I had drawn the day before. I understand I need to talk to them, I already have, but I want to know what you think of this. Do the players have the right to disagree about stuff that they didn't know that happened(Like when they get snuck up by a assassin who they thought was lying uncounsios on the ground, but was faking it and we have a argument about how he got up) or disagree about where something would be on a cart?


This is very easy.. when your players tell you , "NO" then you just pack up your stuff and leave. They are not playing the same game as you and DMs are in an extreme demand vs players. How DARE they make you prove to them anything! This happened to me on a few occaisons and I left comepletely once tell them that if they didn't trust me, we had no game at all.,, a different time, I was just fine with it... of course they didn't appreciate the 4 beholders that were summoned and scared hell out of them.. This is your time as well as theirs.. they have to absolutely trust you or else the game isn't fun for you so why would you continue it..

Of course another time, I put in cursed items.. A Deck of Many Things, Rings of Clumsiness and the Belt of Gender Changing added to the fun. After a while they calmed their jets and moved on..

*YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF TO THE PLAYERS* You are held accountable as well, never forget.

[Tubben]

This is very easy.. when your players tell you , "NO" then you just pack up your stuff and leave. [...]

*YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF TO THE PLAYERS* You are held accountable as well, never forget.


Players dont have to accept everything the DM says without objections. And yes, even the DM has to explain himself, from time to time.

I wonder what your reaction would be, if the players would react the same way. Just stand up and leave if you do things they dont like.

[ShadowImmor]

While I agree with the sentiments most people have posted here already, I would like to add my 2CP.

And please before I start allow me to say YOUR WORD IS LAW. It is irrelevant what your players say about the situation, you are the final arbiter of everything in the game world EXCEPT what the PC's do.

HOWEVER.

Did your players get a roll? Did they have the opportunity to discover the ambush? Or the assassin sneaking up? (The cart is too bad, you described it, they have to deal with hit. They can always try and make another entrance with an axe, but the owner will be annoyed no doubt.)

If you didn't give your players a perception roll (or even make a stealth roll for the ambushers against the PCs Passive Perception) then the players will feel they have lost agency, or a deception roll for the assassin (opposed by passive insight, unless they actively check). This can lead to your players feeling they were cheated and like they are just part of a story your telling rather than active participants.

The only reason I ask is you didn't mention rolls in your Original Post, and so I wasn't sure if they had been done. If you had done them and the PCs failed, its tough luck they have to deal with their now unhappy consequences. If they passed, you could still have the ambush, but have anyone who passed the check not be surprised, or still able to use reactions or something.

I am always very wary of making decisions on the story that would usually involve a roll without a roll, because the players then feel that you aren't giving them a chance to deal with the threat or notice it.

I should point out you don't HAVE to make the rolls/give them the rolls, but it may help if you do.

[Pelle]

they have to absolutely trust you or else the game isn't fun for you so why would you continue it..




of course they didn't appreciate the 4 beholders that were summoned and scared hell out of them..



Of course another time, I put in cursed items.. A Deck of Many Things, Rings of Clumsiness and the Belt of Gender Changing added to the fun. After a while they calmed their jets and moved on..


Sounds like great ways to gain their trust...

[DeadMech]

Sometimes DMs make mistake. Sometimes players make mistakes. Something these mistakes are accidental. Sometimes they are deliberate attempts to bend situations to someone's advantage. Most of us have probably seen all of these things at least once.

If a player had casually mentioned talking to the caravan driver through the front window or front opening in the roleplaying before the fight I could see them being a bit miffed if suddenly the caravan no longer had that opening. Especially if there now only being that one opening caused allot of difficulty with getting the party out of it without suffering attacks of opportunity or forced movement through some ongoing enemy area of effect. Understandably if this detail was mentioned in casual rp or in a previous session a DM might have forgotten about it, or misheard it while they were busy with some other details.

The first step to adjudicating a dm/player disagreement should be to take a step back and see if there is merit to the complaint. We're human, we are capable of being wrong. Some DM's let the joke god complex of DM'ing become an actual god complex though. On the other hand I'd be lying if I said as a player I've never argued in bad faith just to see if I could weasel an advantage. "So I didn't move the round before I got paralyzed, right? Therefor I'm in a stable position on my flying broom and should remain seated instead of taking 15' of falling damage, forcing a concentration check on my ongoing spell, and falling prone within charging range of those two enemies. Right?" (Didn't think I was going to pull that past the DM. And I certainly didn't.)

On the other had when I reached into my coin pouch to find it empty after walking through market I felt a bit upset. I was told the DM rolled a passive perception check when I explicitly stated before we entered town that I was actively keeping an eye on my coin pouch. I feel rightfully miffed. Especially since the only reason we were pick pocketed was because by telling him I was on the lookout for pickpockets I reminded him that pickpockets exist. And having a feature that gives me advantage on perception checks but no bonus on passive perception it felt like this was another attempt to obviate my character's strengths.

