PDA

View Full Version : DM style conflicts with new players



Atanuero
2008-02-19, 11:59 PM
So after a few months spent totally failing to schedule in any way that makes sense, my friend (let's call him Tom) informed me that he's got 5 or so people together to start playing D&D, and that he'd like me to DM as I've got the most experience at it and he says I have the best ideas for plots of the group. And then some people didn't end up coming on the scheduled day and we called the session off.

Today I was asked to improvise something for Tom and his brother for a 2.5 hour long car ride, and off the top of my head I went with this evil party campaign where Tom is a general of an army of undead and usually-evil humanoids (orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, some bugbears) and his brother is one of 3 Dreadlords (lieutenants) attempting to take over a Good kingdom, and I started them off with a basic siege of a small town defended by a wooden palisade, peasants with simple weapons, and a regiment of 50 'King's Guard' (3rd level fighters with a Masterwork longsword).

I ran into a couple of problems. First, these guys are HORRIBLE at sieges. That's not the point. My DMing style is very freeform: I improvise a LOT, and my game rules are usually whatever makes sense realistically/according to the situation. Tom and his brother own most of the 3.5 books and I let them use whatever as long as I look at and pre-approve it. But I don't own/haven't read these books myself, and I'm not as familiar with the rules as they are. It's not that they're rules-lawyers, but that they haevn't really grasped the concept that D&D is not about following rules and that the books are guidelines or optional content. And when I try to cater to that, they know the rules much better and it's like they're DMing instead of me. And according to them, the rest of this new group is similar. Suggestions?

Lord Iames Osari
2008-02-20, 12:20 AM
Depends. When you say "the rules are guidelines," are you referring to all published d20 rules content, or just the stuff that's outside of core?

Legoshrimp
2008-02-20, 12:23 AM
You might try explaining to them that the rules are more of guide lines then absulute law. If that does not work you could an evil DM and throw impossible challenges at them following the rules of coures, or you could spend the time to look up the specific rule everytime you are not sure of it. I am pretty sure both will get anoying after a little while. :smallamused:

Those probally arent very good sugestions. Except for the first one.

evisiron
2008-02-20, 12:36 AM
Explain your style, and if they don't want to play they don't have to.

In most cases I would say not to run a game your players wont enjoy, but extensive rules knowledge is not something that is easily to alter.

Prometheus
2008-02-20, 12:39 AM
A good DM should know the rules well enough to know the impact when he/she goes against the rules. In other words, certain rules must be there for your characters to make effective and realistic choices, but not limiting them to realistic and effective choices that aren't covered in the rules. When you go against a basic rule, you should make it clear.

LotharBot
2008-02-20, 01:30 AM
They're building their characters based on expectations developed from the 3.5 books. You're running the game based on a different set of rules. This is an obvious area for conflict. You absolutely need to get on the same page as your players. You either need to read over the 3.5 books and try to work from those mechanics, or create a set of rules they can be comfortable with.

The game isn't about following the rules, per se... but both sides need to have the same idea of how strictly the rules will be followed and what they're allowed to do within those rules. Otherwise you're going to have situations where you'll rule one way or interpret something another way and a player will say "oh, if I'd known that I'd have built my character different." Whatever your final decision, your players need to feel like they understand the system they're building their characters in, whether it's 3.5, 3.0, homebrew, or something else.

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-20, 01:49 AM
Sit the group down beforehand and explain all of your houserules, go over their builds with them, and see what you are and are not willing to allow. If they understand and are OK with what you want to do, awesome. If not, don't run the game.

Atanuero
2008-02-20, 08:20 AM
No, it's not about character builds. I'm always around for reference whenever any player I'm DMing for is making a character, I make sure of it. About getting on the same page, it's practically impossible. They've obsessed over the books, and not just one or two, but EVERY 3.5 book. They own and have read and near memorized ALL OF THEM. And if I try to change the rules at all, they say 'No. You can't do that.' I've tried explaining that the rules are meant to be guidelines subject to change or being ignored, and they understand the concept, but don't understand why my style is better or more convenient to simply following the rules. They think improvisation in pretty much all but plot is messy and not needed, given the sheer amount of source material you could use to resolve whatever issue there is.

