Trying to nip a problem in the bud. Was I too straight forward?

[Pika...]

Below is an email I just sent out to my group, and to the members of my former group I did not invite into this one (I was not planning on getting any into this new group to get a fresh start, but I like them still). Anyway, the problems of major to slight (major being the first time I ran a campaign as a DM, yes you are probably reading this Kevin, and it was you), and the second is more mild and good intentioned but still there and still an issue. So I wanted this issue snipped in the bud ASAP with my third group/attempt as a DM before it ever, ever arises (I will be kicking people out this time around).

Anyway, here it goes with names censored for your review and opinions:

Spoiler

Show

OK,

So as two of you may know my last group/campaign went downhill. It went down due to the party not working together well, I miss planned a bit, and the following reason:

There will be no arguing with the DM in this campaign. You may share your IDEAs and OPINIONs of how something should work and I will gladly listen and hear you out. DO NOT make DM/rules/how something happens judgements as a DM. Do not ARGUE with the DM. If you were not happy with a DM on-the-spot judgement please write your issue down so you remember it, and see me after the session and we will check things out for NEXT TIME (prior rulings are canon and set).

Player D, not to point you out, but you do have a small bad habit of this. I even spoke with Former-Player A [Note: they are brothers] before he left (the last time I saw him actually) and told him "I am worried I will have a hard time managing Player D without you here"; he said "I know". It turned out mostly well, but you started (a bit more than originally, since Player A helped a lot) get a bit rules-lawyery (rules lawyer is not just quoting rules folks, trust me). I know you mean well, and you had two experienced brothers in the hobby, but that really causes problems for some DMs. I am one of those DMs, and it really took the fun out of me in my last/first group I DMed, and that guy/rules-lawyer was my DM before I was his (His name is Kevin, ask Player B he knows the guy, hence why I included him in this email with Player C). Just calm down, and let me handle things this time around. If it is not pertaining to your character I will be fine on my own unless I ask you or another player for help/advice, private council on a subject. This is why I snapped saying "Don't argue with me in this campaign" last session, so sorry about that.

Usually how I ended up in my first campaign/group was that I had a timer, and anyone who wanted to give their SUGGESTION as to how THEY think something should work got that much time to give their side. No one interrupted. Afterward anyone else could speak/suggest. I then considered everything and made an on-the-spot judgement. Please folks, I do not want to get back to that level under any conditions if possible to avoid.


PS. While I did bring books for character creation today, once we are hopefully able to play at Player E's place or somewhere else there will once again be no books allowed at the table aside from what the DM uses himself. The sole exception is the book(s) which contain your PC's race and class(s), and those are to remain on the floor/side unless you need to reference something from ONLY your class and race (no items, equipment, weapons, etc, etc). That is for the DM to do, and I do not always follow the books as written so it is better this way.

This also means no SRD document, though if you prefer using that to bringing a book(s) that is fine. However, one of the things that gets me are cases such as when someone has a question then someone (sorry, this example was one of yours Player D. not trying to single you out) just gets on the SRD or another source such Crystal Keep and begins answering the question/looking up info without being asked to. Again that is the DM's job, and I am a DM that does not follow RAW (Rules as Written).

So, is this gonna bit me in the rear and cause problems.

[Temotei]

If the problems have detracted from your fun, you've done the right thing. I would have not named anyone in the e-mail, simply outlining the rules and how they would be enforced, but that's just me. Player D may be a bit sore, but if it gets everyone to have an equal amount of fun (or close to), then it should be okay.

[Flickerdart]

Nitpick: it's "nip in the bud". Nipping someone in the butt is...something else.

The DM makes the rules calls. If the DM wants to interpret questionable RAW in a certain way, or fix retarded RAW on the fly, players aren't entitled to veto that. Talking about it after the session is perfectly sufficient, and spelling it out when you know it might become a problem is a good idea.

[Godskook]

If you were not happy with a DM on-the-spot judgement please write your issue down so you remember it, and see me after the session and we will check things out for NEXT TIME (prior rulings are canon and set).

In a quick once-over, this was the only part that stuck out for me. From how it reads, it sounds like you're holding to on-the-spot rulings for the entire campaign, and that's something that'd tweak me more than a little. A bad ruling can be put up with and forgotten if the DM is humble enough to repeal it once a night's rest has been applied to the situation and clam rational has been shared.

