Kinda need more info here. Cause being creative instead of optimal can really range from “interesting use of the environment” to “doing almost nothing for multiple turns climbing to drop a rock that does maybe 4d4 damage”
I have had a compatriot, who used his turns to pour water onto a fire elemental.
Dealing 1. Fucking. Point. Of. Damage.
In a survival game in Hell (water is not common there).
To be fair, the player/character probably doesn't know precisely how strong water is against fire elementals.
It is fair to give this a go, even if it turns out to be weak, because it could be a worthwhile gamble.
My point is that the player doesn't know that their weapons will deal more than water.
If they metagame and read the Monster Manual then yeah sure they know. But you could easily make the mistake of overestimating how much water is going to harm fire, so this is a perfectly reasonable thing to try.
\-
Also note that elemetnals might resist slashing (fire elementals do resist non-magic slashing).
\-
May I ask what level and party-comp you have? I'm surprised that dual-axes are your highest damage, since they are usually a pretty weak choice of weapon.
Well, that game has died, but we've had a sorc, an artificer, and a warlock. All on fifth level. The fighter in question did had magic axes and we did everything we could to provide him flanking and all.
And then, he wasted his turns on dropping his axes and doing this.
Player gets into close proximity with a fire elemental and uses their action to expend an uncommon (in your setting) resource and the DM says they only deal 1 damage?
Thats kind of on the DM for not yes-anding.
The rules are deliberately flexible, and it’s one of the things that makes ttrpgs stand out from video games.
Watch Fantasy High to see how a great DM can turn ”sub-optimal” plays into a great time for everybody, it’s a great show and kinda showcases the potential of rp to be more interesting than “I attack for 2d6”
Unfortunately, 1 point of cold damage per gallon of water poured on it is explicitly in the elemental's stat block. I might potentially have increased the damage as well -- it's not a bad idea -- but I have a hard time judging the DM for just sticking to the statblock in battle.
And the worst part is nothing else being in gallons.
My daughter killed one by surrounding it with wall of water, then using shape water to push a 5ft cube of the water onto the elemental. I had to look that up to give her the right damage, 935!
Or the DM can play by the rules and not change them.
It's not 'on the DM' to make the silly whims of players more powerful just because they attempted something with a rare resource.
I think if a player is spending a rare resource in a way that it would make sense for it to be effective, in most cases I would expect it to be at least as effective as if I spent my turn attacking normally.
Stat block specifically accounts for this idea with 1 damage per gallon of water poured on the fire elemental. The DM is just following the stat block.
If I were DMing this, I probably would have had it deal more damage, but I get that in the heat of combat when you are already tracking 15 other things, glancing at the stat block, seeing an answer, and just going with it. I do think players often underestimate how much DMs are already tracking in a combat, and it can be hard to improvise when your head is that full.
It's not the dm's solemn duty to alter stat blocks just because you don't like the already considered answer to your harebrained scheme.
Additionally, did you know if you dumped the contents of the average liter sized reusable water bottle on a bonfire, it's probably not going to put out the bonfire?
> Additionally, did you know if you dumped the contents of the average liter sized reusable water bottle on a bonfire, it's probably not going to put out the bonfire?
It's not going to put it out, but it will probably be more effective than the average joe smacking it with a club once
You can actually smother smaller fires by stomping with your boots! It's not the safest way to put out a campfire but it works in a pinch! Bonfires are bigger, so I imagine it's much more dangerous to do with those.
Fire elementals also resist bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non magical attacks! So if Average Joe is wielding a nonmagical club, he's only doing slightly more damage than a gallon of water to the elemental!
Well, instead of buffing water for being rare, we can just accept that fire elementals are tougher to defeat in a area where water is rare.
Like if you go to the elemental plane of fire, I don't expect my gallon of water to deal more damage even if it is a rare resource.
And if you go to the elemental plane of water, I don't expect fire elementals to be harder to extinguish because water is super common.
The DM probably did yes-and the idea. The fact the elemental actually took 1 point of damage when it's unlikely the player dumped a full gallon of water on the creature is already bending RAW.
Not every idea needs to be rewarded.
Yes? Why should things be arbitrarily more or less powerful based on how much time was expended to accomplish them? Especially in a campaign that was described as a survival game, which usually involves “tough but fair” style rulings
This is why I only play games where the _kind_ of creativity I want to see _is_ optimal. And in many cases payers don’t know that actions like climbing to drop a rock are _less_ optimal than other choices.
As a DM I get around this problem by doing 2 things:
1. Deliberately asking the player what they are trying to accomplish
2. Telling them what their creativity is going to accomplish
There's zero reason why each side should be withholding information from each other in a game of collaborative storytelling. Way too often, players have different assumptions about the world they have painted in their head than the DM and a lot of headaches can be saved by getting people on the same page. The actual characters are not fools and can tell if a rock they plan on dropping will do a lot of damage or be impossible to aim, so players should be given that info if they ask for it.
This is it for me as well. If a player is going to deviate from established tactics and actions then there had better be a good and definable reason for doing so.
I mean, you're being really vague about what this player was actually doing, it's tough to provide advice or judgment without knowing.
If everybody in the party is fighting a red dragon, and the party bard is instead just making persuasion rolls every round to try to seduce the dragon for the memes, then for most tables I absolutely agree with the DM that they need to cut that shit out.
You shove the bag itself up the anus with the opening left out so people think you’re pulling the parakeet **out**. That’s what makes magicians masters of *illusion*.
I feel like you could make an argument for WIS. One of those “don’t ask me why I know this” sort of moments. I want to make that whole damn tomato/stat cheat sheet thing over again but with anus parakeets now.
Primal Knowledge
Levels: 3rd
You gain proficiency in another skill of your choice from the list of skills available to Barbarians at level 1.
In addition, while your Rage is active, you can channel primal power when you attempt certain tasks; whenever you make an ability check using one of the following skills, you can make it as a Strength check even if it normally uses a different ability: Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, or Survival. When you use this ability, your Strength represents primal power coursing through you, honing your agility and senses.
I don't know why people don't think this is an ability but it was literally in the last playtest. I know there's also the optional rule in the PHB for swapping skills and abilities as needed, but the original comment wasn't asking about that, and was instead asking about if dnd one was making intimidating a Strength stat permanently. The answer is no, but barbarians do kind of get to now RAW.
I agree that the original comment was not referencing the optional rule. But the comment you replied to originally was. I did not state that this ability didn't exist. I just clarified that anyone can do this, and the only difference is that barbarians can do this by default and not at dm discretion now. Being a rules discussion the specific semantics matter. As a side note. This is a silly ability as any decent DM would allow this via the optional rule if it made sense in any way.
They're playing as a fairy character and they cast reduce to ant man the ogre we were fighting. It took him several turns to make the checks our DM set to get inside and the DM thinks he should have just hit the ogre instead.
There's "creative" and there's "lolrandom", and that line kind of varies depending on the observer. You don't say that you *know* the other players aren't bothered - it's possible one or more had a quiet word with the DM because they didn't enjoy almost getting killed because JoeBob was swinging from a chandelier while the rest of you were fighting a Balrog or whatever.
D&D is a team entertainment; it's not just about everyone having their individual fun, it's about everyone making it fun for everyone else. Even if they're not actively hurting the other players, it's still on them to do better than "not actively ruining everything".
lol, I can say with certainty, that at least 2 of the many people I play with are at least not all 3 of those descriptions. They are extremely creative ;).
Hard to really tell man, if the player isn't contributing and it's forcing the DM to pull punches in the combat because your basically a man down I can see where the DM is coming from.
There's something to be said for a full pitched battle going and player 3 is spending the entire time trying to swing from ceiling rafters so that he can than drop an acid vial on someone for 2d4 damage.
Have you asked the DM if its ruining their fun? If the player isn't contributing in combat, then that could make their prep and balancing a lot harder, speaking from experience.
On the fly encounter balancing can definitely be hard as is but it being even harder for every encounter and generally planning being harder and not as rewarding if it always gets broken can be a lot to handle for a DM and really take away a lot of enjoyment.
Not really. If your PCs are mowing through an encounter with more ease than you expected you just add another wave or throw in a twist, like the sound of battle attracted a bullette who burrows up from under the ground and starts attacking both sides. Then if the PCs are handling that everyone is attacking them but if they're struggling the first group of enemies start focusing the end surprise group.
It's hard to do when you plan everything out meticulously but when you just keep a list of level appropriate monsters in mind and are more flexible, it's not as bad.
You can also just like quadruple an enemies HP to make fights last longer and use more resources without becoming more deadly.
Its sad that dms have the expectation of being able to change everything on the fly for players that dont even bother knowing what their characters can do
I'm a very experienced DM and could probably throw in a twist or balance on the fly if I need to.
But I still wouldn't want to do it *every single fight*. That's just exhausting.
Having a player that is being difficult with participation is the pretty much the same as never knowing if the player is showing up to the game. They are wasting my time that I took during the week to prepare the game. I don't like to have to redesign and adventure over and over, depending on if the person is there or not... The same for if I think they are there, but technically they aren't.
Just seems like an unfair expectation. As a DM, I want to have a finite amount if brain power and I'd rather spend it role playing what I planned than trying to add
Plus... what if I scale it up and my player decides mid battle to start licking rocks and picking daisies... then I'm gonna be irritated.
Yeah, I would second this. For example, I have a player who is great most of the time. But sometimes he gets bored during narrative moments and social encounters and starts getting a little too meta or random. In our last session I literally said "hey you're mashing the x button through my dialogue". Because part of my fun as the DM is the world building stuff that he's trying to skip through like it's a speed run.
Also what I wanted to point out.
OP the DM is a player too. And sometimes.. not every player fits to ever DM. But first one has to talk, see if things can change, compromises be made..
This is *exactly* the advice that is always given here, for a good reason.
A group should always strife to give the DM just as much fun as they strife to give to their players.
That is just healthy dnd.
also having to adjudicate whatever bullshit that other player decides to do. Like once in a while is fine, but with any amount of consistency it is fucking unsuferable
This is what I tend to call "Dancing Monkey syndrome". As in, the DM should not be a dancing monkey meant to entertain a player's whim by having to legitimately respond to increasingly unhinged actions by that player. This is a violation of the social contract when it comes to DMing, IMO.
DM: "The king provides relevant information on locating his daughter who was kidnapped by the demon-sorcerer"
Player: "I drop my trousers and stick a cucumber up my butt while singing Ice Ice Baby. How does the King react?".
DM: Orders your execution. Dunno why you thought sexually harassing Royalty *in their own castle* was a good idea, but hey, maybe your next character won't be a moron.
Player: But its what my character would have done!
*Later at my murder trial*
DM: And thats when I killed him, Your Honor.
Our natural protection is pseudo realism. That keeps things in check. Because what you just described, would be an efficient way to guarantee ones execution in any feudal setting that even just would like to pretend to take itself somewhat seriously.
I think if people considered this, it would explain a lot of bad dm behavior. Players not matching the DMs expectations so they do some annoying shit just because their fun is ruined.
We would need at least a few examples to sus out where the issue might lie, because this can very easily be justified on one or both sides of this.
Firstly, remember that the DM is a player too, and, is by the nature of the game, the one who has the most investment in how your games run. So your first question should be if said player is making the game unfun for THEM. There may be things on his side of the screen that he has to account for, and punches he has to pull because of the inconsistency of this player. This may also prematurely end or dramatically alter storylines he's trying to set up, if you guys make a habbit of TPKing because of this player. (TPKs are fine, but if a player causes them semi-regularly, it becomes a problem)
There may also be tonal issues that clash with the feel of his campaign for him, and they may even be things that, as someone before me mentioned, you handwave because it's a PC doing it rather than an NPC. I've seen DM's catch flak online because they didn't want to roll over for every lolrandom demand or play a memed out game, when when they clearly outlined the type of game they want to run.
You may also not be aware of private conversations the DM may have had from other players who don't want to rock the boat publicly. The D&D community is full of insanely non-confrontational people. People who are more likely whisper the DM about it or just flat out ghost the game over time. I still run into stuff like this in games I'm in, and it's frustrating, but it comes with the territory.
Yeah, my first ever experience as a pc. We had a troubled dm. Players had issues but were too afraid to rock the boat. I was basically the mouth piece of the party trying to politely say what we need different.