About what I think are laws and what I think don't have to be, obviously the very basic way the system works (mainly what's in Core with a few exceptions) have to stay the same in order for D&D to be D&D instead of something else entirely. But, say, for Disarm checks, if I don't know how it works and don't want to look it up I simply have them make an attack at -4 attack bonus and not deal damage. After all, that's not what really matters, is it? If it's fair and makes sense and makes the game smoother and easier, why does it matter whether it's in the books or not?

For instance, the party (10th level Cleric of Evil, 10th level fighter) encounters an 8th level wizard. In the surprise round, the fighter takes most of the wiz's health off, and then the Cleric uses that feat that lets you lose a Turn Undead attempt in order to cast a maximized spell, and Maximized Inflicts Critical Wounds to kill the wizard outright. Trouble is, the wizard NEEDS TO LIVE for the plot to advance. Not only that, but he can't be captured-he has to be alive and to escape. So I do a DM fiat that says the Wizard doesn't drop, and instantly casts Invisibility and tries to run away. They don't pick up on the sudden extra hitpoints, but they tell me that you can't cast Invisibility and do a move action in the same round. I tell them that this wizard is supposed to get away in order for the plot to advance, and I'm told 'I see the problem, but there's no way for this to work by the rules.'

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 08:31 AM
It's not that they're rules-lawyers, but that they haevn't really grasped the concept that D&D is not about following rules

Tragically, that's not entirely the case. Just take a scroll down this board, most recent and most obvious example: "Can I get a special mount without being a paladin".

Because clearly there's no chance of your character riding an unusual creature unless they specifically have it as a class feature.

Telonius
2008-02-20, 09:14 AM
No, it's not about character builds. I'm always around for reference whenever any player I'm DMing for is making a character, I make sure of it. About getting on the same page, it's practically impossible. They've obsessed over the books, and not just one or two, but EVERY 3.5 book. They own and have read and near memorized ALL OF THEM. And if I try to change the rules at all, they say 'No. You can't do that.'

Apparently they missed the DMG when they were memorizing all of them. Rule Zero says, "Yes, I can."

It sounds like this is a very poor fit for DM style and group style. You're not having fun, and neither are they. Try to work some sort of a compromise. Lay out what you expect, ask them what they expect, and try to hammer it out from there. If nobody's willing to compromise, it's probably best if you found another group.



For instance, the party (10th level Cleric of Evil, 10th level fighter) encounters an 8th level wizard. In the surprise round, the fighter takes most of the wiz's health off, and then the Cleric uses that feat that lets you lose a Turn Undead attempt in order to cast a maximized spell, and Maximized Inflicts Critical Wounds to kill the wizard outright. Trouble is, the wizard NEEDS TO LIVE for the plot to advance. Not only that, but he can't be captured-he has to be alive and to escape. So I do a DM fiat that says the Wizard doesn't drop, and instantly casts Invisibility and tries to run away. They don't pick up on the sudden extra hitpoints, but they tell me that you can't cast Invisibility and do a move action in the same round. I tell them that this wizard is supposed to get away in order for the plot to advance, and I'm told 'I see the problem, but there's no way for this to work by the rules.'


Actually, yes there is. Belt of Battle (Magic Item Compendium) grants extra actions in a round.

That aside, this is a weak point in your plot. Whenever "Zoltan the Adequate has to live" is an important element, you really, really have to make sure that Zoltan will live; or that you have a backup plan in case he doesn't.