I might be mis-reading it though, since this seems incongruous with the incredibly sane bulk of the message, which is essentially "We're not interrupting the game to argue" written out and elaborated upon.

[arguskos]

Yeah, actually, I'd say you did overreact somewhat. There's a difference between shooting rules lawyers in the ass and denying players ALL resources for reference at the table. Frankly, given the options here (ie. no SRD, no books sans what you STRICTLY permit, no checking ANYTHING not your character), I'd tell you to go to hell and wouldn't play with you as DM, and may avoid you as a player in my games, actually, just cause this attitude is angering.

I LIKE being able to double-check stuff against the DM, and say "hey, just for your reference, this is the suggested rule, what do you think, DM?" Laying down a total, utter, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" rule just ticks me off.

DMs are not perfect, the rules exist to speed up play and frankly, DMs get overworked frequently. My suggestion? Institute the following rule (which has worked for me for my whole DMing career):

"At the table, if there is a rules question or dispute, we can and will discuss it for a minute, maybe two if it's complex. Then, I'll make a ruling, and play will continue. If you wish to debate it with me, that's great, but do it after game or on break. At the table, during play, my word is final, but you get your say."

Difference from your rule? My players can look up stuff at their whim, and I can delegate to others during complex combats/encounters. If someone is getting lawyery, take them aside and talk to them separately. If that doesn't work, kick them, cause they're being a ****. Don't punish good players for the sins of a few man!

[Pika...]

Nitpick: it's "nip in the bud". Nipping someone in the butt is...something else.

Thanks, was actually wondering about that...

In a quick once-over, this was the only part that stuck out for me. From how it reads, it sounds like you're holding to on-the-spot rulings for the entire campaign, and that's something that'd tweak me more than a little. A bad ruling can be put up with and forgotten if the DM is humble enough to repeal it once a night's rest has been applied to the situation and clam rational has been shared.

I might be mis-reading it though, since this seems incongruous with the incredibly sane bulk of the message, which is essentially "We're not interrupting the game to argue" written out and elaborated upon.

Now I am confused. LoL.

I meant to say that what happened in that session and possibly prior sessions is what it was. However, beginning the very next session I know what I did wrong and it should not occur again.

If not, then that PC/NPC that died ten sessions back should still be alive for example.

[faceroll]

In a quick once-over, this was the only part that stuck out for me. From how it reads, it sounds like you're holding to on-the-spot rulings for the entire campaign, and that's something that'd tweak me more than a little. A bad ruling can be put up with and forgotten if the DM is humble enough to repeal it once a night's rest has been applied to the situation and clam rational has been shared.

I might be mis-reading it though, since this seems incongruous with the incredibly sane bulk of the message, which is essentially "We're not interrupting the game to argue" written out and elaborated upon.

I'm pretty sure you're mis-reading it. I think he means DM rules on-the-spot, don't argue, and they'll settle the rules/look them up after the game for the future.

[Thajocoth]

...So I wanted this issue slipped in the but ASAP...

The expression "to nip a problem in the bud" comes, I believe, from gardening, from removing a bud while it's still small before it becomes a big flower (or weed).

Also, I don't know your group well enough to assess whether or not they'll take offense. However, as the DM, you might, at worst, get a few arguments, but ultimately they'll stick with you. It's hard to find someone willing to DM.

[faceroll]

So I wanted this issue slipped in the but ASAP

Oh the lolz.

[Temotei]

Nitpick: it's "nip in the bud". Nipping someone in the butt is...something else.

The DM makes the rules calls. If the DM wants to interpret questionable RAW in a certain way, or fix retarded RAW on the fly, players aren't entitled to veto that. Talking about it after the session is perfectly sufficient, and spelling it out when you know it might become a problem is a good idea.

Spread the word to end the word!*

*Motto for cause I wholly support, started in...Rocori(?), Minnesota.

[Pika...]

Yeah, actually, I'd say you did overreact somewhat. There's a difference between shooting rules lawyers in the ass and denying players ALL resources for reference at the table. Frankly, given the options here (ie. no SRD, no books sans what you STRICTLY permit, no checking ANYTHING not your character), I'd tell you to go to hell and wouldn't play with you as DM, and may avoid you as a player in my games, actually, just cause this attitude is angering.

