The crash of the D&D Basic Red Box.

So after a week or two of trying to decode the arcane mysteries of D&D from thirty years back, my party of mostly 4e players embarked upon the first dungeon of the original Red Box. The first encounter, presented as a 'warm-up' for the actual fights that would soon take place was a Carrion Crawler. A carrion crawler has eight attacks every turn, yet does no damage whatsoever. When it hits, it paralyzes the target for about 30 minutes. It also only has something like 8 or 10 HP. They lost. The spellcaster wouldn't cast his spell, the thief pushed the immediately paralyzed cleric into the Carrion Crawler, and the other cleric made the baffling choice to back up and throw his weapon rather than just hitting the thing. This wasn't covered by the book, so I rolled a d4 to see which one of our party got carried into the monster's lair. It turned out to be the Elf, so I decided that if they were to try and rescue him (or at least keep the monster occupied until he broke free of the paralyzing attack) he would still have 1HP left. Rather than rescuing him, the thief left the party and walked back to town. While one of the clerics set the hole on fire, killing both the Carrion Crawler and their injured teammate. I was so disgusted that I had the thief get bitten by a snake, and the two clerics were crushed by a falling, giant door. Thus the journeys of the first Basic party were ended. Somewhat undeterred, we decided to try a more or less random dungeon. To see if we could fare any better or make any sense of this game. So after forcing open the door to the dungeon, the mapper lost all sense of his function. And started to act as though his role as 'mapper' was some kind of stop-gap measure until I could build the dungeon for them out of official d&d tiles. It was also at this point where the idea of turns outside of combat started to become a problem. I would explain to the best of my knowledge, the role of a "caller" and how they needed to decide as a group what was worth using their ten-minute turns doing. They would all make agreeable noises, then declare four different things that their characters were doing all at once. The thief decided to try and spend 4 1/2 hours checking every square inch of the dungeon's very first 50' x 50' room. Which to my surprise, the other players agreed to eagerly. At the thirty minute mark (game time) of his four hour endeavor, five diseased rats wandered into the room. The party successfully killed two of the five rats, at which point the rats were overwhelmed and ran for their lives. What I haven't mentioned up to this point, is how I set up a blank page in our roll20 game to look like a sheet of graph paper. Slightly grey, with blue-lines, and a smallish 1:1.414 ratio. This was what the mapper was meant to map upon while I was buried up to my neck in descriptions, tables, and the actual map. This becomes important to describe the way that they described all of their movements, individual or group. "I go.... here" is just about all I would get to go on, no matter how many times I asked them to use cardinal-directions and units of distance-measurement to describe their character's manifestations of mobility. This factor combined with their continued tendency to declare their player's actions by talking over each other, is how our thief ended up back-flipping into a wall. If that wasn't enough, he then stood up and tried to dive out the door from thirty feet away. So after defeating the rats, the players chose one of the two doors available to them and started to walk through it. The final straw of the night was when halfway through the doorway, the fighter (this was a different party of characters, after all) asked for a lamp despite the fact that he was already holding a sword in one hand and a shield in the other. This resulted in an actual, literal, forty-five minute argument about whether or not this was possible. Despite the fact that I tried to both quote the book which said such a thing was impossible, and decide that it was possible just to get things moving again. About twenty minutes into the lamp argument, I moved the players back to the opening page and left roll20. The rest of the night was spent just talking. The real purpose for my relaying of this story, is a claim that our elected "caller" kept making. He kept insisting (over and over and over) that no one ever played the game in the way the rule book described. He would then describe an element of 4e or 3.5 and insist that was the way all the older editions were played as well. What I'd like to ask is: Is that at all true? I understand house-rules, and making stuff up when you need/want to. But surely the description in the rules wasn't so far off that it would make the game unplayable? That was his chant the entire night "this was unplayable, that's why they later added <blank> to the game." Naturally enough, the <blank> part would change with every telling. Though the insistence on its "unplayable" state was consistent. My secondary question is this: Is it unreasonable to expect players to make their own maps? The way they reacted to the realization of the fact that they'd have to participate beyond "I go... here" was on par with suggesting they sacrifice their firstborn to satan. Coming from two very heavy DM-provided visual games of 4e, this was the part I was looking forward to the most. The room can be described as many times as needed, and we can wait for as long as the mapper needs. But if after all that, they turn around and ask when the "real map" will be ready it makes me want to choke the life out of something adorable. Is the game played the way described in the rules? (the combat sequence: re-rolling initiative every round, group movement, group attacks, etc. and the out of combat ten minute turns) And is it reasonable to expect players to make their own maps?

