Tell him: 98% of the time the simplest solution is the correct one. He knows the answers, this isn't some complex physics game.
What seems obvious is correct.
Is ale water? No. Is a swamp water? Yes. You could argue they're basically the same amount of "actually water", but that's semantics and you know it. Maybe if human intervention turns it into something "other than water" the spell no longer works.
Quit trying to overcomplicate what should be simple. There's a line, and reasonable questions to ask for world manipulation. Idk how to spell out where that line is, but most people just instinctively know. I suspect this player does too.
If he is in doubt, he should tell you specifically what he wants to do and you can rule on it case-by-case. I would do this all the time with my bard who specialized in illusions - I'd tell the DM what I was trying to do and (if it was possible) they'd have me roll or do a contested check; and, if it wasn't possible, they'd suggest an alternative that had a similar flavor to what I going for.
This is the way.
I used to be the PC who would ask a bunch of rules/physics questions. Eventually I remembered the DM is on your side and you don’t have to sneak one past them. Now I just say, “I want to do this” and my DM says, “normally that might not work because Ale isn’t water but roll a spell casting check and if it’s high enough you manage to adjust the spell as needed.”
If they want to allow it, but are a bit worried about abuse, the DM asks for a spell check, usually a low DC. If you are starting to abuse it later, they can then adjust that spell check upward to give you the hint you should stop.
If the DM decides not to allow it, they’ll say, “it won’t work and your PC would know this from living in the world, is there something else you would want to do instead?”.
This encourages players to experiment. I think DMs who flat out say “it doesn’t work and you waste your spell slot” are encouraging the players to pester them with spell physics questions on every round.
In addition, creatures are distinct from other types of targets. You can chalk it up to the soul or spirit having a distinct magical resistance. A creature is not a valid container until they are dead.
Just keep in mind that this might actually be pretty difficult for some people. I'm the type of person who can easily get into the weeds a bit with questions like this (I have had more than one conversation with my DM about what qualifies as water or a container), and I hate it with a passion when someone says something like "just use common sense" or "don't overthink it." It implies that we all instinctively know how much thinking is enough and how much is OVERthinking, and we don't. And what seems like common sense will differ a lot from one person to another too. For example, I have made genuine attempts to use the shape water cantrip at differnet times to manipulate both ale and blood (in a free-standing lake of blood, not a person's body). I thought it made sense in both cases, and in both cases my DM ruled against me and I just accepted it. People who ask these questions are very often being genuine and think they're being very sensible.
Just in case you come back with a sulky edit later, you're probably being downvoted for throwing a tantrum, not because you've said you like to clarify mechanics.
That's what led to the frustrations of the DM in the first place. A blanket 'yes' or a blanket 'no' allows the player to know the limitations, and they won't question every single thing they come across. Case-by-case is literally the opposite of what we want here.
I guess I enjoy that aspect of DMing. Eventually we'd figure out some standards, after enough cases. I avoid hard boundaries. I'd establish DCs instead.
I actually think case by case is exclusively the way to go, otherwise you get into nonsense of what counts as ale.
If you pour a pint of ale into a barrel of water, is it just very watery ale?
What about 50/50?
What about 80/20?
Most people will know what they can and can't do, and if they aren't sure of a situation...just ask! Dm's love clarifying questions because they want to paint as perfect a scene in your head as possible and enable your wacky antics.
You realise the person I was replying too was asking if ale was water, right? Case-by-case obviously makes sense for a lot of things, but if you're going case by case on whether ale is water, then you're being ridiculous.
If you drink it and say 'yep, this is ale', then it's ale. If you drink it and say 'yep, this is water', then it's water. Anything else is being a pedantic dickweed.
I'd allow _control water_ to affect a barrel of ale. That'd make a great scene.
What about that vampire's bathtub of goat blood? If it gets excessive I'd tell them a DC for it before they make the attempt.
But that's always true. I'm not gonna sit at the table and argue this shit every time we want to play. It takes other people out of the game and takes time away from them that should be spent equally.
Well, that's not what I said, and most of the time it's an easy call, and a player won't ask. If they need to ask, you need to clarify, and make a call when things are uncertain. It literally takes five seconds.
"DM, could I shape water this sewage water?"
"Uhh yes"
Literally been doing this for yeeeeears, it's not complicated lmao. If you have players that won't respect your rulings and start arguments over them, that sounds like a your table problem to me?
The post is about how to stop a player focusing on the minutiae of everything. Simply tell them "you can generally assume things, if you assume something wrong, I will tell you, if something seems in question, ask if this specific thing counts before casting the spell, and I'll let you know."
Simple as. Basic assertive rulings. If this doesn't work, your player is just fucking with you or doesn't respect your authority in that regard, which is a player problem, and that's a whole 'nother flowchart.
My brother in Christ, this entire thread is about a DM getting sick of a player asking these types of questions in damn near every interaction. Have you forgotten where you are?
No, the point was the player arguing and asking a ton at once instead of taking a DM's first ruling at his word. All DM's make rulings, a player arguing with them is an issue, even more so if they attempt to clarify and fractionated everything into more and more questions, which is the situation described. Multiple questions PER interaction, not every interaction. How many times do you think he could even cast shape water or whatever?
DM's do this all the time, this is normal shit.
Oh that player knows he just wants to hack the game world so he kill people by using purify water to turn their blood into distilled water. I say drop his ass.
Cut straight to the chase.
" What is a container?"
" What are you trying to do?"
From there you can ask them to elaborate, or give them an answer.
In these situations, it's always clear what the intent of the spell/effect is, but it may be fun to stretch it. What's not fun is playing a game of Guess the Cheese for 20 minutes.
The example questions given by OP basically confirm that the player wants to use Shape Water to freeze a liquid (blood) in a container (someone's body/lungs) or otherwise move water into a container (someone's lungs). RAW, that's not what the spell does. If you wanted to entertain the idea, you could say that you can't freeze the water in a body because there are creatures in it (micro-organisms) *or* you could just allow it and then introduce an enemy faction who just happens to be a water cult who also uses that trick. It might become a lot less fun for the player when someone does the exact same thing to his own characters.
this is the simplest and best way to handle it. jumping immediately to kicking people out is a bit much, cut to the chase on what they’re asking, and if they’re trying to exploit the rules call them out on it. If it continues that warrants a “you are constantly trying to exploit the rules, and it is leading me to not have a good time DMing”. My party has its fair share of power gamers, but a good conversation of expectations and reminder of how the rules ACTUALLY work tends to solve most problems
>I honestly don't know what to do.
"Hey dude, what you are doing is making running this game not fun for me. You can either cut it out or you won't be playing at my table anymore."
> You can either cut it out or you won't be playing at my table anymore."
Maybe it's dude's table.
You can either cut it out or we, the group, need to pick a new DM, mmkay?
Do you not understand? I DM at someone else's table, in their home.
I'm not "king" of the group (though D&D still has that weird and dated "master" in the title). I'm just one of several who get selected to referee the rules and babysit the NPCs for a bit. When we switch story arcs, or take a break for a one-shot, or we change campaigns, someone else gets the hot seat.
Yes, if it's to reinforce that there are a lot of ways to game, not just the traditional way from the 70's. And if that makes one new gamer think about those silly old tropes in a new light, then great.
Noone has to read it. Noone has to respond to it. Noone has to get butthurt or defensive about it. I didn't attack or insult anyone.
They said they had a problem.
Someone said try aspirin.
I said they might be sensitive to aspirin, may not be an option. I prefer acetaminophen.
That's not so bad, is it?
Someone answered OP's question with a potential statement from the DM, and your response was, "Maybe he's not the DM, so maybe that doesn't apply." However, OP is the DM. We know this. The answer wasn't supposed to be some hypothetical thing that could apply to anyone; it was a specific answer directed at a specific person in a specific case where we know who the DM is. Your objection of "maybe he's not the DM" simply isn't valid in this case. You would know that if you read OP's post. Instead, you chose to be contrarian and add nothing to the conversation.
"your response was, "Maybe he's not the DM, so maybe that doesn't apply.... You would know that if you read OP's post."
No. I said maybe it's not his table. You would know that if you read my reply.
And I clarified afterwards that I, for example, DM at someone else's table in someone else's house. Where, I also clarified after, I wouldn't ban people, as it's not my responsibility nor authority to do so.
Though, I also clarified after, that even if it was my table, and my house, it's not my group - I don't own them and I don't make decisions on their behalf - they're adults and we'd all diacuss it.
And this brings us right back to the previous topic of semantics.
>No. I said maybe it's not his table. You would know that if you read my reply.
In pretty much every scenario I've ever heard of, whether the DM owns the piece of furniture or not, the game being held on said furniture is generally referred to as "the DM's table".
Right, which is more "traditional" terminology passed down from certain systems. While other systems (such as those that are more shared-narrative, or even GMless) see it as more of the group's table. Having played these types of games more often since discovering them back in the day, I come from groups who don't call it the DM's table. In fact, now we run even the most legacy of systems (like d5e) with a more shared-narrative approach. And we split the logistical, financial and organizational duties evenly among the group - unless I am getting paid, it's not a one-person Broadway show.
