Quote from: IggytheBorg;818490I see the merit to this argument, of course.  My concern at the time was that killing him and having to take up precious game time to have him roll up another character (he was TERRIBLE at coming up with a concept, and could not be trusted to roll up a character honestly on his own) would have dragged everyone else's good time down even further than his low level of play did.  I saw my overarching goal as ensuring everyone had fun to the extent possible.  But considering how much the combat oriented tank and idiot bitched at every puzzle or role playing opportunity, while the two role players enjoyed every opportunity to do everything, eventually it became more about seeing that the two role players and I had a good time.   But the aforementioned stall in the flow would have infringed on that.  Tank and idiot having fun was incidental after awhile.

Well, now in retrospect, you have learned this was wrong. How? Because you felt things fell apart as people were no longer having fun. You now know better. Yay!

And I don't see how hard it was to have him roll up a PC stat line in front of you and then return later once he's made a character concept for you to later OK. He just rolls the chargen dice in front of you, you write it down, he goes off to scribble something and comes back for you to audit and OK. Not all that hard.

Besides, it lets the social players play as he busies himself creating a PC. Also, it sounds like you also learned that catering to him and his complaints at the expense of your other players never bore reciprocal fruit. So basically letting him run the show only made your table worse, and now you know you have to master your own table! Yay!

Are you feeling better through this confessional process?

What do you feel like running soon? How will you apply the lessons you learned?

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818490I see the merit to this argument, of course.  My concern at the time was that killing him and having to take up precious game time to have him roll up another character (he was TERRIBLE at coming up with a concept, and could not be trusted to roll up a character honestly on his own) would have dragged everyone else's good time down even further than his low level of play did.  I saw my overarching goal as ensuring everyone had fun to the extent possible.  But considering how much the combat oriented tank and idiot bitched at every puzzle or role playing opportunity, while the two role players enjoyed every opportunity to do everything, eventually it became more about seeing that the two role players and I had a good time.   But the aforementioned stall in the flow would have infringed on that.  Tank and idiot having fun was incidental after awhile.

Understandable, but that is part of the learning process. Moving on with the game for the Players that have characters and leaving those whose PCs have died behind. By ensuring that the short term goal of everyone, even the idiot, was having fun then you sacrificed the long term goal of your sense of enjoyment for the game - to the point that it bothers you years later, as this thread demonstrates.

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818498What can I say?  We were beer addled 17 year olds.

That is a mitigating factor. Sadly, we hear similar stories involving 37 year olds.

Is Bob still a douchebag? Do you still game with your old crew?

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818498The five of us were friends IRL as well.  This would no doubt have led to hard feelings.  

Geek Social Fallcy #3: Friendship Before All

It seems you're now older and wiser, but, still...  Check out the link.  I personally find them easy patterns to slip back into and being aware of them helps to avoid that.

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818498The house ruling against metal armor would not have been a viable option because it would have nerfed one of the role players, who was also playing  a ranger.  

From what you've said here about the two RPers, I get the impression that they probably wouldn't have minded.

Quote from: Spinachcat;818524That is a mitigating factor. Sadly, we hear similar stories involving 37 year olds.

Is Bob still a douchebag? Do you still game with your old crew?

I haven't seen or spoken to him in years. I do still occasionally game with the guy who was the best role player of that group, with a new group of like minded but very busy guys.  We don't get to get together that often.

As for what I'd like to do, I'd love to resume that campaign where it left off, and just bump everybody up to the appropriate level with new characters (or the role player could use his old ones; he still has the character sheets).  The best parts of that campaign had yet to be realized. Doing so is on my bucket list.

It'd also be nice to play w/ someone else DM'ing for awhile.  When we started our current set up maybe two years ago, the idea was we'd all take turns DM'ing pre-made modules, so no one got stuck doing all the work.  I ran Ravenloft, and then one of the other guys started a Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classic. Our party's 1st combat, I got use a character I had rolled up when I was in high school and never gotten to use.  As I rolled for damage on my 1st hit scored, the role player says: "That's the first time you've rolled player damage in what. . . 25 years?"  Sadly, he was pretty much right.  More of the same would be divine.  

In an ideal world, I'd love to play and GM some Rifts sessions, and maybe Blood of Heroes (the DC Heroes system without the copyrighted DC Heroes).  We did that for awhile, with Bob GM'ing, when we lost one of our number for a few months while he was studying abroad.  It was fun to see someone else (particularly him) having to deal with the less pleasant aspects of being a GM

It's REALLY hard to work around a major GM error. Sometimes the rules set doesn't help either. In the 5E playtests, I allowed a fighter to play a Tengu (modified the Elf class to fit). What a mistake, because FLIGHT auto-solved so many issues. Plus, he was just so tanky-tank, and so buffed out on HP's that the campaign suffered from the same problem as you described above--he could wade through most things that killed off the others. In planning out the campaign capstone, I had to specifically plan for HIM, in lieu of the group. It worked out anyway, as their foe had been scouting them from within for weeks, so I had a narrative reason for focusing on the tank. I felt it was a logical way to approach the encounter, just to ensure it was sufficiently challenging for a capstone.