The early editions were very light on rules with many rules being very different from modern gaming. While I remember those days with fondness they wouldn't fly with most groups today. Describing the dungeon while another person maps it out is one example of this. While some versions of the old style of gaming did this (no boards, no miniatures) there is a reason that the move towards boards and miniatures happened. They are easier for people to visualize. To answer your specific questions: 1) The old versions of the game had major gaps and the DM was expected to fill them in on his own. However, the expectation of your player that what he knows of 4e or 3.5 could be applied to earlier editions is, incorrect. As the various incarnations of Dungeons and Dragons developed more and more rules were added. But there is a HUGE difference between 2nd edition and 3rd edition. So huge that you simply cannot presume anything from one to the other. The difference is larger than that between 3.5 and 4th edition (at least much of the combat engine survived that transition). 2) It is not unreasonable to expect players to make their own maps in a retro-game. But they need to understand that that is the expectation of retro-games. That was one of the major styles, although the other major style (the GM drawing the map) is the one that survived to become what the standard is today. As for the combat squence question...that was so far back in my memory I don't remember if that is specifically correct. But, it sounds about right for that era. I applaud your attempt at doing this but you really need a group of people who want to embrace an older style of gaming. They need to divorce themselves from the modern gaming mindset.

In the very early years when I first started playing, mapping was done more or less as stated in the rules: The DM describes what the players can see and it's up to them to map it out. A bit later on, we started using vinyl battlemats and marker pens, with miniatures to represent the PCs, monsters, etc. Then, the DM drew on the battlemat the rooms, hallways, etc. and it was up to the players to draw their own permanent map on graph paper. If the DM ran out of room on the battlemat and cleaned it off to start fresh as the party progressed deeper into the dungeon, it was up to the players to make sure they already had it copied down on their permanent map. As for your questions about combat, initiative is rolled at the start of every combat round. Typically, it is group initiative, group attacks. Somewhere along the way the concept of individual initiative was developed, but it was still rolled new again at the start of every combat round. And yes, out-of-combat turns were assumed to be 10 minutes of game time

The other day when I was playing chess, I got really mad that the other person playing didn't use the optional rules for Free Parking. The original D&D game is perfectly playable once you leave your assumptions about other games at the door. Just because it has "D&D" on the cover doesn't mean it's the same game with the same assumptions as any edition that followed. A huge problem I see in 4e groups, for example, are people running it like they're playing Pathfinder or 3.5e because they "converted" from one edition to another - and I don't even mean the rules per se, but the basic assumptions and scope being completely off. This is what you saw here though more starkly. Editions of D&D aren't meant to be played the same. They are distinct games with distinct assumptions and expected outcomes for the play experience. And yes, back in those days, there was generally a "mapper" at any table I was at. That was usually the guy who was in the bathroom when everyone else said "Not it!"

Since everyone else seems too polite to say it...sounds like you have a player problem, not a system problem. Those actions, covered by the rules or not, would not work in any version of D&D I've ever played. You shouldn't have to argue whether or not someone with two hands full can carry another object. There's two simple solutions...make your player roleplay it (have him grab a broom in one hand, a pan in another, then hold a maglight...if he doesn't have an issue, let him do it in game!) or give him a big penalty to his actions. Or, you know, say he can do it but he has to sheath his sword or the shield, and will need to take an action to use them in combat. This type of thing should take less than 45 seconds, not 45 minutes. Either way, if the players can't adapt to the rules you're using, you have two main options. Get new players or get new rules. There are issues with the rules in every edition of every roleplaying game; this list is far too long to even scratch the surface here. It's up to the GM and the players to make them work regardless. It sounds to me like you were missing the most important rule of any roleplaying game system... having fun. If you aren't abiding by that rule, you may as well toss out the rest. Good luck. I hope you can rejuvenate your game but you're going to have to figure out a way between the players and yourself to do so. The rules don't have anything to do with it. Sorry.