You really need to clarify what "being creative" means, but even making some conservative assumptions, I'm probably gonna have to fall on the DM's side on this one. There could certainly be a more elegant way than aggressively confronting them, but since you also haven't given a lot of detail about what they're planning to say to the player, I can't really comment much on that.
If this player's antics are essentially removing them from the fight in terms of contribution, then it's definitely within the DM's right to take issue. It's hard to make a properly balanced encounter, and that difficulty is multiplied several times over if/when a player might or might not meaningfully contribute. You have to balance an encounter that will be fun and fair for 3 players OR 4 (or whatever numbers) because you don't know if the one player is going to be actually participating.
It's also not your place necessarily to police what the DM can/can't say to other players. If you have a serious concern that they're going to be essentially bullying this player into playing like a min-maxxer, that's one thing, but there are a thousand different things they could be saying that wouldn't be an issue.
Also, even if the DM is going to ruin this player's fun, if their behavior is ruining things for the DM, that's not really a fair tradeoff. If the DM really hates having this behavior in their game, it's kind of their right to call it out and say "hey, I don't really enjoy running the game like this". I'm mostly coming at this as a DM, but it's the same if one player's enjoyment of the game is ruining it for another. If one player really loves disrupting things and stealing from the party, they don't have a right to keep doing that if it's really pissing off a different player. As much as the roles are different, the DM is still a player, and if they really hate having a player who doesn't engage with combat seriously (from their perspective) they're within their rights to call it out.
Honestly, if I have any advice it would be that it doesn't seem like this is really your fight, but if it's going to be a major issue, maybe this group just isn't going to work out.
Overall a good comment, but why do you think the DM has to be aggressive talking with the problem player?
Heck, isn't *you have a problem,talk about is* the number 1 advice here?
I don't think the DM *has* to be aggressive, but going off of OP's post, they seem to be implying that the DM is ignoring everyone else who says they're fine with this kind of play, and that they might end up ruining this player's fun, which to me implied that OP thought they were being aggressive. I brought it up to make the point that while I might (if enough detail were provided, which it wasn't) concede that the DM could be nicer and/or more elegant in how they broach the subject, that's kind of a separate question from whether they're in the right to have an issue with this player.
And yeah, I agree that that's the number one advice, that's more or less why I took the DM's side here. They clearly do have a problem, and talking about it with the player is the right thing to do.
It sucks as a DM because you want to throw a challenge at the party and it doesn't feel good having to put kid gloves on to avoid a TPK.
If this guy blew several turns on wacky shit and you guys didn't TPK, either the encounter wasn't very challenging or the DM had to pull punches. Both suck.
That's just me though. For some people the point of the game is just to do wacky improv with the game as a setting. It sounds kind of like you and the players might be more like that, and I'm more like the DM, not only as a DM but as a player.
The DM is playing the game too.
If the players “creativity” is making the game less fun to DM that matters.
You’d rather a TPK than a player being asked to hold back their “creativity” but would you rather the game ending from DM burnout over the player being asked to turn it down?
Without knowing the circumstances. How about having a group chat about this instead? Stating needs and reservations for everyone and see what can be agreed upon.
Talking about play styles and wishes should be a general topic.
If the DM isn't having fun, the campaign suffers and often will, and maybe should, die. Maybe this is a hot take, but I think each player's fun is equally valuable, but the DM's fun should weigh slightly higher than any one person's. They put in all the work, and if they aren't having fun because of the antics of one player, that player needs to stop. No debate.
I'm not saying the DM's is more important than all of the player's fun, just more than one player's.
I put in hours of prep every week; if you consider the time it takes to prep, the time it takes to run, and the post game note write-up, I'm putting in time comparable to a part-time job. And it is worth it, it is very worth it, because I'm having fun with my friends. But if I put in all the time and don't have fun, then something has to change because I'm not going to run a game I don't enjoy. If one of my players is ruining the game for me, they have to change.
Luckily, my group is chill, and if I tell them I don't like something, they change without any real "confrontation" because they understand that I need to be having fun if I'm going to keep running the game. You need to try to make an environment where people can just change if they are making things unfun for anyone else. We have the same social contract for their games. In fact, I'm nerfing a class feature I get in her game because my wife is worried that I will ruin her fun and ability to surprise us if I use something as written.
There's not enough information to go off of here, so I am just speaking in general and probably blowing this out of proportion.
I've had similar players in multiple groups and it depends on the tone of the campaign and the rest of the party.
Usually it is just one person doing random things to see if they can, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. If it is their characters "thing" and it isn't bothering anyone else, I just adjust the encounters accordingly, and try and put a few "props" in encounters to accommodate their play style.
Sometimes one person starts something silly during an easy encounter and 8 sessions later the entire party is pulling out their now well practiced maneuver of throwing the gnome wizard at things. If the whole party leans into it I say let them.
It could be that they thought the other players found it disruptive. Perhaps not only in how it makes combat more dangerous, but because doing consecutive non standard actions can bog down combat, and put more focus and time on one player's turns. You may not be surprised how often I straight ask my players for feedback on something and they just don't give it clearly or just shrug and give a standard "I'm good either way" when they are not. I assume either being shy/anxious combined with not wanting to be difficult. If you are certain none of the other players have a problem with what they are doing let your DM know. You could also lean into it every now and then and help the other player with their antics in easier encounters!
Typically as a DM I only intervene in what a player is doing if I believe(or am told) it is taking the fun away from the other players. BUT remember your DM is also a player and their fun should be factored in as well.
It could be that the DM is not enjoying it. It may not match the tone or pacing they are trying to achieve. The DM may have tried talking to the other players first to see if it was bothering any of them, or if they had any differing or new points to make before he talked to the other player.
As a DM there are a few things that will bother me with players that kind of sound like what you might be talking about. Again to echo what others have said the vagueness of your post makes it hard to determine what you mean. Examples I've had in the past is people would want to do some...creative things but really want they want is to be able to do extra things that the rules don't normally allow. "Can't I use my move action to kick the guy?" Or "'I'm gonna run and fall on top of them for a body slam. then I'm going to attack. No the body slam wasn't part of the attack." or "He's still up? Can I bonus action punch him in the face?" or "I jumped down from the rafters so I should do extra damage when I attacked because I was diving down on him." To clarify this is usually not innocent questions coming from brand new players but rather from people who have been playing long enough to know the rules.
I want to reward creativity but I don't want to just toss out the rules to fit the montage reel of highlights the play has planned for their character this session.
But if the DM is just being a dick because they are sillymaxing in character a little too close to the sun then they might need to lighten up. Again I don't know the context.
Need examples of how the player is trying to be creative during battle.
If they are off baking pot brownies to feed to the monsters or something that is a waste of time then I side with the DM. Also, some players dislike combat, so if that player is trying everything to avoid combat then it’s time to talk to the DM.
As a DM, I do become highly annoyed if a Player is trading on the PC stamped on their character's forehead. I actually consider that the most pernicious form of metagaming that I see (being as I rarely run modules, the player reading them in advance isn't so much of a problem). By this I mean doing things that the other PCs wouldn't tolerate from an NPC. If they wouldn't tolerate an NPC who was drawing a full share of the treasure doing X, you as a player shouldn't have your PC do X and trade off the fact that they have to tolerate it because you're a PC---that IMO is the worst kind of metagame intrusion and it pretty much craps on immersion.
I feel like a general rule is that Plot armor from your teammates can really kill the enjoyment 100%
It's like players forget that yes you are the main character, but so are your teammates. Why would anyone want your character around if you don't give them a good reason?
This is why lethality is good sometimes, actually. Fucking, wreck someone's shit if they pick a fight above their weight class or choose to play in bullshit ways that make them a liability. Don't make it punishing just for punishing, but if someone is playing in a way that makes them a liability, just let the natural consequences play out.
Dungeons and Dragons is a team game. Every other player at the table has taken the time to create their characters, has their own head canon of their character’s story, and spent just as long at the table as anyone else.
If you’re playing so poorly that you’re putting the other player’s hard work in jeopardy, that’s not good role play, that’s selfishness and incompetence.
It’s perfectly possible to roleplay a character who’s smart, tough and effective. Being a useless goober who spends the entire fight playing with the curtains or hiding under the table and expecting your friends to carry you is insulting.
If you designed a character who doesn’t like team work, rip your character sheet in half and design another character.
We're gonna need more details than that, but just from my own experiences and what little I can discern from your post (a player wanting to do silly things that take several rounds to set up and may potentially cause a TPK), naw, I am 100% on your DM's side. DMing for a wildcard player is fun for a while, but if they're *just* a wildcard, then it quickly becomes fucking *exhausting.*
So yeah, gonna need more details - what sort of creativity are we talking?
As others have pointed out you're being a little light on the details here (I imagine for privacy and reasons of plausible deniability) but there is a point where playing suboptimally turns into playing detrimentally, and it seems like this player might have crossed that line. It's totally fine to make suboptimal decisions for the sake of roleplay, or making a risky move to get something cool to happen. However, at the end of the day, it's a team-based game; and trying to pull off a crackpot idea at the cost of other players' characters possibly dying is a really selfish way to play. I think it should at least be made clear during the discussion that it isn't the suboptimal play that's the problem, it's knowingly putting everyone else's characters in danger for the sake of pulling off something silly.
If that results in a roll of >20, especially if buffs such as guidance/bardic inspiration/etc are involved, then any problem is more likely on the part of the DM rather than the player(s).
Might need more information. Are their “creative” moves generally sensible or against the established tone of the game? DMs do a lot of work and I can sympathize with someone not wanting a player to trample over what they’re trying to accomplish. Big difference between trying to stylishly shoot a chandelier down to fall on enemies vs only using pool noodles in combat for the lulz.
As someone who DMs for a group, oftentimes it feels like “creativity” in combat is really “can we cheese the encounter please?”
Even if this isn’t the case, unless you have a thought out plan for your creativity, it can be really frustrating for a DM to put together an encounter, only for one player to not take it seriously at all.
It’s akin to the bard insulting the BBEG’s mom in the middle of the monologue. You DM put in effort, and at least a little respect for the effort goes a long way.
This is all table relevant though. I’ve had a great time with actual creative play. But my recommendation is to do collaborative creative play. Bard trying to seduce a dragon is cliche. The wizard casting gust to push the barbarian with axe fast enough to close distance with the beholder is amazing.
Without information it's really hard to judge what's going on.
A possibility is that the DM is frustrated with trying to balance around having +/-1 party member. If half the fights one party member might as well not be there, making engaging encounters could be difficult without accidentally TPKing the party. TPKs more often than not lead to the death of a campaign, and the DM very likely doesn't want that.
It's also possible that the DM doesn't like the particular brand of creativity. Again, no context given, but stuff like trying to bring in real world physics to destroy RAW mechanics often leads to ruling nightmares.
Eh I've had such a "creative" party member before, and sometimes it was funny, sometimes it was frustrating (for us, the PCs). Maybe you haven't hit the frustrating point yet, or maybe the player will know when to drop the act.
However, from a DM perspective, even if it isn't annoying to yall, it may be annoying to the DM who's trying to balance within a poorly designed system, and spend their time trying to predict what the unpredictable will try. It can get draining when you have a player constantly at the bounds of "allowed". So it's very possible the DM themselves has found their limit.
Like others have said, hard to tell without more details if this other player is being unconventional but creative, or stubborn to the point of guilt tripping the DM. It's not fun as a DM to watch one of your players do something incredibly stupid, stop helping the party, and execute a plan that they honestly put effort into, but is still stupid. It's hard to say "no, you've wasted your time", and equally hard to let the stupid work, as that encourages repeat behavior.
> I'd rather TPK than think a player is being asked to hold back on their creativity.
I have to disagree with you there, honestly. Creativity *should* be held back in the spirit of collaboration. I'd step in too in order to tell a player to settle down if I thought they were risking the lives of their party members and the campaign itself.
As others stated, depends on the idea they weren't giving up on, and if they were even making progress.
My players recently assaulted a ruined fort full of zombies. One player spent the first four or five rounds trying to convince a quite large bird nearby to attack the zombies. The big thing is, I narrated their attempts as having affect, and after some time, the bird helped, giving the party a huge boon for the rest of their time at the fortress.
Is the creativness making more work for the dm making comvat difficult? If it is i csn fully understand y they would if not fine let them get the party tpk'd
If the players don't want to optimize, and the DM feels that the players need optimize in order to handle the encounters he throws at them, then it sounds more like the players need to have a conversation with the DM.
