PDA

View Full Version : The best way you've ever said "no" to a player.



Drache64
2018-08-17, 05:22 PM
What's the funnest/funniest way you've ever shut down a player?

I had a difficult player disrupting the party fighting for something arbitrary.

Werewolves had attacked a fort of Vikings stationed out in the wilderness. The players assisted in the defence and one player declared all the pelts belonged to him. The Vikings began to acquire their pelts as spoils of war. The difficult player decided to attack the nearest Viking while the rest of the party tried to establish diplomacy with the warrior Outpost.

I let the combat unfold and the difficult player beats the Viking. The other Vikings commend the player for his strength and allow him to take a pelt, but that's not good enough, he wants all the pelts. So when the Viking offers a handshake the player grabs the hand and initiates a headbutt.

Everyone around the table groans and can't believe this player is wrecking their diplomatic chances.

So as the DM I tell the player that he begins an assassins Creed style combat in the background where all the guards circle up and begin up attack. Then I ignore the combat and let the dialogue unfold between the other players and the NPC's. When the difficult player wants to participate in the conversation I tell him that he's still fighting in the background.

After diplomacy is set, the party is invited to stay the night in the hospital, difficult player is asked if he's done fighting and ready to take his one pelt and go to bed. He refuses to give up.

I then have all the players go to sleep and tell difficult player to roll a series of fortitude saves. He eventually passes out from fatigue and wakes up in the morning with sleep deficit penalties.

Another attack is looming and the players are asked how they want to spend the day preparing. Difficult player says he goes and looks for where all the pelts were kept.

At this point I pull up a YouTube clip of the mailroom from It's always Sunny in Philadelphia and tell him that the pelts are Pepe Silvia:

https://youtu.be/_nTpsv9PNqo

Basically I explain that the Vikings work with the Bard of the group (a player who was very upset with the difficult player's attitude) to establish a conspiracy so great that the difficult player is no longer sure the pelts ever existed. He's counted as shaken until he gives up his quest.

Afterwards he's given the one pelt he originally earned.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-17, 05:32 PM
That sounds annoying. You shouldn't do things like that.

Drache64
2018-08-17, 05:44 PM
That sounds annoying. You shouldn't do things like that.

I guess we could kick him from our gaming group

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-17, 06:02 PM
Kicking him or (fairly) killing his character would both be far more respectful than passive aggressively no-selling his actions in game.

Edit for more content:

Not that I think either of those things would be especially good responses either, mind you. Frankly, this sounds like the sort of player you should want in a game, someone to mix things up and make it interesting. So you have a belligerent jackass picking fights with vikings? That's great!

I'd say vikings are probably amused by him continuing to try to start ****. A headbutt is a good strong way to get their attention. So maybe they say they'll give him one pelt for every single combat he can win in a row until he can't keep fighting any more. (Probably make one roll or a series of rolls to represent the fighting rather than playing them all out). Presumably he can't beat the entire fort in single combat one at a time so eventually he loses. The vikings have a great time with this jerk, he gets some pelts and maybe walks away happy. Or maybe he sneaks around in the middle of the night and tries to steal the rest of them. If he does that, all bets are off. Someone being rowdy is entirely different from being a thief, and they want him dead. It's not like they don't know who probably stole the pelts and they don't care about proving it first either. They put an ultimatum to the rest of the party. "Bring us his head, or we'll treat you like his accomplices".

And now you have an interesting situation on your hands. Does the party sell him out? Do they flee the fort? Do they take on the entire fort over it? Who knows? And that's what makes it fun.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-17, 07:10 PM
That sounds annoying. You shouldn't do things like that.

Yeah, this sounds like a situation where the player should have been asked to let it go for now, and maybe have a decent portion of the pelts used as a reward for him doing something or as part of an exchange of gifts (of course nothing stops the players from stealing the rest of the pelts along with the gift they used Locate Object on, but I'm guessing most of your players weren't that type.

But the main reason that this is poor is that it'll lead to resentment. Assuming the PCs were counted as warriors, and the pelts were divided as evenly as possible in an 'X pelts per person' or 'X people per pelt' way, did the one pelt represent the party's 'fair share' (ideally after calculating the relative value of any other loot the party managed to liberate from their potential allies)? If not, the player might reasonably feel 'cheated' out of their share, especially if it wasn't explained to him when he first mentioned wanting to collect the pelts that the Vikings would likely do the same.

Now I have no-selled actions before, but generally only when they'd kick the session into 'I haven't prepared for this at all and will need a week to sort it out territory', and if something difficult happens (rare in the groups I've been in so far) I will pause the game and suggest everybody spends ten minutes away from the table before we discuss it out of game and ideally resolve it. Although there will be the occasional time where you can't solve it because a player is unwilling to comprimise and you cannot have players completely overrule you (although not allowing them to affect your rulings at all is bad, you've got to know when to stand firm, when to give in, and when to comprimise, and this is where you should have comprimised or politely asked the player to leave).

Quertus
2018-08-17, 08:04 PM
If there's a problem in a game, it's probably sitting in the GM's chair. That's general response to such things, and I see that the Playground is already kicking *** on that field.

Here, we have a player who wants pelts. They are given zero. When they try to take action to acquire some, they get one. When they try to take more actions, to acquire more, they are no-sold in a highly unrealistic way.

That having been said, what's this players problem? Why would he believe "I want everything" could possibly be a valid stance to take? I blame his GM's - past and present - for teaching him that this could possibly be a valid stance, and for not teaching him the basic concept of dividing loot.

Now, that having been said, if he asked the value of the pelts, and wanted to take that value out of his share, that would be a fine stance to negotiate from, depending on who else wanted pelts and why.

Heck, Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, might well attempt to claim some number of pelts, corpses, and even living specimens to study as part of the party fund, as the information he gains may well be useful to everyone.

Teach your players how to be decent human beings. The OP is not an example of how to do that.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-17, 08:13 PM
That having been said, what's this players problem? Why would he believe "I want everything" could possibly be a valid stance to take? I blame his GM's - past and present - for teaching him that this could possibly be a valid stance, and for not teaching him the basic concept of dividing loot.

Why wouldn't it be a valid stance? It's wrong, but that doesn't make it invalid. It's certainly his right to play a greedy unreasonable bastard if he wants to. Unless the game is specifically sold as not being about that, anyway.

Drache64
2018-08-17, 08:18 PM
If there's a problem in a game, it's probably sitting in the GM's chair. That's general response to such things, and I see that the Playground is already kicking *** on that field.

Here, we have a player who wants pelts. They are given zero. When they try to take action to acquire some, they get one. When they try to take more actions, to acquire more, they are no-sold in a highly unrealistic way.

That having been said, what's this players problem? Why would he believe "I want everything" could possibly be a valid stance to take? I blame his GM's - past and present - for teaching him that this could possibly be a valid stance, and for not teaching him the basic concept of dividing loot.

Now, that having been said, if he asked the value of the pelts, and wanted to take that value out of his share, that would be a fine stance to negotiate from, depending on who else wanted pelts and why.

Heck, Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, might well attempt to claim some number of pelts, corpses, and even living specimens to study as part of the party fund, as the information he gains may well be useful to everyone.

Teach your players how to be decent human beings. The OP is not an example of how to do that.

No offense but you guys are kind of missing the point of the post. It was how did you shut down a player in a fun way. You guys are jumping to conclusions without knowing the context of the situation. I was trying to keep my word count low for the causal readers. The truth is this player is a typical problem players who 4/4 DM's have admitted they have problems with him wrecking fun for the rest of the party. He's the type of player who seeks to always be the star of the show and if he doesn't get enough star time he begins to stab random NPC's, they've failed countless missions because of his antics.

We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background, but this wasn't supposed to be about how to corral a bad player, it was to talk about fun ways DMs have said "no" to a player.

I have DM'd for over 20 consistent people over the years through about 3 different groups and I hear nothing but praise of how I handle situations and players so I'm not really looking random strangers criticism over the internet. If you're not interesting in discussing the topic at hand, no biggie, just find another topic you're interested in and post there.

P.S.
The problem player actually stated he prefers my DM style over any other DM he's had and I'm currently running him through a solo campaign 1 on 1 where he is free to shine as the star

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-17, 08:29 PM
No offense but you guys are kind of missing the point of the post. It was how did you shut down a player in a fun way. You guys are jumping to conclusions without knowing the context of the situation. I was trying to keep my word count low for the causal readers. The truth is this player is a typical problem players who 4/4 DM's have admitted they have problems with him wrecking fun for the rest of the party. He's the type of player who seeks to always be the star of the show and if he doesn't get enough star time he begins to stab random NPC's, they've failed countless missions because of his antics.

If everyone dislikes playing with him then the correct choice is to stop playing with him, not to abuse GM power to troll him in game.


We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background, but this wasn't supposed to be about how to corral a bad player, it was to talk about fun ways DMs have said "no" to a player.

The most fun I've had saying "no" to a player is when I stop, think over what they're saying and consider it to make sure I'm being fair, and then say something along the lines of "I don't think that's going to work because X valid IG/mechanical reason".

Mastikator
2018-08-17, 09:31 PM
It would be far more satisfying to look him in the eye and say "you're being a selfish jerk, you need to stop it before we kick you out".

Rhunder
2018-08-17, 10:36 PM
I don't recall telling my players no all that often, I can't think of once currently. I make their actions have reasonable consequences and that usually prevents dumb moves or if a player insists on doing something completely uncalled for, I've done a poor job explaining the situation and have to backtrack to better paint the setting. Typically, players characters should be predictable for the DM if he knows his players. But maybe I've just been fortunate thus far in my gaming career.

KillianHawkeye
2018-08-17, 11:10 PM
Yeah, I'm with the majority here. I don't tell my players "no." I might remind them of something they've forgotten about when they're barking up the wrong tree, or just let them know that they don't have all the information yet, but if they insist on being aggressively wrong I'm more than happy to let them dig their own graves.

Quertus
2018-08-18, 12:07 AM
Why wouldn't it be a valid stance? It's wrong, but that doesn't make it invalid. It's certainly his right to play a greedy unreasonable bastard if he wants to. Unless the game is specifically sold as not being about that, anyway.

Ah, my beloved Playground, home of the best in pedantry. Yes, I have used my words too loosely. It is not an... acceptable stance... to... assume that one can successfully stake a claim to something... just by saying so? Is that more what I was trying to say?


