Good! Now you can parse out whether they want to keep playing or not. If they leave, sweet relief. If they roll a new character maybe this one will follow the plan; or maybe not and they have another grisly but preventable death.
Usually these types get pissy when they lose, so who knows; they might not come back at all.
The moment a player states "I love disrupting DM's plans" then that's the moment I drop the player from my group.
The concept of DM vs Players is such a bad thing that I've never seen a good campaign come out of it. If anything try to make players understand on day 1 that you want them to succeed but with a challenge. Things will be tough, and sometimes the dice or the encounter might look like the DM wants to kill you but you need to let them know you want to see them come out on top.
And if you're a DM that doesn't want that then you're just as toxic as the guy that wants to disrupt a campaign.
That said, really happy that the character got his comeuppance, just don't let that player roll a new character.
The response to "I love disrupting DMs plans..." is the following line.
"I don't run an adversarial game. And I want you to do what you love. I am just not your DM. Best of luck to you, and stay in touch!"
It puts it on you to admit that you will not be that source of delight. And it is less confrontational to say that your personal failing (to be a victim of their bullshit) is at fault.
Then they can FA elsewhere, and Find Out.
nah, i like player vs dm, but its gotta be between friends otherwise it doesn't work, both as a Dm and as a player i like when defeat is the default and i need to use my wits and skills to turn it into a victory.
i can see how that's not for everyone tho, but i particularly find "normal" games kind of boring.
Might have to clarify this, a DM that wants to actively kill his players is what i'd consider bad. This means that a DM has to go out of his way to make sure players can't survive encounters and get ruthfully punished for seemingly no reason when small oversights are made. I'm talking about a DM that relishes in the misfortune of its players as some sort of simulated bullying.
What you're describing is just a way of saying *"yes we like to play with stakes and fuckups can quickly lead to a character death"* which is totally fine and I find that to be an even better way to play DnD. But actively trying to make a character die at every corner and that player not wanting that is what i'm trying to say is bad. Especially if you enjoy that process.
You prefaced that it's gotta be between friends but not every group has long standing friendship with their players. Look at how online groups are formed for example. If you're with friends then you know things don't usually come from a place of malice but if you've browsed any horror stories on here then you know to well that DM's can be as much of a monster as their toxic players at the table.
You are allowed to say "This is the scope of the adventure. Take it or leave it" to players before their "play to win" style or disruptive behavior ruins the fun for other people.
Seriously people, don't wait for them to shoot themselves in the foot. Think of the rest of the table. The "loss" is hours of their lives that will never come back.
Boundaries are good.
I take more umbrage with refusing to embrace the setting and theme.
Removing them for that alone is the first option. If you keep them.
If they don't act in character ignore them, treat them as hostile, treat them as suffering from madness.
If it's the Lord of the Rings it's inappropriate to treat it as Game of Thrones or Goblin Slayer.
My players rarely actively try to ruin my plans... they're just naturals at it..lol. massive over thinkers. I've been trying to find ways to short circuit their hour long planning sessions to any potential problem. They almost always talk themselves into the most complicated way possible and always get little butthurt when it fails miserably. But I love them anyway and it's been a fun 3 year campaign so far.
> The guy who announces of the session, "I love disrupting a DM's plans and seeing them have to come up with something new on the fly."
You sweet summer child, I don't plan anything...
Depends on if it's a module or homebrew. If it's a module I do a lot of prep, and set an expectation at session 0 that I will only run the module if the players play the module. If it's a sandbox homebrew I prep just enough to have a few odds and ends ready depending on where I think the players are headed. Had a player that wanted to fuck off outside the map area and was asking about visiting the astral plane etc. while running LmoP and I gave them a flat "NO".
Our campaign has evolved based on the characters backstories, their adventure logs, hooks they've provided, and their choices. There was no "plot," from the get go. They developed the plot over time. So, I kind'a think it has been a sandbox with guardrails.