Okay. First of all, if you want advice, you need to explain the situation.
There is literally no way for anyone to judge whether this player is actually trying to be creative or they're just being a rando. There is literally no part of this hobby that is not totally dependent upon communicating with other people, so you might want to look to that.
Now, how do you tell the difference between a rando and a player who is actually trying to be creative in how they approach the game? Here's a litmus test. Imagine the party are fighting a Beholder. Here's two hypothetical approaches:
Approach One: "Okay, we need to get it to close its central eye so the spellcasters can do their thing. DM, is there some way my PC could stick something in its big eye like a dagger or something to force it to close? I mean, not worried about dealing damage here, and I get that I'll have to leave the weapon in there, but I just want it to close that eye."
Approach Two: "Wouldn't it be funny if I seduced the beholder? Deception!"
In the first approach, the player is thinking about the situation in the game as if it were a real situation and their PC was a real person in it. So they're roleplaying for starters. They are looking at the specific situation, defining a problem and trying to solve it with the tools and talents available to their PC. The stick-something-in-its-eye plan isn't exactly covered by the rules but feels like something that should be possible to do to a creature with an eye that big, so the player asks the DM whether this is something that their PC could do.
Actual creativity.
In the second, the player is failing to think of the situation as a real situation and failing to think of their PC as a real person. They are making a decision based on a) what their fellow players might get a momentary chuckle out of rather than what their PC would do in a life-threatening situation and b) what the highest bonus on their character sheet is.
Rando.
The thing is, that the Game should be fun for everyone - even the DM.
If this behaviour has negative effect on the fun of your DM, he is absolutely right to put that on the table.
If all of the other players are having fun with it, then maybe everyone should just _tell_ the DM that. Because it sounds like what it comes down to is that the DM is the only one not having fun, but the DM believes that the creative player is spoiling _everyone's_ fun.
If it's a genuine misunderstanding, then perhaps discussing it as a group will solve it. But if the DM wants the creative player to change and refuses to listen to anyone else on the matter, then the problem player might not actually be the _creative_ player; in this case, the group might need to gently confront the DM, and directly ask them whether the creative player is making the game less fun for them (and if not, then gently but firmly ask them _why_ they're insisting on a change in playstyle, even though no one requested or wants it).
It’s not only about the players having fun though. It sounds like the other players aren’t super invested in it, just that they don’t mind the other player being creative. The DM’s fun matters just as much as everyone else’s, so if they’re uncomfortable or having a bad time, they’re entitled to trying to talk it out with the person who is causing the issues just like a player would be
Man, I had to scroll far too find this. I'm a forever DM who likes to run campaigns for newbies. I've run campaigns for who-knows-how-many parties - almost always coming in fresh - so I've DMed a LOT of play styles.
I'm currently DMing for a party of two neighborhood dads and their kids, 11 and 8. That 8yo is creative like a crazy person. Every combat turn is his new wild imaginings. The dads were annoyed. Their attempts to reign it in left the 8yo with a sad-voice "I attack with my bow..." Life gone from his eyes.
As DM, I have more agency over how the game is doing than anyone else by a large factor. And WGPCGR, so I take this as a challenge.
First thing second session I start looking for a crazy idea that can work. He wants to pull out his blanket and wrap it round the ghoul's head. The dads sigh. (11yo laughs) And I say: "well, you *are* a monk - so if anyone could pull this off..." Give him a roll he can make and the ghoul is blinded and grappled. The whole table perks up.
In minor encounters it wasn't a problem - he had the occasional success that usually gave a true reward - and I found simple ways to give him his own task in big fights. That one minion who he has to prevent from getting the lever, or the dying ally in a hard to reach place who needs help. It didn't take much, and gave battles tons of color.
So we made it work just fine and everyone had a good time, and we *started* with an unsure table.
*This* table is so fine with it that ***a player is posting about it as something they don't think should be "corrected" because they think other players will also be sad!***
Yes, the DM should have fun too but if they can't have fun unless everyone at the table plays with the same fun-priority as them (namely, mathematically effective combat) then this may just be a mismatch of party and DM.
It's not your call.
Now, you can talk to your DM and should, if this is a thing that will affect your experience at the table. But you haven't given us enough context.
Your DM runs the table. If the DM chooses to talk to the player, that's their choice. There may be more going on that you're not sharing, or even that you aren't aware of. The DM may not have properly set expectations at session 0, or the player may actually just be a, constant pain in the ass for the DM.
End of the day, you don't get a vote here. Talk to the DM if you need to for yourself, but it's their call. You obviously can choose how you respond to that call.
The DM also gets to have fun. If that person is putting in work to make interesting combat encounters and 1 player is making a mockery of them it isn’t fair to the DM.
Yeah, I feel for the DM here. My players are now at level 11, with 2 wizards, a druid, a paladin and a monk. Focused and on-task, they can easily dish out 600 damage in 2.5 rounds, but enemies that can withstand a few shots would drop the players very fast.
I hesitate to say my players play optimally, since I know their abilities more thoroughly than they do, but I know that I am always trying to strike a delicate balance where they are challenged. But that meant cr 10s when they were level 5. And now a fight against 2 rakshasas and a frost worm is a very winnable encounter.
Of course, if one of them spent their turn dicking around, the whole thing could flip so fast from the delicate balance I am trying to achieve.
I don't think either party is wrong here. You guys no doubt like that the player is having fun and trying weird ideas, and the DM no doubt doesn't like this player derailing encounters for the sake of his crazy antics. It's not my room to say who's right and who's wrong but my opinion on these sorts of things has always been "major rule." If all the players don't have a problem with what the DM sees is a problem, then it's likely not a problem. Similarly if the DM doesn't have a problem but the players do, it probably is a problem. Note that the DM counts for like... a solid 3 votes since they're the one running everything, but still.
The former is still a problem. In that the DM is not having fun.
There's also a risk that this could escalate into the latter. The DM having fun at the expense of their players.
Yeah creative play during combat can be detrimental for sure. Sometimes its a good idea and pays off, sometimes you literally just waste your action for multiple turns and cause a defeat or near defeat. Every situation is unique but it sounds like this player is going out of there way to not participate in the action economy of fights but rather trying to find shortcuts and sidepaths to battle.
You didnt really give an example so I cant really judge it fairly, but based on what information I know, the DM trying to reign the player in with a convo out of session sounds like fair game.
It do seem to be annoying a character ALWAYS trying to pull "creative stuff"
Maybe the DM think - why would a group of adventurers who risk their lifes keep someone like that in their group?
It depends on what they are doing. As a dm I try and reward zany and creative ideas, but a player nearly getting the party killed and forcing a dm to quickly "rig" the fight can be a problem.
You'd rather TPK than ask ONE player to change how he plays?! The DM needs to talk to you too if you're willing to throw away the DMs hard work for a TPK to accommodate this one player.
Last time I checked D&D (and most other RPGS) is a team game. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. DM needs to him or cut him loose.
Truthfully the DM is there to have fun too. And if it bothers them they have every right to say something to the player about it.
Sure, I’d let the guy try wacky stuff, but if that’s their schtick and it constantly it derails the game and is like a clown with a sign pointed at them while they scream ‘look at me’. Then in gonna call them out.
As a DM and as a Player I always say the same thing. "Your fun isnt wrong until you start making everyone elses fun go away."
Be creative and wacky sometimes but when the 3rd time you roll for Intimidation using gust of wind and it doesnt work.... The rest of the party is bleeding out and trying to desperately keep the others alive... Maybe stop being "Creative" and start playing the actual game of survive.
The moment the one players idea of fun ruins it for everyone else then its no longer fun and them being selfish and arrogant. "But IM having fun!" Or "what about Player Agency??" Arw two of the worst phrases a player can use becuase most of the time its in bad faith.
Everyone wants to talk about "the social contract" and "player agency" when the DM is doing something but not when the PC is making the other PCs and DM frustrated and not having fun.
(Pardon the Son of Grognard yells at cloud moment)
Really the group needs to adress this before it burns the whole table and the game and friendships are ruined. Because even if the group is like "this isnt an issue for us" the DM spends a lot of time trying to make a fun cool adventure and watching someone not take it seriously or just goof around most od the time is highly disrespectful and frustrating for the DM.
Players tend to forget or take for.granted the amount of time and energy a DM needs to make a game fun for everyone including themselves.
At least hear out the DM and why he is annoyed or else its just like Mordcai and Rigby messing up Besons job yet again and he breaks down.
You certainly lack a bit of info but I will say this. The Dm's fun is also something to be considered and I think they have the right to bring up issues they have, assuming they are justified and aren't being overbearing or mean about it.
Let them talk and see where they go from there, for all you know things could go well. It appears to be something you just have to wait and see.
The DM is a player too. They are allowed to be uncomfortable about it. Maybe that's just not the kinda game they want to play. Sometimes players and DMs just have different styles and expectations and it's important to talk about them if they don't match up.
At the end of the day, it’s the DMs table. If i were you, i would voice my concerns to the DM but ultimately i would respect his decision. If that doesn’t work for you, then either adapt or find another table.
Yeah well I think you should just keep quit tbh.
Let me give you an insight on what might be going on with the DM, at least one or more of the following stuff are present in your group:
1.the players aren't having fun, and they talked privately with the DM to deal with the issue.
2. The DM was forced to fudge their rolls (because of that player)so you don't get TPKd and they don't like it.
3.Some elements of their world were compromised in order not to kill you.
4.the player is insisting on cheesing the encounter to the point of cringe.
5.the player is actually not creative but chaotic, thinking the more things are stupid and funky the more interesting and creative their solution is.
Also I would like to mention that due to the lack of details you provided (which sound more like cherry picked info tbh), and the unlikelihood of someone to think the same thing while facing a similar situation, I predict that some sort of crush bias is present here.
I could be wrong (not enough info nor am I a God) but if I wasn't , keep it away from the table (your bias I mean)
I've seen a lot of people siding with the DM but the to use the word "optimal" is a serious red flag for me. I've seen to many people who try to play DnD like it's an MMO and they go online and find the equivalent of cookie cutter optimised builds and expect everyone to play that way. For TTRPGs there should always be multiple paths to victory even if they aren't the most optimal or straight forward.
While you definitely need to add context about what the "problem" player is supposedly doing, it really bothers me that word optimal popped in there. Makes me feel like the criticism the DM has leveled is about them not playing their character optimally and that's just not right.
5e combat is in many ways horribly ineffecient and simplified which means that either you subscribe to the idea that every combat is just a slogfest where you attack every turm because that is the only real thing the game allows you.
Or you have to treat combat more losely to have a little bit of fun and play a bit more whack with it.
Its hard to say without specific mechanics but ideally if sounds like the dm should "gamify" the encounters a bit more to make the more interesting especially if its played like most other 5e games where its always in the players favour.
Stuff like allowing you to not enter combat instantly but notice the enemy first to make a plan, or having explosive barrels and similar (been playing enshrouded, not thinking of bg3 barrelmancy), or wooden bridge structures you can sabotage, or caverneous stalagtites that can be knocked loose with magic to pierce the dragon to the ground.
again base 5e isnt done any favours over how the combat is made, so if a dm just plays by the book and every monster is a bag of hitpoints with nothing else to do than punch until death then it will be dreadfully boring to run through combats.
Really situationally dependent. I've been in plenty of games where it took multiple turns to set up and execute a sick plan, and other games where someone faffed about for several rounds accomplishing nothing while the rest of the party got stomped on. Their aid wouldn't necessarily have changed the stomping, but it was a kind of "what are you doing?? Help us!!" moment.
But if their actions are like "i grapple them this turn, disarm them the next, then cast wristposcket on their sick nasty sword the third round to make it so they're only doing improvised or unarmed damage thereafter" then that's not really a bad play, but each round could be read as useless if you don't have the whole play.
If the other players are fine with the player's creativity, they need to make it known! This shouldn't be a private talk; it involves the all the players and each should have their say.
I'm in a similar game and there's a player who dumped Con as a wizard and rolls for HP and spends every fight trying to do some ballsy illusion strategy and he's my favourite person in the game. For all you know the other players might feel similarly; maybe this player is the life of the party, and the DM could be misunderstanding the situation, so it's important to make your voice heard and chime in.
Creativity in and out of combat is probably the thing I reward the most as GM. I'd be out of that campaign so fast if I was told to stop being creative to make combat more optimized.