Premier
2008-02-20, 09:32 AM
For instance, the party (10th level Cleric of Evil, 10th level fighter) encounters an 8th level wizard. In the surprise round, the fighter takes most of the wiz's health off, and then the Cleric uses that feat that lets you lose a Turn Undead attempt in order to cast a maximized spell, and Maximized Inflicts Critical Wounds to kill the wizard outright. Trouble is, the wizard NEEDS TO LIVE for the plot to advance. Not only that, but he can't be captured-he has to be alive and to escape. So I do a DM fiat that says the Wizard doesn't drop, and instantly casts Invisibility and tries to run away. They don't pick up on the sudden extra hitpoints, but they tell me that you can't cast Invisibility and do a move action in the same round. I tell them that this wizard is supposed to get away in order for the plot to advance, and I'm told 'I see the problem, but there's no way for this to work by the rules.'

The way I see it, there are two separate problems here. One is that the players are too keen on the mindless "follow the rules" mentality. For this, I suggest that you sit down and talk with them, and explain that:

A, you don't have as much time and energy as them when it comes to memorising every single rule in every single splatbook ever

however,

B, you're the DM, and it's the DM's job to hold together the entire game when it comes to rules,

and therefore

C, you'll only be using the rules you know well enough, and you'll be using DM's decision for everything else,

and by the way,

C/2, the books themselves say that DM's decision trumps everything else, so when they say "you can't do that" they're wrong according to the books.

Then if you wish, you can proceed to explain to them why fast-and-loose gameplay is better than a slavish following of written rules, assuming you yourself actually have an idea of why it's so. And of course the final line should be something to the effect of "I'm the DM, what I say, goes, if you don't like it you can leave", but you should put it in a nicer and less confrontional way.



However, there's also another problem here, at least with the specific example you've cited. The problem in that situation was not the players knew the better than you; the problem was that you had bad adventure design. P&P RPGs are not and should not be like MMORPGs where shopkeepers, questgivers and such are invulnerable. If you put that wizard in a room with the PCs, then the wizard should be subject to the same rules as the PCs - if the latter don't have a deus ex machina making them unkillable, then the wizard shouldn't have one, either. If you didn't want to risk the wizard dying, you should have shepherded the events in a direction that does not end up with the PCs being in striking distance of him. Or if it's already too late, then you just need to show a stiff upper lip and have events unfold as they realistically would with the wizard dead - and be wiser next time.

Riffington
2008-02-20, 09:49 AM
Tragically, that's not entirely the case. Just take a scroll down this board, most recent and most obvious example: "Can I get a special mount without being a paladin".

Because clearly there's no chance of your character riding an unusual creature unless they specifically have it as a class feature.

Actually the problem with that thread is not precisely that - but it's related to your point.

Their problem was not "how can I ride an unusual creature", but rather "how can I ride any creature with a Vow of Poverty. Any means of transportation is more expensive than permitted by my Vow". And they are trying to solve this problem by having a creature that you don't own/possess, but which of its own free will allows you to ride it.

However, you're right: the rules-lawyer approach they're using is silly. If the DM is going to allow a Vow of Poverty at all, he should loosen the restrictions to allow a mundane donkey/mule. If instead they simply look through the books to find a way to obtain a Special Mount, they're basically hoping "equipment that is a class feature or intelligent isn't really owned and can be used with Vow of Poverty". In order to allow the guy to have a donkey they're going to end up with a means to wield an intelligent magic sword.

valadil
2008-02-20, 10:18 AM
Your DMing style sounds similar to mine. I haven't had any players like that (I try not to invite them in the first place), but I do take a precaution when inviting players anyway. I make it very clear that what we are playing is not DnD. It's Valadil's Game. It is like DnD in many ways, but they are not the same. This tends to scare off the rules based players.

Tyger
2008-02-20, 10:46 AM
STUFF

I've tried explaining that the rules are meant to be guidelines subject to change or being ignored, and they understand the concept, but don't understand why my style is better or more convenient to simply following the rules. They think improvisation in pretty much all but plot is messy and not needed, given the sheer amount of source material you could use to resolve whatever issue there is.