I understand your view, but that was another argument in another thread I did here a good while ago. In the end that is how I prefer to run my games, and I understand some players will not want to play under me because of it. Some players just do not fit well with some DMs, and usually vice-versa (although strangely not always the case amazingly). For example not everyone would enjoy my games, but I can make the best of even the most hack-and-slash games if need be as long as the group/players are fun/good people.

[Pika...]

Oh the lolz.

Oh my...

Oh the inner shame...

[arguskos]

I understand your view, but that was another argument in another thread I did here a good while ago. In the end that is how I prefer to run my games, and I understand some players will not want to play under me because of it. Some players just do not fit well with some DMs, and usually vice-versa (although strangely not always the case amazingly). For example not everyone would enjoy my games, but I can make the best of even the most hack-and-slash games if need be as long as the group/players are fun/good people.

While I understand, I seriously think you should not restrict players so heavily. There is nothing wrong with letting people check stuff for you, and for themselves. I mean, as it stands, if a grappler in your games forgets the details of pinning someone... HE CAN'T CHECK without fear of getting kicked from the group. When the tablerules can directly lead to kicks for doing something that is directly related to his character, there's an issue I think.

If you can't trust your players, that should be handled away from the game table. This rule feels very strongly that you are handling trust issues with them AT the game table, which isn't a good way to do things, and has ruined games and friendships for me. It'd be better if it didn't for you.

[Riva]

I agree with Arguskos heartily. I've seen a few of your threads Pika, and you seem to have a pretty rigid method of dealing with things. I wouldn't prohibit players from using reference documents, it's a wee bit tyrannical.

Have you thought about making this problem player your GM assistant? If he's eager to know the rules and provide answers, use that. Discuss with him certain house rules of yours so he can be more familiar with them, and what rule sets are being used as is from book. This way, when a minor question might pop up he can handle it while you continue with the game.

Two other things:

1.) Your message of 'no arguing at table, save it for later is perfect so long as you are willing to repeal whatever ruling you made if you guys can think of a better way to handle future situations.

2.) Here is a real useful phrase "We are not playing dungeons and dragons, we are playing [insert name here]'s Game. It happens to closely resemble d&d in many remarkable ways and shapes." I used it when I was a player in a friends campaign, ironicly it was said to some one who wasn't even in our group (we were in a gaming store).

[Vitruviansquid]

First of all, "bud." You nip problems in the "bud."

When people switch between being DM and player, it's always a little jarring. I've DM'd a session in a game where the DM who taught me the game and I'm currently playing a game DM'd by someone who I've taught the game to. So yeah, I guess I could say I know this situation from both sides.

As the new DM, you're going to feel like you could make better decisions and do better campaigns than the old DM. That's why you're sitting there, DM'ing. And you know what? Most of the time, you're going to be wrong. It seems logical that you would be, given less exposure to the materials and less experience. But by god, some of the time, you're going to be right and you've got to stand up for yourself against the old DM and his anciens regime so you can at least see how your ideas will play out on the board.

But you should also realize that, as the old DM, he's going to see that you're doing things differently and he's going to want to step in with a paternal guiding hand and show you the right way. Of course, some times, his way is going to be wrong way, but realize that he's just trying to help make this a better experience for everyone or, at the very least, take some of the heat off you by answering questions your players pose. After all, isn't he more experienced, knowledgeable, and able to answer those questions? But really, that's the wrong way of going about it because the new DM needs to be given time to adjust to the role of DM and actually... well... DM a little. As the old DM, you should usually just keep your mouth shut and play as the new DM tells you to because he's probably a lot more nervous about his position than yours.

And really, the problem ends up being about nothing more than **** measuring. I'm not going to lie. Even among friends, there's going to be a weird feeling of having two alpha wolves on the block. You're going to be tempted to show everyone how much of a better DM you are no matter if you're the new one or the old one and it's going to be a little weird.

But, in response to your query, I first of all have to say... I don't think anybody on this forum is that well qualified to judge your situation, having not been there ourselves except in a creepy, voyeuristic manner. As far as I can tell, though, you do well by sitting your players down and prefacing your new campaign with a reminder of Rule Zero, wherein whatever the DM says goes. You don't have to threaten your players to keep quiet even if it's alright to tell them firmly to stop being annoying (it's a thin line). I also don't think it's wise to purposely exclude people from games because you do build up resentment that way, both among the excluded people and the included people who like the excluded people a lot. Besides, did the excluded people know how they were stepping over the line to receive this punishment? Did they know why what they did is even bad?