Jacquesne J. said: Since everyone else seems too polite to say it...sounds like you have a player problem, not a system problem. Well, there's that too, but I was willing to give the players the benefit of the doubt and Gauss addressed it in his post. However, you are correct in saying that if there's a 20-minute debate over holding a lantern then there's a deeper problem going on here.

Jacquesne : I asked two questions, you answered neither. But in your non-answer you managed to imply that you're better at answering questions, solving problems, and playing games than the rest of us. God help your party, whatever game you play.

Billy R. said: The real purpose for my relaying of this story, is a claim that our elected "caller" kept making. He kept insisting (over and over and over) that no one ever played the game in the way the rule book described. He would then describe an element of 4e or 3.5 and insist that was the way all the older editions were played as well. What I'd like to ask is: Is that at all true?...Is the game played the way described in the rules? (the combat sequence: re-rolling initiative every round, group movement, group attacks, etc. and the out of combat ten minute turns) And is it reasonable to expect players to make their own maps? It's important to view Red Box era D&D for what it was: a transition from a wargame with a focus on a "side" to a more character driven RPG. Things like group initiative on a 1d6, group movement and group attacking make more sense when viewed in that context. Also, if your group instead of 4 PCs has more than 10 people and each PC has a retinue of henchmen and hirelings then the more wargamey rules are a godsend. Delegating tasks to the "caller" and the "mapper" when you have to herd a larger group of players can speed the game up. Sure, plenty of people played as the rules indicate and found it fun and playable. There's a group of people who think that RPGs got it right the first time and see no reason to advance beyond BD&D. There were also plenty of houserules in play too. Some groups didn't use mappers or callers, others wanted to have a more individual focus on a character rather than on a "side" in the wargame sense; others felt they were a necessary and enjoyable part of the game. I've never been part of a group that used either a mapper or a caller for instance, but in my current game there's a player who enjoys taking notes and keeping track of where the group has been and another player who directly marks up the Roll20 map with the party's movement. I think it's unreasonable for an unwilling player to be forced to keep track of the group's progress (especially when you do in fact have a "real map" to work off of and you're playing over the internet) but if there was group buy-in to the idea, then someone needs to cowboy up and get busy on the graph paper. However, as other posters have alluded to above, there's bigger issues than the game system at play here and I don't think the ol' Red Box got a fair shake. I can imagine similar comments from my game group if I said we were going to play 4th Edition instead of our usual three booklet OD&D derived game.

Hello Billy R, I've played BD&D for 30+ years and can assure you that your first question can honestly be answered 'yes' and 'no." It can be answered 'yes' because many players made their own house-rules and eventually some of these became official rules in later versions of the game. It can be answered 'no' because many players played and continue to play the game with few if any house-rules. I belong to the latter group and still play that way to this day. My advice would be to prepare the players in advance by playing out some practice exploration turns and some combat encounters. In regards to your second question, I do not believe it is unreasonable to have the players create the map of the dungeon they are exploring. In my experience this has more to do with play-style preference. In one of my current D&D 3.5 games the DM has us map the dungeon because he is more into the "simulationist" style of play. He likes the idea of the PCs possibly getting lost since that happens in real life. The other DM does not do this and draws everything out and assumes that a character in the game is mapping and taking other precautions to make sure the party is not lost. I enjoy both DM choices since they each add a interesting element to the game. I hope this helps. Best Wishes, Laz