No offense but you guys are kind of missing the point of the post. It was how did you shut down a player in a fun way. You guys are jumping to conclusions without knowing the context of the situation. I was trying to keep my word count low for the causal readers. The truth is this player is a typical problem players who 4/4 DM's have admitted they have problems with him wrecking fun for the rest of the party. He's the type of player who seeks to always be the star of the show and if he doesn't get enough star time he begins to stab random NPC's, they've failed countless missions because of his antics.

We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background, but this wasn't supposed to be about how to corral a bad player, it was to talk about fun ways DMs have said "no" to a player.

I have DM'd for over 20 consistent people over the years through about 3 different groups and I hear nothing but praise of how I handle situations and players so I'm not really looking random strangers criticism over the internet. If you're not interesting in discussing the topic at hand, no biggie, just find another topic you're interested in and post there.

P.S.
The problem player actually stated he prefers my DM style over any other DM he's had and I'm currently running him through a solo campaign 1 on 1 where he is free to shine as the star

The issue is this: "We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background". I'll not idly sit by while someone promotes something this toxic as good.

Now, let me explain that.

What I'm saying is, for most players, there are better ways of handling problems. For most players, this would be a **** move on your part. For most players - even most "bad" players - you just need to help them on a better path.

But, yes, sometimes, you encounter a player who isn't ready to behave more maturely yet. Sometimes, you know what path you'd love to help them towards, but know that they're not ready to walk that path yet. And, occasionally, you've got someone who could be led to a better path, but you're not the one to bring them there.

Now, the Playground might insist that, even for such a player, you're being a ****. Me, in not there. I'm just refusing to glorify something so generally toxic without a) appropriate warning labels as to its general toxicity; b) some clear explanation of why it's the least toxic solution to your current problem. I think that the Playground had done a reasonable job on "a".

My other concern is, are there any responses to your question that you would consider valid, that aren't themselves also generally toxic?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-18, 12:16 AM
Ah, my beloved Playground, home of the best in pedantry. Yes, I have used my words too loosely. It is not an... acceptable stance... to... assume that one can successfully stake a claim to something... just by saying so? Is that more what I was trying to say?

I don't see any sign that he's doing that, though? It's not an acceptable stance for the character to outrageously lay claim to a bunch of stuff he has no claim on. It's not an unacceptable stance for the player to make a character who would do that sort of thing. And really, this conversation is about the player, not about how much of a jerk the character is.

Quertus
2018-08-18, 12:28 AM
I don't see any sign that he's doing that, though? It's not an acceptable stance for the character to outrageously lay claim to a bunch of stuff he has no claim on. It's not an unacceptable stance for the player to make a character who would do that sort of thing. And really, this conversation is about the player, not about how much of a jerk the character is.

So, even if i word stance correctly, you would still disagree with my basic premise? Hmmm...

So, when trying to troubleshoot something like this, I'd start at the first sign of trouble, and ask the player, "when you had your character lay claim to all the pelts, what did you expect would happen?".

The Giant's advice of "just play differently" or whatever is actually antithetical to solving the problem here, IME. Instead, I've found it much more successful to get them to play someone who wouldn't do that. Shrug. Not sure if it's externalizing the problem that makes it more acceptable to fix, or if I play with more stubborn roleplayers like myself, but that's what I've seen.

But I'm side tracking myself. I guess my question is, if not at the bold declaration of claiming all the pelts, where do you consider the first sign of trouble / the most actionable item / whatever? How, rather than putting him in the background (or kicking him out), would you deal with such a player?

icefractal
2018-08-18, 12:43 AM
I'm going to dispute the prevailing opinion here - this is potentially a perfectly good way to deal with a spotlight-hogging player, and it sounds like it worked fine for the OP and their group.

Thinking that the GM should be impartial in adjudication doesn't mean giving total control of the "camera" to any player who asks. The OP didn't deny the player the ability to fight the Vikings, he merely treated the fight with the appropriate level of detail - mostly offscreen, because only one player out of the group was interested in it.

For people saying this is unacceptable - if a player said "Hey, I want to switch the game to a solo one about my PC for the next couple hours" or "I think I should have sole veto power on any alliances the party wants to make" would you just agree automatically?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-18, 01:07 AM
The Giant's advice of "just play differently" or whatever is actually antithetical to solving the problem here, IME. Instead, I've found it much more successful to get them to play someone who wouldn't do that. Shrug. Not sure if it's externalizing the problem that makes it more acceptable to fix, or if I play with more stubborn roleplayers like myself, but that's what I've seen.

Playing a character like this is not an issue.


But I'm side tracking myself. I guess my question is, if not at the bold declaration of claiming all the pelts, where do you consider the first sign of trouble / the most actionable item / whatever? How, rather than putting him in the background (or kicking him out), would you deal with such a player?

In this situation? It's trouble if the player is just doing things like this "for the lulz" and doesn't care about his character or the campaign. It's totally fine (good even!) if he's doing it because he's interested in portraying a belligerent jackass of a character. That just leads to entertaining situations. It's also a problem if the player cries foul over reasonable consequences happening as a result of his belligerent jackassery. If you want to pick a fight with a fort full of vikings you don't get to complain about it if you end up getting whupped and dumped naked in the snow and freeze to death. Edit - it's also a problem if the game as pitched about being something that's clearly incompatible. If I say "This is a game in which you're playing upstanding knights of virtue and compassion" and then you do this then you're also a problem.

And I don't think I would deal with it in a way other than having a word with the player OOC between sessions and/or kicking him out. Either of those problems I listed make him an incompatible player, and I don't have a lot of tolerance for that.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-18, 02:02 AM
Since no one else will, I'll voice my support of the OP

There is a definite code of conduct at my table. It's not terribly restrictive - but it is absolute: If you cannot play nicely with the other children, you can play however the frag you like, all alone, somewhere else. My table, my rules, no discussion.

I do have a good deal of leeway before sending someone away, however - a sort of grace period in which I make it clear that once my answer has been given (no, you cannot have all the pelts), it's not going to change.

You go fight the vikings for the pelts - they kick your hindside all over camp, all night long, and when you wake next morning, you're a 1 hp, battered and bruised, and the chief would like a heartfelt and very convincing apology, before they let you have your weapons back.

And the message really is a simple one: Respect my authority at my table - or find another. You can play a bastard if the other players are fine with it, but since they're not, you can't. And it really is totally non-negotiable.

Lalliman
2018-08-18, 01:54 PM
And the message really is a simple one: Respect my authority at my table - or find another. You can play a bastard if the other players are fine with it, but since they're not, you can't. And it really is totally non-negotiable.
I agree with your point on DM authority, but you're talking about OOC solutions (kicking the player) and IC solutions (fiatting away his actions) as if they are the same thing. That doesn't really address the conflict because most people here are arguing that you should do the former, not the latter.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-18, 02:30 PM
I agree with your point on DM authority, but you're talking about OOC solutions (kicking the player) and IC solutions (fiatting away his actions) as if they are the same thing. That doesn't really address the conflict because most people here are arguing that you should do the former, not the latter.

I think I said that ... 'if you tell a bunch of raiders - in their own village, no less - that you're going to rob them, you'll get beaten like a red-headed stepchild'.

How it would actually go in my group would likely be: I'd explain 'that's propably a very bad idea, and will go very badly for you'. Then, if the player ignored that warning, I'd let him do as he pleases, and it would go very badly for him.

But I guess I agree: As GM, sure you can have a code of conduct. But if a player misbehaves, so to speak, the solution isn't for the GM to misbehave more =)

Nifft
2018-08-18, 03:05 PM
It's weird that I'm seeing posts which talk about how players learned bad habits from previous DMs, but somehow chafe at the idea that the current DM help educate the problematic player.

What the OP did seems pretty reasonable.

- Player X wanted to be an anti-social spotlight-hog.

- DM allowed the PC to perform his anti-social actions, but did not allow any spotlight-hogging.

- Player X may have learned that anti-social behavior will not be rewarded, which might result in future behavior that is less anti-social.


If Player X continues to be anti-social, then it might be justified to consider kicking him out. At the moment, he just sounds like someone who has a few wrong ideas about what is expected behavior from characters, and what is acceptable at the gaming table. That's usually not an insolvable problem -- when it is insolvable, then you kick the guy out. Before that, you try to inform & educate, ideally without removing agency.

oudeis
2018-08-18, 03:17 PM
I'm in the OP's camp on this. That was a hilarious way to deal with someone who was clearly trying to bend both GM and game to his will by insisting on such an obviously unworkable idea. Good job!

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-18, 03:26 PM
I think I said that ... 'if you tell a bunch of raiders - in their own village, no less - that you're going to rob them, you'll get beaten like a red-headed stepchild'.

How it would actually go in my group would likely be: I'd explain 'that's propably a very bad idea, and will go very badly for you'. Then, if the player ignored that warning, I'd let him do as he pleases, and it would go very badly for him.

And I have zero issue with this. My issue is cringy GM fiat trolling the player. I would have zero problem with this PC getting killed for this sort of stupid behaviour, that's showing the player the respect of acknowledging their actions and responding appropriately in an IC way. It could certainly pass into bad GM territory if the GM was just using IC responses as an excuse to punish anything he didn't want the PC to be doing, but a violent response from the vikings would be aggressively justified in this particular case. And frankly, I suspect the player knew that and was okay with it.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-18, 04:51 PM
My issue is cringy GM fiat trolling the player.

I think the difference between my post and the OP is mainly semantics. I realize we use different words, but I feel we're describing very similar situations, and identical outcomes. But ... meh, I don't feel strongly about it either way. I've never actually had a player like this - well, not IRL, there was one guy in a pbp, here on these boards. Long ago.

That's almost funny, actually. He wanted a techpriest build I told him at character creative wouldn't fly. He played for months - then insisted I allow the same build I'd originally told him I wouldn't. When I still didn't, he actually posted, stating he'd frag the void engines of the ships they were on, killing everyone.

I had to tell the moderators to please have a word with him.

Nifft
2018-08-18, 06:03 PM
And I have zero issue with this. My issue is cringy GM fiat trolling the player. I would have zero problem with this PC getting killed for this sort of stupid behaviour, that's showing the player the respect of acknowledging their actions and responding appropriately in an IC way. It could certainly pass into bad GM territory if the GM was just using IC responses as an excuse to punish anything he didn't want the PC to be doing, but a violent response from the vikings would be aggressively justified in this particular case. And frankly, I suspect the player knew that and was okay with it.