In my time running games, I've found the best policy to have with rules disagreements is to be able to find the source in the books for your rulings, first of all. Second of all, if people dispute your reading of the book, you should stop, think about which reading makes more sense to you - not to the grammar or the uncaring, dispassionate ink on the page - and then make a ruling. If you think there's something in the book that outright sucks, you should have a good explanation ready for why you're not going to use it and why your alternative rule is better and then be ready to repeal that homebrew rule next session after doing some research into the issue.

[Eclipse]

In a quick once-over, this was the only part that stuck out for me. From how it reads, it sounds like you're holding to on-the-spot rulings for the entire campaign, and that's something that'd tweak me more than a little. A bad ruling can be put up with and forgotten if the DM is humble enough to repeal it once a night's rest has been applied to the situation and clam rational has been shared.

I might be mis-reading it though, since this seems incongruous with the incredibly sane bulk of the message, which is essentially "We're not interrupting the game to argue" written out and elaborated upon.

My take on this is a little different. Sometimes, on the spot rulings are made that adversely effect the PCs in minor ways that still matter. Maybe they had to dump some gold on healing, or even blow a lot of gold on a costly spell to get themselves out of a rough situation that would have been averted had the ruling come closer to the rules. However, retconning these things away can lead to disruptions in the flow of the plot, and if you're pushing for story over mechanics, it really is simpler to just let the rulings stand. Arguably, it's easier to do this even from a mechanical standpoint, though perhaps not always.

I would say, to the OP, that you might want to consider possible exceptions to this rule on an extremely limited case-by-case basis. However, given the way you come across in your post, I would say you would likely already do this when necessary, or perhaps due to your (I'm assuming) more story based style, they might never come up in the first place. For those wondering, I'm talking about things like major loss of truly important gear or character death due to a bad ruling.

For example, consider a ruling in which dispel magic ruins a powerful magic sword instead of suppressing the magic for the appropriate length of time. Easy to fix for next session, but giving the bonuses back over the course of the past session would not be worth the effort. And no, I don't think anyone would actually make this ruling, it was just an easy example to illustrate my point.

In any case, I think this approach of outlining table rules is a good idea. The only suggestions I have would be to avoid publicly mentioning players you had issues with in the past, and to talk it out in person rather than via email. Players you've had trouble with can be talked to one on one, and if they would like to discuss issues with the group, they can elect to do so after the one on one talk. The group only needs to know the table rules, not who inspired them. Talking in person makes it easier for everyone to have their say in how this all goes down more easily. Yes, the GM's call is final, but the players certainly should have some say in this, and you seem to agree based on how you phrased all of this. I find it's much easier to have this say in person. If your group prefers email and other text based chatting, then you can disregard this bit of advice on talking in person first. I do think an email makes a great follow up once everything has been hammered out so everyone has a quick reference to what was discussed though. Overall, good for you for getting this taken care of up front instead of letting it become a problem later on.

[krossbow]

rogues do it from behind indeed.

[Pika...]

Again that was another thread altogether.

Have you thought about making this problem player your GM assistant? If he's eager to know the rules and provide answers, use that. Discuss with him certain house rules of yours so he can be more familiar with them, and what rule sets are being used as is from book. This way, when a minor question might pop up he can handle it while you continue with the game.

I was thinking about it, especially since the site I am using as an aid to my campaign (Obsidian Portal) has an assistant/Co-Dm option. But then he did that again. But now he just emailed back explaining what happened and saying he understand, etc, so I just emailed the group back asking him to take the role as assistant/backup DM.

Great idea. Thanks!!!

[arguskos]

Again that was another thread altogether.

And I wasn't there for it, and it's relevant here too. Note that I'm just trying to point out that this ruling may cause issues betwixt you and your friends, which no one wants to see. I don't wish to harp over and over again, but I am mildly concerned with the fact that I tried something similar, and it blew up in my face, in a big way. If you'd rather not take that into consideration, that's totally fine. I just don't want to see a gaming group self-destruct like mine did that time around.

[Pika...]