Billy R. said: Jacquesne : I asked two questions, you answered neither. But in your non-answer you managed to imply that you're better at answering questions, solving problems, and playing games than the rest of us. God help your party, whatever game you play. If that's your response, then right back at ya =). You described a player problem. Then you asked questions about the rules. What is the answer you're looking for? Nothing anyone can say here is going to be different from what your rulebook already describes. If it is, then the person who answers is making it up. The fact of the matter is there's nothing wrong with the rules, and it didn't crash because of them. It crashed because neither you nor the players could adapt to them. Your players were not being cooperative with the narrative, nor cooperative really at all. You described a spellcaster who refused to cast spells, a rogue who ran away from combat and sacrificed fellow members, and a team that ended up PKing rather than bother with a rescue. You also described yourself as someone who simply assumed your players would keep maps without establishing that before you started, or at least getting player buy-in. You allowed an argument to go on for fourty-five minutes over a basic call that you, as the GM, get to make. When your players didn't do what you want, rather than adjusting and going with it, you just killed them off. You and your players seem to be playing a different game with different rules...and no ruleset can fix that, nor can any additional details of those rules. You already knew the rules...nothing anyone said here is anything different than what's in the box. It's played exactly how its described, it's playable, and it doesn't need future editions to "work." It's not perfect and has both balance issues and gaps in the rules, after all, we're talking about a very early edition of the game. No version of the game, including 3.5/4.0, lack these issues. The great part about these games is that those issues are irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to work with them. From your description, neither you nor your players are willing to do that. On the other hand, given how your game ended up, I strongly recommend looking into a game called "Munchkin." Your description sounds a lot like my Munchkin games =). I'm not being sarcastic, it's actually a ton of fun, and is designed around pretty much doing what you described. Hardest part would be getting the cards into Roll20. I'm tempted to do that now. Good luck with your campaign. May you have many a long weekend arguing about lanterns, maps, and whether or not the rules say what they say. Good times =)

Jacquesne J. said: You described a player problem. Then you asked questions about the rules. What is the answer you're looking for? Nothing anyone can say here is going to be different from what your rulebook already describes. If it is, then the person who answers is making it up. The fact of the matter is there's nothing wrong with the rules, and it didn't crash because of them. It crashed because neither you nor the players could adapt to them. Your players were not being cooperative with the narrative, nor cooperative really at all. You described a spellcaster who refused to cast spells, a rogue who ran away from combat and sacrificed fellow members, and a team that ended up PKing rather than bother with a rescue. You also described yourself as someone who simply assumed your players would keep maps without establishing that before you started, or at least getting player buy-in. You allowed an argument to go on for fourty-five minutes over a basic call that you, as the GM, get to make. When your players didn't do what you want, rather than adjusting and going with it, you just killed them off. You and your players seem to be playing a different game with different rules...and no ruleset can fix that, nor can any additional details of those rules. You already knew the rules...nothing anyone said here is anything different than what's in the box. It's played exactly how its described, it's playable, and it doesn't need future editions to "work." It's not perfect and has both balance issues and gaps in the rules, after all, we're talking about a very early edition of the game. No version of the game, including 3.5/4.0, lack these issues. The great part about these games is that those issues are irrelevant as long as everyone is willing to work with them. From your description, neither you nor your players are willing to do that. Excellent stuff.

Jacquesne J. said: nothing anyone said here is anything different than what's in the box. On the contrary, everyone but you's been extremely helpful. You seem more interested in your passive aggressive schtick than actually saying anything.

Billy and Jacquesne, lets tone down things a bit ok? I would have to have to close the thread (or worse). :)

Jacquesne, it took me about 6 hours of work to get the first Munchkin decks imported. That includes scan times, image processing, and then importing.

In an attempt to make an analogy, I will bring up automobiles. If someone has only driven today's modern cars, they would be in for a bit surprise if they drove something from the 1950's Today's cars have ABS, Automatic Transmissions, Power Steering, Power Brakes, Power Windows, Heated Seats, GPS, radial tires with computer-perfected tread patterns, fuel injection, all wheel drive, limited-slip differentials, and many, many more conveniences. Like seatbelts, not to mention airbags! Imagine a typical person from today's world of cars that park themselves trying to drive something without Power Steering, Power Brakes, and ABS. I doubt they would call it 'drivable'. But a car from the 50's would perhaps be like AD&D 2E. Let's step back even further, though, Red Box was still just D&D - that's maybe like a Model T. I don't know if you've ever had the opportunity to visit The Henry Ford, and specifically Greenfield Villiage, but while there you can take a ride in a Model T. Sit in front and ask the driver about the clutch system - it's completely opposite of a manual transmission today. Again, completely undrivable by today's standards. (although this time it likely IS completely undrivable by someone without being shown how it works!) Did people actually drive that way?!? Yes. Did they like it? Certainly! It got them from point A to B faster than anything else available! Expectations were different back then. "You mean I can travel when it's raining and not get soaked?!?" Could someone from today drive something from yesteryear? Of course... Given enough time, practice, and most of all, patience! They need to be willing to adapt to the older way of doing things. The old thing will not adapt to modern expectations.