Of course the player would have been okay with playing out a fight -- that would ensure nobody else got the DM's attention, since he'd be controlling the angry Vikings instead of RP'ing with the rest of them.

Your idea is bad because you're playing right into what rewards the spotlight-hog: focus on his misbehavior instead of allowing the rest of the group to play their characters.

The DM's solution was smart and appropriate specifically because the anti-social spotlight hog was not rewarded with control over the spotlight.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-18, 06:39 PM
Of course the player would have been okay with playing out a fight -- that would ensure nobody else got the DM's attention, since he'd be controlling the angry Vikings instead of RP'ing with the rest of them.

I have specifically said, in this very thread, this is probably a situation where you resolve the fight with a single roll, or a series of opposed rolls, instead of playing it out mechanically. Opposed attack bonus rolls, winner wins the fight, if you fail to win by more than 10 you take the difference in damage, would be an example of a quick easy way to resolve this. Or, if the fight is overwhelming, you make a roll to see how many of them he can take down before he loses.


Your idea is bad because you're playing right into what rewards the spotlight-hog: focus on his misbehavior instead of allowing the rest of the group to play their characters.

Maybe I haven't said this clearly enough. What this player did is not a problem. It's not "misbehaviour" or any other condescending term. It's called roleplaying. Now, perhaps this player is a problem in general, but that has no bearing on this specific situation.


The DM's solution was smart and appropriate specifically because the anti-social spotlight hog was not rewarded with control over the spotlight.

To be clear, taking it on yourself to punish a player by trolling him is ****ed up. If you have issues with the player you talk to him OOC about it, and, if that doesn't work, you remove him from the group. You don't bull**** him and undermine his agency and then laugh about it on the internet.

Nifft
2018-08-18, 06:51 PM
To be clear, taking it on yourself to punish a player by trolling him is ****ed up. If you have issues with the player you talk to him OOC about it, and, if that doesn't work, you remove him from the group. You don't bull**** him and undermine his agency and then laugh about it on the internet. It looks like you're confused about what agency means.

The disruptive player retained agency, but not spotlight.

The disruptive player was allowed to act exactly as he wanted to act, and the universe didn't auto-kill him for that. The DM's solution was clever because the disruptive player's actions didn't overrule the actions of everyone else in the party. Everyone else was also allowed to retain agency -- and their agency was frankly more interesting, so they got spotlight.

The disruptive player wasn't fiat'd, wasn't trolled, and wasn't allowed to disrupt the game -- all while retaining agency.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-18, 07:22 PM
The disruptive player was allowed to act exactly as he wanted to act, and the universe didn't auto-kill him for that. The DM's solution was clever because the disruptive player's actions didn't overrule the actions of everyone else in the party. Everyone else was also allowed to retain agency -- and their agency was frankly more interesting, so they got spotlight.

The disruptive player wasn't fiat'd, wasn't trolled, and wasn't allowed to disrupt the game -- all while retaining agency.

Nope. Fighting an endless stream of vikings until you pass out is not agency. Because it makes no sense and is a ridiculous situation. Realistically, they should probably have killed him. Being kept alive through GM fiat is every bit as much stealing your agency as being killed through GM fiat.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-18, 07:34 PM
It looks like you're confused about what agency means.

The disruptive player retained agency, but not spotlight.

The disruptive player was allowed to act exactly as he wanted to act, and the universe didn't auto-kill him for that. The DM's solution was clever because the disruptive player's actions didn't overrule the actions of everyone else in the party. Everyone else was also allowed to retain agency -- and their agency was frankly more interesting, so they got spotlight.

The disruptive player wasn't fiat'd, wasn't trolled, and wasn't allowed to disrupt the game -- all while retaining agency.

Did we read the same story? (I'm assuming we're discussing the OP here, I can't find another one this could refer to.)

The player was denied agency. Any agency at all. In fact the GM's reaction in this story is horrifically over the top. He is denied agency, not allowed to participate (the one bit that may or may not be reasonable), there's an implication that he is told how his character thinks, and is slapped with a debuff.

All for a disagreement over how loot was split.

The way to deal with a spotlike hog is to make it impossible for him to hold the spotlight (I should know, I've been on the recieving end enough myself). But the key is to do that while still allowing them to participate, and that's the real problem. The player wasn't allowed to participate at all, and has now been railroaded into accepting one pelt (he should honestly be able to bargain his way up to a decent minority with goods and services). In fact I find it strange that the PCs apparently weren't offered a share of the loot in exchange for helping, that's honestly normal practice in most games (the only times I might see NPCs taking all the loot is if the party has signed a contract exchanging that 'right' for an up front payment).

Now I get that werewolf pelts are likely the most valuable bit of loot by far, barring a potentially intact corpse delivered to an institute of learning, but even then I'd generally assume that each of the PCs would be offered a pelt in exchange for their help, especially if they brought gifts to help with their diplomacy (and it's generally a good idea). Maybe fashioned into a werecloak (magical item, +2 to checks against cold, +1 armour/AC against shapeshifters/under a full moon) or snazzy jacket (this one likely being done when they get home).

We have a player overreaction to the GM going a tad overboard with the Vikings, and the GM going overboard even though the player's request being unreasonable. It's also terribly unfun to be put in that situation, and most spotlight hogs will act out even more as a consequence.

RazorChain
2018-08-18, 07:36 PM
I think the best no I've said to a player was something along these lines "No you cannot because (enter a reasonable explanation)"

Nifft
2018-08-18, 08:11 PM
Did we read the same story? (I'm assuming we're discussing the OP here, I can't find another one this could refer to.)

The player was denied agency. Any agency at all. In fact the GM's reaction in this story is horrifically over the top. He is denied agency, not allowed to participate (the one bit that may or may not be reasonable), there's an implication that he is told how his character thinks, and is slapped with a debuff. He was allowed to fight once, and he got (some, not all) of what he'd wanted.


Werewolves had attacked a fort of Vikings stationed out in the wilderness. The players assisted in the defence and one player declared all the pelts belonged to him. The Vikings began to acquire their pelts as spoils of war. The difficult player decided to attack the nearest Viking while the rest of the party tried to establish diplomacy with the warrior Outpost.

I let the combat unfold and the difficult player beats the Viking. The other Vikings commend the player for his strength and allow him to take a pelt, but that's not good enough, he wants all the pelts. So when the Viking offers a handshake the player grabs the hand and initiates a headbutt.

Everyone around the table groans and can't believe this player is wrecking their diplomatic chances.

So as the DM I tell the player that he begins an assassins Creed style combat in the background where all the guards circle up and begin up attack. Then I ignore the combat and let the dialogue unfold between the other players and the NPC's. When the difficult player wants to participate in the conversation I tell him that he's still fighting in the background.

After diplomacy is set, the party is invited to stay the night in the hospital, difficult player is asked if he's done fighting and ready to take his one pelt and go to bed. He refuses to give up.
... but then he kept fighting.

So the DM says: fine, your character is still fighting. But now everybody else gets a turn in the spotlight. Everybody else got to negotiate while Mr. Disruption's character did exactly what he wanted his character to do.


The way to deal with a spotlike hog is to make it impossible for him to hold the spotlight (I should know, I've been on the recieving end enough myself). But the key is to do that while still allowing them to participate, and that's the real problem. The player wasn't allowed to participate at all, and has now been railroaded into accepting one pelt (he should honestly be able to bargain his way up to a decent minority with goods and services). In fact I find it strange that the PCs apparently weren't offered a share of the loot in exchange for helping, that's honestly normal practice in most games (the only times I might see NPCs taking all the loot is if the party has signed a contract exchanging that 'right' for an up front payment). Presumably that's exactly where the negotiation was headed -- until Mr. Disruptive sabotaged the negotiation by dishonoring the chief's hand-shake and head-butting the chief.


We have a player overreaction to the GM going a tad overboard with the Vikings, and the GM going overboard even though the player's request being unreasonable. It's also terribly unfun to be put in that situation, and most spotlight hogs will act out even more as a consequence. Being put in the situation of "Ah, you have won a partial victory! The NPCs commend your strength and want to shake your hand!"

Then being given part (not all) of what he wanted.

That's a terribly unfun situation?

That's where he was when he first started blatantly acting out.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-18, 08:23 PM
Since no one else will, I'll voice my support of the OP

Me too. #Table code of conduct.


In general I don't say 'no', but more like sideline the character...and make what do not matter at all. And eventually, just kill the character.

My best fun ways:

*Having objects animate and attack a character. Like that jerk player that tries to steal the baron's silverware at dinner...they find themselves fighting animated spoons, plates and such. The poor character will get beaten down to only a couple hit points, loose items, and suffer not easily curable affections. All from a silver spoon.

*Goldbugs. Tiny gold bugs that look like gold coins. The greedy player has the character grab them and get bitten...often death, but also lots of fun effects.

*The Immortals. The jerk player has their character walk into the shop....and attack the shopkeeper! The 'keeper just avoids the attack or catches it or even directs it back at the character.

*Come Backs. The jerk player has their character walk into the shop....and attack the shopkeeper! They loot the shop and are all happy. Later, they come back to the shop...and find the same shopkeeper their like nothing happened. This gets jerk players so mad...they go crazy and will attack the shop again. Maybe even wait for it to respawn. Though mostly they just yell and scream as they run out of the game.

Chad Hooper
2018-08-19, 12:29 AM
Back at OP: IMO, you handled that well.

Back in the early days of 2e, before it was called that and was new, I had a player who insisted he wanted to play an Elven Ninja.

I obligingly created a Ninja class for Elves via the Custom Class rules in the 2nd ed. core books. Thanks to the player's wish list "fighter THAC0, non-human, Thief abilities, Spell casting", etc., it was IIRC 5000 XP from 1st to 2nd level.

Problem player tolerated slow advancement until some other PCs were (I think) around 5th level (thief probably 8th) and he was just 2nd.

He surrendered at that point and agreed to convert to a (still slow advancing) fighter/cleric/thief (god of Night, so fitting).

So I said no without ever actually saying, "no", but it still had the same effect in the long run.

SirBellias
2018-08-19, 01:28 AM
So I said no without ever actually saying, "no", but it still had the same effect in the long run.

See, that's what I find interesting about this- you did exactly what the rules allowed and what he asked for, which doesn't sound like saying "no" at all. The fact that it didn't work out is a fault of the rules for making custom classes and ultimately the player's informed decision in spite of that (provided it was informed). I wouldn't count that as saying "no," just as I really wouldn't count the OPs situation as saying "no." Their characters did exactly what they wanted them to, it just didn't have the results they anticipated.