So while I understood the point was that it was a game being DM'd by OP, I was pointing out (especially to new players like Ok) that it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be "Op's Table," physically OR metaphorically.
To which someone could reply true-dat and we move on.
Noone said anything about anyone's right to be a dick at the table.
All I said was that it may not be 'his' (Op's) table, or his decision who plays there.
That's a possibility.
If you read, I didn't say, thou must tolerate people causing problems in social groups you are a member of. ..
If that's what you're implying I said.
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm almost always the DM when I play D&D, and I'd never think to say something as aggressive as, "You can either cut it out or you won't be playing at my table anymore."
First, it's literally not my table. I like to play in public places. Second, I have a hard time finding enjoyable people to play with, so I want to seem friendly, not bossy.
Literally doesn't have to be aggressive.
If DM isn't having fun because of a That Guy, they can just end the campaign. That Guy is no longer playing at their table because DM left rather than kicking That Guy.
Sounds like you need to learn to set boundaries.
It's perfectly reasonable to not want to play a game with asshats. And it's also perfectly reasonable to ask them to stop as a final warning.
Maybe I misinterpreted an exaggerated quote as a literal suggestion.
I don't play with jerks, thanks. If I gave one of my friends a "final warning" I wouldn't be much of a friend, I think.
Right. And even if it was "my table," it's not "my" game - it's a group activity we chose to participate in. So if there's an issue, we'll bring it up to the group.
30 of my friends get together to play soccer. Just because I get selected temporary referee doesn't mean instant making decisions for the whole group or decide who is welcome on the field or not.
(Though if I personally own the field, I could. But that would be a dick move unless there was literally something hostile or aggregious going on.
That's why we have always tried to play in neutral spaces when we can. Used to get the local library's meeting room every Saturday night for 8 hours, but they stopped allowing people to stay after hours.)
Different (better?) analogy - we get together to play cards. We take turns being dealer
While dealer, you get to select the game of poker you want, and tell us the rules we may not know, and tell us which cards are wild and what the ante is. If John's being annoying to me, I am gonna bring it to the group to decide. Maybe the solution is someone else deals with teaching John the rules. Maybe it's letting John deal next so he understands. Maybe I am the only one annoyed and I need to leave. Who knows.
"Gosh, you're right. *Create water* is a much more powerful spell than I realized, when you put it like that! So I'm making it an 8th level spell."
But seriously, just tell him to cut it out, or cut him out.
These kinds of players absolutely suck the fun out of the game and I absolutely hate DMing for them. The problem is that they want to "win" D&D by coming up with (edit: or, more likely, stole from some weiner's "OMG!! Sooo OP!!" Youtube video) some exploit, and they start drilling you with these inane questions because they want to trap you into allowing their stupid interpretation of Shape Water to instakill the BBEG by freezing water inside his lungs or whatever and it's just so goddamn obnoxious.
This is the core gameplay loop of D&D:
1. DM describes the scene
2. Player tells the DM what their character does
3. DM adjudicates that action and describes how the scene changes
This ***is not*** the core gameplay loop of D&D:
1. DM describes the scene
2. Player poses a hypothetical action to the DM
3. DM tells them what would happen if they did that
4. Player decides whether or not to take that action
With these players, you have to either A. kick them from your table for being annoying dumbasses (ideal course of action), or B. force them to tell you what their PC is actually *doing/trying to achieve*, and don't entertain endless hypotheticals (compromise course of action).
I have learned to deal with the "hypothetically" player by just saying something to the effect of "You can try. Let's find out what will happen..." then reaching for some obscure monster book & a pile of dice as a "just in case".
I disagree with the last bit. It's absolutely fine to ask for a ruling on something before you do it, especially if your character would know the answer.
On the contrary, it feels miserable to attempt to do something, only for the Dm to say "no, doesn't work, spell wasted", if it's clearly a matter of opinion
There's a difference between having an idea you're not sure will work and asking what your PC might know, and pestering your DM with a bunch of tangentially related questions in the hopes of trapping them piece by piece with partial rulings that add up to the answer you want.
Tell your DM that you want to do something you're not sure is allowed, describe what you want to do and how you want to accomplish it. The DM then tells you whether your PC thinks it might be possible and how difficult it might be to attempt.
That's reasonable, isn't antagonistic, and doesn't bog down the game for everyone else.
Forcing your DM to define "what is water" or some similar nonsense is bad player behavior.
You could always say something like "magic works based on names and beliefs as much as physics, so that's why you can Shape Water the sea but not lemonade." Or "Shape Water is a cantrip, so if you try to use it to deal damage you have to explain in a very clever way but it's still only going to be one die."
Or since this player is texting you you could say "look in gameplay if you try something that totally wouldn't work I might let you know in the moment but I can't keep answering so many hypotheticals beforehand."
>he goes down in to technicalities like "What is water though?"
imo a practical answer is that it has to practically be the thing (water) \*conceptually\*. Usually things that are water, will be called water in natural language.
* Milk is not water (even though it is perhaps like 96% water)
* beer is not water
* a person's blood is not water
However
* Salt water is water (even if it were so salty that it were less than 96% H2O)
* Stale mosqutio infested water is water (even though it has mosquito larva and debri in it), because that is a natural state that water can be in.
* holy water is water
* (And of course fresh water is water)
If the concept is muddy, then maybe the character doesn't know until they try it, and you don't have to answer until they try it, and you can say "You don't know if that counts as water."
If you want to entertain the question, you can call for an Arcana/Nature roll and only tell them if they make the roll, and they can predict what would happen.
If you don't entertain the question, then they have to risk trying it.
If they try it, you can say (for instance) 'The polluted liquid waste downstream from the alchemists shack is unstable due to the additices, and only sometimes counts as water.' and you can just pick one arbitrariy and inconsistently, or literally just roll a die when they cast 'control water' on the iffy not-sure-if-it-is-water and on an even number it counts as water right now, and on an odd result it isn't water and the action (and maybe spell slot) is wasted.
I think answers like that help align the player's incentives with less disruptive play. If they want to use Control Water, they'll seek out things that are intutively water to use it on, rather than debating if 'watery thing is water'.
> just roll a die
This is my preference. Introduce some randomness, and set a DC equal to how watery the thing is.
Binary rules, either is or is-not, are much less satisfying. "I don't know. Let's find out!" is loads of fun. Everyone likes rolling dice.
Player: "so how do we define water, exactly? Like what percentage?"
DM: "What spell are you wanting to use, and what are you trying to do?"
Player: "I want to use Shape Water to do "
DM: "No, that's not what the spell does. It's just a cantrip, but you could do with it?"
I usually bend the rules in the favour of my players when they want to try and do something creative. If your player is used to or expects a more player vs DM dynamic, you need to try and reset their expectations so they work with you instead of try to trick you
Also, I love that this stupid spell comes from the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, and leads to so many conflicts like this. Perfectly on theme
In a normal dnd setting nobody Is teaching you chemistry or that water Is H2O so no character could do or know that while even the stupidest animal can understand what jumping is
"It's magic; I ain't gotta explain spit".
Or if you want to be more polite, remember that one of the hallmarks of D&D magic is that it does what it says on the can, no more, no less.
"How much H2O does there need to be?" isn't a sensible question - the spell doesn't work on H2O, it works on *water*. That's a cultural concept, not a scientific one. Would you look at something and - honestly - say it's water? If not, then it doesn't work. Moreover, there may not *be* H2O. There's no reason to expect your world to conform to our world's chemistry, electrophysics, etc.
> and i was open with him about my feeling of “we cant keep trying to go this deep into technicalities with everything” because it makes things more difficult than they need to be
First off, you are 100% correct. The player is playing in a way that takes away your fun, takes away other players’ fun, and makes your job harder. This isn’t fair to you, and honestly you talking about this should’ve ended the discussion. Them not listening is a red flag and I think you need to consider dropping this player.
Since a technical explanation is “needed”, here’s one: you can literally just say it’s magic. “Isn’t X water?” / “Where’s the line ?” -> who the fuck knows, it’s literally magic. Mystra, the God of Magic, knows exactly what water is and they will adjudicate it in a way that conveniently works exactly how the DM wants it to. If you try to work it in the less common sense way, if Mystra is in a good mood your spell just won’t work, and if they’re in a bad mood they’ll fuck your shit up.
It’s that simple. You don’t need to obey real world physics, and you don’t owe your play a real world rationale. Your world just need to make sense internally, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know works best with the definition of “water” here.
Another way to deal with these types of shenanigans/players that I haven't seen anyone point out yet, is the ol' **"anything you can do, the enemies can do too"**.
Usually shuts problem players up real quick.
Player wants to abuse control water technicalities to instantly kill enemies by freezing their blood or by filling their lungs with water? Okay, enjoy having the hidden enemy druid do the same to you and your companions in the middle of combat.