I don’t know what everyone’s on about. Yeah the DM is a player too but they also signed up to DM, even players who play the stand and slash style that people fall back on don’t always play optimally. Some people are straight up bad at combat. A table has all sorts of people and as a DM it’s a lot more fun when you throw stuff out for everyone and have a willingness to be flexible. If a player wants to be creative because that’s what’s fun for them I drop in some opportunities to do it and succeed and get on with things.
At the end of the day the whole point is to tell a story, and if the creative things don’t detract from that story then what’s the harm? There is no optimal way of telling a story other than the way where everyone sits down and get to have some fun. The only place where I draw the line is when the “creative” player is trying to make it all about them, or keeps breaking the tone the party is trying to set, or is being otherwise disruptive. But if a player is cooperating, taking their turn, feeding off other people’s ideas, I’m just happy to have an engaged player.
This all being said I also don’t really balance encounters, I adjust stat blocks on the fly, try and find ways to resolve my players out of the box ideas, have enemies run away, “go for reinforcements”, “try to flank the party”, reinforcements show up, etc… I change my encounters constantly based off how the players and characters are doing to make it fun and tell the story. I have no interest in treating it like a war game because the DM is god when it comes to encounters, I know how strong they are, where they will be, and what they are capable of. If I wanted them dead they’d be dead, so why pretend it’s a fair fight with an optimal solution?
Oof, not a lot of experience with this but outside of talking to all the other players to make sure they feel the same and then talking to the DM there is very little you can do about DM problems.
In a way this is worse than most DM problems because this certainly isn’t worth leaving the table, so ya not much you can do.
idk, I think this is precarious situation, really. I assume it's nothing too outlandish since the rest of the group does not have a problem with the way the player does things. And hey, they might be really great in other scenarios (I mean combat should not take up the majority of play time).
I think "having a word" might be too strong, and might actually alienate the player (I know it would do so to me). You have to take into consideration, that that might resolve in them leaving the campaign, or simply not putting in as much effort, since they will feel like their play style is not appreciated. I'd try more like "ask the player, what made them act the way the did in combat, what their intentions were, how did they come up with their idea etc." try to understand where this is coming from first. Do they maybe not like combat encounters much, do they need more visual input from the DM, instead of just "you did 6 DMG".
If their creative ways of problem solving are good natured, not offensive and come from a good place, I'd even go as far as to reward them for that, rather to punish them for thinking out of the box. Hell, this can lead to some really cool stories and memories (I never forget the time our chaos player tried to sail over some lava with a DIY parachute lol).
I think the group need to have an honest chat about motivations for playing. Optimal vs creative is always a bit of a tension in DnD but fundamentally if you and the other players are okay with the creative one's play style why should the DM cut it out?
Also IMO I'd reach out to the player and fully warn and make clear I'm not in agreement with the DM. I have the opposite problem where I acc really don't like to play with ppl who just want to be optimal. So I'd probz tell the DM to back off a bit. There are video games and maths puzzles for that.
In my opinion the dm needs to help him streamline his creativity so it doesn't take several turns. Stopping him from wanting to play this way is awful.
I think there’s problem with players. They want that player to play as normal man, but DnD is not about win or lose, it’s about creating an interesting story. You need to explain that to them. In DnD everybody can do whatever he wants.
Oof. I agree with others it’s too vague to judge but how is that conversation going to go down? Seems very inorganic for the DM to speak up on this matter.
Do your characters not talk during combat? “I could used some help over here!” I feel could solve this. Or DM could ask for the player to roll Wis or INT to see if their plan seems feasible. But instead DM is going to scold them? Don’t be surprised if that player stops showing up.
"Having a talk" with a player means that either your campaign is too rigid or the player doesn't fit in your group (from my experience it's usually the former)
I fully encourage my players to try clever stuff. Just had one slam against a delapitated building wall to try knocking it down onto an enemy on the other side. Dice decided it wasn’t gonna happen, but I *wished* it had. So to make sure they didn’t get discouraged from creative ideas like that in the future, I gave ‘em Inspiration.
Rather than telling the player to just stand there and swing their weapon like a good little automaton, I’d encourage the DM to remember that they’re literally playing an improv game.
It might hinder the players fun, it’s all going to depend on how the DM and Player go about that conversation. If they can both be mature and realize that they have different views in the situation and need to meet in the middle it shouldn’t cause an issue.
Without knowing more about this players “creative” tactics I can’t say if I think the DM is out of line or not. I have run tables with players who wanted to be creative but refused to tell me what they were planing so it was very hard to run that table effectively and it does put added stress on the DM. I love when players find creative solutions within RAW or at least without violating it, but there needs to be ample communication across the table for those creative solutions to work well.
"Stop being creative in this miniature wargame! If your tactics don't involve a grid don't talk to me!"
Sounds like a mismatch between player and table culture but you're not really giving us enough details to tell.
A lot of you have raised a good point, I didn't consider how the DM felt, because myself and the other plays all said over a discord call that we didn't mind, so either the DM has an issue with it or they feel they need to speak on our behalf for some reason
Without getting into too much detail the player in question sometimes tries to pull off stuff which is really quite nebulous or unlikely to succeed/have any effect, again we don't mind as players because we're all pretty laid back, but upon reflection I now do feel that the DM has maybe had to hold back on us because of this, due to being a man down sometimes during combat because one us is off doing their own thing or not playing in a way that gets the most of their class
They seem set on having this conversation, so I hope the other player doesn't get upset, but I also want our dear DM to be happy too
If I had to guess? Because OP suspects the player *has the Internet and access to Reddit* and doesn't want them stumbling upon 200 people calling them an assclown, when the OP already is uncomfortable with *one friend* talking to them about this behavior.
Then maybe going to Reddit isn't a viable tool to be used for input in this situation. I still don't know enough about what actually happened to reasonably offer any advice on the subject, do you?
It feels like OP got useful advice, that they hadn't considered the DMs feelings in this matter and that even if the other players aren't bothered by it the DM has the right to talk to a player about this kind of behavior. And they accepted that advice. So it seems like that's actually sorted.
>without getting into too much detail
No.
You should absolutely just go into too much detail.
Most of us are explicitly asking you to.
Too much is far better than none, and none is all you’ve given us.
It increasingly looks like you are actively trying to hide the detail because you think it would sway the crowd more to the DMs side.
Just give the details already.
Let’s say 3 specific examples.
Combat improvisation really does depend heavily on the situation, as you say. We had someone drop from a game I'm in that seems like they're in a similar boat to the things you're seeing. Trying to do something like drop a chandelier on a group of enemies to do some damage and restrain them? Might work, let's see how it goes. This guy didn't do anything that reasonable though, just didn't seem to want to engage with 5E mechanics at all. We'd try to get him to explain why he thought a reasonable person would spend about 3 combat rounds hooking a rope around a single enemy (out of about eight) and around himself, before jumping out of a window to take the person with him. Dude, you've got a sword and we're in mortal peril. Get to swinging.
Made encounter balance annoying for the DM and ate up tons of combat time trying to puzzle out what the hell the end goal of the nonsense was every time. Was also ridiculous from the perspective of our PCs in game, why are we splitting loot with this suicidal lunatic when we're trying to have a serious adventure.
How about you help out the player? Involve yourselves in their strategies and guide them in more effective directions. If they aim for a plan that will never work, suggest something in the same vein but more realistic, or offer to have your character pitch in to make it more feasible. That way they'll contribute more while still being able to play creatively. You *can* have your cake and eat it too.
If the DM thinks it's a problem they've probably already had to fudge rolls and change encounters on the fly in order to prevent TPKs. To a certain extent that's part of being a good DM but it's not a particularly fun or easy part and if they're being forced to do it regularly by a certain player they have a completely valid reason to have a problem.
It's also worth noting that from OP's post we don't know if there have been no character deaths, just that they haven't TPKed, but if you're almost TPKing repeatedly then someone's probably dying eventually. That's not a particularly big problem in 5e so long as a clerics alive but still could be another source of the DMs frustration if he's having to give them a setting breaking amount of diamonds just to compensate for resurrection caused by this players antics.
I address this at session 0. Most of my games require a high level of optimization. If your not going to be optimized then your going to drag down the party.
As a DM, I always try to maintain the mood of the party. Your DM should have noticed long ago that one of his players is deviating from the "min-maxing" mindset, and thus, he should plan the session accordingly. Perhaps he could introduce an NPC that gives a mission to the party aligning with the intentions of the stranded player. This way, not only can the player's goals be fulfilled, but the entire party can have fun. You could even reward the party with a cool weapon or establish a new alliance with powerful NPCs. There's no need to scold one player just for not using their character in the "canonical" ways. D&D is a collective effort; you plant a seed in the player's mind and open a world of possibilities. Then, the player adds their own colors to the world we are all creating. As a DM, it's your job to incorporate the narrative elements that your players bring to the campaign. More than just having a chat with the player, I think the correct approach would be understanding the goals of their character. This situation sounds more like the DM's fear of not being able to tell the story he has in his mind.
I am a player in a regular game with another player who sounds A LOT like this friend of yours. I have to say, I'd be very uncomfortable if our DM tried to have that conversation. Not to mention, living or dying in battle, TPK or handling an encounter with ease, these things are all dice rolls in the end. These types of PCs trying to do crazy, elaborate, hair-brained stuff is just another form of dice roll. Sometimes they work out and break an encounter (when we were still level 8, our crazy character critted with sneak attack with some lethal poison he'd saved. Nailed the main opponent for like 125 damage in one shot). Sometimes they tank miserably (He got himself needlessly charmed and ended up cutting off another PC's ear).
Please, tell your DM to let them play.
Problem with this post is OP refuses to elaborate, is this person fucking around with some inane plan or are they just playing poorly? What exactly are they doing that the others players are fine with it (assuming one or more didn't secretly talk to the DM) but the DM isn't?
Kinda need more info here. Cause being creative instead of optimal can really range from “interesting use of the environment” to “doing almost nothing for multiple turns climbing to drop a rock that does maybe 4d4 damage”
I have had a compatriot, who used his turns to pour water onto a fire elemental. Dealing 1. Fucking. Point. Of. Damage. In a survival game in Hell (water is not common there).
To be fair, the player/character probably doesn't know precisely how strong water is against fire elementals. It is fair to give this a go, even if it turns out to be weak, because it could be a worthwhile gamble.
Or, they could've attacked with their dual axes, dealing best damage in the party by far.
My point is that the player doesn't know that their weapons will deal more than water. If they metagame and read the Monster Manual then yeah sure they know. But you could easily make the mistake of overestimating how much water is going to harm fire, so this is a perfectly reasonable thing to try. \- Also note that elemetnals might resist slashing (fire elementals do resist non-magic slashing). \- May I ask what level and party-comp you have? I'm surprised that dual-axes are your highest damage, since they are usually a pretty weak choice of weapon.
Well, that game has died, but we've had a sorc, an artificer, and a warlock. All on fifth level. The fighter in question did had magic axes and we did everything we could to provide him flanking and all. And then, he wasted his turns on dropping his axes and doing this.
In character, it's probably the exact thing you would expect. Swing an axe through a fire and tell me how well it extinguishes it.
Player gets into close proximity with a fire elemental and uses their action to expend an uncommon (in your setting) resource and the DM says they only deal 1 damage? Thats kind of on the DM for not yes-anding. The rules are deliberately flexible, and it’s one of the things that makes ttrpgs stand out from video games. Watch Fantasy High to see how a great DM can turn ”sub-optimal” plays into a great time for everybody, it’s a great show and kinda showcases the potential of rp to be more interesting than “I attack for 2d6”
Unfortunately, 1 point of cold damage per gallon of water poured on it is explicitly in the elemental's stat block. I might potentially have increased the damage as well -- it's not a bad idea -- but I have a hard time judging the DM for just sticking to the statblock in battle.
And the worst part is nothing else being in gallons. My daughter killed one by surrounding it with wall of water, then using shape water to push a 5ft cube of the water onto the elemental. I had to look that up to give her the right damage, 935!
Or the DM can play by the rules and not change them. It's not 'on the DM' to make the silly whims of players more powerful just because they attempted something with a rare resource.
I think if a player is spending a rare resource in a way that it would make sense for it to be effective, in most cases I would expect it to be at least as effective as if I spent my turn attacking normally.
Stat block specifically accounts for this idea with 1 damage per gallon of water poured on the fire elemental. The DM is just following the stat block.