OTHER STUFF

I agree that you have a situation here, but the above bolded part is interesting. Your way is not better. Its your way. Their way is their way. Neither is better.

Compromise is likely not going to be easy here, as you are really at almost polar ends of the spectrum, but you never know. Good luck with it.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-02-20, 10:52 AM
For instance, the party (10th level Cleric of Evil, 10th level fighter) encounters an 8th level wizard. In the surprise round, the fighter takes most of the wiz's health off, and then the Cleric uses that feat that lets you lose a Turn Undead attempt in order to cast a maximized spell, and Maximized Inflicts Critical Wounds to kill the wizard outright. Trouble is, the wizard NEEDS TO LIVE for the plot to advance. Not only that, but he can't be captured-he has to be alive and to escape. So I do a DM fiat that says the Wizard doesn't drop, and instantly casts Invisibility and tries to run away. They don't pick up on the sudden extra hitpoints, but they tell me that you can't cast Invisibility and do a move action in the same round. I tell them that this wizard is supposed to get away in order for the plot to advance, and I'm told 'I see the problem, but there's no way for this to work by the rules.'

emphasis mine, invisibility is a standard action, so they were lying, other then that I second that if you don't want something to happen, take some precautions.

I'd simply give it a shot, if it doesn't work out, you can always change to playing and let some one else DM.

Yakk
2008-02-20, 12:02 PM
The problem with your improvisation style:

There is nothing the players could do to defeat that wizard. Their actions did not matter. You rendered the players impotent.

And being impotent is boring. You (probably) are not a good enough story teller to make a non-interactive game work.

Pointing at the rules means that they can get some control over the shared fiction that you two are engaged in. If no matter what their actions are, you "improvise" the plot into your pre-determined shape (the wizard will get away, alive and well, regardless of what the players do), then they are not engaging in interactive fiction -- instead, their actions and choices become meaningless.

By railroading them into your plot, and making up rules as you go along, you have just removed any and all control the players have over their experience. Quite rightly they can be indignant about this.

You already have far more control over the experience than they do -- quite possibly you should loosen up and improvise.

Ideas:
Instead of dictating rules to them, when something comes up, ask them how they think it should be resolved

Ie:
Player: "I want to disarm the opponent. I want to make a melee touch attack to connect, then an opposed strength check at +2 (my weapon has a hook!) to disarm -- that ok?"
DM: Sure -- but the defender is gonna use dex to defend, twisting the weapon out of the way.

Or:
DM: A bead of fire shoots out of the wizard's staff, flying against the wall behind you. A pulse of heat, then a ball of fire shoots out.

Player1: I hold my shield up to block, making a touch attack. If I win, I take half damage.
Player2: I jump behind the orc. I have evasion, so I take no damage if I make a reflex save.
Player3: I shrug it off. I take half damage if I make a fortitude save.

DM: Player1, your DC is (caster level+10+5), and you have a -4 penalty. Plus if you win, your shield takes full damage.
Player2, that works.
Player3, you take 3/4 damage if you win the save: you can only go so far to shrug off a fireball.

Player3: Then I want to dodge instead!
DM: Sorry -- fractions of a second. Roll please!

...

That's improvisation of rules. Note that the DM asks the players what they want to do, and how they think it should be resolved mechanically. The DM can veto this -- but instead of the players objecting to the DM's call (the players attempting to veto the DM), the DM instead vetos the players with his own call.

The player is responsible to quickly outline their case from memory without checking the books. The DM can veto any portion of it, or go along with it.

This allows the players to use their memory of the game rules to propose mechanics in a given situation. It leaves both you and the players free to improvise.

valadil
2008-02-20, 12:24 PM
The problem with your improvisation style:

There is nothing the players could do to defeat that wizard. Their actions did not matter. You rendered the players impotent.