To address your two questions at the end of your post, yes to both. The rules as printed are all we had to use. There was no internet back then, so the only way any sharing of information happened was by talking with other people, and that only happened in your local area, typically the few in your school that played. No facebook, no email, nothing. GenCon was not like today, and there really wasn't even anything else like it back then. Dragon magazine was a forum for people to write articles and share ideas as well, but that was as fast as information moved back then - several months from writing to reading. IF your article was chosen to be one of the few that actually got published. I was normally the mapper for the group when I was a player. Yes, the DM simply described the scene and gave rough measurements of the room "almost 15 feet wide and around half-again that deep, with a ceiling around 10 feet high" when it's really 13 feet by 19 with a 12 foot ceiling. Unless a character in the party took the time to pace it off (running the risk of attracting wandering monsters, and using up valuable torch time) that's the best it got. Whenever we got the chance to see both, we were always amused at how horribly inaccurate the players' map was compared to the DM's map. That's just the way it was. That was the fun of the game. Exploring. Mapping. Trying to figure out how the heck the hallway you're in on the map crosses a hallway you've already been in, but there's no intersection! Did we mess up the map? Were the hallways sloping slightly and we're under or over where we were before? Were these hallways not really 90 degrees? Was there a secret teleporter somewhere? Elevator room? That's just the way it was.

Lifer4700 said: Whenever we got the chance to see both, we were always amused at how horribly inaccurate the players' map was compared to the DM's map. I had forgotten about that little bit of nostalgia, but you're right. At the conclusion of the adventure it was amusing for the players to compare their map with the DM's map, just to see how far off they were in their attempts to convert the DMs verbal descriptions into a physical map. I'd say 95% of the time it was pretty accurate but everyone once in a while they'd get way off track.

The worst were always the natural cave systems. Today's geomorph tiles and computerized systems encourage - sometimes to a fault - everything to be perfectly straight and in multiples of 5 feet. (or 1 meter, or whatever). Back then, the DM would say something like, "This passage is roughly 5 feet wide, and continues on for approximately 300 feet before opening back up into another large cavern." On the 'official' map it isn't perfectly straight, or always exactly 5 feet wide - so while the players may draw it that way, that's not what it really looks like. By the end of that 300 foot passage, all those little twists and turns could mean the passage really is 90 degrees off from its starting direction, and the players' map could be hundreds of feet or more from where the actual end is, and they might be drawing the cavern 90 degrees off, since the passage actually gradually turned left and the party didn't notice. That's why dwarves were invented... If the party had a dwarf, the DM would offer far more corrections to the player map, even going so far as to sketch some things out.

Ahhh, the whole 'dwarves can detect a slope' element of the game. I miss that sometimes. Made Dwarves more worth playing.

Interesting. It was in fact played as a bunch of people who took turns, and in my experience, worked as a team to get out of the dungeon, without getting killed because orcs were something to be damn feared. If you got out without losing a party member it was a big damn win. I question though "I got so mad I killed both of their characters." Why? They were playing mercenaries out for themselves. the whole party was. in fact, it seems okay guessing here, they didn't want to play and were passive aggressive, setting the game up to fail, after you were wanting so bad to try it. Sounds like there was no discussion up front of Player Vs player, we are a party, we are every PC for himself, or nothing. I personally see nothing wrong with Jacquesne J 's comments or Headhunter's echoing them. Smells like the truth, and you got at least one problem player who doesn't play well with others telling you as DM, "No it was X and Y. NO no." You are the DM, you say what is and isn't. Why the heat over other poiting that out? It's just plain obvious, Billy. Your thief guy was a problem. your mage was a problem. No reflection on you, other than you recruited these dudes to play and .. it went to hell. But then you torched the rest, to what? get a fresh start? But in your non-answer you managed to imply that you're better at answering questions, solving problems, and playing games than the rest of us. You asked for answers so he's answering, and advising. Maybe because he has experience he's been there and can advise, if you are willing to listen. You in fact have not run Red box, and most of us have, decades ago, back when ha ha that's ALL there was so it was all new no big anything, and we did it, and lived to tell the tale to advise others who are asking. God help your party, whatever game you play. Our parties have fun, and don't cause crap over "I can hold three objects with two hands." You can't do it, that's the rule. As DM, I just made it, move on, or DM kicks player, or player votes with feet. Because none of us sits down as a group of players to watch DM vs player argue for 45 minutes over simple biology and capabilities of human musculature, coordination and dexterity. I'm not talking down to you, dude we are all equal. None of us are authorities, other than we got the experience in these matters you are asking about. and you asked, and we are answering. It's a game. It did run it was fun. Get the right players and it goes okay. Get the right DM and it goes okay. Together, epic heroic stories happen.

