Rules Dispute Help

[Gamezdude]

Right today I ran a session which was completely derailed on the first encounter. This is the first time I had a session crash and burn. (It was inevitable)

As a result I decided to finish the first encounter and end it there for the time being. I'll state the reason for this later.
What happened is we have a house rule where when it comes to critical damage, we just double the number rolled on the dice. All players (2) where happy with this and had no problem and have had 10 sessions no problems.

When it came to a player achieving a crit we done it as we always done it and the other player wanted it done by the book despite we been doing a house rule for ages. He was very insistent on it.

The reason I stopped the session is because, 1) It was annoying the other player who just wanted to play on as normal and was fine with this rule, so this dispute was already sucking the run out of the game. 2) If I continue the game, it could result in more disputes which would ruin the whole session which would further anoy the other player and cause more disaster. I was not happy to continue while trying to resolve a dispute midway in the game because it will STOP the game.

I told everyone to take a break after the encounter so I can clear my head to make a sensible decision on the issue. (I do have some regrets)
I think what triggered this, is I let him borrow the books because he wanted to do his own sessions, fair enough.

To give my players some background, one is my GF and the other, her brother. Both are on the Autistic spectrum.

To combat this my GF said she will talk to her brother, that he needs to...I cant find the right word so, ease off will have to do. She suggested this because being insistant is a form of Autism and she knows how to handle it. Yes I know I should be doing this myself.
Meanwhile, I will review the rules, state was is and what isn't house rules and tell the players thus. I do intend to give them the opportunity to change any house rules. I will also state that I dont mind double checking rules mid-game, providing it doesn't take too long and does not result in a dispute.

Id rather keep my sessions streamlined and simple so keep things moving which is something I have learnt from a previous sessions.

Thoughts?
And yes I am a weak DM, it is a learning curve for me.

[MicHag]

While that player may have issues, he is still going to have to accept that the DM can implement house rules as he wishes.

On the other hand, were i DM, knowing the player and his issues, and given the little impact of this house rule, i might have considered letting the house rule go. But always after resolving the crit that is being resolved now the old way. Hé does not get a benefit because he rolled the crit and then decides to mention his wish to change, he should have done that before the session.
But i would also mention that as a DM, i decide the rules, and that i let this one go, does not mean i let other rules go as well.

[Menzath]

It's a house rule that I can understand, rolling more dice means you have a more even average and gives you that powerful I'm bad@ss feeling, but can also slow combat.

Just doubling what you already rolled has a higher degree of swing, but quickens combat.

But that's why D&D has rule 0, as long as the table agrees I wouldn't notice a difference like that very often.

[Doctor Awkward]

Right today I ran a session which was completely derailed on the first encounter. This is the first time I had a session crash and burn. (It was inevitable)

As a result I decided to finish the first encounter and end it there for the time being. I'll state the reason for this later.
What happened is we have a house rule where when it comes to critical damage, we just double the number rolled on the dice. All players (2) where happy with this and had no problem and have had 10 sessions no problems.

When it came to a player achieving a crit we done it as we always done it and the other player wanted it done by the book despite we been doing a house rule for ages. He was very insistent on it.

In general, when planning your session, you are creating problems that the players must work together to overcome. As a DM, your sole job is to maximize the fun for everyone involved sitting at the table.

The ways in which you do this are unique to your particular table. If you are at a table where most of the fun comes from immersive character-driven role-playing through individual scenes then that is what you should focus on. If your players enjoy number-crunching epic combats with big numbers and powerful abilities then that is where you should focus most of your sessions on.



The reason I stopped the session is because, 1) It was annoying the other player who just wanted to play on as normal and was fine with this rule, so this dispute was already sucking the run out of the game. 2) If I continue the game, it could result in more disputes which would ruin the whole session which would further anoy the other player and cause more disaster. I was not happy to continue while trying to resolve a dispute midway in the game because it will STOP the game.

I told everyone to take a break after the encounter so I can clear my head to make a sensible decision on the issue. (I do have some regrets)
I think what triggered this, is I let him borrow the books because he wanted to do his own sessions, fair enough.

To give my players some background, one is my GF and the other, her brother. Both are on the Autistic spectrum.

To combat this my GF said she will talk to her brother, that he needs to...I cant find the right word so, ease off will have to do. She suggested this because being insistant is a form of Autism and she knows how to handle it. Yes I know I should be doing this myself.
Meanwhile, I will review the rules, state was is and what isn't house rules and tell the players thus. I do intend to give them the opportunity to change any house rules. I will also state that I dont mind double checking rules mid-game, providing it doesn't take too long and does not result in a dispute.

Id rather keep my sessions streamlined and simple so keep things moving which is something I have learnt from a previous sessions.

Thoughts?
And yes I am a weak DM, it is a learning curve for me.


The way in which you run sessions is through presenting the conflict, engaging players in the plot and story, and when necessary, enforcing the rules.
Some DM's like to have players who debate rules usage during gameplay. Some DM's do not, and prefer to save all rules discussions for after the game. It all depends on what maximizes enjoyment at a given table.

Regardless of the source or reasoning behind it, you have a player who is being actively disruptive during gameplay, and this disruption is lowering the enjoyment of other player's at the table.

If he cannot reconcile his behavior with what you will accept at the table, then the only practical solution is to tell him that he is not welcome at the game.

Yes, that might seem unfair on account of his behavior being something that he cannot control. But it's also unfair to ask your other players to accommodate something that is directly affecting their enjoyment of the game.

So unless you are content running a game for a party of two, then you need to consider what course of action will create the most good for the most people.

[J-H]

At the end of the day, the two ways of resolving crits are almost the same. It's good that he's able to understand and follow the rules, and the idea of "we can change the rules" is not going to play well. I'd just roll with "let's try it by the book for now."

[Pleh]

While that player may have issues, he is still going to have to accept that the DM can implement house rules as he wishes.

Well, it's still rude for a DM to plainly disregard a player's preferences without at least giving them a fair conversation about it.

Depending on how far down the autistic spectrum the player is, this may be asking too much. I'd be tempted to ask the other player if they'd be fine switching to the book version of crits, because if they are fine, then switching is just an easier way to move forward.

If not, then I'd just have everyone sit down to take whatever time they need to express themselves and try to come to a solution together.