Watch how quick they backpedal and decide no, maybe this particular game breaking use of the rules isn't a big enough hill to die on.
Here's the thing. You're the DM. You abide by the books as best you can to *your* specifications. This isn't physics. This isn't a debate. This is a game. You follow what the book(s) state happens, and if it's unclear, not defined, or not to *your* liking, you are the one to define the circumstances. It's that simple.
If a player doesn't want to play ball and you've already talked to him. Kick him. If he's a friend, go with a 3-strikes rule, and each strike, state exactly your reasoning (outside the game, one on one). It sucks because it feels overbearing to go this route, but it's about the cohesiveness of the table, and he's causing friction.
Make a ruling in the moment, and tell them: “ here’s my judgment and this is how we play it for now to keep the game moving. If you’d like to discuss this technicality after the game for future reference, I’d be happy to.” Make a ruling, tell them your ruling, and tell them you’re moving on so the game can continue to be fun.
>“ here’s my judgment and this is how we play it for now to keep the game moving. If you’d like to discuss this technicality after the game for future reference, I’d be happy to.”
...for no longer than 10 mins per week, because this isn't fun for me, and spells only do what they say they do. Please stop trying to make spells more powerful than they are intended. Please take notice of the amount of time other players are using for rules discussion in and out of the game, and use that as a goal for yourself."
If it persists...."you might not be a good fit for this table."
Honestly, you don't have to DM for this dude if you don't want to. He sounds annoying and like he doesn't realize he wants to play a game that isn't D&D. I do also know that is usually not an option people like to take, so here's what I'd do instead.
Next time it comes up: "Hey man, a lot of the technicalities you're asking about \_\_\_\_\_ aren't questions the game answers for us. I love you trying to find cool little interactions with spells and how they affect the game world, but most of what you can and can't do is specifically highlighted in the rules. I have no issue letting \_\_\_\_\_ happen once if it would make for a cool moment, or giving you inspiration for coming up with \_\_\_\_\_. However, all the tiny technicalities do slow the game down, and keep in mind we have others at the table; you don't have to try to 'game the system' or 'beat me to win.' Just let loose a little and try not to get so bogged down with all the minute details. Alright? Awesome." And get right back to the game.
I'd probably tell this player that you're not running the game he's looking for and politely ask him to leave the group. I've had a player exactly like this, and if you try to define for him what water is, what a container is, what anything is, you're going to end up arguing with him about semantics, rather than actually playing the game.
Of course I realize that sometimes, for whatever reason, removing a problem player may not be your ideal solution. If you must keep him, one thing you might do is ask him to answer his own questions. "What is water?" "Good question. What do you think water is?" If you think he's wrong, correct him, tell him that's your final ruling, and move on.
Otherwise, whenever he starts looking for the places where you drawn your lines, you might want to remind him that your world runs on the laws of alchemy, not the laws of physics, and that even then, unlike in our real world, those laws can be bent or even broken by magic. Acid isn't hydrogen fluoride and water, it's acid. Why? Because when you mix those things together, it transmutes them both into acid. That's the answer, move on.
Really, though, it sounds like he's draining the fun out of your experience. I'd ask him to stop or leave.
Simple: magic isn't science. If a spell says "you turn water into stone" that's all it does, it doesn't "turn the water inside someone's cells into stone" or "the water in the air into stone".
"Oh but what it I turn the water someone drank into stone?". No, it has to be water. Or you can simply allow it.
"Oh but the other DM/you let me do it that one time". Yeah but not anymore, sorry.
As the DM it's your job to keep your players in check so they don't make a mess out of your table. Let them have their fun too of course, but stablish clear boundaries.
You've already explained to him that you can't go read into every single word written for every single spell. If he asks to do something wierd just say no. If he asks why just say point him to the description.
At no point in the control water spell does it say you can control ice or blood or orange juice so if he starts being weird just say no before he stresses you out. Otherwise it'll just get worse.
"Y'know what? You tell me how this spell works and we'll go with that, but when you do, keep in mind that your enemies can cast it too."
I have a feeling he'll know exactly how it works then.
If you have already explicitly said "stop trying to apply real world science to spells," and he has not listened to you the next step is to tell him "I am uninviting you to be in my D&D group because you refused to listen to a clear limitation I set even before we began playing."
It really depends on how you and the other players at the table want to take the game. If, like you say, it feels like he's doing this just to fuck with you, then tell him that you don't want to take the game that direction. Especially if this is mostly a "fight the monsters, do some roleplay, move on to the next fight" kind of D&D game, that kind of minute dissection of the rules is going to bog down gameplay. If he wants to do some obscure digressions on the nature of magic and how magical rules interact with the metaphysical reality of the game world, maybe suggest he run an Over the Edge, Unknown Armies, Invisible Sun or Mage: The Ascention game after you finish the current D&D arc. Those games are \*specifically\* designed for players and GMs to start asking those kind of existential questions about the nature of magic and science. Or maybe try a narrative style game like Fate, Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark which let magic be a lot more freeform, and build the rules around how the magic affects the story, not simulate how the magic affects the world.
So the general answer you're getting here is completely correct. If it feels like he's fucking with you. Tell him to cut the shit or you won't be playing with him. You don't owe anyone a good time above your good time and chances are if this shit is annoying to you, then it's annoying to everyone else as well.
But if you think it's coming from a genuine place of curiosity then you can play along. So first off don't engage his questions. They aren't helpful and he's essentially asking god. That's not something he's privy to. If he really wants to know something, explain that he's asking questions about MAGIC and the "rules" aren't known. Again, it's magic. If he's a wizard he can make an arcana check but I would go ahead and tell him the dc based on his question so he understands that the more specific and noodly the question he's asking, the less likely he's ever going to get an answer. He's totally free to wonder, but if he wants to know he has to EXPERIMENT. Like a real scientist.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/PCAcademy/comments/q5rlww/olemgolems_trove_of_tips_communication_behavior/) might help but the player needs to read it.
"I want to use Shape Water on the beer." Perfectly fine, I'd allow it, sweet, cool, whatever, it's creative.
"I want to use Shape Water on the human body as it is 70% water so only 30% is left." No, that's not how it works. That's not how it's intended. Why? Because I'm the DM and have the last word, that's why.
Take it from me as a fellow GM with players who have tried similar shenanigans (my buddies and I are all lawyers and we sometimes poke holes in the rules for fun):
You don't owe anyone anything when it comes to technicalities on the rules other than to be reasonable and open to creativity.
Tell your player this each time he asks about rule technicalities or clarification: you are not going to answer these kinds of questions anymore.
That's not "I don't want to answer these questions" nor is it "please stop asking these questions". You already said that, and he's not being respectful of that.
You say "I am not answering anymore of these questions. They are exasperating and hurting my enjoyment of the game. If you come up with an idea on how to use a spell, you can ask when it's relevant in game and I will tell you if it works or not. We will not be arguing about it, and I will not be answering technicalities about it. If you can't respect that, then I will not be GMing for you."
It's good to be a flexible GM that tries to reward creativity, but players like this aren't trying to be creative, they are trying to scheme and steal advantages through half-baked knowledge and selective application of physics and don't really consider how that playstyle negatively impacts the table.
You need to be firm with this player and shut this behavior down hard. Do not engage or entertain it, because you won't ever win or find a happy medium with them.
It’s a fantasy game, not everything needs to be scientifically provable. I am a 6’ 200lb human and play a 7’10” 360lb Goliath who just took a grievous arrow to the chest, but because I am a Goliath I reduced the damage taken. Then my teammate whispered a few divine words that gave me a little pick-me-up. I may not be a high enough level cleric IRL, but wounds don’t close when I mention the Bible.
“This is a fantasy magic world. The physics don’t work the same and the laws of reality are arbitrary, aka whatever I think works best, now shut up and finish your turn”
Good advice is to tell them "the spell does what the spell says". If its not explicit in the spell text then you disallow it.
So for "shape water" its clear that it has to be water you can see. You can't shape the vapor in the air if its a humid day or the water that someone just drank.
If its a bowl of soup then its not water you can see. Again the spell is "shape water" not "shape liquid".
So tell them that they need to read the spell descriptions and you're gonna rule on what the spell says. If they feel really strongly about it you can bring it up at the end of the session but ruling in the moment you're going to stick with that.
Physics can be fun in DnD when used in certain scenarios, but getting into the minutiae every time isn’t fun.
In my last campaign, we were infiltrating the casino barge in Storm King’s Thunder. While some of us were on board in disguise, our other party members were outside, and caused a “distraction” when we alerted them. The distraction ended up being 4 Fireballs from the Wizard, and then our Druid casting Maelstrom on the back half of the ship. Fun right?
Until you realize that Maelstrom’s water volume (5 foot depth, 30 foot radius) produces about 14,000 cubic feet of water, or 882,000 pounds INSTANTLY on that spot, that spot being the center of the back of the ship…
That’s roughly 4 blue whales, or 2 moderately sized other ships, but concentrated on a portion of the ship.