The only real confusing bit I saw is when the "problem player" tries to participate in the conversation and is denied because he is still fighting. Which makes perfect sense, mind you, and if he had the opportunity to stop fighting during the conversation then it's still completely fine, he's just otherwise preoccupied and most people aren't good enough at multitasking to fight a hoard of vikings and... negotiate with a different group belonging to the same vikings. If he didn't have the opportunity to surrender during the talk, then that'd be a violation of player agency, which is bad manners.

It's important that the characters each get a roughly proportionate amount of screen time (if they want it), and to that effect if a majority of a party wants screen time and is on one page, then that page should get proportionately more screen time.

That being said, if someone wants to do something different than the rest of the party and potentially screw something up, I'd allow it and give it the proportionate amount of screen time. If they screw it up for the party, then that sucks for the party. They will likely have a chance of making amends by ostracizing or otherwise deal with the party member, which is a realistic consequence in a profession that allows for getting eaten by jello. Then all's well and good.

Now I for one would find the fact that a party member challenged (through force) an entire viking fort for some pelts incredibly amusing and spared no expense in describing how he gets trounced. After giving him an appropriate fighting chance, or chance to surrender and keep some integrity. The rest of the party will probably be given a chance to explain themselves or denounce the greedy bar stud, he'd get wrecked and dealt with in an appropriate way, and be allowed to roll a new character for next time if the appropriate way is death. There would probably be a talk afterwards about making a character more cohesive with the party if they wanted backup, but I generally trust my players to know how to make the story good for everyone, even if the finer points of that haven't been learned yet.

But by all means, if it's a new player, I'd talk to that player and see if they understand why the situation played out the way it did, how sharing works, and why I'm not willing to expend more effort on them than anyone other dedicated player. If they do it anyways after that, they're doing it on purpose as an in character stupid decision, and it's all part of the fun. If they run through a couple characters like this, and everyone is fine with this fact, then there's no issue. If I/my party is getting annoyed with introducing another fool, telling them that their current style isn't jiving with everyone's fun is the next step, and they may be removed from the table if they keep going.

On topic, I think the only time I've had to say "no" was if they wanted to do some awful homebrew jankery as part of their build, were a fair bit too liberal with the interpretation of rules, or that one time in my first campaign where someone was caught stealing from the castle vault and weren't truly given an opportunity to escape before being hanged, but the guard could have been on point in that case. Not that they were anything special, I was just getting annoyed and was like 12 at the time. I've learned better at this point.

So, in my recollection, the best way I've ever said "no" to a player is vocally and out of character, while explaining why that wouldn't work with the current game/physics/perception of reality. Boring, I know, but it works well for me, and any disputes are handled within 30 seconds, usually in favor of the best in game reason.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-19, 05:54 AM
He was allowed to fight once, and he got (some, not all) of what he'd wanted.

... but then he kept fighting.

So the DM says: fine, your character is still fighting. But now everybody else gets a turn in the spotlight. Everybody else got to negotiate while Mr. Disruption's character did exactly what he wanted his character to do.

He is directly barred from being a part of the game, for what's implied to be an extended time. It is in fact implied that Steve* wanted to participate, but because of his action was denied the opportunity. Now should Steve's character have been punished for this? Heck, I'd probably have given his character a penalty on all social skill rolls for wanting far more than his share, but instead he is told he is continually fighting an infinite string of Vikings before he has to make a bunch of Fortitude saves. He's then told he was knocked out and wakes up in the morning with no pelts.


Presumably that's exactly where the negotiation was headed -- until Mr. Disruptive sabotaged the negotiation by dishonoring the chief's hand-shake and head-butting the chief.

Probably, but Steve was still denied the ability to negotiate at all.


Being put in the situation of "Ah, you have won a partial victory! The NPCs commend your strength and want to shake your hand!"

Then being given part (not all) of what he wanted.

That's a terribly unfun situation?

That's where he was when he first started blatantly acting out.

Does that require Steve to be told he's not allowed to participate?

* Might was well give him a name.

gooddragon1
2018-08-19, 07:56 AM
Me: So is it allowed?
DM: I'm going to have to give you a rain check on that one. And by rain I mean when it rains fire.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-19, 10:55 AM
Heck, I'd probably have given his character a penalty on all social skill rolls for wanting far more than his share, but instead he is told he is continually fighting an infinite string of Vikings before he has to make a bunch of Fortitude saves. He's then told he was knocked out and wakes up in the morning with no pelts.

This is one of the notable absurd parts. Presumably this PC is not, in fact, a six year old with a wooden sword. If he's fighting for a minute the result is presumably going to be some dead vikings. If he's fighting until well into the night the result is presumably going to be all the dead vikings. And I cannot imagine a situation in which calm negotiations are being held while the bodies start to pile up in the background, or a situation in which things don't escalate further once people start dying.

Not that I think he should have been winning the fight, just that it's absurd to suggest that he can be tarpitted indefinitely by vikings without casualties. What should have happened was that he loses the fight relatively quickly, possibly with some casualties on the other side, and things should progress from there.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-19, 11:59 AM
This is one of the notable absurd parts. Presumably this PC is not, in fact, a six year old with a wooden sword. If he's fighting for a minute the result is presumably going to be some dead vikings. If he's fighting until well into the night the result is presumably going to be all the dead vikings. And I cannot imagine a situation in which calm negotiations are being held while the bodies start to pile up in the background, or a situation in which things don't escalate further once people start dying.

Not that I think he should have been winning the fight, just that it's absurd to suggest that he can be tarpitted indefinitely by vikings without casualties. What should have happened was that he loses the fight relatively quickly, possibly with some casualties on the other side, and things should progress from there.

Yeah, the Vikings should have knocked him out or restrained him fairly quickly (ideally the latter, so he can still participate). At this point he's done as much damage to the PC's bargaining position as he's able to, letting him snark from the sidelines is probably only going to improve things.

Have I had players insane to participate before? Yes, and even been in the situation myself (not helped by a tendency to dump CON or WIS equivalents), and it feels much better for the recipient if A) it's 'fair' (within game rules) and B) there's a clear exit condition (e.g. first aid to get you from 'wounded' to 'walking wounded'). Gets neither here, just railroading GM fiat.

Cluedrew
2018-08-19, 02:18 PM
Although it is not the most fun way I think the best way is to look across the table, look them in the eye, and say "no".

And then explain why you said no.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-19, 03:05 PM
If he's fighting for a minute the result is presumably going to be some dead vikings. If he's fighting until well into the night the result is presumably going to be all the dead vikings.

It fills me with dread that you do not imagine he might lose - or that a fight could lead to a non-lethal result.

This is very, very simple to me: If a player starts slaughtering unarmed NPC's - for any reason, no exceptions - he's out.

So, because that's how it is, in my head - and if this was at my table - the players starts mouthing off, demanding all the pelts. The vikings eventually have enough of that, and they beat the crap out of him. With their fists, obviously.

Anyways, with or without sword in hand, I'd never let a PC slaughter an entire village full of friendlies.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-19, 03:59 PM
It fills me with dread that you do not imagine he might lose - or that a fight could lead to a non-lethal result.

Do you not read a post past the first two lines or something?

Calthropstu
2018-08-19, 05:03 PM
I once gmed a game for PFS which included a group of teenage and a preteen boys. Enter Captain Yolo.

They enter the dungeon and they notice some traps. They don't have a rogue with them so they begin discussing how to do with it. Captain Yolo proclaims "Yolo," and runs through it promptly getting stuck.

They get him unstuck and... "Yolo." He charges forth into the next trap and gets stuck. They once again help him out and "Yolo." He charges forth and triggers 3 combats at the same time.

After a grueling 14 round battle with the resources of three simultaneous encounters which massively depletes their resources, Captain Yolo still doesn't understand. Smashes through a locked door and triggers another encounter. While the party heals up from this latest disaster, Captain Yolo goes charging off by himself and... Triggers the boss fight.

So yeah, Captain Yolo goes down fast, and acts to alert the big bad that someone is in his lab. He buffs the crap out of himself and nearly downs the whole party going down to a lucky crit.

I hear he has been to other games at PFS, and did not do the same stuff. Looks like he learned that acting that way leads to disaster.

Calthropstu
2018-08-19, 05:18 PM
As for the conversation dealing with the OP, I find little fault with the GM's handling of this. After the headbut, he basically is told he is beaten to unconciousness because he is jumped by far too many vikings for his character to possibly handle. This was, essentially a drunken brawl as far as the vikings are concerned, and it probably degenerated into a typical free for all.

And an unconcious character is NOT going to participate in negotiations. Especially when he goes unconcious off screen.

The stealing attempt could have been handled differently but eh? The tribe DIDN'T store the pelts in a central location... The vikings took them individually. He would have had to raid individual houses. He was literally looking in the wrong place.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-19, 05:52 PM
As for the conversation dealing with the OP, I find little fault with the GM's handling of this. After the headbut, he basically is told he is beaten to unconciousness because he is jumped by far too many vikings for his character to possibly handle.

Except, this isn't what happened at all. It would certainly have been an acceptable way to handle it, but it wasn't how it was handled.

Drache64
2018-08-19, 07:35 PM
Lol, you guys have written a novel about an experience you weren't a part of. Again this was just to get fun ideas for ways GMs can handle difficult players. (Love the goldbug idea! I'll be taking that!!)

If I wanted a long commentary on player agency I would have explained much more about the group, the players, and the situation. Essentially the player has a history of being Captain "YOLO". I appreciate all the supporting posters as they seem to understand my approach. I gave the player choices and actions and he has full ability to do whatever he wanted. They only thing I ever said "no" to was his obtaining more that 1 werewolf hide for loot balancing purposes. And even then it was mostly not obtained because he tried to out fight a fort of level 6-11 NPC's when we was level 6 himself. And the only reason they didn't kill him was because they are a brawler culture and the player never attempted any lethal strikes.

The conspiracy that led the player away from his cloaks was instigated by another player at the table I merely interpreted it with the YouTube video for lolz.

Now, ye olde sages of playground. Why should this player have out fought all the higher level NPC's? Why should this fighter character with 11 intelligence and 9 charisma have figured out the plot of the 18 charisma and 16 intelligence Bard? Give me a good reason to have had these Vikings surrender the spoils of their combat that affected their fort that they lost some of their men fighting in?