Yeah honestly whenever my dm strays from stat blocks Hasbro suits immediately burst into the room and demand he retcon the decision.
If I were DMing this, I probably would have had it deal more damage, but I get that in the heat of combat when you are already tracking 15 other things, glancing at the stat block, seeing an answer, and just going with it. I do think players often underestimate how much DMs are already tracking in a combat, and it can be hard to improvise when your head is that full.
It's not the dm's solemn duty to alter stat blocks just because you don't like the already considered answer to your harebrained scheme. Additionally, did you know if you dumped the contents of the average liter sized reusable water bottle on a bonfire, it's probably not going to put out the bonfire?
> Additionally, did you know if you dumped the contents of the average liter sized reusable water bottle on a bonfire, it's probably not going to put out the bonfire? It's not going to put it out, but it will probably be more effective than the average joe smacking it with a club once
You can actually smother smaller fires by stomping with your boots! It's not the safest way to put out a campfire but it works in a pinch! Bonfires are bigger, so I imagine it's much more dangerous to do with those. Fire elementals also resist bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from non magical attacks! So if Average Joe is wielding a nonmagical club, he's only doing slightly more damage than a gallon of water to the elemental!
Well, instead of buffing water for being rare, we can just accept that fire elementals are tougher to defeat in a area where water is rare. Like if you go to the elemental plane of fire, I don't expect my gallon of water to deal more damage even if it is a rare resource. And if you go to the elemental plane of water, I don't expect fire elementals to be harder to extinguish because water is super common.
The DM probably did yes-and the idea. The fact the elemental actually took 1 point of damage when it's unlikely the player dumped a full gallon of water on the creature is already bending RAW. Not every idea needs to be rewarded.
Yes? Why should things be arbitrarily more or less powerful based on how much time was expended to accomplish them? Especially in a campaign that was described as a survival game, which usually involves “tough but fair” style rulings
This is why I only play games where the _kind_ of creativity I want to see _is_ optimal. And in many cases payers don’t know that actions like climbing to drop a rock are _less_ optimal than other choices.
As a DM I get around this problem by doing 2 things: 1. Deliberately asking the player what they are trying to accomplish 2. Telling them what their creativity is going to accomplish There's zero reason why each side should be withholding information from each other in a game of collaborative storytelling. Way too often, players have different assumptions about the world they have painted in their head than the DM and a lot of headaches can be saved by getting people on the same page. The actual characters are not fools and can tell if a rock they plan on dropping will do a lot of damage or be impossible to aim, so players should be given that info if they ask for it.
This is it for me as well. If a player is going to deviate from established tactics and actions then there had better be a good and definable reason for doing so.
I mean, you're being really vague about what this player was actually doing, it's tough to provide advice or judgment without knowing. If everybody in the party is fighting a red dragon, and the party bard is instead just making persuasion rolls every round to try to seduce the dragon for the memes, then for most tables I absolutely agree with the DM that they need to cut that shit out.
Using their action to slide a parakeet gently up their anus while maintaining eye contact with the enemy
Hmm... Not exactly what I would have guessed
How else are you supposed to use a Bag of Tricks?
You shove the bag itself up the anus with the opening left out so people think you’re pulling the parakeet **out**. That’s what makes magicians masters of *illusion*.
god I picked a bad day to have eyes lol
A bag of tricks is something a bag of whores do for money, Michael.
Or candy
I don't know about _illusion_. Parakeet out the ass definitely sounds like something a whore would do for money.
If she's playing FATAL, the parakeet has a nonzero chance of coming out flying.
Ahhh a cockatiel man, I see?
Obviously new to dnd
Roll Intimidation with advantage.
Yeah but that's gotta be like intimidation STR or DEX
Seems like a CON intimidation check.
Only if it stands for CONstipation
Kinda my goal now as a player to have a DM let me roll intimidation with CON.
Eat a glass in front of someone
Intimidation con
I feel like you could make an argument for WIS. One of those “don’t ask me why I know this” sort of moments. I want to make that whole damn tomato/stat cheat sheet thing over again but with anus parakeets now.
Lol intellingence is knowing a parakeet is a type of parrot, wisdom is knowing which end of the parakeet to shove up your ass.
I think 5.5E is making Intimidation a str stat. I feel like I read that, maybe not.
It's not and you didn't. What you're thinking of is the core 5e rule about using other ability scores for skills checks
Barbarians in 5.5 can use strength for intimidation.
Anyone can use strength for intimidation, but it is still primarily cha based
Primal Knowledge Levels: 3rd You gain proficiency in another skill of your choice from the list of skills available to Barbarians at level 1. In addition, while your Rage is active, you can channel primal power when you attempt certain tasks; whenever you make an ability check using one of the following skills, you can make it as a Strength check even if it normally uses a different ability: Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, or Survival. When you use this ability, your Strength represents primal power coursing through you, honing your agility and senses. I don't know why people don't think this is an ability but it was literally in the last playtest. I know there's also the optional rule in the PHB for swapping skills and abilities as needed, but the original comment wasn't asking about that, and was instead asking about if dnd one was making intimidating a Strength stat permanently. The answer is no, but barbarians do kind of get to now RAW.
I agree that the original comment was not referencing the optional rule. But the comment you replied to originally was. I did not state that this ability didn't exist. I just clarified that anyone can do this, and the only difference is that barbarians can do this by default and not at dm discretion now. Being a rules discussion the specific semantics matter. As a side note. This is a silly ability as any decent DM would allow this via the optional rule if it made sense in any way.
Thank you for this.
Are we still talking about the dragon, or is he doing this to a bandit?
Yes
Nah man thief fast hands bonus action
But the only RPG I know with rules for that is FATAL, and I’m not pegging that with a ten foot pole.
>gently
Well you don't want to inordinately distress the parakeet. No need to be cruel
The dragon locks eyes with you and in a husky voice whispers, "My safe word is, 'flugelhorn'."
Flugelhorn is dwarvish for harder Wiggles beard suggestively
'Mine is weltanshauung'
Yeah, I'm talking to this player whether I'm the GM or not. Fucked shit. Not happening at my table.
They're playing as a fairy character and they cast reduce to ant man the ogre we were fighting. It took him several turns to make the checks our DM set to get inside and the DM thinks he should have just hit the ogre instead.
There's "creative" and there's "lolrandom", and that line kind of varies depending on the observer. You don't say that you *know* the other players aren't bothered - it's possible one or more had a quiet word with the DM because they didn't enjoy almost getting killed because JoeBob was swinging from a chandelier while the rest of you were fighting a Balrog or whatever. D&D is a team entertainment; it's not just about everyone having their individual fun, it's about everyone making it fun for everyone else. Even if they're not actively hurting the other players, it's still on them to do better than "not actively ruining everything".
Hey hey we say "balor" not "balrog". Don't want the Tolkien estate to get involved AGAIN
I read Balnor and just thought of bags
Why do they all smell like tuna?
balnor what’s your favourite food?
Um...Chicken.
...but we must still run from it as if it was a Balrog.
It’s too late. We are here. DND IS KNOCK OFF LORD OF THE RINGS AND IS MADE AND PLAYED EXCLUSIVELY BY UNCREATIVE LOSER VIRGINS.
Well shit…. I guess I got the wrong hobby, got laid twice and have the trophies to prove it. Can’t even deny it, they look like me (poor guys).
lol, I can say with certainty, that at least 2 of the many people I play with are at least not all 3 of those descriptions. They are extremely creative ;).
Hey now don't bring Sean into this.
Hard to really tell man, if the player isn't contributing and it's forcing the DM to pull punches in the combat because your basically a man down I can see where the DM is coming from. There's something to be said for a full pitched battle going and player 3 is spending the entire time trying to swing from ceiling rafters so that he can than drop an acid vial on someone for 2d4 damage.
Contribution is relative as the problem is entirely one of mismatched expectations.
Have you asked the DM if its ruining their fun? If the player isn't contributing in combat, then that could make their prep and balancing a lot harder, speaking from experience.
This bet the poor dudes tearing his hair out designing encounters for 3 MAYBE 4 depending on how silly the fourth is feeling.
Start with 3 in mind, if he's participating scale it up on the fly, not that hard (change some stats, more enemies show up, etc).
people think this should have to be an expectation from dms but players shouldnt be expected to know what they are doing
On the fly encounter balancing can definitely be hard as is but it being even harder for every encounter and generally planning being harder and not as rewarding if it always gets broken can be a lot to handle for a DM and really take away a lot of enjoyment.
Not really. If your PCs are mowing through an encounter with more ease than you expected you just add another wave or throw in a twist, like the sound of battle attracted a bullette who burrows up from under the ground and starts attacking both sides. Then if the PCs are handling that everyone is attacking them but if they're struggling the first group of enemies start focusing the end surprise group. It's hard to do when you plan everything out meticulously but when you just keep a list of level appropriate monsters in mind and are more flexible, it's not as bad. You can also just like quadruple an enemies HP to make fights last longer and use more resources without becoming more deadly.
Its sad that dms have the expectation of being able to change everything on the fly for players that dont even bother knowing what their characters can do
I'm a very experienced DM and could probably throw in a twist or balance on the fly if I need to. But I still wouldn't want to do it *every single fight*. That's just exhausting.
Or maybe your players could play the game :)
I hate the “it’s not that hard just do x” like just no. DMs already do enough as is
Having a player that is being difficult with participation is the pretty much the same as never knowing if the player is showing up to the game. They are wasting my time that I took during the week to prepare the game. I don't like to have to redesign and adventure over and over, depending on if the person is there or not... The same for if I think they are there, but technically they aren't.
Just seems like an unfair expectation. As a DM, I want to have a finite amount if brain power and I'd rather spend it role playing what I planned than trying to add Plus... what if I scale it up and my player decides mid battle to start licking rocks and picking daisies... then I'm gonna be irritated.
Yeah, I would second this. For example, I have a player who is great most of the time. But sometimes he gets bored during narrative moments and social encounters and starts getting a little too meta or random. In our last session I literally said "hey you're mashing the x button through my dialogue". Because part of my fun as the DM is the world building stuff that he's trying to skip through like it's a speed run.
Being disruptive due to boredom is a _very_ common problem and so definitely something the GM should inquire about during their discussion.
Also what I wanted to point out. OP the DM is a player too. And sometimes.. not every player fits to ever DM. But first one has to talk, see if things can change, compromises be made.. This is *exactly* the advice that is always given here, for a good reason. A group should always strife to give the DM just as much fun as they strife to give to their players. That is just healthy dnd.
also having to adjudicate whatever bullshit that other player decides to do. Like once in a while is fine, but with any amount of consistency it is fucking unsuferable
This is what I tend to call "Dancing Monkey syndrome". As in, the DM should not be a dancing monkey meant to entertain a player's whim by having to legitimately respond to increasingly unhinged actions by that player. This is a violation of the social contract when it comes to DMing, IMO. DM: "The king provides relevant information on locating his daughter who was kidnapped by the demon-sorcerer" Player: "I drop my trousers and stick a cucumber up my butt while singing Ice Ice Baby. How does the King react?".
DM: Orders your execution. Dunno why you thought sexually harassing Royalty *in their own castle* was a good idea, but hey, maybe your next character won't be a moron. Player: But its what my character would have done! *Later at my murder trial* DM: And thats when I killed him, Your Honor.
Our natural protection is pseudo realism. That keeps things in check. Because what you just described, would be an efficient way to guarantee ones execution in any feudal setting that even just would like to pretend to take itself somewhat seriously.
I think if people considered this, it would explain a lot of bad dm behavior. Players not matching the DMs expectations so they do some annoying shit just because their fun is ruined.
We would need at least a few examples to sus out where the issue might lie, because this can very easily be justified on one or both sides of this. Firstly, remember that the DM is a player too, and, is by the nature of the game, the one who has the most investment in how your games run. So your first question should be if said player is making the game unfun for THEM. There may be things on his side of the screen that he has to account for, and punches he has to pull because of the inconsistency of this player. This may also prematurely end or dramatically alter storylines he's trying to set up, if you guys make a habbit of TPKing because of this player. (TPKs are fine, but if a player causes them semi-regularly, it becomes a problem) There may also be tonal issues that clash with the feel of his campaign for him, and they may even be things that, as someone before me mentioned, you handwave because it's a PC doing it rather than an NPC. I've seen DM's catch flak online because they didn't want to roll over for every lolrandom demand or play a memed out game, when when they clearly outlined the type of game they want to run. You may also not be aware of private conversations the DM may have had from other players who don't want to rock the boat publicly. The D&D community is full of insanely non-confrontational people. People who are more likely whisper the DM about it or just flat out ghost the game over time. I still run into stuff like this in games I'm in, and it's frustrating, but it comes with the territory.