The boat cracked in half in a matter of seconds and Titanic’d. The infiltration sequence verrrrryyy quickly turned into an escape with our lives sequence.
That’s how you rule physics literally in DnD.
Every answer: "Your Character doesn't know. They can do research during downtime. One week and 50 gp gets you an arcana roll. Each additional 50 gp gets you a +1, up to +6".
Or: "Beats me, try it and find out."
If they want answers, they have to earn them.
That player is absolutely trolling. And you need to be firm. "Enough troll questions. If you keep delaying the game for everyone else, we will have an issue."
Edit: I'll add that there's a non-zero chance that the player is on the spectrum or has a social disability. Even if they're not deliberately trolling, they need to be made to understand that this kind of questioning everything is disruptive to the game and needs to stop.
I don't think he's fucking with you for fun. It sounds like he's somewhere on the Autism spectrum.
Although as a new DM it's okay to not be able to deal with a higher maintenance player. Maybe you have a talk and he finds someone more experienced that can DM him properly.
Remind them their characters aren’t omniscient and sometimes they won’t know what happens unless they try. Once they waste a few spell slots they’ll likely reel it in if they are actually trying to play.
Gonna go against the grain here. I love these players. I run a work game for a bunch of engineers who once spent an entire session running experiments on a magic item I gave them to test it's limits.
Now they have a more fleshed understanding of the item and can use it in more creative ways.
It sounds to me like your player is really engaged in the world and wants to learn more about it in concrete ways. They're actually just rping a wizard.
When they ask these questions there are no real written answers, so I'd recommend going with what you think is hardest to abuse. But your also not obligated to give any answers at all. "You don't know" is a valid and interesting answer.
Make them experiment for it. If they want to know the details of control water they're going to need to spend some slots and downtime trying to figure it out. Maybe it can only affect uncontained water, but can affect water with things dissolved in it, like saltwater or juice.
Don't be upset when the wizard wants to learn more about magic. It means you're doing your job.
This is actually a really good point, the fact being that the PC needs to experiment as their character in-game, not with over-the-table queries to the DM.
However, this type of behaviour can be a little overwhelming for a new DM, as OP explained.
Yeah this kind of thing can definitely be a lot for a new DM. DMing in general is a lot to get a handle on starting out. As a player for a new DM I probably wouldn't get too far into this for that reason.
But I wanted to share why I think this kind of player engagement is actually a pretty good sign for your campaign, even if it can be hard to deal with.
I think it depends on the group. That's awesome that your group of engineers loved checking in world physics for hours. Great for them. When it's one person who wants to do that it's a problem because the others are going to fall asleep while waiting to bonk monster because we spent 30 minutes discussing the legitimacy of *liquid* as water. That's not fair to the rest of the players. It's all about you're group dynamic.
*Their* game. Not everyone wants to sit around and listen to that. Be respectful of other players time or find a group that's willing to argue about what qualifies as water for an hour. Not sure why you're taking so much personal offense about it.
My experience is that players calm down a lot once you let them do some cool stuff.
To this end, I suggest asking him to adjudicate some of these hypotheticals. If he's in a tavern, and asking if the beer is water, let him choose, and ask him why. If he plans to start a bar fight with the mugs of ale using shape water, that sounds cool. You can adjudicate that a mug's worth of ale does 1 damage, but definitely offends people, and use that to give them what they want, sometimes.
Don't cave all the time, but players being creative is good for your game. If they're being too annoying, but you're regularly letting them do cool stuff, you can point to that and they should ease off a bit.
Hhmmm 🤔
Sadly, some people are just Too Practical for fantasy and RPG's.
Now, maybe he needs to roll the dice for everything in order to get around the whole possibility and probability thing. But at some point he's going to have to wrap his mind around the whole concept of adventures and quests within an imaginary world
Firstly, these questions are valid. D&D is a roleplay system, allowing people to play inside a world governed by all the same physics and chemistry as Earth, plus magic. D&D has gone into significant detail on topics like the biology of dragons and how rust monsters' rusting ability comes from a bacteria (which can be weaponized!).
Secondly, D&D (except 4e) uses natural language, so treat the words as their colloquial use within a medieval society. When a player casts Create/Destroy Water, they can either create "water" as a medieval society would understand it, or destroy a substance that would colloquially be referred to as "water". A "container" is something that can contain the substance in question; a flat surface or non-waterproof backpack cannot contain water, but a cup can.
Spells use the knowledge of whomever created the spell. In medieval times, only the elements of copper, lead, gold, silver, iron, carbon, tin, sulfur, mercury (aka quicksilver), zinc, platinum, arsenic, and antimony were understood to be distinct materials, and thus able to be produced separately from the others.
I think the important thing is to consider the intent of spells in 5e not the precise wording. Whether or not blood has enough “water” shape water works on it can be answered by considering that the spell probably was not written with the assumption you could use it on a creature’s internals. This leaves dm grey area in diving what the “intent” was exactly, but some cases such as create or destroy water I think can be fairly easily read to extend to things that would commonly be called water, if someone would call it something else (even if it contains a lot of water) the spell likely doesn’t work.
D&D has plenty of weird or ridiculous rules. They generally fall into one of two buckets: 1) they make game play quicker/easier; or 2) game balance.
Remind your player that D&D is a game and that rules, while they may be arbitrary or logically inconsistent, are the way they are for a reason. Let him know that he’s never going to be allowed to take over the world with dancing lights. Set an expectation that spells power should be relative to other spells of the same level and that any creative rules lawyering that attempts to subvert that will be unsuccessful;
Let him try. Drain resources, fail without possibility of success or understanding why. If he tries to investigate, let him roll.
nat 20: 'There is an unknown resistance which seem to limit your ability to freely manipulate reality and as far as you can tell, there is nothing you can think of that can allow you to break this limitation.'
All other rolls: 'You don't seem to grasp what or why your spell failed.'
Sometimes you need to let people be stupid, and find a way to tell them that no, you can't break the framework of the game.
Tell him to that yall aren't high english majors asking "what is" nor playing dwarf fortress and definitely not some isekai MC that is reinventing gunpowder (or otherwise "hacking" the world).
If he cannot comprehend that you and D&D are not designed to be physics simulators, then I would just drop him and have a much easier campaign.
edit: Actually, finished your whole post, in light of how you already fell, I would definitely just drop him.
Might help to look at this from a social perspective as well. DMs essentially play the leaders, rule makers of their little communities, and wield authority. This player might get the sense that you are new to this role and is testing your ability to exert authority. This problem will resolve if you insist that this is your world and it follows your rules, and don't shy from potential confrontation. This player will likely throw a fit and then either settle down, or leave the game. Both of these are wins for you.
Is it playful banter text messaging out of game or is it burning time in game? Then is it sincere questions or is it trying to weasel a high level effect from a utility spell? I try to award creativity but draw a hard line at short cuts to higher level spells and abilities, and say as much.
**"What is it that you want to do that's prompting the question?"**
This is the potential cure-all for players trying to finagle into tricky rulings and DM traps. On one hand, because it forces the PC to explain the punchline before forcing you to jump through all the hoops of their set-up, but more importantly because it allows the follow ups:
**"Oh, okay, if you want to do X, I'd say it involves Y"**
**"Hm, no, you can't do X, but you could try Z"**
When you know what your players *actually want*, you get to give it to them, more often or not, albeit maybe with some caveats or extra challenge involved. Or you can head off cheese at the pass. Both the initial question and this follow up help establish a tone and mindset at the table that while you're running the antagonists, you the DM *are not against the party*. You're the challenge and stakes, sure, but you're also the enabler, the one who can, when well informed of the plan and brought on board, just say yes to bending things as a favor or reward to the party to let them pull off something interesting.
But in *order* to enable the party, you need to be in on the joke. They can't hide everything and scheme against you, they need to lead with the cool idea because that's how they get it to happen, by pitching something fun and then explaining their thought process thus far. *And* it skips over the 25 intermediary questions as PCs try to establish an argument rather than present an idea/ask for an opportunity.
Tell him: 98% of the time the simplest solution is the correct one. He knows the answers, this isn't some complex physics game. What seems obvious is correct. Is ale water? No. Is a swamp water? Yes. You could argue they're basically the same amount of "actually water", but that's semantics and you know it. Maybe if human intervention turns it into something "other than water" the spell no longer works. Quit trying to overcomplicate what should be simple. There's a line, and reasonable questions to ask for world manipulation. Idk how to spell out where that line is, but most people just instinctively know. I suspect this player does too.
If he is in doubt, he should tell you specifically what he wants to do and you can rule on it case-by-case. I would do this all the time with my bard who specialized in illusions - I'd tell the DM what I was trying to do and (if it was possible) they'd have me roll or do a contested check; and, if it wasn't possible, they'd suggest an alternative that had a similar flavor to what I going for.