That seems a little harsh. I'd say there was nothing they could do to kill the wizard. They defeated the encounter. I run a lot of encounters like that - get the enemy down a certain number of hit points and then he does everything in his power to run away when he smells defeat.

What isn't clear is if the wizard was doing everything in his own power, or if it was GM power that let him go. I think it's reasonable to expect an 8th level wizard to have Invisibility memorized. Whether the players are truly impotent in this situation depends on what would have happened if they brought see invisibility potions. At this point I'd give the wizard to the players and come up with another way to advance the plot.

Of course I'd never throw a level 8 wizard at two level 10s if I wanted the wizard to live.

Swordguy
2008-02-20, 12:34 PM
Just remember, if you're running the game, then it's your style that matters. They want to play a different way? Then they run the game.

Or leave.

Yakk
2008-02-20, 01:35 PM
Sure, the NPCs can run away. Not a problem.

But why would making the see invis potions not work be any worse than giving the NPC extra HP, or giving the NPC an extra action, or giving the players no chance to hit the wizard if they strike out a random square?

About the only difference is that you are making the railroading blatant. :)

A RPG should be a collaboration between the PCs and the DM to create an interesting story. This collaboration can be guilded by rules, it can be adversarial, it can be free from, it can be cooperative -- but if both parties don't have input into the story, it doesn't work that well.

If you want to be saying "the wizard is unkillable" by fiat and make the results of combats pre-determined, at least figure out how the players can have input into the storyline.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-20, 01:38 PM
Actually the problem with that thread is not precisely that - but it's related to your point.

Their problem was not "how can I ride an unusual creature", but rather "how can I ride any creature with a Vow of Poverty. Any means of transportation is more expensive than permitted by my Vow". And they are trying to solve this problem by having a creature that you don't own/possess, but which of its own free will allows you to ride it.

However, you're right: the rules-lawyer approach they're using is silly. If the DM is going to allow a Vow of Poverty at all, he should loosen the restrictions to allow a mundane donkey/mule. If instead they simply look through the books to find a way to obtain a Special Mount, they're basically hoping "equipment that is a class feature or intelligent isn't really owned and can be used with Vow of Poverty". In order to allow the guy to have a donkey they're going to end up with a means to wield an intelligent magic sword.

Yeah, that's basically the issue. Nobody seems to worry about what makes sense in character, and focuses entirely on what is and isn't RAW.

[ETA]

For what it's worth, if I ever ran a game including VoP I'd probably houserule the requirements to "consistently and in good faith roleplays his character as following a Vow of Poverty"

Miles Invictus
2008-02-20, 02:02 PM
But, say, for Disarm checks, if I don't know how it works and don't want to look it up I simply have them make an attack at -4 attack bonus and not deal damage.

You could be forgiven for not looking up unwieldy rules that take several pages to explain (grappling!), but the disarm rules are straightforward enough that you don't need to improvise. You were simply lazy, and laziness is a terrible reason to change a rule.

I'd be fine with your change if you had bothered to look at the disarm rules...and if I didn't have this nagging feeling that you didn't actually change the rule until someone tried to disarm.


After all, that's not what really matters, is it? If it's fair and makes sense and makes the game smoother and easier, why does it matter whether it's in the books or not?

It does matter, because the core rules are the baseline assumption. They provide consistency -- and thus convenience -- to a game. They provide a semblance of fairness that is very difficult to implement with spur-of-the-moment decisions.

I'm obviously not a fan of rules improvisation...but I really like Yakk's solution, and I think I would enjoy a campaign that used that system.

valadil
2008-02-20, 02:24 PM
But why would making the see invis potions not work be any worse than giving the NPC extra HP, or giving the NPC an extra action, or giving the players no chance to hit the wizard if they strike out a random square?

About the only difference is that you are making the railroading blatant. :)


Sometimes the illusion that the players can influence the world is good enough.