Or is it simply what I stated from the beginning, that you're having lengthy ignorant posts on a situation you didn't have enough information to intelligently comment on?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-19, 07:41 PM
Now, ye olde sages of playground. Why should this player have out fought all the higher level NPC's? Why should this fighter character with 11 intelligence and 9 charisma have figured out the plot of the 18 charisma and 16 intelligence Bard? Give me a good reason to have had these Vikings surrender the spoils of their combat that affected their fort that they lost some of their men fighting in?

No one has suggested that any of these things should have happened. You don't appear to understand what people have a problem with here.


Or is it simply what I stated from the beginning, that you're having lengthy ignorant posts on a situation you didn't have enough information to intelligently comment on?

If you don't want people critiquing your questionable GMing practises then you probably shouldn't post about them on the internet.

Nifft
2018-08-19, 07:48 PM
No one has suggested that any of these things should have happened. You don't appear to understand what people have a problem with here. To be fair, though, the people with a problem don't seem to understand the GM's actions.


If you don't want people critiquing your questionable GMing practises then you probably shouldn't post about them on the internet. The topic seems relevant to the forum.

I don't think it's okay for you to tell people not to post.

KillianHawkeye
2018-08-19, 09:52 PM
I don't think it's okay for you to tell people not to post.

He wasn't telling him not to post, he was saying that thin-skinned people should think twice to be sure they really want to open themselves up to criticism.

Nifft
2018-08-19, 10:45 PM
you probably shouldn't post about them on the internet.


He wasn't telling him not to post

Hmm, reality seems to disagree with your post.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-19, 11:08 PM
Hmm, reality seems to disagree with your post.

If you remove the conditional part of a conditional statement then it changes the meaning, yes.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-19, 11:14 PM
Do you not read a post past the first two lines or something?

Frankly? You said precisely what I quoted. Then you said something else in the second paragraph, wishy-washy, glossing over the fact that you just said the PC would kill 'all the vikings'. And you repeat there would be casualties, giving no chance for a non-lethal resolution.

So yes. I read your post. You just seem unwilling to stand by most of it.

oudeis
2018-08-19, 11:27 PM
The OP has asked for creative ways to refuse a player. We've all made it very clear where we stand on his actions , so let's stop derailing the thread and move on.

Drache64
2018-08-20, 12:00 AM
The OP has asked for creative ways to refuse a player. We've all made it very clear where we stand on his actions , so let's stop derailing the thread and move on.

This person is my favorite

JBPuffin
2018-08-20, 12:26 AM
Most of the time, the players tell themselves no more than I do - usually because I take a second longer to figure wtf I should do in response than normal - but more than telling them “no,” I throw wrenches at them. Yeah, you can probably pull that sword off the wall...wanna explain that to the guard who just walked in?

I probably have a story of a proper “no,” but it’s been buried as other sessions have come along.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-08-20, 01:27 AM
Frankly? You said precisely what I quoted. Then you said something else in the second paragraph, wishy-washy, glossing over the fact that you just said the PC would kill 'all the vikings'. And you repeat there would be casualties, giving no chance for a non-lethal resolution.

So yes. I read your post. You just seem unwilling to stand by most of it.

I don't know why I'm having to make multiple posts about reading comprehension.

IF someone was fighting for many multiple hours in hand to hand combat THEN one of the sides would have lost by that point. There does not exist a realistic situation in which the battle drags on indefinitely until he passes out from fatigue, unless there's an infinite horde of vikings lining up to take turns. I explicitly said that this should not end with him having wiped them all out but IF, for some reason, he's still up and fighting in the middle of the night, THEN the only reasonable explanation can be that he's chewed his way through all the available vikings. What SHOULD have happened is that he should have lost long before that point arrived.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-20, 01:56 AM
I don't know why I'm having to make multiple posts about reading comprehension.

IF someone was fighting for many multiple hours in hand to hand combat THEN one of the sides would have lost by that point. There does not exist a realistic situation in which the battle drags on indefinitely until he passes out from fatigue, unless there's an infinite horde of vikings lining up to take turns. I explicitly said that this should not end with him having wiped them all out but IF, for some reason, he's still up and fighting in the middle of the night, THEN the only reasonable explanation can be that he's chewed his way through all the available vikings. What SHOULD have happened is that he should have lost long before that point arrived.

It is, however, entirely possible to get the crap kicked out of you for an extended periode - or lose consciousness for an extended period. And you still seem to forget that:


If he's fighting until well into the night the result is presumably going to be all the dead vikings

Are your words. I'm not putting words in your mouth - you are!

But ... ok, let's give that part a rest. What you meant to say was simply that no fight can be expected to last for many hours on end. I'll concede that.

Louro
2018-08-20, 04:05 AM
Gnome wizard enters a well decorated tavern.
"As you enter you notice that it is saloon, the ambient is quiet despite the many elven you see here. You notice all the customers are elven."
- Gnome: Only elven uh? I take a seat.
- Me: After a minute you look for the waiter, roll perception.
- Gnome: 16
- Me: it seems they won't serve you. Some people is looking at you with disgusted expressions.
- Gnome: Whaaat? They ignore me? I stand up on the chair.
- Me: Even more people looking at you displeased.
- Gnome: Damn racist tree lovers! Don't they know who am I?
- You don't think so.
- Gnome: They will, they will. I get out. I'm gonna **** those damn sticks. I go to an dark alley and cast invisibility on myself.
- Me: Aha...
- Gnome: I go back into the "salooon". Mmmm... Damn, if I cast something they will see me. I jump onto the bar.
- Me: Yeah, you "climb" on top of the bar. The waiter is talking right next to you to another elf.
- Gnome: Mmm... Can I break the bottles?
- Me: Well, that would be like an attack, it will reveal you.
- Gnome: Mmm... Oh! Is making a xit considered as an attack?
- Me: Eh? Eeehh... No... I guess.
- Gnome: Yeah, I low my pants and there yooou goooo stupiiiid asshooooooles. Yeah! It's a biiiig ooone. Ah, fine. Jump and ruuuuun
- Me: ...

Was funny.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-20, 06:33 AM
Although it is not the most fun way I think the best way is to look across the table, look them in the eye, and say "no".

And then explain why you said no.

This.

In my experience the most enjoyable way includes keeping a spray bottle of water at the table. Then sing your refusal to the tune of Rule Britannia, spraying them on every word.

Boci
2018-08-20, 07:46 AM
Hmm, reality seems to disagree with your post.

Why do people do this? You had to manually select the "If X" clause, delete it, and then pretend that didn't change the meaning of "then Y" second part of the sentence? Where you hoping people wouldn't check the origional message?

Nifft
2018-08-20, 09:36 AM
Why do people do this? You had to manually select the "If X" clause, delete it, and then pretend that didn't change the meaning of "then Y" second part of the sentence? Where you hoping people wouldn't check the origional message?

Because "if you disagree with me, then stop posting" is only objectionable because of the part where he said "stop posting".

Focusing on that part is focusing on the relevant anti-social (and in this case also forum-prohibited) behavior.

Calthropstu
2018-08-20, 10:12 AM
Because "if you disagree with me, then stop posting" is only objectionable because of the part where he said "stop posting".

Focusing on that part is focusing on the relevant anti-social (and in this case also forum-prohibited) behavior.

But that's not what was said.

What was said amounts to "if you can't take criticism, you shouldn't post." Which is reasonable advice. Anything posted in a public forum is open to a public respinse whether you like its contents or not.
The op is looking for stories of amusement and shared one of his own. Some, however, find his story unamusing and are sharing why. It's a perfectly legitimate conversation to have.
So it is advice, not a call for the op to stop posting, but a warning that anything posted is open to criticism.

I disagree with the "questionable dm practices" statement, but that is a matter of opinion.

Boci
2018-08-20, 10:56 AM
Because "if you disagree with me, then stop posting" is only objectionable because of the part where he said "stop posting".

The part you deleted from the post was "If you don't want people critiquing your questionable GMing practises then" not "If you disagree with me then".

Quertus
2018-08-20, 01:09 PM
with or without sword in hand, I'd never let a PC slaughter an entire village full of friendlies.

How boring. So, I can only sacrifice whole cities of unfriendlies to create my Philosopher's Stone at your table?


Now, ye olde sages of playground. Why should this player have out fought all the higher level NPC's? Why should this fighter character with 11 intelligence and 9 charisma have figured out the plot of the 18 charisma and 16 intelligence Bard? Give me a good reason to have had these Vikings surrender the spoils of their combat that affected their fort that they lost some of their men fighting in?

Or is it simply what I stated from the beginning, that you're having lengthy ignorant posts on a situation you didn't have enough information to intelligently comment on?


No one has suggested that any of these things should have happened. You don't appear to understand what people have a problem with here.

Pretty much this. The fact that you don't understand the nature of people's objections is, quite honestly, far more damning them anything we could possibly say. If you want to create a thread titled something like, "why is this objectionable?", I'm confident several of us will respond. Until that point, I see no value in continuing this conversation.

... Except that I still need you to define exactly what you're looking for, so that I can select the least objectionable example I've witnessed that qualifies. Because, as I said, I am uncertain you will accept unobjectionable answers.


The OP has asked for creative ways to refuse a player. We've all made it very clear where we stand on his actions , so let's stop derailing the thread and move on.

As I've said, I required a codification on objectionability level in order to respond. It never occurred to me that the OP would be unable comprehend how their actions could be considered objectionable, so I am now left with asking for a general clarification about the topic.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-20, 01:54 PM
"if you can't take criticism, you shouldn't post."

That's a very friendly translation. Here's a less friendly one: 'If you don't want your stupid head bashed in, you should have stayed at home'.

Not implying that's what Koo said. What Koo said was essentially 'if you don't want to be called out on being a crappy GM, maybe you shouldn't post'. Mine is a good deal worse, and yours is a good deal better. Regardless, intended or not, Koo was ... pretty hostile.

Also, I think I posted that I'd do something very similar to what the OP did - but included a code of conduct - and no one has had anything negative to say about that.

Also, I want to apologize in advance to Koo - I'm not trying to badger you or anything, I just feel that ... maybe the OP is slightly unfairly put upon. And not just by you, obviously.


How boring. So, I can only sacrifice whole cities of unfriendlies to create my Philosopher's Stone at your table?