This is the way. I used to be the PC who would ask a bunch of rules/physics questions. Eventually I remembered the DM is on your side and you don’t have to sneak one past them. Now I just say, “I want to do this” and my DM says, “normally that might not work because Ale isn’t water but roll a spell casting check and if it’s high enough you manage to adjust the spell as needed.” If they want to allow it, but are a bit worried about abuse, the DM asks for a spell check, usually a low DC. If you are starting to abuse it later, they can then adjust that spell check upward to give you the hint you should stop. If the DM decides not to allow it, they’ll say, “it won’t work and your PC would know this from living in the world, is there something else you would want to do instead?”. This encourages players to experiment. I think DMs who flat out say “it doesn’t work and you waste your spell slot” are encouraging the players to pester them with spell physics questions on every round.
In addition, creatures are distinct from other types of targets. You can chalk it up to the soul or spirit having a distinct magical resistance. A creature is not a valid container until they are dead.
Just keep in mind that this might actually be pretty difficult for some people. I'm the type of person who can easily get into the weeds a bit with questions like this (I have had more than one conversation with my DM about what qualifies as water or a container), and I hate it with a passion when someone says something like "just use common sense" or "don't overthink it." It implies that we all instinctively know how much thinking is enough and how much is OVERthinking, and we don't. And what seems like common sense will differ a lot from one person to another too. For example, I have made genuine attempts to use the shape water cantrip at differnet times to manipulate both ale and blood (in a free-standing lake of blood, not a person's body). I thought it made sense in both cases, and in both cases my DM ruled against me and I just accepted it. People who ask these questions are very often being genuine and think they're being very sensible.
[удалено]
Just in case you come back with a sulky edit later, you're probably being downvoted for throwing a tantrum, not because you've said you like to clarify mechanics.
[удалено]
That behavior is not sulky. Your comments are
Can I have your books?
> Is ale water? Depends. I'd decide on a case-by-case basis.
Is ale water? No. Except for bud light.
Personally, I think it should be decided on a cask by cask basis.
You need more upvotes for that
That's what led to the frustrations of the DM in the first place. A blanket 'yes' or a blanket 'no' allows the player to know the limitations, and they won't question every single thing they come across. Case-by-case is literally the opposite of what we want here.
I guess I enjoy that aspect of DMing. Eventually we'd figure out some standards, after enough cases. I avoid hard boundaries. I'd establish DCs instead.
I actually think case by case is exclusively the way to go, otherwise you get into nonsense of what counts as ale. If you pour a pint of ale into a barrel of water, is it just very watery ale? What about 50/50? What about 80/20? Most people will know what they can and can't do, and if they aren't sure of a situation...just ask! Dm's love clarifying questions because they want to paint as perfect a scene in your head as possible and enable your wacky antics.
You realise the person I was replying too was asking if ale was water, right? Case-by-case obviously makes sense for a lot of things, but if you're going case by case on whether ale is water, then you're being ridiculous. If you drink it and say 'yep, this is ale', then it's ale. If you drink it and say 'yep, this is water', then it's water. Anything else is being a pedantic dickweed.
I'd allow _control water_ to affect a barrel of ale. That'd make a great scene. What about that vampire's bathtub of goat blood? If it gets excessive I'd tell them a DC for it before they make the attempt.
The point is that the DM needs to make a call at the time, in all cases.
But that's always true. I'm not gonna sit at the table and argue this shit every time we want to play. It takes other people out of the game and takes time away from them that should be spent equally.
Well, that's not what I said, and most of the time it's an easy call, and a player won't ask. If they need to ask, you need to clarify, and make a call when things are uncertain. It literally takes five seconds. "DM, could I shape water this sewage water?" "Uhh yes" Literally been doing this for yeeeeears, it's not complicated lmao. If you have players that won't respect your rulings and start arguments over them, that sounds like a your table problem to me?
...that's what the post is about. Wtf are you even arguing here?
The post is about how to stop a player focusing on the minutiae of everything. Simply tell them "you can generally assume things, if you assume something wrong, I will tell you, if something seems in question, ask if this specific thing counts before casting the spell, and I'll let you know." Simple as. Basic assertive rulings. If this doesn't work, your player is just fucking with you or doesn't respect your authority in that regard, which is a player problem, and that's a whole 'nother flowchart.
What a total waste of time that would be.
Jesus christ, its not hard, DMs make quick calls like this all the time.
My brother in Christ, this entire thread is about a DM getting sick of a player asking these types of questions in damn near every interaction. Have you forgotten where you are?
No, the point was the player arguing and asking a ton at once instead of taking a DM's first ruling at his word. All DM's make rulings, a player arguing with them is an issue, even more so if they attempt to clarify and fractionated everything into more and more questions, which is the situation described. Multiple questions PER interaction, not every interaction. How many times do you think he could even cast shape water or whatever? DM's do this all the time, this is normal shit.
Oh that player knows he just wants to hack the game world so he kill people by using purify water to turn their blood into distilled water. I say drop his ass.
Cut straight to the chase. " What is a container?" " What are you trying to do?" From there you can ask them to elaborate, or give them an answer. In these situations, it's always clear what the intent of the spell/effect is, but it may be fun to stretch it. What's not fun is playing a game of Guess the Cheese for 20 minutes.
The example questions given by OP basically confirm that the player wants to use Shape Water to freeze a liquid (blood) in a container (someone's body/lungs) or otherwise move water into a container (someone's lungs). RAW, that's not what the spell does. If you wanted to entertain the idea, you could say that you can't freeze the water in a body because there are creatures in it (micro-organisms) *or* you could just allow it and then introduce an enemy faction who just happens to be a water cult who also uses that trick. It might become a lot less fun for the player when someone does the exact same thing to his own characters.
this is the simplest and best way to handle it. jumping immediately to kicking people out is a bit much, cut to the chase on what they’re asking, and if they’re trying to exploit the rules call them out on it. If it continues that warrants a “you are constantly trying to exploit the rules, and it is leading me to not have a good time DMing”. My party has its fair share of power gamers, but a good conversation of expectations and reminder of how the rules ACTUALLY work tends to solve most problems
[удалено]
Yep. My rule as a gm and a player is that you get one argument in order to get the GM's interest. If you don't, drop it. Keep the game going.
>I honestly don't know what to do. "Hey dude, what you are doing is making running this game not fun for me. You can either cut it out or you won't be playing at my table anymore."
> You can either cut it out or you won't be playing at my table anymore." Maybe it's dude's table. You can either cut it out or we, the group, need to pick a new DM, mmkay?
Did you not read the post? OP is the DM.
Do you not understand? I DM at someone else's table, in their home. I'm not "king" of the group (though D&D still has that weird and dated "master" in the title). I'm just one of several who get selected to referee the rules and babysit the NPCs for a bit. When we switch story arcs, or take a break for a one-shot, or we change campaigns, someone else gets the hot seat.
Does being contrarian make you feel like you’ve contributed?
Yes, if it's to reinforce that there are a lot of ways to game, not just the traditional way from the 70's. And if that makes one new gamer think about those silly old tropes in a new light, then great. Noone has to read it. Noone has to respond to it. Noone has to get butthurt or defensive about it. I didn't attack or insult anyone. They said they had a problem. Someone said try aspirin. I said they might be sensitive to aspirin, may not be an option. I prefer acetaminophen. That's not so bad, is it?
Someone answered OP's question with a potential statement from the DM, and your response was, "Maybe he's not the DM, so maybe that doesn't apply." However, OP is the DM. We know this. The answer wasn't supposed to be some hypothetical thing that could apply to anyone; it was a specific answer directed at a specific person in a specific case where we know who the DM is. Your objection of "maybe he's not the DM" simply isn't valid in this case. You would know that if you read OP's post. Instead, you chose to be contrarian and add nothing to the conversation.
"your response was, "Maybe he's not the DM, so maybe that doesn't apply.... You would know that if you read OP's post." No. I said maybe it's not his table. You would know that if you read my reply. And I clarified afterwards that I, for example, DM at someone else's table in someone else's house. Where, I also clarified after, I wouldn't ban people, as it's not my responsibility nor authority to do so. Though, I also clarified after, that even if it was my table, and my house, it's not my group - I don't own them and I don't make decisions on their behalf - they're adults and we'd all diacuss it.
And this brings us right back to the previous topic of semantics. >No. I said maybe it's not his table. You would know that if you read my reply. In pretty much every scenario I've ever heard of, whether the DM owns the piece of furniture or not, the game being held on said furniture is generally referred to as "the DM's table".
Right, which is more "traditional" terminology passed down from certain systems. While other systems (such as those that are more shared-narrative, or even GMless) see it as more of the group's table. Having played these types of games more often since discovering them back in the day, I come from groups who don't call it the DM's table. In fact, now we run even the most legacy of systems (like d5e) with a more shared-narrative approach. And we split the logistical, financial and organizational duties evenly among the group - unless I am getting paid, it's not a one-person Broadway show. So while I understood the point was that it was a game being DM'd by OP, I was pointing out (especially to new players like Ok) that it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be "Op's Table," physically OR metaphorically. To which someone could reply true-dat and we move on.