I'm in favor of DM fudgery when need be. Maybe I'm just desensitized to it, but increasing an NPC's hitpoints seems like less fudging than denying a PC's spell. Maybe the GM suddenly remembered to take into account the False Life the wizard cast on himself before entering battle. I'm not sure if this goes for everyone, but in my book fudging an NPC is somehow better than fudging a PC's abilities.

I don't think the wizard actually took any extra actions. Casting invisibility (standard action) and moving (move action) is a full round unless he was slowed at the time.

The group should have been able to swing at random squares or move forward till they bumped something and then swing, but at a miss chance.

Prometheus
2008-02-20, 03:25 PM
Often when a vital plot piece happens that I want the characters to understand is not within their responsibility I got to "Cinema Scene" where I describe the events in a way that it is plausible that the players wouldn't object, and that it had to happen that way.

So with the wizard, you'd acknowledge that the players defeat him, but also that it escaped. There was no way to get to the escape scene unless the players defeated him, and therefore they advanced the plot (and should definitely get XP and/or treasure).

This is useful when combatants first want to open the combat with some dialogue, when something is "fated" to happen, when NPCs do things no described by book-rules, and when things happen to the NPCs that the players wouldn't want to interrupt (but don't know that immediately).

Example: invisible illithids (mind flayers - psionic brain eaters) were controlling a government like a puppet. They had a figurehead who was supporting them in so much as they destroyed his rivals. After an adventure on the subject, the players go to destroy the figurehead when they are interrupted. The figurehead floats into the air, has his brain extracted, and an invisible illithid appears and tells the island that their leaders are not longer needed, that the illithids have control, they are taking the entire island hostage if anyone tries to interfere (ie the players), and they demand a particular artifact from the mainland. It wouldn't be nearly as cool if the players defeated the figurehead even though they had advanced to that point in the plot, nor would they want the illithids to start killing commoners before the PCs heard their demands or the situation didn't present the PCs with such an interesting moral and adventurous choice.

Corolinth
2008-02-20, 04:47 PM
The first thing you need to do is ditch all of the optional rulebooks. If you haven't read them, don't use them. It's that easy.

The second thing you need to do is accept that these players are, in fact, rules lawyers. They're bad at it, but they're rules lawyers.

Now, you need to plan better, and you need to adapt to changes. If you'd had a backup plan for, "What if this wizard gets killed?" then you wouldn't be in this mess. If the death of the wizard was going to be so problematic, you should've sent a lackey instead (the wizard certainly would have). Sometimes things happen that aren't in the plan, and you have to adapt to that. When you're running a game, you need to meet somewhere in the middle with your players. You've got a story to tell, but they're a part of it. They need to feel like they're making stuff happen.

I'll give you an example. Early in one of the campaigns I'm running, I had an NPC cleric that was slated to die. I had it all planned out how the death was going to happen, how many rounds it was going to take, so on and so forth. When the NPC took a 5' step back to try to heal herself, I didn't expect one of the PCs to throw himself in front of a grossly overpowered villain hell-bent to kill some good guys. They ended up saving her. What really threw me for a loop was when that same PC asks me about a month later, "Hey, you remember those feather tokens I bought? I'm going to write that cleric a letter about such and such." This was supposed to be a minor NPC who died after three sessions. Now they want to turn her in to a major story figure. So instead of going back to the drawing board and plotting how I'm going to finish the job, I give them the fairy tale ending. Cleric marries one of the PCs.

That sort of thing gets your players more interested in the setting and the story. They see that their actions have consequences (both good and bad). What they do affects the world. When they feel like they're involved in what's going on, they start to care more about events in the game than they do about the rules.

Atanuero
2008-02-20, 06:01 PM
Sure, the NPCs can run away. Not a problem.

But why would making the see invis potions not work be any worse than giving the NPC extra HP, or giving the NPC an extra action, or giving the players no chance to hit the wizard if they strike out a random square?