Whenever something of the sort comes up, I try to paint the moral defecit of such actions clearly enough for players to think twice. I feel I do moral grey zones pretty well - and I've never actually had a player who tried to off an entire city, for any reason.

Nifft
2018-08-20, 02:07 PM
What was said amounts to "if _____, you shouldn't post." (emphasis added)


The part you deleted from the post was "If _________ then" not "If ________ then".

The bold bit is what I've been responding to and discussing. The elided bits are trivia -- perhaps wrong, perhaps right? But not important. There is no if-then format which magically permits a poster to violate the site's rules, and that's what the bold bit appears to do.


-- -- --


Anyway, my experience has been mostly better -- usually I'm fortunate enough to find myself playing with reasonable adults.

One occurrence which springs to mind is not a spotlight-hog disruption attempt, but rather an economic disruption attempt. The players got their hands on some nice monster bits, and I decided they could use their item-crafting feats to make stuff they wanted using the monster's idiom (but with a substantial discount, since they were limited to the monster's themes). For example, a Blue Dragon's horn was one such monster bit, and they could use it to augment or create any sort of pointy thing of the appropriate size (weapon, wand, horn) with a lightning or draconic theme.

That was fine and didn't break anything: the PCs were a bit ahead of WBL for a while, but that's fine. They should be ahead at least half the time.

The trouble came afterwards, with one player who kept asking for specific ingredient lists for each magic item in the DMG, so he could argue down the prices for all magic items created going forward.

I told him that the monster-bits were one-offs, and they wouldn't reliably work, which is why their previous kills didn't yield magic item ingredients. They were lucky this time. Usually the formulas for magic items call for obfuscated ingredients -- Cerulean Mage Powder #9 and Azure Blood Tincture #12-B, which were trade secrets created by three noble houses (with which the PCs were already quite familiar). The PCs could research these obfuscated components, eventually overturning the magic item trade entirely, but they'd very swiftly come into conflict with the entrenched interests of their current homeland. Basically, I told him that his PC could learn that, but it'll be a major campaign arc and you will make enemies.

Unfortunately, the idea of working for those gains killed his interest in them.

So it's not that I said no as such, but the request and effect seemed like something relevant to the thread.

Boci
2018-08-20, 02:11 PM
[SIZE=1]The bold bit is what I've been responding to and discussing. The elided bits are trivia -- perhaps wrong, perhaps right? But not important. There is no if-then format which magically permits a poster to violate the site's rules, and that's what the bold bit appears to do.

Yes there is. Its a conditional sentence, you cannot ignore the first half of a conditional sentence and pretend it doesn't change the meaning. Or you can, but multiple posters will point out you are wrong, as they have.

"You will die" its not a nice thing to say. "If you go trekking across the Sahahri alone without proper equipment, you will die" is not, even though if you "focus on the second part" (i.e. ignore a key part of the setence(, its exactly the same as the first.


That's a very friendly translation. Here's a less friendly one: 'If you don't want your stupid head bashed in, you should have stayed at home'.

Not implying that's what Koo said.

Then why post it at all? You later apologize to him in advance, which seems you had the wawarness to know that a scenario involving threats of physical violence probably wasn't a good idea. Koo said that if you psot a rules call as a GM on the forum, it will be judged by the playground, and that if you cannot take the critisism, you shouldn't post to begin with. That's true. Maybe they were a bit harsh, but what they said was true and there was no threat of physical violence.

Nifft
2018-08-20, 02:18 PM
You will die" its not a nice thing to say. "If you go trekking across the Sahahri alone without proper equipment, you will die" is not, even though if you "focus on the second part" (i.e. ignore a key part of the setence(, its exactly the same as the first.

Replace "will" with "should" and you'll be at least half way to understanding the problem.

Boci
2018-08-20, 02:20 PM
Replace "will" with "should" and you'll be at least half way to understanding the problem.

"If you don't want your ideas critisised, you shouldn't voice them in a place of debate". Yeah, still not a problem. At least you seem to be understanding how conditional sentences work and that you cxannot just focus on the second bit.

Nifft
2018-08-20, 02:34 PM
You will die" its not a nice thing to say. "If you go trekking across the Sahahri alone without proper equipment, you will die" is not, even though if you "focus on the second part" (i.e. ignore a key part of the setence(, its exactly the same as the first.


"If you don't want your ideas critisised, you shouldn't voice them in a place of debate". Yeah, still not a problem. At least you seem to be understanding how conditional sentences work and that you cxannot just focus on the second bit.

No, go back and replace "will" with "should", since the issue is someone claiming that the OP "should not post".

Write your sentence out with "should", and see if you can find the issue.


Also, just as an aside: Right now you're trying to insult my understanding, and you should stop that, but it's kind of hilarious that you are doing so in posts that are riddled with basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. If you want to ridicule others and thereby feel intellectually superior, you should really work on your basic prose first. What you've got here is... well, it's self-satire.

Boci
2018-08-20, 02:45 PM
No, go back and replace "will" with "should", since the issue is someone claiming that the OP "should not post".

Write your sentence out with "should", and see if you can find the issue.

There's a difference between "dying" and "not posting". Yes, "You should die" sounds worse, but no one said that. I was simply demonstrating to you how conditional sentences work and can seem bad when you cut the first half off.



Also, just as an aside: Right now you're trying to insult my understanding, and you should stop that, but it's kind of hilarious that you are doing so in posts that are riddled with basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. If you want to ridicule others and thereby feel intellectually superior, you should really work on your basic prose first. What you've got here is... well, it's self-satire.

You seem able to understand my posts despite any errors they contain, so its not a big issue By constrast you are having problems with conditionals sentences, and you are actually missing how they operate. Multiple posters have pointed this out to you. The one who origionally said the conditional sentence, me, Calthropstu and KillianHawkeye.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-20, 03:05 PM
Then why post it at all? You later apologize to him in advance, which seems you had the wawarness to know that a scenario involving threats of physical violence probably wasn't a good idea. Koo said that if you psot a rules call as a GM on the forum, it will be judged by the playground, and that if you cannot take the critisism, you shouldn't post to begin with. That's true. Maybe they were a bit harsh, but what they said was true and there was no threat of physical violence.

I didn't say there was. I'm going to leave you guys to your delightful discussion.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-20, 03:45 PM
... Except that I still need you to define exactly what you're looking for, so that I can select the least objectionable example I've witnessed that qualifies. Because, as I said, I am uncertain you will accept unobjectionable answers.


The: "What are the best ways you have said no to a player?" seemed simple enough for me. He even gave an example of what a player did in his game, and the funny way he handled it.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-20, 03:53 PM
The: "What are the best ways you have said no to a player?" seemed simple enough for me. He even gave an example of what a player did in his game, and the funny way he handled it.

Unfortunately many posters in this thread disagree about it being the 'best' way, and we've given our reasons (boiling down to it being funny but likely not effective in the long run).

The key thing is the 'funny=best' bit. Many of us aren't convinced of it, and think best=most effective.

Calthropstu
2018-08-20, 04:45 PM
Unfortunately many posters in this thread disagree about it being the 'best' way, and we've given our reasons (boiling down to it being funny but likely not effective in the long run).

The key thing is the 'funny=best' bit. Many of us aren't convinced of it, and think best=most effective.

Best can be funny, best can be effective... "best" is an entirely subjective term. My example was me simply allowing the consequences of "yolo" to take place. Op's example had its own merits. Could he, or I for that matfer, have handled it better? Sure.

But judging others gming in the heavy handed manner the op is being judged is a bit much. I understand this board is a bit ruthless with mistakes, but this is a bit much.

Personally, I like this thread's premise and feel it could be quite constructive. So let's give the op a break and move on eh?

Friv
2018-08-20, 05:29 PM
No, go back and replace "will" with "should", since the issue is someone claiming that the OP "should not post".

it's okay for you to tell people not to post.

See, removing a few words really can change the context of a sentence...

Anyway, on topic.

Generally I am opposed to the "in-game response to out-of-game problem", but there was definitely a game I ran where a player wanted to do something really absurdly impossible - I think it was asking if they could roll to identify someone by their breathing or something, it's been a while.

I picked up my d20, looked them dead in the eyes, and without breaking eye contact, rolled my die, and then still without breaking eye contact or looking at the result said "You fail."

The table broke up laughing, and the player decided to try a different approach.

Quertus
2018-08-20, 06:03 PM
Whenever something of the sort comes up, I try to paint the moral defecit of such actions clearly enough for players to think twice. I feel I do moral grey zones pretty well - and I've never actually had a player who tried to off an entire city, for any reason.

Underachievers.


One occurrence which springs to mind is not a spotlight-hog disruption attempt, but rather an economic disruption attempt. The players got their hands on some nice monster bits, and I decided they could use their item-crafting feats to make stuff they wanted using the monster's idiom (but with a substantial discount, since they were limited to the monster's themes). For example, a Blue Dragon's horn was one such monster bit, and they could use it to augment or create any sort of pointy thing of the appropriate size (weapon, wand, horn) with a lightning or draconic theme.

That was fine and didn't break anything: the PCs were a bit ahead of WBL for a while, but that's fine. They should be ahead at least half the time.

The trouble came afterwards, with one player who kept asking for specific ingredient lists for each magic item in the DMG, so he could argue down the prices for all magic items created going forward.

I told him that the monster-bits were one-offs, and they wouldn't reliably work, which is why their previous kills didn't yield magic item ingredients. They were lucky this time. Usually the formulas for magic items call for obfuscated ingredients -- Cerulean Mage Powder #9 and Azure Blood Tincture #12-B, which were trade secrets created by three noble houses (with which the PCs were already quite familiar). The PCs could research these obfuscated components, eventually overturning the magic item trade entirely, but they'd very swiftly come into conflict with the entrenched interests of their current homeland. Basically, I told him that his PC could learn that, but it'll be a major campaign arc and you will make enemies.

Unfortunately, the idea of working for those gains killed his interest in them.

So it's not that I said no as such, but the request and effect seemed like something relevant to the thread.

So, let me see if I've got this straight: item creating feats let them "know how to make items" in terms of a) using established, proprietary ingredients, but also b) recognizing the value of edits components found in the wild, and utilize them instead c) in reasonably dynamic ways?

To my ears, that sounds marginally better than by the books.

What might have been nice was to give him the option to know which creatures within his relevant knowledges might also qualify as good sources of components, and/or let him use alchemy or player skills on well-described "Cerulean Mage Powder #9 and Azure Blood Tincture #12-B", and/or let him try to track down component-worthy monsters.