On the whole, though, if I make a mistake, I try to live with it. If it starts to be become an issue for everyone, then I'll try to work with the player, maybe offer some sort of tradeoff. I think using in-game play should be a last resort to solve an issue I created in the first place. Now, if the player is being a complete douche, then maybe a little GM-vindictiveness might be the way to go. Sometimes humility must be served (with fava beans and a nice Chianti).

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818551As for what I'd like to do, I'd love to resume that campaign where it left off, and just bump everybody up to the appropriate level with new characters (or the role player could use his old ones; he still has the character sheets).  The best parts of that campaign had yet to be realized. Doing so is on my bucket list.

Was it a Grand Campaign, where there was an overarching development arc? Or were the characters getting to name level and switching into Domain Management fun? Sometimes the world itself can easily slip into a Sandbox, if you find your notes fun and want some extra use from them. Then you can run plenty of 1st levels and let them build their own stories in your already made content.

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818551It'd also be nice to play w/ someone else DM'ing for awhile.

Yes. A drought is no fun. Though I do love GMing, and find myself constantly critiquing myself and others (in my head) on how to improve. Maybe I got the GM bug and need to get it out a bit more.

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818551In an ideal world, I'd love to play and GM some Rifts sessions, and maybe Blood of Heroes (the DC Heroes system without the copyrighted DC Heroes).  We did that for awhile, with Bob GM'ing, when we lost one of our number for a few months while he was studying abroad.  It was fun to see someone else (particularly him) having to deal with the less pleasant aspects of being a GM

Mwa ha ha! Another falls behind the screen to discover it isn't so smooth & easy! (Like a milkshake!)

Well, that and its Rifts — a pyrotechnic display of ideas, and trying to bring it all indoors for dinner. That world & system runs away from pretty much every GM at some point. ("No, wait, come back! ... I love you!")

I don't think it's fair to yourself to still regret how you handled something - anything - when you were 17. Life is a series of embarrassments. Carry on. Do more things.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;818505You say "have an adult conversation" like you're dealing with adults. 99% of the time, the people that you need to tiptoe around like this are exactly BECAUSE you can't just talk to them without them flipping the fuck out. If it was someone who got the hint like that you wouldn't have to do any of that.

Okay, the OP has a reasonable pass for the reason he gave: they were beer-addled teenagers who weren't grown up yet.  Fair enough.  Panjumanju's right in that he oughn't beat himself up over it.  (Hell, I can think of a lot of dumb things *I* did when I was 17 -- and a college freshman loose on my own in Boston -- and teetotaling me didn't even have booze to blame for them.)

Grownups don't have an excuse.  The last player I sullenly put up with, despite that he was an abrasive idiot, was the boyfriend of my oldest friend, and I kept him around because I didn't want to offend her.  I finally got a clue and turfed his ass, and that was 28 years ago now.  It took me too long then to get it, but I got it: life's too short to saddle yourself with assholes, in your freaking hobby, because you don't have the balls to deal with messes.

I've had to have "that talk" with newer players three times between 2003 and 2005; none since.  One of them did, indeed, flip out on me, and he got the gate that day, for good.  He was pretty surprised to be thrown out, but I don't need people at my table, in my home and in my life who are raving assholes.  At my age, I just don't.  

Hell, at any of your ages, I bet you don't need that yourselves.

Quote from: Panjumanju;818612I don't think it's fair to yourself to still regret how you handled something - anything - when you were 17. Life is a series of embarrassments. Carry on. Do more things.

//Panjumanju

I don't beat myself up over it or anything.  I look back and laugh more than anything else.  Truth be told, I was more offended that he DARED to disrupt my brilliantly rendered narrative than anything else.  :-)

Quote from: Opaopajr;818562Was it a Grand Campaign, where there was an overarching development arc?

Yeah, it was.  The plan was for them to try to thwart the return of Cthulhu.  I had one of those OLD school Deities and Demigods with the Lovecraft and Elric chapters still in them, and had just read a bunch of HPL's work.

Quote from: Ravenswing;818622Okay, the OP has a reasonable pass for the reason he gave: they were beer-addled teenagers who weren't grown up yet.  Fair enough.  Panjumanju's right in that he oughn't beat himself up over it.  (Hell, I can think of a lot of dumb things *I* did when I was 17 -- and a college freshman loose on my own in Boston -- and teetotaling me didn't even have booze to blame for them.)