A ) They are not my friends. I have read some of their posts, and not gamed with any of them. I know of them. B ) They more or less said, get new friends, that your players were part of the problem. If you take it that the friends you choose to hang out with and their actions reflect badly on you, that's up to you. I'd get new friends. C ) I am not seeing "Where you were terrible" other than where you just wrote it about yourself. I doubt that is true. Granted I need bifocals, and my prescription is off, but it's not there. D ) Okay, fair enough, not your purpose here, but they aren't attacking you, or your DMing. There is an underlying issue that replying to your questions won't solve. you might not see it, but it's obvious even without being there if your description is accurate, and we assume it is, that the group was not being fair to YOU as a DM, in trying this out. E ) In the end you can ask the mechanic if the car needs gas, or why it won't run, but when that guy who can see at a glance what is up tells you, look your tie rods are damaged, and if you drive it, there's gonna be a big problem, does not reflect on you as a DM of a campaign. (the Driver.) Again, it's all opinion. ... a claim that our elected "caller" kept making. He kept insisting (over and over and over) that no one ever played the game in the way the rule book described. Your caller guy was wrong. you are not wrong in asking if he was wrong. he was. It sounds to me like you were missing the most important rule of any roleplaying game system... having fun. If you aren't abiding by that rule, you may as well toss out the rest. Out of the whole deal, I think these might be the offending statements? Please check them out, in the context of what he is trying to say, and tone. He's not specifically singling you as a DM out. He's implying you all as a group. At the point where "caller" keeps saying this is broken that is broken this is broken that guy does not really want to be there, and is not giving it a fair shake. When the guy argues, and you make a ruling, he is continuing to disrupt the game, while you are still trying to run it. That's the problem I can say with much confidence is at the crux of the whole thing. Plus you got thief turning on party, wizard bailing from his duties, etc. The fact that you got pissed off at the players after trying to set it up is secondary to what caused that in the first place, that Caller guy, who is trying to undermine you, and your authority the whole damn time. So it got heated and that was how it went down. You didn't ask for that, but man, guys who have been there have seen it and that's what went down. Doesn't make you a bad DM. And I seriously think having been in your shoes, that these guys above are not gunning for you, nor accusing you of messing up. I personally would question killing the other PCs punitively but I understand .. oh I do. I have ended games for similar. Anyway, Merry Christmas. I really enjoyed the old D&D, and reading the tale of the complex chain of events. it can serve to help other DMs see Sometimes players get way out of hand. A few hours ago, I recently recounted a tale in another thread where years ago, I as a DM would fire a player the pulled that stuff that I pulled as a player in my game, making a mockery of my encounter. I'm glad he didn't. It ended up being a good game. I think we all can see you went into the game with good intentions. I think your caller guy wrecked it. Or he started the wrecking ball in motion. Anyway, like Jacquesne J. Said earlier: Good luck. I too hope you can rejuvenate your game. It would in my mind take a serious talk with that player who undermined you as DM. A lot of how to handle this is covered in 3.5 DMG and DMG 2, or books by authors like Gygax, in 1e DMG, Master of the Game, & Game Mastery. Grey Ghost Games, "Gamemastering Secrets" Bill Slavicsek "DMing for dummies for 3.5 and 4th." I don't run 4th any more but the advice is good. @nd ed has a little bit of this stuff too. The hardest problem of a DM is not thinking up what to do. Toss in a few level appropriate stuff and it is combat as drama. Fight it out, it's an adventure with survival of the PCs in doubt. The toughest part is making judgement calls, and dealing with problem players. Easy players do not present problems. Problem players do, and actively work against you, thus making it tougher. A dungeon map itself as a blank sheet is solved by drawing. And adventures as problem are solved by making notes or typing, or just running