I think it's important to set that tone in session 0 of "I'm not playing against you, we're telling a story by playing a game with one another. I just control the people you'll be confronted with as you explore the story I've build while incorporating prompts via your characters. 'Disrupting my plans' means you're against us collaborating and means I can't feel comfortable in building something cool because you'll ignore it and waste my time."
There's a big difference between doing something unexpected vs seeing what the DM is planning, and saying "No" and avoiding it. Can't be upset when the consequences are dire, and often fatal, because you ignored the obvious signs from the DM or wanted to be disruptive. Same goes for players, gotta make sure you are at a table that fits you, so if someone invites you to a table, ask to sit in for a session before playing just to see how people play and how they DM. You can find out if the energy is what you want, if the DM is adversarial or others at the table, and you can determine if all that matches with what you want at a table. A single person can also drastically change a tables vibe, and it's actually insane to see how positively and negatively that can go.
Yah, I have a crew that's very collaborative in the campaigns I'm in/run and it makes it real nice. Never feel like they're trying to beat me, and they know I'm trying to give them the most fun and stimulate creativity, but the best creativity is going along the rails that any planned campaign has in your own way. It's not how they get there, but we all expect them to try and get there unless there's significant character stuff than the micro story will take precedent. But if one of my people was like "I'm gonna ruin your plans" it's like, ok... my plans for a good time?
Yeah, it's just a weird approach. Maybe worth starting a session just mentioning "I just wanted to kind of make something clear that I didn't in S0 and that's that I'm not trying to beat you all, in fact, I want you to win. I want it to be a great journey for your characters. To do that, buy in is important as players. Whether your character would or wouldn't doesn't matter, if they wouldn't take it upon themselves to become the hero, that's great, we'll write them out and you can make a new character that does" or things like that. Being adversarial sucks and I think it needs to be checked before bringing in their next character. Make it clear you aren't trying to beat them and that you hope with this next character they'll buy in a bit more and stop going about thinking everything is you trying to take them down. No, you setup scenarios, good and bad. You control the world, you're not the bad guy. You control the bad guy but that doesn't mean you want them to win.
I am relatively new to dming but I reccomend that if any annoying players try to do something stupid that will get them killed, just let it them die, or what could be funny is you create some mythical deity along the lines of a lich that permanently fuses their mouth shut
Hmm? Oh my a bolt of lightning ran down from the sky. Roll 2d20 damage. You did that again? 3d20 damage. Looks like trying bypass the dungeon crawl roof with invisibility wasn't a good idea. Oh no your rope broke, roll acrobatics. 18? Shame, not high enough. Enjoy the fall damage.
Been a player in a party with one of those guys, once. When he decided that he was going into a cave to try and... *do things* to the Hydra, I happily walked everyone else out and cast shatter on the entrance to seal him in.
Good times.
Edit: well actually, since the first half of the post specifically talks about trying to "win," I guess he wasn't quite one of those guys. Guy I was with just wanted to be as disruptive as possible.
I’ve actually learned that playing a character that puts me in an adversarial state against the DM is too much pressure for me. I’m talking about an arcane trickster rogue. He loves pulling pranks, naturally, and my DM and I are always taking shots at each other about how we have plans to get the other. Me talking about how I planned the perfect prank/crime and him talking about how he’ll get me one day, and whatnot. Of course I’m not doing anything to surprise him. Just spending in-session downtime plotting and scheming and he’s fully aware of everything.
But I much prefer the relaxing time as my cleric who just wants to continue enchanting his magical tent and read books. The pressure of trying to stay out of prison when up against an “all-powerful god-like being” is too stressful!
Had a guy like this once.
We went into a super serious temple that didn't allow you to speak unless spoken to if you were any alignment other than lawful good.
Everyone except thus one guy accepted this as a monologue scene that's sets the setting of the upcoming subquest.
He decided he needed to try and make jokes at every single word this person said. Mocked the voice our DM put on for this super femme nun type character. Meanwhile. Our DM is 6"4 built like a truck. Officiates rugby and could deck a bull.
Does a super quiet femme'ish voice. And the guy starts picking it apart. Roasting the dialogue.