Grownups don't have an excuse.  The last player I sullenly put up with, despite that he was an abrasive idiot, was the boyfriend of my oldest friend, and I kept him around because I didn't want to offend her.  I finally got a clue and turfed his ass, and that was 28 years ago now.  It took me too long then to get it, but I got it: life's too short to saddle yourself with assholes, in your freaking hobby, because you don't have the balls to deal with messes.

I've had to have "that talk" with newer players three times between 2003 and 2005; none since.  One of them did, indeed, flip out on me, and he got the gate that day, for good.  He was pretty surprised to be thrown out, but I don't need people at my table, in my home and in my life who are raving assholes.  At my age, I just don't.  

Hell, at any of your ages, I bet you don't need that yourselves.

I agree; the main reason people don't boot problem players is that they play with IRL friends, and don't want to sacrifice the friendship at the altar of the game.

For instance, that old friend of yours: how did she react when you kicked her boyfriend?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;818636For instance, that old friend of yours: how did she react when you kicked her boyfriend?

Not badly at all, but then their relationship was in its death throes, and exploded messily a few months later.

I know not wanting to offend IRL friends is often the consideration.  It just doesn't make sense.  Gaming IS most of the interaction I have with certain friends -- for one thing, two of my players, friends of mine for decades, live 60 and 100 miles away from me respectively -- and if most or all of that interaction is just pissing one or the other of us off, that's a lousy dynamic that'll put paid to a friendship anyway.

.  

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818330Specifically, we had a group of 4 players, with two characters each.  Two of the players were hard core role players, one was a munchkin, and one was just an idiot.  The munchkin rolled up a ranger just because they get 2d8 hp at 1st level, and his second character is a cleric, created specifically to keep the ranger healthy.  I had a house rule that allowed rangers to move silently through foliage, and hide in it, using thieves' tables for moving silently and hiding in shadows, with the same penalties for wearing metal armor as found in the Unearthed Arcana.  While rolling for the magical component of a treasure hoard in one of their early adventures, the item that came up was a Sword +5 Defender.  I thought this would be perfect for the ranger, since it would allow him to put the "plus-es" into his AC and wear lesser armor while still being protected, and still enjoy all the benefits of his class.  

Of course, the first thing he does is go out and buy a suit of plate mail.  This dude became a walking tank.  The plus-es went into his AC exactly one time in a two year campaign.  This used to annoy the role players - and me - in equal measure. One of the role players was a half elven ranger, who lost the random dice roll for the sword, and often took off his metal armor to take advantage of the house rule.  He would have put that item to so much better use.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason PC stands for PLAYER character is that the PLAYER is supposed to make the decisions for the character? So you thought you should decide what gear the PCs use? Tough titty for you.

QuoteAnd the Tank would cleave through all opposition in short order, often leaving little for the rest of the party to do in many combat situations.  Anything that would have been a challenge for him would have made mincemeat out of the rest of the party.  I used to go out of my way to dream up things to counter him.  Too bad we never finished that underground campaign.  It was populated with a healthy community of rust monsters and disenchanters.  And I purposely had a village full of people that worshiped the cleric's deity get slaughtered by their enemies just before the party arrived, and when the cleric failed to perform burial rituals in accordance with their religion, I stripped him of his powers until he made amends, which sent him off on a solo side campaign, leaving the rest of the party for most of a session.  I made a lot of mistakes as a DM, but none I regret so much as giving him that damn sword.

Are you still a DM? I hope not!

QuoteSo my question for the DM/GM's out there is: was this me trying to restore/maintain game balance, or me being vindictive because this guy and his tactics upset so many of my carefully laid plans?  In my defense, I think this stuff started to infringe on the other players' good time.  After a while, even the role players started to cower behind him, and came to rely on his massive combat abilities as the solution to every problem, doing little themselves.  Sometimes out of a sense of laziness, and sometimes out of a sense of the inevitable; Bob's just gonna kill everything in 3 rounds anyway, so why bother?  So I'd like to think I was doing the Lord's work.  What do you think?

I think you have two plausible options:

1) Try to get better as a DM, and learning the difference between the role of the DM and that of the players is an important first step.

2) Or accept the fact that you just aren't cut out to be a DM.

Quote from: IggytheBorg;818330I had a house rule that allowed rangers to move silently through foliage, and hide in it, using thieves' tables for moving silently and hiding in shadows, with the same penalties for wearing metal armor as found in the Unearthed Arcana.

Ah, another shit-wit who doesn't understand the rules of the game.

Rangers 'sneaking through foliage,' or around rocks, or through caverns deep, or across windswept plains, is covered by their ridiculously great chances to surprise and not be surprised in turn (1e AD&D PHB, "The Ranger,"p. 24), which they enjoy no matter what kind of armor they're wearing. Giving the ranger 'thief abilities in the woods,' and imposing armor penalties, makes rangers worse at scouting than simply playing the rules as written.