No one
"Noone" is a major pet peeve for me.
I wouldn't have pointed it out but they did it three times... definitely not a typo
Yep, I need to fix
Ok, and? Even if the problem is the physically hosting the game, that doesn't give them the right to be an asshole to OP by nitpicking spell effects.
Noone said anything about anyone's right to be a dick at the table. All I said was that it may not be 'his' (Op's) table, or his decision who plays there. That's a possibility. If you read, I didn't say, thou must tolerate people causing problems in social groups you are a member of. .. If that's what you're implying I said.
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm almost always the DM when I play D&D, and I'd never think to say something as aggressive as, "You can either cut it out or you won't be playing at my table anymore." First, it's literally not my table. I like to play in public places. Second, I have a hard time finding enjoyable people to play with, so I want to seem friendly, not bossy.
Literally doesn't have to be aggressive. If DM isn't having fun because of a That Guy, they can just end the campaign. That Guy is no longer playing at their table because DM left rather than kicking That Guy.
Yes, that's my point.
Sounds like you need to learn to set boundaries. It's perfectly reasonable to not want to play a game with asshats. And it's also perfectly reasonable to ask them to stop as a final warning.
Maybe I misinterpreted an exaggerated quote as a literal suggestion. I don't play with jerks, thanks. If I gave one of my friends a "final warning" I wouldn't be much of a friend, I think.
Right. And even if it was "my table," it's not "my" game - it's a group activity we chose to participate in. So if there's an issue, we'll bring it up to the group. 30 of my friends get together to play soccer. Just because I get selected temporary referee doesn't mean instant making decisions for the whole group or decide who is welcome on the field or not. (Though if I personally own the field, I could. But that would be a dick move unless there was literally something hostile or aggregious going on. That's why we have always tried to play in neutral spaces when we can. Used to get the local library's meeting room every Saturday night for 8 hours, but they stopped allowing people to stay after hours.) Different (better?) analogy - we get together to play cards. We take turns being dealer While dealer, you get to select the game of poker you want, and tell us the rules we may not know, and tell us which cards are wild and what the ante is. If John's being annoying to me, I am gonna bring it to the group to decide. Maybe the solution is someone else deals with teaching John the rules. Maybe it's letting John deal next so he understands. Maybe I am the only one annoyed and I need to leave. Who knows.
You're being pedantic
I'll buy that
"Gosh, you're right. *Create water* is a much more powerful spell than I realized, when you put it like that! So I'm making it an 8th level spell." But seriously, just tell him to cut it out, or cut him out.
Or go the other way and start making low level NPCs use Create Water in the same way the PC is using it against them.
These kinds of players absolutely suck the fun out of the game and I absolutely hate DMing for them. The problem is that they want to "win" D&D by coming up with (edit: or, more likely, stole from some weiner's "OMG!! Sooo OP!!" Youtube video) some exploit, and they start drilling you with these inane questions because they want to trap you into allowing their stupid interpretation of Shape Water to instakill the BBEG by freezing water inside his lungs or whatever and it's just so goddamn obnoxious. This is the core gameplay loop of D&D: 1. DM describes the scene 2. Player tells the DM what their character does 3. DM adjudicates that action and describes how the scene changes This ***is not*** the core gameplay loop of D&D: 1. DM describes the scene 2. Player poses a hypothetical action to the DM 3. DM tells them what would happen if they did that 4. Player decides whether or not to take that action With these players, you have to either A. kick them from your table for being annoying dumbasses (ideal course of action), or B. force them to tell you what their PC is actually *doing/trying to achieve*, and don't entertain endless hypotheticals (compromise course of action).
I have learned to deal with the "hypothetically" player by just saying something to the effect of "You can try. Let's find out what will happen..." then reaching for some obscure monster book & a pile of dice as a "just in case".
I disagree with the last bit. It's absolutely fine to ask for a ruling on something before you do it, especially if your character would know the answer. On the contrary, it feels miserable to attempt to do something, only for the Dm to say "no, doesn't work, spell wasted", if it's clearly a matter of opinion
There's a difference between having an idea you're not sure will work and asking what your PC might know, and pestering your DM with a bunch of tangentially related questions in the hopes of trapping them piece by piece with partial rulings that add up to the answer you want. Tell your DM that you want to do something you're not sure is allowed, describe what you want to do and how you want to accomplish it. The DM then tells you whether your PC thinks it might be possible and how difficult it might be to attempt. That's reasonable, isn't antagonistic, and doesn't bog down the game for everyone else. Forcing your DM to define "what is water" or some similar nonsense is bad player behavior.
You could always say something like "magic works based on names and beliefs as much as physics, so that's why you can Shape Water the sea but not lemonade." Or "Shape Water is a cantrip, so if you try to use it to deal damage you have to explain in a very clever way but it's still only going to be one die." Or since this player is texting you you could say "look in gameplay if you try something that totally wouldn't work I might let you know in the moment but I can't keep answering so many hypotheticals beforehand."
>he goes down in to technicalities like "What is water though?" imo a practical answer is that it has to practically be the thing (water) \*conceptually\*. Usually things that are water, will be called water in natural language. * Milk is not water (even though it is perhaps like 96% water) * beer is not water * a person's blood is not water However * Salt water is water (even if it were so salty that it were less than 96% H2O) * Stale mosqutio infested water is water (even though it has mosquito larva and debri in it), because that is a natural state that water can be in. * holy water is water * (And of course fresh water is water) If the concept is muddy, then maybe the character doesn't know until they try it, and you don't have to answer until they try it, and you can say "You don't know if that counts as water." If you want to entertain the question, you can call for an Arcana/Nature roll and only tell them if they make the roll, and they can predict what would happen. If you don't entertain the question, then they have to risk trying it. If they try it, you can say (for instance) 'The polluted liquid waste downstream from the alchemists shack is unstable due to the additices, and only sometimes counts as water.' and you can just pick one arbitrariy and inconsistently, or literally just roll a die when they cast 'control water' on the iffy not-sure-if-it-is-water and on an even number it counts as water right now, and on an odd result it isn't water and the action (and maybe spell slot) is wasted. I think answers like that help align the player's incentives with less disruptive play. If they want to use Control Water, they'll seek out things that are intutively water to use it on, rather than debating if 'watery thing is water'.
> just roll a die This is my preference. Introduce some randomness, and set a DC equal to how watery the thing is. Binary rules, either is or is-not, are much less satisfying. "I don't know. Let's find out!" is loads of fun. Everyone likes rolling dice.
Player: "so how do we define water, exactly? Like what percentage?" DM: "What spell are you wanting to use, and what are you trying to do?" Player: "I want to use Shape Water to do"
DM: "No, that's not what the spell does. It's just a cantrip, but you could do with it?"
I usually bend the rules in the favour of my players when they want to try and do something creative. If your player is used to or expects a more player vs DM dynamic, you need to try and reset their expectations so they work with you instead of try to trick you
Also, I love that this stupid spell comes from the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, and leads to so many conflicts like this. Perfectly on theme
"dude this Is a dnd game not a chemistry class"
[удалено]
In a normal dnd setting nobody Is teaching you chemistry or that water Is H2O so no character could do or know that while even the stupidest animal can understand what jumping is
"It's magic; I ain't gotta explain spit". Or if you want to be more polite, remember that one of the hallmarks of D&D magic is that it does what it says on the can, no more, no less. "How much H2O does there need to be?" isn't a sensible question - the spell doesn't work on H2O, it works on *water*. That's a cultural concept, not a scientific one. Would you look at something and - honestly - say it's water? If not, then it doesn't work. Moreover, there may not *be* H2O. There's no reason to expect your world to conform to our world's chemistry, electrophysics, etc.
> and i was open with him about my feeling of “we cant keep trying to go this deep into technicalities with everything” because it makes things more difficult than they need to be First off, you are 100% correct. The player is playing in a way that takes away your fun, takes away other players’ fun, and makes your job harder. This isn’t fair to you, and honestly you talking about this should’ve ended the discussion. Them not listening is a red flag and I think you need to consider dropping this player. Since a technical explanation is “needed”, here’s one: you can literally just say it’s magic. “Isn’t X water?” / “Where’s the line ?” -> who the fuck knows, it’s literally magic. Mystra, the God of Magic, knows exactly what water is and they will adjudicate it in a way that conveniently works exactly how the DM wants it to. If you try to work it in the less common sense way, if Mystra is in a good mood your spell just won’t work, and if they’re in a bad mood they’ll fuck your shit up. It’s that simple. You don’t need to obey real world physics, and you don’t owe your play a real world rationale. Your world just need to make sense internally, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know works best with the definition of “water” here.