The: "What are the best ways you have said no to a player?" seemed simple enough for me. He even gave an example of what a player did in his game, and the funny way he handled it.


Unfortunately many posters in this thread disagree about it being the 'best' way, and we've given our reasons (boiling down to it being funny but likely not effective in the long run).

The key thing is the 'funny=best' bit. Many of us aren't convinced of it, and think best=most effective.

Yeah, I'm in the "the best way I've said 'no' is by saying 'no'" camp. But, if the OP cares to clarify what they mean, I might provide a more on-topic response.


Generally I am opposed to the "in-game response to out-of-game problem", but there was definitely a game I ran where a player wanted to do something really absurdly impossible - I think it was asking if they could roll to identify someone by their breathing or something, it's been a while.

I picked up my d20, looked them dead in the eyes, and without breaking eye contact, rolled my die, and then still without breaking eye contact or looking at the result said "You fail."

The table broke up laughing, and the player decided to try a different approach.

Now, to be fair, I've identified close friends and family by their footsteps, and by their scent / shampoo / whatever. There are certainly individuals I probably could identify - or rule out - by their breathing.

But, in general, yeah, it's something i could easily see giving your response for.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-20, 07:30 PM
Unfortunately many posters in this thread disagree about it being the 'best' way, and we've given our reasons (boiling down to it being funny but likely not effective in the long run).

The key thing is the 'funny=best' bit. Many of us aren't convinced of it, and think best=most effective.

Right ''everyone", yet again, only thinks everything must only be One Way. And every felt the need to say that. But...that was not what the OP was asking. They were asking the best ways DMs have said no to a player. ''Everyone" disagrees, about everything the OP was asking....and that is fine. But then, simply don't post in the thread and move on.

KillianHawkeye
2018-08-20, 10:33 PM
Best can be funny, best can be effective... "best" is an entirely subjective term. My example was me simply allowing the consequences of "yolo" to take place. Op's example had its own merits. Could he, or I for that matfer, have handled it better? Sure.

I feel the need to point out that if it could have been handled better, then by definition it was not the "best."

Calthropstu
2018-08-20, 11:39 PM
I feel the need to point out that if it could have been handled better, then by definition it was not the "best."

Again "better" is also subjective. Better could mean effective or funnier or even more disruptive. Mine was effective, his was funny. Depends on your individual perspective. I thought mine was pretty good.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-21, 12:02 AM
Right ''everyone", yet again, only thinks everything must only be One Way. And every felt the need to say that. But...that was not what the OP was asking. They were asking the best ways DMs have said no to a player. ''Everyone" disagrees, about everything the OP was asking....and that is fine. But then, simply don't post in the thread and move on.

First off I never claimed it was everyone, my words could have meant everything from a significant minority to a significant majority.

Secondly, we're allowed to disagree and voice our opinions. What we're doing is equivalent to Darth Ultron replying to a thread to talk about how railroading is necessary for a game when we're taking about how sandboxes work as compared to linear adventures.

And now I've gone so far on off topic let's come back to the thread, the most effective way you've said no to a player (I like rolling the die and declaring failure without breaking eye contact).

Drache64
2018-08-21, 09:12 AM
As I've said, I required a codification on objectionability level in order to respond. It never occurred to me that the OP would be unable comprehend how their actions could be considered objectionable, so I am now left with asking for a general clarification about the topic.

Sorry buddy, but it's you who misunderstand. How arrogant can people be that they think they have the correct view with the least information?

All in all, I see my flaw, I should have titled this thread "how do you handle a player who consistently attempts to do the impossible despite being told by his group to give it up?"

Essentially I never said "no" to this player, because IMO that's not how real life works. No ominous voice from the sky says "you cannot do that" but if I try to get into the Emmys without any valid reason for getting in, I'm going to continue to hit impossible odds until I give up.

And if the Bard from the party had not conspired against the player he might have had more success. Had the player not attempted to punch his way through the solution he might also have had better success, but I was giving him no Jiminy Cricket to guide him through his actions.

Essentially I did not dictate how this player acted and in turn he was not going to dictate the reality I had set forth for the table.

I understand you want to come across self righteous and high and mighty and I wish you all the best luck in the next thread.

Kalashak
2018-08-21, 04:56 PM
Honestly, the most fun I have as a player being told no or a DM saying no is just...saying no. It lets me avoid wasting my time or wasting someone else's time. If I really felt the need to make it more exciting I'd let a player make a single roll for whatever they were trying to do then play The Price is Right horn effect when I tell them it failed.

Quertus
2018-08-21, 07:27 PM
All in all, I see my flaw, I should have titled this thread "how do you handle a player who consistently attempts to do the impossible despite being told by his group to give it up?"

Ignoring the rest of your post, this bit actually has some value. Yes, that title would convey your intended meaning much better, IMO.

Sadly, off the top of my head, I'm only coming up with stories of myself and other GMs handling that particular scenario poorly. As I said I'd post the least objectionable example(s) from my history, I'll have to give this a little thought.

Darth Ultron
2018-08-21, 10:20 PM
All in all, I see my flaw, I should have titled this thread "how do you handle a player who consistently attempts to do the impossible despite being told by his group to give it up?"


Well, my answer is mostly the same as what I do for any annoying player.

So, of course, first of all, I might just kick the player out. It's always a good quick option. Sometimes, if they are new to the game, are a new player to me or they are just ''challenged mentally" I might give them a warning or two.

Though, most of the time, I will just sideline them in the game and toss an affliction on their character, as a ''warning". And if they still don't ''get it" just kill of their character.

I find a quick affliction, like a curse, is a great way to stop a player that wants to do ''dumb impossible stuff". When Billy's character Zum gets his strgenth reduced to three...suddenly Billy does not want to "Fightz everythingz" or when Edgar's character Rog has his special spiked chain obliterated(making the poor one trick pony character utterly useless) he suddenly avoids stupid impossible combats.

Kane0
2018-08-21, 10:28 PM
I went into this thread expecting some cool and funny stories.

I am disappointed.

Jay R
2018-08-22, 01:53 PM
All right, here's my attempt to re-start the intended fun thread of D&D stories. One time I said, "No"to my players.

DM: The goblins attack, brandishing crudely made clubs and spears.
<fight with goblins, which the PCs eventually win.>
PC: We look over all their equipment, looking for anything that's better than we have.
DM: I invite you to consider the meaning and implications of the phrase "crudely made club".

BloodOgre
2018-08-22, 02:16 PM
I say, "Go right ahead. However, your character may want to consider that if he acts in this manner, the other player characters, particularly the Paladin, may want to have nothing to do with him and either ask him to leave the group or simply abandon him. Your character has made a considerable number of enemies, many of whom are waiting until he is on his own to seek their retribution, which I would be perfectly willing to roleplay out with you at some other time. It shouldn't tale long." Then give him a big smile.

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-22, 02:46 PM
All right, here's my attempt to re-start the intended fun thread of D&D stories. One time I said, "No"to my players.

DM: The goblins attack, brandishing crudely made clubs and spears.
<fight with goblins, which the PCs eventually win.>
PC: We look over all their equipment, looking for anything that's better than we have.
DM: I invite you to consider the meaning and implications of the phrase "crudely made club".

Considering the number of magic abilities D&D had, I wouldn't be surprised if crudely was a strong addition to a club.

Calthropstu
2018-08-22, 03:32 PM
Considering the number of magic abilities D&D had, I wouldn't be surprised if crudely was a strong addition to a club.

Crude: +10,000
This weapon enhancement makes the weapon seem completely nonmagical hiding all auras from view. It also makes the weapon seem shoddy to the naked eye. However it is still a magical and masterwork weapon. Detect magic and arcane sight are completely fooled, though legend lore and identify will penetrate this defense. True sight will also reveal weapons true form.

Kyrell1978
2018-08-22, 04:24 PM
Crude: +10,000
This weapon enhancement makes the weapon seem completely nonmagical hiding all auras from view. It also makes the weapon seem shoddy to the naked eye. However it is still a magical and masterwork weapon. Detect magic and arcane sight are completely fooled, though legend lore and identify will penetrate this defense. True sight will also reveal weapons true form.
I am probably going to steal this.

Calthropstu
2018-08-22, 04:35 PM
I am probably going to steal this.

Steal away.

Jay R
2018-08-22, 04:35 PM
Another one I've been ready to use, if any of my players tried applying modern science to the game:

"Roll on your Knowledge(Modern Physics) to see if your character can knows enough to come up with that idea."

Anonymouswizard
2018-08-22, 04:47 PM
Another one I've been ready to use, if any of my players tried applying modern science to the game:

"Roll on your Knowledge(Modern Physics) to see if your character can knows enough to come up with that idea."

I was once denied the use of real world sailing knowledge because my character had no ranks in Vehicles (wind powered dingies). But at least I had the skills important to my party role, persuade, summon demon, and cooking.

Actually, the thing I dislike the most about D&D is the lack of flavour skills. Most characters get so few skill points that having points in niche skills is hard to justify, compared to most point based systems I've played where skills are cheap enough that everybody will have a rank or six in something that fits their concept (I've seen singing, dancing, biology, conspiracy theories, cooking, even such skills as boxing and cosplay design). Plus if you can't think of a way to use six ranks in Cooking or Sailing you aren't even trying, and Tailor is vital to repairing damage to clothing (just like Smith is for metal armour).

Kane0
2018-08-22, 05:34 PM
One time I had a Abjurer that kept trying to refresh his ward using ritual Alarm while travelling. Now I know that isn't gamebreaking and there are also no rules restricting rituals on the move but I also had an Imp invisibly spying on them for the BBEG and saw it as a great chance to mess with the party. Each time he tried to set up the ritual the Imp would interfere in some way by stealing the incense sticks, putting out candles, mixing together the inks, et cetera. The player 'took the hint' and stopped after a while but that just meant there was no Alarm impeding the Imp and it could get away with more shenanigans. It took about 3 sessions before it got caught and the players were pretty impressed.

Boci
2018-08-22, 08:40 PM
One time I had a Abjurer that kept trying to refresh his ward using ritual Alarm while travelling. Now I know that isn't gamebreaking and there are also no rules restricting rituals on the move but I also had an Imp invisibly spying on them for the BBEG and saw it as a great chance to mess with the party. Each time he tried to set up the ritual the Imp would interfere in some way by stealing the incense sticks, putting out candles, mixing together the inks, et cetera. The player 'took the hint' and stopped after a while but that just meant there was no Alarm impeding the Imp and it could get away with more shenanigans. It took about 3 sessions before it got caught and the players were pretty impressed.