2.) Here is a real useful phrase "We are not playing dungeons and dragons, we are playing [insert name here]'s Game. It happens to closely resemble d&d in many remarkable ways and shapes." I used it when I was a player in a friends campaign, ironicly it was said to some one who wasn't even in our group (we were in a gaming store).

Did you not give that advice to someone on the old WotC forums?

I did just that in my first group since I did (and honestly still do) think it is a perfect idea, and that it makes 100% sense. They became outraged. Still, it helped make it clear that was not going to last much longer.

[Pika...]

First of all, "bud." You nip problems in the "bud."

When people switch between being DM and player, it's always a little jarring. I've DM'd a session in a game where the DM who taught me the game and I'm currently playing a game DM'd by someone who I've taught the game to. So yeah, I guess I could say I know this situation from both sides.

As the new DM, you're going to feel like you could make better decisions and do better campaigns than the old DM. That's why you're sitting there, DM'ing. And you know what? Most of the time, you're going to be wrong.

Huh???

That was in my first group way back. And I was the new DM, but boy did he love arguing/lawyering (he did so with two other DMs as well as a fellow player). Not this situation at all.

[Vitruviansquid]

One of the most difficult hurdles to step over on your way to successful DnD is that people will think it's a contest between the players and the DM. Well it's not, and you probably know that, but if your players don't know it, there's very little you can do about it.

edit: I have to admit I found your e-mail slightly hard to read. >_> I was aware the problem player was the "Old DM."

[Pika...]

I would say, to the OP, that you might want to consider possible exceptions to this rule on an extremely limited case-by-case basis. However, given the way you come across in your post, I would say you would likely already do this when necessary, or perhaps due to your (I'm assuming) more story based style, they might never come up in the first place. For those wondering, I'm talking about things like major loss of truly important gear or character death due to a bad ruling.

Well, yeah of course. I am glad you can read me right.

Magic items all being artifacts basically in my games I would definitely give it back, or re-compensate the player somehow (next session a celestial comes down with the holy sword the player lost saving a soul in the abyss and says "The heavens smile upon de young hero", or perhaps offers her/him a single Wish/Miracle from her/his deity?). If it was a Death, well the PC would just appear to the group next session soaking wet and near-hyperthermic after failing that Jump check last session and CONVENIENTLY hitting the deep part of the lake underneath cursing like a sailor that they did not come after him.

[Pika...]

One of the most difficult hurdles to step over on your way to successful DnD is that people will think it's a contest between the players and the DM. Well it's not, and you probably know that, but if your players don't know it, there's very little you can do about it.

edit: I have to admit I found your e-mail slightly hard to read. >_> I was aware the problem player was the "Old DM."

LoL. No, he is just a regular here I believe. So is "Steavy" a fellow player in said group.

[BobVosh]

I don't know how egregious the situation was leading up to this point, but I would think twice before coming to a table with those rules. They seem excessive, however as I said before I don't know how bad it was prior.

Especially the SRD thing, our group usually has me look up the rules on the PRD (I start before they ask normally) then we quickly decide if we should use those rules or not. Afterwords we will try to make a rule that sticks. Looking up RAW with internet sources makes it quick to get to the heart of the problem, and everyone on the same page.

TL;DR: Seems like an overreaction, but if needed go for it.

[Pika...]

I don't know how egregious the situation was leading up to this point, but I would think twice before coming to a table with those rules. They seem excessive, however as I said before I don't know how bad it was prior.

Especially the SRD thing, our group usually has me look up the rules on the PRD (I start before they ask normally) then we quickly decide if we should use those rules or not. Afterwords we will try to make a rule that sticks. Looking up RAW with internet sources makes it quick to get to the heart of the problem, and everyone on the same page.

TL;DR: Seems like an overreaction, but if needed go for it.

Eh, maybe an assistant rules-lawyer DM could be useful. Near the end of my first group (well, me DMing for them anyway. I hear they are still going) I was trying to get the rules-lawyer into a spot where I would call on him and he could pull up the rule/say what he knew. Basically why lawyer when you're the only one you will usually argue with, and have to/joyfully get to do the boring/fun looking up part while the rest of the party holds back on this one thing for a moment and keeps on?

This guy I work much better with, and is really just better social wise, so I am thinking this could work out well if I can just point at him and he gets to say the quoted rule. Plus, I get to focus one the roleplaying more!!!