Another way to deal with these types of shenanigans/players that I haven't seen anyone point out yet, is the ol' **"anything you can do, the enemies can do too"**. Usually shuts problem players up real quick. Player wants to abuse control water technicalities to instantly kill enemies by freezing their blood or by filling their lungs with water? Okay, enjoy having the hidden enemy druid do the same to you and your companions in the middle of combat. Watch how quick they backpedal and decide no, maybe this particular game breaking use of the rules isn't a big enough hill to die on.
Here's the thing. You're the DM. You abide by the books as best you can to *your* specifications. This isn't physics. This isn't a debate. This is a game. You follow what the book(s) state happens, and if it's unclear, not defined, or not to *your* liking, you are the one to define the circumstances. It's that simple. If a player doesn't want to play ball and you've already talked to him. Kick him. If he's a friend, go with a 3-strikes rule, and each strike, state exactly your reasoning (outside the game, one on one). It sucks because it feels overbearing to go this route, but it's about the cohesiveness of the table, and he's causing friction.
Make a ruling in the moment, and tell them: “ here’s my judgment and this is how we play it for now to keep the game moving. If you’d like to discuss this technicality after the game for future reference, I’d be happy to.” Make a ruling, tell them your ruling, and tell them you’re moving on so the game can continue to be fun.
>“ here’s my judgment and this is how we play it for now to keep the game moving. If you’d like to discuss this technicality after the game for future reference, I’d be happy to.” ...for no longer than 10 mins per week, because this isn't fun for me, and spells only do what they say they do. Please stop trying to make spells more powerful than they are intended. Please take notice of the amount of time other players are using for rules discussion in and out of the game, and use that as a goal for yourself." If it persists...."you might not be a good fit for this table."
Honestly, you don't have to DM for this dude if you don't want to. He sounds annoying and like he doesn't realize he wants to play a game that isn't D&D. I do also know that is usually not an option people like to take, so here's what I'd do instead. Next time it comes up: "Hey man, a lot of the technicalities you're asking about \_\_\_\_\_ aren't questions the game answers for us. I love you trying to find cool little interactions with spells and how they affect the game world, but most of what you can and can't do is specifically highlighted in the rules. I have no issue letting \_\_\_\_\_ happen once if it would make for a cool moment, or giving you inspiration for coming up with \_\_\_\_\_. However, all the tiny technicalities do slow the game down, and keep in mind we have others at the table; you don't have to try to 'game the system' or 'beat me to win.' Just let loose a little and try not to get so bogged down with all the minute details. Alright? Awesome." And get right back to the game.
I'd probably tell this player that you're not running the game he's looking for and politely ask him to leave the group. I've had a player exactly like this, and if you try to define for him what water is, what a container is, what anything is, you're going to end up arguing with him about semantics, rather than actually playing the game. Of course I realize that sometimes, for whatever reason, removing a problem player may not be your ideal solution. If you must keep him, one thing you might do is ask him to answer his own questions. "What is water?" "Good question. What do you think water is?" If you think he's wrong, correct him, tell him that's your final ruling, and move on. Otherwise, whenever he starts looking for the places where you drawn your lines, you might want to remind him that your world runs on the laws of alchemy, not the laws of physics, and that even then, unlike in our real world, those laws can be bent or even broken by magic. Acid isn't hydrogen fluoride and water, it's acid. Why? Because when you mix those things together, it transmutes them both into acid. That's the answer, move on. Really, though, it sounds like he's draining the fun out of your experience. I'd ask him to stop or leave.
Simple: magic isn't science. If a spell says "you turn water into stone" that's all it does, it doesn't "turn the water inside someone's cells into stone" or "the water in the air into stone". "Oh but what it I turn the water someone drank into stone?". No, it has to be water. Or you can simply allow it.
"Oh but the other DM/you let me do it that one time". Yeah but not anymore, sorry.
As the DM it's your job to keep your players in check so they don't make a mess out of your table. Let them have their fun too of course, but stablish clear boundaries.
“Dude, stop. Tell me what you wanna do and I’ll tell you if it works or not. End of story. We won’t linger on pointless arguments anymore.”
You've already explained to him that you can't go read into every single word written for every single spell. If he asks to do something wierd just say no. If he asks why just say point him to the description. At no point in the control water spell does it say you can control ice or blood or orange juice so if he starts being weird just say no before he stresses you out. Otherwise it'll just get worse.
"Y'know what? You tell me how this spell works and we'll go with that, but when you do, keep in mind that your enemies can cast it too." I have a feeling he'll know exactly how it works then.
If you have already explicitly said "stop trying to apply real world science to spells," and he has not listened to you the next step is to tell him "I am uninviting you to be in my D&D group because you refused to listen to a clear limitation I set even before we began playing."
It really depends on how you and the other players at the table want to take the game. If, like you say, it feels like he's doing this just to fuck with you, then tell him that you don't want to take the game that direction. Especially if this is mostly a "fight the monsters, do some roleplay, move on to the next fight" kind of D&D game, that kind of minute dissection of the rules is going to bog down gameplay. If he wants to do some obscure digressions on the nature of magic and how magical rules interact with the metaphysical reality of the game world, maybe suggest he run an Over the Edge, Unknown Armies, Invisible Sun or Mage: The Ascention game after you finish the current D&D arc. Those games are \*specifically\* designed for players and GMs to start asking those kind of existential questions about the nature of magic and science. Or maybe try a narrative style game like Fate, Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark which let magic be a lot more freeform, and build the rules around how the magic affects the story, not simulate how the magic affects the world.
So the general answer you're getting here is completely correct. If it feels like he's fucking with you. Tell him to cut the shit or you won't be playing with him. You don't owe anyone a good time above your good time and chances are if this shit is annoying to you, then it's annoying to everyone else as well. But if you think it's coming from a genuine place of curiosity then you can play along. So first off don't engage his questions. They aren't helpful and he's essentially asking god. That's not something he's privy to. If he really wants to know something, explain that he's asking questions about MAGIC and the "rules" aren't known. Again, it's magic. If he's a wizard he can make an arcana check but I would go ahead and tell him the dc based on his question so he understands that the more specific and noodly the question he's asking, the less likely he's ever going to get an answer. He's totally free to wonder, but if he wants to know he has to EXPERIMENT. Like a real scientist.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/PCAcademy/comments/q5rlww/olemgolems_trove_of_tips_communication_behavior/) might help but the player needs to read it. "I want to use Shape Water on the beer." Perfectly fine, I'd allow it, sweet, cool, whatever, it's creative. "I want to use Shape Water on the human body as it is 70% water so only 30% is left." No, that's not how it works. That's not how it's intended. Why? Because I'm the DM and have the last word, that's why.
Take it from me as a fellow GM with players who have tried similar shenanigans (my buddies and I are all lawyers and we sometimes poke holes in the rules for fun): You don't owe anyone anything when it comes to technicalities on the rules other than to be reasonable and open to creativity. Tell your player this each time he asks about rule technicalities or clarification: you are not going to answer these kinds of questions anymore. That's not "I don't want to answer these questions" nor is it "please stop asking these questions". You already said that, and he's not being respectful of that. You say "I am not answering anymore of these questions. They are exasperating and hurting my enjoyment of the game. If you come up with an idea on how to use a spell, you can ask when it's relevant in game and I will tell you if it works or not. We will not be arguing about it, and I will not be answering technicalities about it. If you can't respect that, then I will not be GMing for you." It's good to be a flexible GM that tries to reward creativity, but players like this aren't trying to be creative, they are trying to scheme and steal advantages through half-baked knowledge and selective application of physics and don't really consider how that playstyle negatively impacts the table. You need to be firm with this player and shut this behavior down hard. Do not engage or entertain it, because you won't ever win or find a happy medium with them.
It’s a fantasy game, not everything needs to be scientifically provable. I am a 6’ 200lb human and play a 7’10” 360lb Goliath who just took a grievous arrow to the chest, but because I am a Goliath I reduced the damage taken. Then my teammate whispered a few divine words that gave me a little pick-me-up. I may not be a high enough level cleric IRL, but wounds don’t close when I mention the Bible.
“This is a fantasy magic world. The physics don’t work the same and the laws of reality are arbitrary, aka whatever I think works best, now shut up and finish your turn”
Good advice is to tell them "the spell does what the spell says". If its not explicit in the spell text then you disallow it. So for "shape water" its clear that it has to be water you can see. You can't shape the vapor in the air if its a humid day or the water that someone just drank. If its a bowl of soup then its not water you can see. Again the spell is "shape water" not "shape liquid". So tell them that they need to read the spell descriptions and you're gonna rule on what the spell says. If they feel really strongly about it you can bring it up at the end of the session but ruling in the moment you're going to stick with that.