it. But a player fighting you is the toughest, and the heart of the most difficult problems you or any other DM out there, will ever encounter as a DM. It's a tough problem and a tough call, because dealing with running the thing, learning the rules, getting the encounters right is tough enough already, with pushy people wrecking your game (like "Caller") on top of it. The rules themselves do work. And can. But not if the problem player that does not like them , sees them from the vision of 3.5, and unwilling to relax and play, but instead stepping on you and your game, like JJ said, The rules are not the problem. That player's unwillingness to respect you and play fair is central to it, and that takes, confronting them and admonishing them AS referee, just like a Referee in a football game blows the whistle and calls a flag on the play, that's the DMs job. Much like a judge in a court, that must interpret the law or rules of the game, as the Game's Superior court, you are that. and you also must judge life and death of a character, what happens next? I suggest it is a key function of a DM, to keep it moving, how to make a ruling and be confident and say "Enough!" bang the gavel, "I have ruled!. Now player, Cease and desist or be ejected." Even a Judge needs a bailiff for unruly witnesses or suspects. but you got to be your own bailiff. It blows when the player is such a jerk that they won't listen. You might ignore it all and go back to whatever. You might try again Red Box. you might blow all of this off, or you might hear it. You are the Judge of your own game, as are we all, but it is a lot like a courtroom judge. A DM really has to have that impartial skill to be neutral, fair and honest with themselves and the players and see it. See what needs to be decided, and Make the call, no matter how tough. Decide for yourself if you want to hear what all was said here, where it was coming from, how honest and real it was. Knowing it is all opinion. you were there, you as a witness described it. So this is my vote, if I were part of it, (okay, I'm not, but if): Talk to caller. Without him changing up how he plays your game is never gonna get off the ground. He'll undermine you because he really doesn't want to play. If so, why is he even included? Or maybe, included in Red Box in future? A guy like that I'm gonna get rid of. I have done so. Now you might say to me, as you did to Jacquesne J. , "God help any game I am in, in the future", but you might have a different set of values. I value my games a lot, for the sheer amount of work I put in. People that want to wreck that trash that, I have no time for because a friend would not wreck my game. Period. People that do that, people that don't commit or end up with multiple blow us off, no call no show, people that have threatened to beat up other players, people that have shown up drunk to a no alcohol game, people smuggling weed into my home to toke up on a smoke break in my bathroom, people that have gone through my pills closet, people that have pilfered stuff from my home, poeple that have demanded sexual favors from female players in exchange for rides home, I get RID OF. Guys who bitch and moan about how my game blows, won't work, suck, or I suck as a DM, I get rid of. If I said, I am gonna run Red Box, who is in, and people styand up and say yes, I'm in, I expect them to give it a try because they said they would. If they acted like that, I'd seriously consdider.. is the caller guy stressed out and taking it out on us as a group, or is it a power move to keep me as a DM in check, or what is it? Sometimes it's local stress, his kid is sick, his job is on the rocks. Okay, Understandable, if it's not a trend, fine. Give it another go. Sometimes it is jealousy, or the guy is intimidated or is like that cause it's not his turf, or all sorts of reasons. Again, these are things that all DMs must be prepared in advance to handle. Thus, The rules are not the problem. It's likely a social power balance problem. But if in looking at it closely, and seeing what are all the factors, If I call him out on it, and he's a total dick, yep, Get rid of him. I have no need for that crap. Not from Friends I game with. I won't trouble this issue further, but I think it's a good example of things a DM has to prepare to handle. And there is good advice here from those guys upstairs. Really, there is. Good luck to all here, and Happy Holidays, Billy. And to all you DMs out there that ever have to deal with crap like Billy described.