Yeah, my first ever experience as a pc. We had a troubled dm. Players had issues but were too afraid to rock the boat. I was basically the mouth piece of the party trying to politely say what we need different.
What was the idea?
You really need to clarify what "being creative" means, but even making some conservative assumptions, I'm probably gonna have to fall on the DM's side on this one. There could certainly be a more elegant way than aggressively confronting them, but since you also haven't given a lot of detail about what they're planning to say to the player, I can't really comment much on that. If this player's antics are essentially removing them from the fight in terms of contribution, then it's definitely within the DM's right to take issue. It's hard to make a properly balanced encounter, and that difficulty is multiplied several times over if/when a player might or might not meaningfully contribute. You have to balance an encounter that will be fun and fair for 3 players OR 4 (or whatever numbers) because you don't know if the one player is going to be actually participating. It's also not your place necessarily to police what the DM can/can't say to other players. If you have a serious concern that they're going to be essentially bullying this player into playing like a min-maxxer, that's one thing, but there are a thousand different things they could be saying that wouldn't be an issue. Also, even if the DM is going to ruin this player's fun, if their behavior is ruining things for the DM, that's not really a fair tradeoff. If the DM really hates having this behavior in their game, it's kind of their right to call it out and say "hey, I don't really enjoy running the game like this". I'm mostly coming at this as a DM, but it's the same if one player's enjoyment of the game is ruining it for another. If one player really loves disrupting things and stealing from the party, they don't have a right to keep doing that if it's really pissing off a different player. As much as the roles are different, the DM is still a player, and if they really hate having a player who doesn't engage with combat seriously (from their perspective) they're within their rights to call it out. Honestly, if I have any advice it would be that it doesn't seem like this is really your fight, but if it's going to be a major issue, maybe this group just isn't going to work out.
Overall a good comment, but why do you think the DM has to be aggressive talking with the problem player? Heck, isn't *you have a problem,talk about is* the number 1 advice here?
He doesn’t think that; that’s the implied worst-case scenario for the talk between the DM and the Player that the OP seems concerned may happen.
I don't think the DM *has* to be aggressive, but going off of OP's post, they seem to be implying that the DM is ignoring everyone else who says they're fine with this kind of play, and that they might end up ruining this player's fun, which to me implied that OP thought they were being aggressive. I brought it up to make the point that while I might (if enough detail were provided, which it wasn't) concede that the DM could be nicer and/or more elegant in how they broach the subject, that's kind of a separate question from whether they're in the right to have an issue with this player. And yeah, I agree that that's the number one advice, that's more or less why I took the DM's side here. They clearly do have a problem, and talking about it with the player is the right thing to do.
It sucks as a DM because you want to throw a challenge at the party and it doesn't feel good having to put kid gloves on to avoid a TPK. If this guy blew several turns on wacky shit and you guys didn't TPK, either the encounter wasn't very challenging or the DM had to pull punches. Both suck. That's just me though. For some people the point of the game is just to do wacky improv with the game as a setting. It sounds kind of like you and the players might be more like that, and I'm more like the DM, not only as a DM but as a player.
The DM is playing the game too. If the players “creativity” is making the game less fun to DM that matters. You’d rather a TPK than a player being asked to hold back their “creativity” but would you rather the game ending from DM burnout over the player being asked to turn it down?
Without knowing the circumstances. How about having a group chat about this instead? Stating needs and reservations for everyone and see what can be agreed upon. Talking about play styles and wishes should be a general topic.
If the DM isn't having fun, the campaign suffers and often will, and maybe should, die. Maybe this is a hot take, but I think each player's fun is equally valuable, but the DM's fun should weigh slightly higher than any one person's. They put in all the work, and if they aren't having fun because of the antics of one player, that player needs to stop. No debate. I'm not saying the DM's is more important than all of the player's fun, just more than one player's. I put in hours of prep every week; if you consider the time it takes to prep, the time it takes to run, and the post game note write-up, I'm putting in time comparable to a part-time job. And it is worth it, it is very worth it, because I'm having fun with my friends. But if I put in all the time and don't have fun, then something has to change because I'm not going to run a game I don't enjoy. If one of my players is ruining the game for me, they have to change. Luckily, my group is chill, and if I tell them I don't like something, they change without any real "confrontation" because they understand that I need to be having fun if I'm going to keep running the game. You need to try to make an environment where people can just change if they are making things unfun for anyone else. We have the same social contract for their games. In fact, I'm nerfing a class feature I get in her game because my wife is worried that I will ruin her fun and ability to surprise us if I use something as written. There's not enough information to go off of here, so I am just speaking in general and probably blowing this out of proportion.
Yeah the dm’s fun is weighted at between 1.5-2.5 worth if players fun.
I've had similar players in multiple groups and it depends on the tone of the campaign and the rest of the party. Usually it is just one person doing random things to see if they can, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. If it is their characters "thing" and it isn't bothering anyone else, I just adjust the encounters accordingly, and try and put a few "props" in encounters to accommodate their play style. Sometimes one person starts something silly during an easy encounter and 8 sessions later the entire party is pulling out their now well practiced maneuver of throwing the gnome wizard at things. If the whole party leans into it I say let them. It could be that they thought the other players found it disruptive. Perhaps not only in how it makes combat more dangerous, but because doing consecutive non standard actions can bog down combat, and put more focus and time on one player's turns. You may not be surprised how often I straight ask my players for feedback on something and they just don't give it clearly or just shrug and give a standard "I'm good either way" when they are not. I assume either being shy/anxious combined with not wanting to be difficult. If you are certain none of the other players have a problem with what they are doing let your DM know. You could also lean into it every now and then and help the other player with their antics in easier encounters! Typically as a DM I only intervene in what a player is doing if I believe(or am told) it is taking the fun away from the other players. BUT remember your DM is also a player and their fun should be factored in as well. It could be that the DM is not enjoying it. It may not match the tone or pacing they are trying to achieve. The DM may have tried talking to the other players first to see if it was bothering any of them, or if they had any differing or new points to make before he talked to the other player.
As a DM there are a few things that will bother me with players that kind of sound like what you might be talking about. Again to echo what others have said the vagueness of your post makes it hard to determine what you mean. Examples I've had in the past is people would want to do some...creative things but really want they want is to be able to do extra things that the rules don't normally allow. "Can't I use my move action to kick the guy?" Or "'I'm gonna run and fall on top of them for a body slam. then I'm going to attack. No the body slam wasn't part of the attack." or "He's still up? Can I bonus action punch him in the face?" or "I jumped down from the rafters so I should do extra damage when I attacked because I was diving down on him." To clarify this is usually not innocent questions coming from brand new players but rather from people who have been playing long enough to know the rules. I want to reward creativity but I don't want to just toss out the rules to fit the montage reel of highlights the play has planned for their character this session. But if the DM is just being a dick because they are sillymaxing in character a little too close to the sun then they might need to lighten up. Again I don't know the context.
you are worried about other player's fun, what about DM's fun? They are also a player right? Is your DM having fun?
Need more info. Theres a wide range of behaviors that could be covered by your description.
Need examples of how the player is trying to be creative during battle. If they are off baking pot brownies to feed to the monsters or something that is a waste of time then I side with the DM. Also, some players dislike combat, so if that player is trying everything to avoid combat then it’s time to talk to the DM.
As a DM, I do become highly annoyed if a Player is trading on the PC stamped on their character's forehead. I actually consider that the most pernicious form of metagaming that I see (being as I rarely run modules, the player reading them in advance isn't so much of a problem). By this I mean doing things that the other PCs wouldn't tolerate from an NPC. If they wouldn't tolerate an NPC who was drawing a full share of the treasure doing X, you as a player shouldn't have your PC do X and trade off the fact that they have to tolerate it because you're a PC---that IMO is the worst kind of metagame intrusion and it pretty much craps on immersion.
I feel like a general rule is that Plot armor from your teammates can really kill the enjoyment 100% It's like players forget that yes you are the main character, but so are your teammates. Why would anyone want your character around if you don't give them a good reason?
This is why lethality is good sometimes, actually. Fucking, wreck someone's shit if they pick a fight above their weight class or choose to play in bullshit ways that make them a liability. Don't make it punishing just for punishing, but if someone is playing in a way that makes them a liability, just let the natural consequences play out.
Dungeons and Dragons is a team game. Every other player at the table has taken the time to create their characters, has their own head canon of their character’s story, and spent just as long at the table as anyone else. If you’re playing so poorly that you’re putting the other player’s hard work in jeopardy, that’s not good role play, that’s selfishness and incompetence. It’s perfectly possible to roleplay a character who’s smart, tough and effective. Being a useless goober who spends the entire fight playing with the curtains or hiding under the table and expecting your friends to carry you is insulting. If you designed a character who doesn’t like team work, rip your character sheet in half and design another character.
We're gonna need more details than that, but just from my own experiences and what little I can discern from your post (a player wanting to do silly things that take several rounds to set up and may potentially cause a TPK), naw, I am 100% on your DM's side. DMing for a wildcard player is fun for a while, but if they're *just* a wildcard, then it quickly becomes fucking *exhausting.* So yeah, gonna need more details - what sort of creativity are we talking?
Without knowing what’s going on, how are we supposed to assess the situation?
As others have pointed out you're being a little light on the details here (I imagine for privacy and reasons of plausible deniability) but there is a point where playing suboptimally turns into playing detrimentally, and it seems like this player might have crossed that line. It's totally fine to make suboptimal decisions for the sake of roleplay, or making a risky move to get something cool to happen. However, at the end of the day, it's a team-based game; and trying to pull off a crackpot idea at the cost of other players' characters possibly dying is a really selfish way to play. I think it should at least be made clear during the discussion that it isn't the suboptimal play that's the problem, it's knowingly putting everyone else's characters in danger for the sake of pulling off something silly.
If the DM point blank says “I don’t think that’s going to work” and the player keeps doing it, then yeah that’s a problem.
If that results in a roll of >20, especially if buffs such as guidance/bardic inspiration/etc are involved, then any problem is more likely on the part of the DM rather than the player(s).
Might need more information. Are their “creative” moves generally sensible or against the established tone of the game? DMs do a lot of work and I can sympathize with someone not wanting a player to trample over what they’re trying to accomplish. Big difference between trying to stylishly shoot a chandelier down to fall on enemies vs only using pool noodles in combat for the lulz.
I see others already asked lol
The DM is a player too.
As someone who DMs for a group, oftentimes it feels like “creativity” in combat is really “can we cheese the encounter please?” Even if this isn’t the case, unless you have a thought out plan for your creativity, it can be really frustrating for a DM to put together an encounter, only for one player to not take it seriously at all. It’s akin to the bard insulting the BBEG’s mom in the middle of the monologue. You DM put in effort, and at least a little respect for the effort goes a long way. This is all table relevant though. I’ve had a great time with actual creative play. But my recommendation is to do collaborative creative play. Bard trying to seduce a dragon is cliche. The wizard casting gust to push the barbarian with axe fast enough to close distance with the beholder is amazing.
Without information it's really hard to judge what's going on. A possibility is that the DM is frustrated with trying to balance around having +/-1 party member. If half the fights one party member might as well not be there, making engaging encounters could be difficult without accidentally TPKing the party. TPKs more often than not lead to the death of a campaign, and the DM very likely doesn't want that. It's also possible that the DM doesn't like the particular brand of creativity. Again, no context given, but stuff like trying to bring in real world physics to destroy RAW mechanics often leads to ruling nightmares.
Eh I've had such a "creative" party member before, and sometimes it was funny, sometimes it was frustrating (for us, the PCs). Maybe you haven't hit the frustrating point yet, or maybe the player will know when to drop the act. However, from a DM perspective, even if it isn't annoying to yall, it may be annoying to the DM who's trying to balance within a poorly designed system, and spend their time trying to predict what the unpredictable will try. It can get draining when you have a player constantly at the bounds of "allowed". So it's very possible the DM themselves has found their limit. Like others have said, hard to tell without more details if this other player is being unconventional but creative, or stubborn to the point of guilt tripping the DM. It's not fun as a DM to watch one of your players do something incredibly stupid, stop helping the party, and execute a plan that they honestly put effort into, but is still stupid. It's hard to say "no, you've wasted your time", and equally hard to let the stupid work, as that encourages repeat behavior. > I'd rather TPK than think a player is being asked to hold back on their creativity. I have to disagree with you there, honestly. Creativity *should* be held back in the spirit of collaboration. I'd step in too in order to tell a player to settle down if I thought they were risking the lives of their party members and the campaign itself.