About the only difference is that you are making the railroading blatant. :)

A RPG should be a collaboration between the PCs and the DM to create an interesting story. This collaboration can be guilded by rules, it can be adversarial, it can be free from, it can be cooperative -- but if both parties don't have input into the story, it doesn't work that well.

If you want to be saying "the wizard is unkillable" by fiat and make the results of combats pre-determined, at least figure out how the players can have input into the storyline.Ok, sorry, that's not a fair claim at all. I didn't render the PCs IMPOTENT, I just attempted to render them unable to kill a particular wizard in an encounter that lasted at most 3 minutes. I'm not trying to railroad the plot, but on the other hand you can't let Frodo drop the ring 50 feet out of Rivendell and go home if you want the story to continue. And eventually, I DID give them the wizard-I compromised. I awarded them XP and loot and gave the wizard an amulet of Contingency:Teleport to Good King's Throne Room upon dropping to unconscious or dead. I can accept that maybe the whole wizard encounter was poorly planned, but I wasn't completely unreasonable and even let the Cleric Dispel Magic to clear that Invisibility issue up. In this way I fulfilled the wizard's purpose (inform the king about the attack on the town and then help him raise the army and prepare the country for war) and wasn't unfair (in my opinion) to the players. Had they chosen to swing blindly until they connect, I would have let them, because honestly they're responsible for their characters' actions in the same way I'm responsible for the wizard's, and telling them how they could and couldn't use their weapons in a situation where it's their full right to do so is not my job or my inclination.

About the core-only idea, no. A decision like that wouldn't make anybody happy. It wouldn't make me happy because I honestly don't mind learning what I don't know, and it wouldn't make them happy because all the expensive purchases they just made and all the reading and effort they put in would effectively be pointless for this campaign and whenever else I choose to run with them.

Atanuero
2008-02-20, 06:07 PM
Sure, the NPCs can run away. Not a problem.

But why would making the see invis potions not work be any worse than giving the NPC extra HP, or giving the NPC an extra action, or giving the players no chance to hit the wizard if they strike out a random square?

About the only difference is that you are making the railroading blatant. :)

A RPG should be a collaboration between the PCs and the DM to create an interesting story. This collaboration can be guilded by rules, it can be adversarial, it can be free from, it can be cooperative -- but if both parties don't have input into the story, it doesn't work that well.

If you want to be saying "the wizard is unkillable" by fiat and make the results of combats pre-determined, at least figure out how the players can have input into the storyline.Ok, sorry, that's not a fair claim at all. I didn't render the PCs IMPOTENT, I just attempted to render them unable to kill a particular wizard in an encounter that lasted at most 3 minutes. I'm not trying to railroad the plot, but on the other hand you can't let Frodo drop the ring 50 feet out of Rivendell and go home if you want the story to continue. And eventually, I DID give them the wizard-I compromised. I awarded them XP and loot and gave the wizard an amulet of Contingency:Teleport to Good King's Throne Room upon dropping to unconscious or dead. I can accept that maybe the whole wizard encounter was poorly planned, but I wasn't completely unreasonable and even let the Cleric Dispel Magic to clear that Invisibility issue up. In this way I fulfilled the wizard's purpose (inform the king about the attack on the town and then help him raise the army and prepare the country for war) and wasn't unfair (in my opinion) to the players. Had they chosen to swing blindly until they connect, I would have let them, because honestly they're responsible for their characters' actions in the same way I'm responsible for the wizard's, and telling them how they could and couldn't use their weapons in a situation where it's their full right to do so is not my job or my inclination.

About the core-only idea, no. A decision like that wouldn't make anybody happy. It wouldn't make me happy because I honestly don't mind learning what I don't know, and it wouldn't make them happy because all the expensive purchases they just made and all the reading and effort they put in would effectively be pointless for this campaign and whenever else I choose to run with them.