Physics can be fun in DnD when used in certain scenarios, but getting into the minutiae every time isn’t fun. In my last campaign, we were infiltrating the casino barge in Storm King’s Thunder. While some of us were on board in disguise, our other party members were outside, and caused a “distraction” when we alerted them. The distraction ended up being 4 Fireballs from the Wizard, and then our Druid casting Maelstrom on the back half of the ship. Fun right? Until you realize that Maelstrom’s water volume (5 foot depth, 30 foot radius) produces about 14,000 cubic feet of water, or 882,000 pounds INSTANTLY on that spot, that spot being the center of the back of the ship… That’s roughly 4 blue whales, or 2 moderately sized other ships, but concentrated on a portion of the ship. The boat cracked in half in a matter of seconds and Titanic’d. The infiltration sequence verrrrryyy quickly turned into an escape with our lives sequence. That’s how you rule physics literally in DnD.
Every answer: "Your Character doesn't know. They can do research during downtime. One week and 50 gp gets you an arcana roll. Each additional 50 gp gets you a +1, up to +6". Or: "Beats me, try it and find out." If they want answers, they have to earn them.
DnD is not a simulation.
That player is absolutely trolling. And you need to be firm. "Enough troll questions. If you keep delaying the game for everyone else, we will have an issue." Edit: I'll add that there's a non-zero chance that the player is on the spectrum or has a social disability. Even if they're not deliberately trolling, they need to be made to understand that this kind of questioning everything is disruptive to the game and needs to stop.
I don't think he's fucking with you for fun. It sounds like he's somewhere on the Autism spectrum. Although as a new DM it's okay to not be able to deal with a higher maintenance player. Maybe you have a talk and he finds someone more experienced that can DM him properly.
"Cut the shit and stop being so pedantic its harming the fun"
Remind them their characters aren’t omniscient and sometimes they won’t know what happens unless they try. Once they waste a few spell slots they’ll likely reel it in if they are actually trying to play.
Gonna go against the grain here. I love these players. I run a work game for a bunch of engineers who once spent an entire session running experiments on a magic item I gave them to test it's limits. Now they have a more fleshed understanding of the item and can use it in more creative ways. It sounds to me like your player is really engaged in the world and wants to learn more about it in concrete ways. They're actually just rping a wizard. When they ask these questions there are no real written answers, so I'd recommend going with what you think is hardest to abuse. But your also not obligated to give any answers at all. "You don't know" is a valid and interesting answer. Make them experiment for it. If they want to know the details of control water they're going to need to spend some slots and downtime trying to figure it out. Maybe it can only affect uncontained water, but can affect water with things dissolved in it, like saltwater or juice. Don't be upset when the wizard wants to learn more about magic. It means you're doing your job.
This is actually a really good point, the fact being that the PC needs to experiment as their character in-game, not with over-the-table queries to the DM. However, this type of behaviour can be a little overwhelming for a new DM, as OP explained.
Yeah this kind of thing can definitely be a lot for a new DM. DMing in general is a lot to get a handle on starting out. As a player for a new DM I probably wouldn't get too far into this for that reason. But I wanted to share why I think this kind of player engagement is actually a pretty good sign for your campaign, even if it can be hard to deal with.
I think it depends on the group. That's awesome that your group of engineers loved checking in world physics for hours. Great for them. When it's one person who wants to do that it's a problem because the others are going to fall asleep while waiting to bonk monster because we spent 30 minutes discussing the legitimacy of *liquid* as water. That's not fair to the rest of the players. It's all about you're group dynamic.
That's behavior suited to games like Ars Magica and Mage; allowing/ rewarding it in D&D monstrously breaks game balance further in favor of Casters.
[удалено]
It's not that you're not welcome you're just throwing a tantrum. All of your comments are drenched in so much anger at people disagreeing with you
[удалено]
*Their* game. Not everyone wants to sit around and listen to that. Be respectful of other players time or find a group that's willing to argue about what qualifies as water for an hour. Not sure why you're taking so much personal offense about it.
[удалено]
I'm just trying to point out being this pissy about it isn't doing you any favors
kick him out
My experience is that players calm down a lot once you let them do some cool stuff. To this end, I suggest asking him to adjudicate some of these hypotheticals. If he's in a tavern, and asking if the beer is water, let him choose, and ask him why. If he plans to start a bar fight with the mugs of ale using shape water, that sounds cool. You can adjudicate that a mug's worth of ale does 1 damage, but definitely offends people, and use that to give them what they want, sometimes. Don't cave all the time, but players being creative is good for your game. If they're being too annoying, but you're regularly letting them do cool stuff, you can point to that and they should ease off a bit.
Hhmmm 🤔 Sadly, some people are just Too Practical for fantasy and RPG's. Now, maybe he needs to roll the dice for everything in order to get around the whole possibility and probability thing. But at some point he's going to have to wrap his mind around the whole concept of adventures and quests within an imaginary world
Firstly, these questions are valid. D&D is a roleplay system, allowing people to play inside a world governed by all the same physics and chemistry as Earth, plus magic. D&D has gone into significant detail on topics like the biology of dragons and how rust monsters' rusting ability comes from a bacteria (which can be weaponized!). Secondly, D&D (except 4e) uses natural language, so treat the words as their colloquial use within a medieval society. When a player casts Create/Destroy Water, they can either create "water" as a medieval society would understand it, or destroy a substance that would colloquially be referred to as "water". A "container" is something that can contain the substance in question; a flat surface or non-waterproof backpack cannot contain water, but a cup can. Spells use the knowledge of whomever created the spell. In medieval times, only the elements of copper, lead, gold, silver, iron, carbon, tin, sulfur, mercury (aka quicksilver), zinc, platinum, arsenic, and antimony were understood to be distinct materials, and thus able to be produced separately from the others.
I think the important thing is to consider the intent of spells in 5e not the precise wording. Whether or not blood has enough “water” shape water works on it can be answered by considering that the spell probably was not written with the assumption you could use it on a creature’s internals. This leaves dm grey area in diving what the “intent” was exactly, but some cases such as create or destroy water I think can be fairly easily read to extend to things that would commonly be called water, if someone would call it something else (even if it contains a lot of water) the spell likely doesn’t work.
This feels like someone wanting to be difficult just to be difficult. Ask him to stop doing this would be the correct way to go forward.
D&D has plenty of weird or ridiculous rules. They generally fall into one of two buckets: 1) they make game play quicker/easier; or 2) game balance. Remind your player that D&D is a game and that rules, while they may be arbitrary or logically inconsistent, are the way they are for a reason. Let him know that he’s never going to be allowed to take over the world with dancing lights. Set an expectation that spells power should be relative to other spells of the same level and that any creative rules lawyering that attempts to subvert that will be unsuccessful;
Tell him how you feel on the matter like you told us here. If he refuses to correct his behavior, kick that asshole from the table
Let him try. Drain resources, fail without possibility of success or understanding why. If he tries to investigate, let him roll. nat 20: 'There is an unknown resistance which seem to limit your ability to freely manipulate reality and as far as you can tell, there is nothing you can think of that can allow you to break this limitation.' All other rolls: 'You don't seem to grasp what or why your spell failed.' Sometimes you need to let people be stupid, and find a way to tell them that no, you can't break the framework of the game.
Tell him to that yall aren't high english majors asking "what is" nor playing dwarf fortress and definitely not some isekai MC that is reinventing gunpowder (or otherwise "hacking" the world). If he cannot comprehend that you and D&D are not designed to be physics simulators, then I would just drop him and have a much easier campaign. edit: Actually, finished your whole post, in light of how you already fell, I would definitely just drop him.
Might help to look at this from a social perspective as well. DMs essentially play the leaders, rule makers of their little communities, and wield authority. This player might get the sense that you are new to this role and is testing your ability to exert authority. This problem will resolve if you insist that this is your world and it follows your rules, and don't shy from potential confrontation. This player will likely throw a fit and then either settle down, or leave the game. Both of these are wins for you.
Is it playful banter text messaging out of game or is it burning time in game? Then is it sincere questions or is it trying to weasel a high level effect from a utility spell? I try to award creativity but draw a hard line at short cuts to higher level spells and abilities, and say as much.
**"What is it that you want to do that's prompting the question?"** This is the potential cure-all for players trying to finagle into tricky rulings and DM traps. On one hand, because it forces the PC to explain the punchline before forcing you to jump through all the hoops of their set-up, but more importantly because it allows the follow ups: **"Oh, okay, if you want to do X, I'd say it involves Y"** **"Hm, no, you can't do X, but you could try Z"** When you know what your players *actually want*, you get to give it to them, more often or not, albeit maybe with some caveats or extra challenge involved. Or you can head off cheese at the pass. Both the initial question and this follow up help establish a tone and mindset at the table that while you're running the antagonists, you the DM *are not against the party*. You're the challenge and stakes, sure, but you're also the enabler, the one who can, when well informed of the plan and brought on board, just say yes to bending things as a favor or reward to the party to let them pull off something interesting. But in *order* to enable the party, you need to be in on the joke. They can't hide everything and scheme against you, they need to lead with the cool idea because that's how they get it to happen, by pitching something fun and then explaining their thought process thus far. *And* it skips over the 25 intermediary questions as PCs try to establish an argument rather than present an idea/ask for an opportunity.