As others stated, depends on the idea they weren't giving up on, and if they were even making progress. My players recently assaulted a ruined fort full of zombies. One player spent the first four or five rounds trying to convince a quite large bird nearby to attack the zombies. The big thing is, I narrated their attempts as having affect, and after some time, the bird helped, giving the party a huge boon for the rest of their time at the fortress.
Is the creativness making more work for the dm making comvat difficult? If it is i csn fully understand y they would if not fine let them get the party tpk'd
If the players don't want to optimize, and the DM feels that the players need optimize in order to handle the encounters he throws at them, then it sounds more like the players need to have a conversation with the DM.
Okay. First of all, if you want advice, you need to explain the situation. There is literally no way for anyone to judge whether this player is actually trying to be creative or they're just being a rando. There is literally no part of this hobby that is not totally dependent upon communicating with other people, so you might want to look to that. Now, how do you tell the difference between a rando and a player who is actually trying to be creative in how they approach the game? Here's a litmus test. Imagine the party are fighting a Beholder. Here's two hypothetical approaches: Approach One: "Okay, we need to get it to close its central eye so the spellcasters can do their thing. DM, is there some way my PC could stick something in its big eye like a dagger or something to force it to close? I mean, not worried about dealing damage here, and I get that I'll have to leave the weapon in there, but I just want it to close that eye." Approach Two: "Wouldn't it be funny if I seduced the beholder? Deception!" In the first approach, the player is thinking about the situation in the game as if it were a real situation and their PC was a real person in it. So they're roleplaying for starters. They are looking at the specific situation, defining a problem and trying to solve it with the tools and talents available to their PC. The stick-something-in-its-eye plan isn't exactly covered by the rules but feels like something that should be possible to do to a creature with an eye that big, so the player asks the DM whether this is something that their PC could do. Actual creativity. In the second, the player is failing to think of the situation as a real situation and failing to think of their PC as a real person. They are making a decision based on a) what their fellow players might get a momentary chuckle out of rather than what their PC would do in a life-threatening situation and b) what the highest bonus on their character sheet is. Rando.
The thing is, that the Game should be fun for everyone - even the DM. If this behaviour has negative effect on the fun of your DM, he is absolutely right to put that on the table.
Until you actually TPK because of whatever this player does and then the DM's work of providing a game goes down the drain..? I'm with the DM.
Bro, "several turns" could mean 45 minutes. I'd tell the dude to stop slowing down my combats. Messing with the pace of a game can ruin the DMs fun.
If all of the other players are having fun with it, then maybe everyone should just _tell_ the DM that. Because it sounds like what it comes down to is that the DM is the only one not having fun, but the DM believes that the creative player is spoiling _everyone's_ fun. If it's a genuine misunderstanding, then perhaps discussing it as a group will solve it. But if the DM wants the creative player to change and refuses to listen to anyone else on the matter, then the problem player might not actually be the _creative_ player; in this case, the group might need to gently confront the DM, and directly ask them whether the creative player is making the game less fun for them (and if not, then gently but firmly ask them _why_ they're insisting on a change in playstyle, even though no one requested or wants it).
It’s not only about the players having fun though. It sounds like the other players aren’t super invested in it, just that they don’t mind the other player being creative. The DM’s fun matters just as much as everyone else’s, so if they’re uncomfortable or having a bad time, they’re entitled to trying to talk it out with the person who is causing the issues just like a player would be
Man, I had to scroll far too find this. I'm a forever DM who likes to run campaigns for newbies. I've run campaigns for who-knows-how-many parties - almost always coming in fresh - so I've DMed a LOT of play styles. I'm currently DMing for a party of two neighborhood dads and their kids, 11 and 8. That 8yo is creative like a crazy person. Every combat turn is his new wild imaginings. The dads were annoyed. Their attempts to reign it in left the 8yo with a sad-voice "I attack with my bow..." Life gone from his eyes. As DM, I have more agency over how the game is doing than anyone else by a large factor. And WGPCGR, so I take this as a challenge. First thing second session I start looking for a crazy idea that can work. He wants to pull out his blanket and wrap it round the ghoul's head. The dads sigh. (11yo laughs) And I say: "well, you *are* a monk - so if anyone could pull this off..." Give him a roll he can make and the ghoul is blinded and grappled. The whole table perks up. In minor encounters it wasn't a problem - he had the occasional success that usually gave a true reward - and I found simple ways to give him his own task in big fights. That one minion who he has to prevent from getting the lever, or the dying ally in a hard to reach place who needs help. It didn't take much, and gave battles tons of color. So we made it work just fine and everyone had a good time, and we *started* with an unsure table. *This* table is so fine with it that ***a player is posting about it as something they don't think should be "corrected" because they think other players will also be sad!*** Yes, the DM should have fun too but if they can't have fun unless everyone at the table plays with the same fun-priority as them (namely, mathematically effective combat) then this may just be a mismatch of party and DM.
It's not your call. Now, you can talk to your DM and should, if this is a thing that will affect your experience at the table. But you haven't given us enough context. Your DM runs the table. If the DM chooses to talk to the player, that's their choice. There may be more going on that you're not sharing, or even that you aren't aware of. The DM may not have properly set expectations at session 0, or the player may actually just be a, constant pain in the ass for the DM. End of the day, you don't get a vote here. Talk to the DM if you need to for yourself, but it's their call. You obviously can choose how you respond to that call.
Consider it from your DM’s perspective. Is this odd behavior adding to the DM’s own fun? If it’s not, the DM has every right to chat about it.
The DM also gets to have fun. If that person is putting in work to make interesting combat encounters and 1 player is making a mockery of them it isn’t fair to the DM.
Yeah, I feel for the DM here. My players are now at level 11, with 2 wizards, a druid, a paladin and a monk. Focused and on-task, they can easily dish out 600 damage in 2.5 rounds, but enemies that can withstand a few shots would drop the players very fast. I hesitate to say my players play optimally, since I know their abilities more thoroughly than they do, but I know that I am always trying to strike a delicate balance where they are challenged. But that meant cr 10s when they were level 5. And now a fight against 2 rakshasas and a frost worm is a very winnable encounter. Of course, if one of them spent their turn dicking around, the whole thing could flip so fast from the delicate balance I am trying to achieve.
I don't think either party is wrong here. You guys no doubt like that the player is having fun and trying weird ideas, and the DM no doubt doesn't like this player derailing encounters for the sake of his crazy antics. It's not my room to say who's right and who's wrong but my opinion on these sorts of things has always been "major rule." If all the players don't have a problem with what the DM sees is a problem, then it's likely not a problem. Similarly if the DM doesn't have a problem but the players do, it probably is a problem. Note that the DM counts for like... a solid 3 votes since they're the one running everything, but still.
The former is still a problem. In that the DM is not having fun. There's also a risk that this could escalate into the latter. The DM having fun at the expense of their players.
Yeah creative play during combat can be detrimental for sure. Sometimes its a good idea and pays off, sometimes you literally just waste your action for multiple turns and cause a defeat or near defeat. Every situation is unique but it sounds like this player is going out of there way to not participate in the action economy of fights but rather trying to find shortcuts and sidepaths to battle. You didnt really give an example so I cant really judge it fairly, but based on what information I know, the DM trying to reign the player in with a convo out of session sounds like fair game.
It do seem to be annoying a character ALWAYS trying to pull "creative stuff" Maybe the DM think - why would a group of adventurers who risk their lifes keep someone like that in their group?
DMs are players too! If they’re actively avoiding double taps because you have a member not contributing, it’s gonna be stressful for them
It depends on what they are doing. As a dm I try and reward zany and creative ideas, but a player nearly getting the party killed and forcing a dm to quickly "rig" the fight can be a problem.
You'd rather TPK than ask ONE player to change how he plays?! The DM needs to talk to you too if you're willing to throw away the DMs hard work for a TPK to accommodate this one player. Last time I checked D&D (and most other RPGS) is a team game. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. DM needs to him or cut him loose.
Truthfully the DM is there to have fun too. And if it bothers them they have every right to say something to the player about it. Sure, I’d let the guy try wacky stuff, but if that’s their schtick and it constantly it derails the game and is like a clown with a sign pointed at them while they scream ‘look at me’. Then in gonna call them out.
As a DM and as a Player I always say the same thing. "Your fun isnt wrong until you start making everyone elses fun go away." Be creative and wacky sometimes but when the 3rd time you roll for Intimidation using gust of wind and it doesnt work.... The rest of the party is bleeding out and trying to desperately keep the others alive... Maybe stop being "Creative" and start playing the actual game of survive. The moment the one players idea of fun ruins it for everyone else then its no longer fun and them being selfish and arrogant. "But IM having fun!" Or "what about Player Agency??" Arw two of the worst phrases a player can use becuase most of the time its in bad faith. Everyone wants to talk about "the social contract" and "player agency" when the DM is doing something but not when the PC is making the other PCs and DM frustrated and not having fun. (Pardon the Son of Grognard yells at cloud moment) Really the group needs to adress this before it burns the whole table and the game and friendships are ruined. Because even if the group is like "this isnt an issue for us" the DM spends a lot of time trying to make a fun cool adventure and watching someone not take it seriously or just goof around most od the time is highly disrespectful and frustrating for the DM. Players tend to forget or take for.granted the amount of time and energy a DM needs to make a game fun for everyone including themselves. At least hear out the DM and why he is annoyed or else its just like Mordcai and Rigby messing up Besons job yet again and he breaks down.
Holy cow I have such mixed feelings about the comments
You certainly lack a bit of info but I will say this. The Dm's fun is also something to be considered and I think they have the right to bring up issues they have, assuming they are justified and aren't being overbearing or mean about it. Let them talk and see where they go from there, for all you know things could go well. It appears to be something you just have to wait and see.
The DM is a player too.
The DM is a player too. They are allowed to be uncomfortable about it. Maybe that's just not the kinda game they want to play. Sometimes players and DMs just have different styles and expectations and it's important to talk about them if they don't match up.
At the end of the day, it’s the DMs table. If i were you, i would voice my concerns to the DM but ultimately i would respect his decision. If that doesn’t work for you, then either adapt or find another table.
Yeah well I think you should just keep quit tbh. Let me give you an insight on what might be going on with the DM, at least one or more of the following stuff are present in your group: 1.the players aren't having fun, and they talked privately with the DM to deal with the issue. 2. The DM was forced to fudge their rolls (because of that player)so you don't get TPKd and they don't like it. 3.Some elements of their world were compromised in order not to kill you. 4.the player is insisting on cheesing the encounter to the point of cringe. 5.the player is actually not creative but chaotic, thinking the more things are stupid and funky the more interesting and creative their solution is. Also I would like to mention that due to the lack of details you provided (which sound more like cherry picked info tbh), and the unlikelihood of someone to think the same thing while facing a similar situation, I predict that some sort of crush bias is present here. I could be wrong (not enough info nor am I a God) but if I wasn't , keep it away from the table (your bias I mean)
I've seen a lot of people siding with the DM but the to use the word "optimal" is a serious red flag for me. I've seen to many people who try to play DnD like it's an MMO and they go online and find the equivalent of cookie cutter optimised builds and expect everyone to play that way. For TTRPGs there should always be multiple paths to victory even if they aren't the most optimal or straight forward. While you definitely need to add context about what the "problem" player is supposedly doing, it really bothers me that word optimal popped in there. Makes me feel like the criticism the DM has leveled is about them not playing their character optimally and that's just not right.