Yakk
2008-02-21, 09:26 AM
Sure -- I was just attempting to cite what looked like a single instance of railroading.

Railroading can work and generate a fun game: but one could also understand that the players might be conditioned to grasp at what control over the game they can and hold on for dear life.

Hence the position that you cooperatively improvise the rules, and structure improvisation in such a way that the players are the first ones to propose a rule for them solving a problem. This means that their knowledge of the D&D rule system can be used constructively, by proposing improvised rules that actually come strait out of the rule book, instead of always being in opposition to your initial ruling.

The fact that they don't have to use the RAW rules when they improvise mechanics, and the fact that you are considering any rule that you don't already know to be improvised mechanics, and the fact that citing the rulebook is verbotin during play (it can be done after play, and that can change the DM's decision next time)...

Players are also allowed to cite "that isn't how we did it last time", but that argument isn't absolute -- just supporting.

Maybe it will work for you. :)

Ralfarius
2008-02-21, 01:28 PM
To be honest, I'm still stuck on the OP claiming that his problem is that the PC's don't see his way as the better method. The problem could be as easily resolved by the DM having a highly secure understanding of the rules to counteract any potential unwanted actions that the PC's are trying to perform, by out-doing them at their own game.

Not that this is necessarily the way to go about things, but it is an option. I've always preferred to find a style that is acceptable both to players and DM, rather than expect them to simply follow my way. Of course, I've had it easy by consistently playing with people who prefer my rules-heavy approach.

I've also found that a more open-ended plot to be helpful when dealing with rule-lawyering players. That way, I don't necessarily have to DM-fiat them out of some decisive, unexpected victory. If they are able to unravel the carefully-laid escape plans and contingencies (plans, not spells :smallwink:) of the enemy wizard/cleric/etc, then they deserve to kill him. Of course, that means it's up to me to decide on something meaner to take said wizard's place, but an organically evolving campaign like that has always seemed to work for my groups.

I would definitely refer you to AKA_Bait's "So You Wanna Be a DM?: A Potentially Helpful Guide" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73071) thread. The most important part of running a game is to ensure that all parties involved have fun, DM and player alike. One of the keys to this is ensuring that everyone is on the same page in terms of game style, campaign feel, and character development. This needs to be done before you find out the hard way that your assumptions of game style are incompatible with those of your players.

holywhippet
2008-02-21, 06:45 PM
For instance, the party (10th level Cleric of Evil, 10th level fighter) encounters an 8th level wizard. In the surprise round, the fighter takes most of the wiz's health off, and then the Cleric uses that feat that lets you lose a Turn Undead attempt in order to cast a maximized spell, and Maximized Inflicts Critical Wounds to kill the wizard outright. Trouble is, the wizard NEEDS TO LIVE for the plot to advance. Not only that, but he can't be captured-he has to be alive and to escape. So I do a DM fiat that says the Wizard doesn't drop, and instantly casts Invisibility and tries to run away. They don't pick up on the sudden extra hitpoints, but they tell me that you can't cast Invisibility and do a move action in the same round. I tell them that this wizard is supposed to get away in order for the plot to advance, and I'm told 'I see the problem, but there's no way for this to work by the rules.'

Technically you can't cast invisibility then run away. Casting the spell is an action, so you can only walk straight after. If this kind of thing is going to be a problem, arrange for the wizard to have some scrolls of contingency or some other item which will pull them to safety if they need to live. If the wizard is killed, have his apprentice swear revenge and go after the party. Or have his master teleport his body to safety.

You kind of have a problem in using a plot hammer on them. You want the wizard to live, they want to kill it. D&D is about letting them muck around in the world you have created. Don't assume things will always go as planned.

As for the rule books - I'd say exclude the ones that you aren't familiar with. You are the DM and what you say goes. The campaign game I'm playing in has a no splat books rule.

Making the rules flexible can be a problem though. If you bend them too much you can end up with major arguments over exactly what is supposed to happen.