[Finieous]

Based on your description of events, 90% chance your players are being dinks, 10% chance you're throwing one "gotcha" after another at them and they're getting sick of it. Archers can try to hide in trees, PCs have a chance to notice them. Assassins can play dead in the middle of the road (???), PCs aren't auto-surprised when he pops up and does whatever. Make sure you're enabling them to interact with the world and situations you set up and not just doing things to their characters.

[qube]

Do the players have the right to disagree about stuff that they didn't know that happened(Like when they get snuck up by a assassin who they thought was lying uncounsios on the ground, but was faking it and we have a argument about how he got up) or disagree about where something would be on a cart?I'd say, pick your battles.

For example they were going up to a caravan in battle and I told them the only entry into the caravan is in the back of the cart through the cloth opening. We then had a argument about if there would be a opening at the front, which at a point I just said no

Did that really matter on your part? If it's just about getting it your way, then you're not doing it right. If there actually is a reason why it's not the case - you can simply say "well, you're correct, that there could be an entrance, but this caravan doesn't have that".

Yerok LliGcam makes a great analogy with his 'being a parent'. You should be strick when it's needed, but let them have their way when it's not that important.
The archers - sure. Especially when you use a map, you can note "look, maybe I wasn't clear when I said X or you didn't hear me, but it's no accident they are like this on the map"

But the cart? if there's no good reason?
> Is there a front entrance
< you don't see any
> if the player is convienced carts have that, he'll possibly go and look
< roll a perception check
> player rolls an 18 & is trained
< "you find the entrance. Gosh darn, I didn't think you guys were going to find it, but well done ! "

instead of breaking the gameflow by having an argument, I found it much easier to let the dice speak. Like in the example above, with a high roll, sure I'll concide the argument & I'll give the player what he wants. When he rolls low ... well ... don't blame me you didn't "find" the entrance - you're the one who failed his roll :p


---
Likewise, back in the day (like DnD 3.0 days) a character tried to grapple to negate an enemies gaze attack & we had a large debate about it, including tryign to prove it physically one can grapple to evade eyes.

If that were to happen today ... "well, grapple is more like simply hodling someone's wrist. You'll have to restrain him, and additionally roll a decent dexterity check to grab him in such a way you also lock down his head"

Don't say "no" - say "yes/but, ... " or even better, "yes, and ..."

[Lombra]

But the cart? if there's no good reason?
> Is there a front entrance
< you don't see any
> if the player is convienced carts have that, he'll possibly go and look
< roll a perception check
> player rolls an 18 & is trained
< "you find the entrance. Gosh darn, I didn't think you guys were going to find it, but well done ! "
Well, if there isn't any entrance, they just don't find it...

[qube]

Well, if there isn't any entrance, they just don't find it...
considering the problem being
"Well, if there isn't any entrance," ... "We then had a argument about if there would be a opening at the front"
I'm not sure how you consider "they just don't find it." a solution (esp. in the case of a roll that should make 'm find it if it was there)

Personally, as DM, when I have to make a decision between my prep work & the quality of the game (of which gameflow is an important part), I usually pick the latter over the former. That's not to say that I give the party anything they want (after all, it wouldn't be much of an adventure if there weren't challenges), nor do I give the party things I can't work with myself (even as DM I am only human & have my limits) - but if it's something I can work with or work around - I see no reason not to endulge the players.

[ImproperJustice]

In reading the OP it reminded me of an old issue of the Knights of the dinner table where the GM insisted the players play a game of star trek when they really wanted to play fantasy hackmaster. So they spent the session in the holo-deck playing fantasy hackmaster with their star trek pcs.

The GM rolled with it until one of the PCs took a fatal arrow shot, ans one of the PCs shouted “Computer! Freeze Program and reset that arrow!”

At which point the PCs gained complete control of the game, and the GM could only watch as they played the game by themselves.

In regards to your situation: D&D is a very collaborative story telling experience. The first rule in overcoming conflict is going to be speaking to your players like they are real people/adults. You need them to play as much as they need you. Tell them that you put a lot of time into game design ao everyone can have fun. You will create challenges in an attempt to create tension and excitement with a worthwhile pay off. Sometimes things will not go their way. That being said, if there is ever confusion about how a scene is laid out or if they need more detail to please ask, and you may be willing to allow them to modify their choices accordingly.
What can’t happen is them changing the environment or npc actions on their own, as that robs you of your ability to set the stage for their gameplay.
Hopefully everyone will agree, and if they cannot it may be nescesaary to discuss things further or to part as friends / play something else for awhile.

[NaughtyTiger]

I had said they came out of the trees, which I can prove they did as they were moved out of the trees on the battle map

The OP did use visuals. Even if he explained something absolutely horribly, the players should have been clued in by the archers physically moved on the map.
The players knew or were not paying attention. Either way. ug.

[Sigreid]

Sounds like you should tell the players they are welcome to ask follow up clairlfying questions, but if they are set on trying to change the adventure you created for them someone else needs to DM.