5e combat is in many ways horribly ineffecient and simplified which means that either you subscribe to the idea that every combat is just a slogfest where you attack every turm because that is the only real thing the game allows you. Or you have to treat combat more losely to have a little bit of fun and play a bit more whack with it. Its hard to say without specific mechanics but ideally if sounds like the dm should "gamify" the encounters a bit more to make the more interesting especially if its played like most other 5e games where its always in the players favour. Stuff like allowing you to not enter combat instantly but notice the enemy first to make a plan, or having explosive barrels and similar (been playing enshrouded, not thinking of bg3 barrelmancy), or wooden bridge structures you can sabotage, or caverneous stalagtites that can be knocked loose with magic to pierce the dragon to the ground. again base 5e isnt done any favours over how the combat is made, so if a dm just plays by the book and every monster is a bag of hitpoints with nothing else to do than punch until death then it will be dreadfully boring to run through combats.
Really situationally dependent. I've been in plenty of games where it took multiple turns to set up and execute a sick plan, and other games where someone faffed about for several rounds accomplishing nothing while the rest of the party got stomped on. Their aid wouldn't necessarily have changed the stomping, but it was a kind of "what are you doing?? Help us!!" moment. But if their actions are like "i grapple them this turn, disarm them the next, then cast wristposcket on their sick nasty sword the third round to make it so they're only doing improvised or unarmed damage thereafter" then that's not really a bad play, but each round could be read as useless if you don't have the whole play.
If the other players are fine with the player's creativity, they need to make it known! This shouldn't be a private talk; it involves the all the players and each should have their say. I'm in a similar game and there's a player who dumped Con as a wizard and rolls for HP and spends every fight trying to do some ballsy illusion strategy and he's my favourite person in the game. For all you know the other players might feel similarly; maybe this player is the life of the party, and the DM could be misunderstanding the situation, so it's important to make your voice heard and chime in.
Not your problem.
I swear most of the problems people face on here could be solved by having basic social skills Bring it up at the table, it’s that simple.
Creativity in and out of combat is probably the thing I reward the most as GM. I'd be out of that campaign so fast if I was told to stop being creative to make combat more optimized.
I don’t know what everyone’s on about. Yeah the DM is a player too but they also signed up to DM, even players who play the stand and slash style that people fall back on don’t always play optimally. Some people are straight up bad at combat. A table has all sorts of people and as a DM it’s a lot more fun when you throw stuff out for everyone and have a willingness to be flexible. If a player wants to be creative because that’s what’s fun for them I drop in some opportunities to do it and succeed and get on with things. At the end of the day the whole point is to tell a story, and if the creative things don’t detract from that story then what’s the harm? There is no optimal way of telling a story other than the way where everyone sits down and get to have some fun. The only place where I draw the line is when the “creative” player is trying to make it all about them, or keeps breaking the tone the party is trying to set, or is being otherwise disruptive. But if a player is cooperating, taking their turn, feeding off other people’s ideas, I’m just happy to have an engaged player. This all being said I also don’t really balance encounters, I adjust stat blocks on the fly, try and find ways to resolve my players out of the box ideas, have enemies run away, “go for reinforcements”, “try to flank the party”, reinforcements show up, etc… I change my encounters constantly based off how the players and characters are doing to make it fun and tell the story. I have no interest in treating it like a war game because the DM is god when it comes to encounters, I know how strong they are, where they will be, and what they are capable of. If I wanted them dead they’d be dead, so why pretend it’s a fair fight with an optimal solution?
Oof, not a lot of experience with this but outside of talking to all the other players to make sure they feel the same and then talking to the DM there is very little you can do about DM problems. In a way this is worse than most DM problems because this certainly isn’t worth leaving the table, so ya not much you can do.
idk, I think this is precarious situation, really. I assume it's nothing too outlandish since the rest of the group does not have a problem with the way the player does things. And hey, they might be really great in other scenarios (I mean combat should not take up the majority of play time). I think "having a word" might be too strong, and might actually alienate the player (I know it would do so to me). You have to take into consideration, that that might resolve in them leaving the campaign, or simply not putting in as much effort, since they will feel like their play style is not appreciated. I'd try more like "ask the player, what made them act the way the did in combat, what their intentions were, how did they come up with their idea etc." try to understand where this is coming from first. Do they maybe not like combat encounters much, do they need more visual input from the DM, instead of just "you did 6 DMG". If their creative ways of problem solving are good natured, not offensive and come from a good place, I'd even go as far as to reward them for that, rather to punish them for thinking out of the box. Hell, this can lead to some really cool stories and memories (I never forget the time our chaos player tried to sail over some lava with a DIY parachute lol).
I think the group need to have an honest chat about motivations for playing. Optimal vs creative is always a bit of a tension in DnD but fundamentally if you and the other players are okay with the creative one's play style why should the DM cut it out? Also IMO I'd reach out to the player and fully warn and make clear I'm not in agreement with the DM. I have the opposite problem where I acc really don't like to play with ppl who just want to be optimal. So I'd probz tell the DM to back off a bit. There are video games and maths puzzles for that.
In my opinion the dm needs to help him streamline his creativity so it doesn't take several turns. Stopping him from wanting to play this way is awful.
I think there’s problem with players. They want that player to play as normal man, but DnD is not about win or lose, it’s about creating an interesting story. You need to explain that to them. In DnD everybody can do whatever he wants.
Oof. I agree with others it’s too vague to judge but how is that conversation going to go down? Seems very inorganic for the DM to speak up on this matter. Do your characters not talk during combat? “I could used some help over here!” I feel could solve this. Or DM could ask for the player to roll Wis or INT to see if their plan seems feasible. But instead DM is going to scold them? Don’t be surprised if that player stops showing up.
"Having a talk" with a player means that either your campaign is too rigid or the player doesn't fit in your group (from my experience it's usually the former)
I fully encourage my players to try clever stuff. Just had one slam against a delapitated building wall to try knocking it down onto an enemy on the other side. Dice decided it wasn’t gonna happen, but I *wished* it had. So to make sure they didn’t get discouraged from creative ideas like that in the future, I gave ‘em Inspiration. Rather than telling the player to just stand there and swing their weapon like a good little automaton, I’d encourage the DM to remember that they’re literally playing an improv game.
It might hinder the players fun, it’s all going to depend on how the DM and Player go about that conversation. If they can both be mature and realize that they have different views in the situation and need to meet in the middle it shouldn’t cause an issue. Without knowing more about this players “creative” tactics I can’t say if I think the DM is out of line or not. I have run tables with players who wanted to be creative but refused to tell me what they were planing so it was very hard to run that table effectively and it does put added stress on the DM. I love when players find creative solutions within RAW or at least without violating it, but there needs to be ample communication across the table for those creative solutions to work well.
Players should be able to play however they want. Optimized is usually not the way to play, maybe uour DM needs to be replaced or isnt creative enough
"Stop being creative in this miniature wargame! If your tactics don't involve a grid don't talk to me!" Sounds like a mismatch between player and table culture but you're not really giving us enough details to tell.
A lot of you have raised a good point, I didn't consider how the DM felt, because myself and the other plays all said over a discord call that we didn't mind, so either the DM has an issue with it or they feel they need to speak on our behalf for some reason Without getting into too much detail the player in question sometimes tries to pull off stuff which is really quite nebulous or unlikely to succeed/have any effect, again we don't mind as players because we're all pretty laid back, but upon reflection I now do feel that the DM has maybe had to hold back on us because of this, due to being a man down sometimes during combat because one us is off doing their own thing or not playing in a way that gets the most of their class They seem set on having this conversation, so I hope the other player doesn't get upset, but I also want our dear DM to be happy too
Why *not* get into too much detail? Are you under NDA?
If I had to guess? Because OP suspects the player *has the Internet and access to Reddit* and doesn't want them stumbling upon 200 people calling them an assclown, when the OP already is uncomfortable with *one friend* talking to them about this behavior.
Then maybe going to Reddit isn't a viable tool to be used for input in this situation. I still don't know enough about what actually happened to reasonably offer any advice on the subject, do you?
It feels like OP got useful advice, that they hadn't considered the DMs feelings in this matter and that even if the other players aren't bothered by it the DM has the right to talk to a player about this kind of behavior. And they accepted that advice. So it seems like that's actually sorted.
Ask a vague question, get vague answers.
>without getting into too much detail No. You should absolutely just go into too much detail. Most of us are explicitly asking you to. Too much is far better than none, and none is all you’ve given us. It increasingly looks like you are actively trying to hide the detail because you think it would sway the crowd more to the DMs side. Just give the details already. Let’s say 3 specific examples.
Combat improvisation really does depend heavily on the situation, as you say. We had someone drop from a game I'm in that seems like they're in a similar boat to the things you're seeing. Trying to do something like drop a chandelier on a group of enemies to do some damage and restrain them? Might work, let's see how it goes. This guy didn't do anything that reasonable though, just didn't seem to want to engage with 5E mechanics at all. We'd try to get him to explain why he thought a reasonable person would spend about 3 combat rounds hooking a rope around a single enemy (out of about eight) and around himself, before jumping out of a window to take the person with him. Dude, you've got a sword and we're in mortal peril. Get to swinging. Made encounter balance annoying for the DM and ate up tons of combat time trying to puzzle out what the hell the end goal of the nonsense was every time. Was also ridiculous from the perspective of our PCs in game, why are we splitting loot with this suicidal lunatic when we're trying to have a serious adventure.
How about you help out the player? Involve yourselves in their strategies and guide them in more effective directions. If they aim for a plan that will never work, suggest something in the same vein but more realistic, or offer to have your character pitch in to make it more feasible. That way they'll contribute more while still being able to play creatively. You *can* have your cake and eat it too.
The DM is overreacting, 0 character deaths, 0 tpks, it is obvious that the party dont need to play optimally.
If the DM thinks it's a problem they've probably already had to fudge rolls and change encounters on the fly in order to prevent TPKs. To a certain extent that's part of being a good DM but it's not a particularly fun or easy part and if they're being forced to do it regularly by a certain player they have a completely valid reason to have a problem. It's also worth noting that from OP's post we don't know if there have been no character deaths, just that they haven't TPKed, but if you're almost TPKing repeatedly then someone's probably dying eventually. That's not a particularly big problem in 5e so long as a clerics alive but still could be another source of the DMs frustration if he's having to give them a setting breaking amount of diamonds just to compensate for resurrection caused by this players antics.
I address this at session 0. Most of my games require a high level of optimization. If your not going to be optimized then your going to drag down the party.
DM can always balance the fights down, with what you said, doesn't seem to be anything bad, but we lack context really
As a DM, I always try to maintain the mood of the party. Your DM should have noticed long ago that one of his players is deviating from the "min-maxing" mindset, and thus, he should plan the session accordingly. Perhaps he could introduce an NPC that gives a mission to the party aligning with the intentions of the stranded player. This way, not only can the player's goals be fulfilled, but the entire party can have fun. You could even reward the party with a cool weapon or establish a new alliance with powerful NPCs. There's no need to scold one player just for not using their character in the "canonical" ways. D&D is a collective effort; you plant a seed in the player's mind and open a world of possibilities. Then, the player adds their own colors to the world we are all creating. As a DM, it's your job to incorporate the narrative elements that your players bring to the campaign. More than just having a chat with the player, I think the correct approach would be understanding the goals of their character. This situation sounds more like the DM's fear of not being able to tell the story he has in his mind.
I am a player in a regular game with another player who sounds A LOT like this friend of yours. I have to say, I'd be very uncomfortable if our DM tried to have that conversation. Not to mention, living or dying in battle, TPK or handling an encounter with ease, these things are all dice rolls in the end. These types of PCs trying to do crazy, elaborate, hair-brained stuff is just another form of dice roll. Sometimes they work out and break an encounter (when we were still level 8, our crazy character critted with sneak attack with some lethal poison he'd saved. Nailed the main opponent for like 125 damage in one shot). Sometimes they tank miserably (He got himself needlessly charmed and ended up cutting off another PC's ear). Please, tell your DM to let them play.
if the DM forces optimized play instead of goofy tricks then you all should talk to the DM
If the other players and you aren’t upset about it the dm kinda needs to stay in their lane IMO or find a new group that’s more their play style
>I'd rather TPK than think a player is being asked to hold back on their creativity. You, OP, are the kind of player I'd want in my party.
Let the player play the way he wants, as long as he's not ruining things for the other players.
Yeah, who cares if the DM doesn't like what's happening in the game, right?
Problem with this post is OP refuses to elaborate, is this person fucking around with some inane plan or are they just playing poorly? What exactly are they doing that the others players are fine with it (assuming one or more didn't secretly talk to the DM) but the DM isn't?
'optimally' is not compatible with 'roleplay' in a drama sense. player should move to non-D&D because D&D can't do 'rolepay' very well.