So how was that you saying no? The imp just coincided with the player's bright idea, and even after they stopped the problem continued, as you noted they got worse. Once they found the imp, they were free to try it again, or did they not consider that?


Actually, the thing I dislike the most about D&D is the lack of flavour skills. Most characters get so few skill points that having points in niche skills is hard to justify, compared to most point based systems I've played where skills are cheap enough that everybody will have a rank or six in something that fits their concept (I've seen singing, dancing, biology, conspiracy theories, cooking, even such skills as boxing and cosplay design). Plus if you can't think of a way to use six ranks in Cooking or Sailing you aren't even trying, and Tailor is vital to repairing damage to clothing (just like Smith is for metal armour).

PF has background skills, 2 free skill points per level, but from a restricted list.

Kaptin Keen
2018-08-23, 02:07 AM
I don't really have any stories of the type the OP has. I built a supercharger once, and he was wildly succesful at his thing - until he got famous. Then he ran into a lot of readied actions - trip attacks, hold persons, all that jazz, stuff that could stop his charge, making him much less dangerous. So then obviously I had to invest effort in becoming less prone to being countered - effort I'd rather have invested in even more damage.

And I had Sveyn the Holy, a paladin that survived for an impressively long time as a character - so long, in fact, that he started out in the original Ravenloft adventure, went through to playing in Dragonlance, then returned to Ravenloft to play The Grand Conjunction. And since he still had Sergei's Sunblade, he thought Strahd would be a pushover. Turns out charging into layers of contingencies, wards and other protections isn't ... ideal. He survived though, he had good saves =)

Velaryon
2018-08-24, 04:42 PM
I've had some games derailed in the most epic and awesome ways by DMs who chose not to say no, even when it meant totally wrecking their original plan for the game. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone since not all GMs want to run that kind of game, but it has worked out well for me more often than not.



I was once denied the use of real world sailing knowledge because my character had no ranks in Vehicles (wind powered dingies). But at least I had the skills important to my party role, persuade, summon demon, and cooking.

Actually, the thing I dislike the most about D&D is the lack of flavour skills. Most characters get so few skill points that having points in niche skills is hard to justify, compared to most point based systems I've played where skills are cheap enough that everybody will have a rank or six in something that fits their concept (I've seen singing, dancing, biology, conspiracy theories, cooking, even such skills as boxing and cosplay design). Plus if you can't think of a way to use six ranks in Cooking or Sailing you aren't even trying, and Tailor is vital to repairing damage to clothing (just like Smith is for metal armour).

For this reason, last time I started a D&D campaign (3.5) I gave out 4 extra skill points to each character at creation, that could only be used for "flavor" skills. It's worked out pretty well, and even led to a couple of plot hooks that had a major effect on the campaign.

Two of the PCs, the centaur übercharger and the elf with a weird gish build, put their bonus skill points into perform (dance). The centaur would occasionally use it during downtime or in appropriate social occasions, by asking various NPCs to dance with him or whatever. Mostly harmless fun that adds a bit of background flavor to the game.

At this point, the campaign was mostly episodic in nature, and consisted of a series of jobs posted on a bounty board at each of the major cities in the country where the game took place. I would come up with a handful of simple plot hooks, figure out an encounter or two that each could lead to, and a suitable reward for completion, then whenever the PCs checked in they could choose the ones that sounded interesting.

One of the other players suggested that a fun job they could take on was to hire on as backup dancers for a dance contest. He made up a joke PC called Og! the Smasher, who had invented a new style called "break dancing," which consisted of stomping around the stage and breaking things. Og! the Smasher eventually got a full character writeup (he specialized in the Orcish shot-put weapon, which was from some 3.0 book I think). The player suggested a simple mission in which Og! hired the two PCs to act as backup dancers, and then we would all get a good laugh out of their surprise when everyone saw Og!'s idea of dancing. I liked it, but decided to expand things a little bit.

When they got to town, there was indeed a quest posted looking for backup dancers, and sure enough, the two players who had ranks in dancing were all over that. I didn't want the other PCs left out though, so I had created a second quest where another entrant to this dance contest was looking for bodyguards, because she feared for her safety before the contest.

While the centaur and the elf did a few rehearsals with Og! the Smasher, in which he scolded them for dancing "too pretty," the other two PCs (a human and a dragonborn) escorted their charge around town. It turned out the "protection" she had in mind involved removing some of her competition via intimidation or violence, so the human character withdrew from the job, but the dragonborn decided to roll with it (despite supposedly being Lawful Good, which as you can imagine did not stay that way for long). Meanwhile the two dancers got attacked by a Gauth (small beholder) that was basically a loan shark looking to collect on a debt Og! owed him.

When the day of the dance contest came, the players were in for a shock or two. First, it turned out that the prize money for this event was way higher than they expected, and included a Carpet of Flying as well. Second, all five thieves' guilds in the city tried entering their own candidates and cheating to win in one way or another, using methods as varied as bribery, intimidating judges, or magically boosting their dancer's skill check. As they waited among the crowd, the PCs noticed several armed factions getting increasingly restless as they watched each other more than the dance performances.

And then Og! the Smasher took the stage.

His performance pushed the crowd over the edge into a full-blown riot, in which weapons were drawn, several groups tried to outright steal the prize, and a whole bunch of important NPCs and factions were introduced. Somehow the party got hold of the flying carpet and rode it out of the city (minus the centaur of course, who kept pace with them on the ground). This led to the next leg of the campaign, where the episodic adventures dropped off and a central storyline (the various guilds trying to draw the PCs into their war) took center stage.

When the dust settled from that whole mess, the dragonborn ended up becoming an NPC and joining one of the guilds, the party accepted help from one faction and wiped out most of the others, gaining a title of nobility for one of them in the process, and the group stepped both feet into a larger plot line involving a magical cold war with a neighboring country that is just beginning to explode into armed conflict. All more-or-less spun out from one joke NPC created to use two characters' fluff skills.

Provengreil
2018-09-02, 09:24 AM
I rely on a heavily emphasized stare and the time tested question: "Are You Sure?"


It's not strictly a no, and if they force the action they can take it, but they know exactly what that question means and there haven't really been complaints when consequences ensue. It helps that the consequences are usually of the reality ensues type.

Kyrell1978
2018-09-02, 09:36 AM
I rely on a heavily emphasized stare and the time tested question: "Are You Sure?"


It's not strictly a no, and if they force the action they can take it, but they know exactly what that question means and there haven't really been complaints when consequences ensue. It helps that the consequences are usually of the reality ensues type.
That's awesome. I ask that question all the time though, for non consequential stuff and for crazy "you really shouldn't be doing this" stuff just to keep the players on their toes a bit.

Provengreil
2018-09-02, 09:54 AM
That's awesome. I ask that question all the time though, for non consequential stuff and for crazy "you really shouldn't be doing this" stuff just to keep the players on their toes a bit.

At this point that phrase is just baked into my DMing style. My favorite result when the PCs forged ahead:


PCs encounter a half sunken temple with a maze-like interior, mostly flooded. The only opponent is an Aboleth(PCs shouldn't know that though), but the thing uses the twisted corridors as a hunting ground. Illusionary treasures, lights, walls, even terrain that doesn't exist abound. One PC gets dominated on the way in. He acts to attempt to split the party up, then when he's alone with someone he has to fight his friend.

A couple real-world hours later, 2 of my 3 players at the time can't decide whether to punch me or high five. They're low on HP and the fish-thing(they never figured out what it was) is still around somewhere. What do they do?

"Alright, I don't want anyone killing me in my sleep. lets split up and have one dude sleep in each wing of this place."

"Are You Sure?"


End result: fighter gets dominated and almost eaten alive and they all end up escaping with no extra treasure and single digit HP. (Aboleth used his last dominate, failed to kill the fighter before he broke free, and simply wasn't about combat on his own. So he took his couple valuables and scarpered until the oddly resilient party left.)

Chad Hooper
2018-09-02, 11:17 PM
Thanks for that. I'll be using aboleth at some point in the future but never have before. You've just given me some ideas on how to run a bloody city full of them based on just your one. And how the slaves might behave, too!

Stuebi
2018-09-03, 01:01 AM
It depends on the context.

If by "No" you mean denying the player an action or something, it doesn't come up often. Usually only if whatever they are trying to do is actually impossible. And then I usually try to dress it up a bit.

"Can I just try to throw the bomb back?"
"No, You're a little too weak for a throw that far. And honestly, if you WERE strong enough, you could probably just pick up the party and throw them to safety instead."

Or if "No" means responding negatively to a proposed action:

"Okay, I don't have the skill to fly this thing, how realistic is it that I just spitball it, and fly us out of the warzone?"
"That would be a miracle, honestly. You can try, but in all likelyhood you're not gonna get far, at least while remaining airborne, as opposed to crashing to earth in a screaming, molten ball of metal. I'd try something else."

And finally, just a question in general.

"So, did that diplomacy test go well?"
"Gimme a minute, I'm trying to find the weapon table for this guy."


Just as a footnote, none of these are to be read as me being hostile or snarky, they are supposed to be actual jokes.

Kaptin Keen
2018-09-03, 04:58 AM
It depends on the context.

If by "No" you mean denying the player an action or something, it doesn't come up often. Usually only if whatever they are trying to do is actually impossible. And then I usually try to dress it up a bit.

"Can I just try to throw the bomb back?"
"No, You're a little too weak for a throw that far. And honestly, if you WERE strong enough, you could probably just pick up the party and throw them to safety instead."

Or if "No" means responding negatively to a proposed action:

"Okay, I don't have the skill to fly this thing, how realistic is it that I just spitball it, and fly us out of the warzone?"
"That would be a miracle, honestly. You can try, but in all likelyhood you're not gonna get far, at least while remaining airborne, as opposed to crashing to earth in a screaming, molten ball of metal. I'd try something else."

And finally, just a question in general.

"So, did that diplomacy test go well?"
"Gimme a minute, I'm trying to find the weapon table for this guy."


Just as a footnote, none of these are to be read as me being hostile or snarky, they are supposed to be actual jokes.

They're good jokes. I especially like the 'screaming, molten ball of metal' - just as a mode of expression =)