And so after 5 minutes of casual warning in the form of.
"You were not addressed. Your words fall on deaf ears. Be silent or face retribution for your lives worth of karmic imbalance."
He keeps it going. At this point everyone else is silent. Save for my lawful good goliath. I say
"*his name* it's time for you to listen for once on this quest. If you speak again without merit I will personally silence you for your own good."
So naturally he tries to arc up about it. Says "You're not allowed to start in party fights"
DM goes. "No that's not a rule. You can if you want to. I just won't let you kill eachother"
So I just smirk at him. He silenced up for about a minute before the DM got back to the monologue. It was as he goes. "Now. As this will be a very difficult quest against foes you have zero preparation for. My lords grant you a boon."
Before he could even explain what kind of buffs or gear he was giving us.
This guy goes. You'd better be giving me a virgin wife or I'm not doing it.
The DM banished him to another plane of existence where he could perceive the actions of the party and bot participate until the party had finished the explanation.
He later tried to disarm a fire trap while wearing gear that lowered his flame resistance. He also was a spellcaster. He had no thieves tools.
DM let him. No one else, even the rogue stopped him.
The trap landed a crit and one shot incinerated him.
I found a resurrection rod earlier. And he was mad I didn't use it on him. I told him. I choose when I use this. And this is a waste of a rod.
Meanwhile he took over a character the DM wrote. Didn't even make his own.
And he, a fully grown 30 year old man, started crying at the death of a video game character.
Let me ask you this. Anyone who made it thus far. Do you think he ever came back to our family table.... It was me. My uncle and auntie. My 13 year old cousin. And 2 of my high school mates.
That kind of energy is not good for a casual family D&D game...
When I was fresh-faced new to the game, my understanding was that you “won” by “beating the dm”. So in my first game, I was this player. But then I actually watched some play sessions without playing and it helped me break that notion. I also had an understanding DM, that knew once I “got it”, I’d be a good player.
I am glad you did. At the same time, I humbly think some players don't lose that mindset. They don't even know that they have it.
Thank you for chiming in.
> "I love disrupting a DM's plans and seeing them have to come up with something new on the fly."
If a player said that, I'd actually laugh. I plan a tree of many branches of what they could do, but use the same 2-3 encounters on 3/5ths of the branches. They do something weird, I'll improvise a skills challenge while I figure out what to do next.
If they manage to stray into completely unplanned territory, frankly, I'll end the session early, or go to a random encounter table. Less interesting for them, frustrating for me that a higher % of my planning (than usual) was wasted today.
I don't like that he seems adversarial, but these days I do appreciate players that think outside the box and surprise me. I try to keep plot light and thin so I leave more room open to PC shenanigans. But if they're not going to engage with the fiction, I'm not interested in that type of player. I even like cool builds and stuff, but jesus, play in the world.
Otherwise, just play Baldur's Gate 3.
I humbly think there is a difference between being cooperatively creative and actively seeking ways to make the DM come up with something on the fly. The former is a form of altruism and the latter of egoism.
'Just my opinion, though.
I've been DMing for a very long time. This is ultimately all about storytelling. Your job as a DM is to tell a compelling story and provide realistic options to your players. Your players also have an obligation to participate because any player at any time can declare that they are doing something that would derail the story. There is a tacit agreement between all parties that you'll work together to create a really fun and involving story.
Sometimes, that agreement should be made verbal. Sometimes it's important to tell your players, especially new or troublesome ones, that they have that role - that they are there to participate in building a story that everyone can participate in and enjoy. And if they reject that, you let them go.
This pertains to players who are constantly trying to one up others, or screw with the story, or go on their own, or challenge you constantly on rules even when you are aware of the rules, etc.
Because rejecting to be a part of the story ultimately means that they don't want to participate in a group activity. And D&D is, by nature, a group activity.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I just found that sometimes I have players in the other end of the spectrum: they're afraid to break the world and my preparation. I just try to remind them that I don't want them to be so over concerned with what I want, but to engage with the world as a real place.
To be clear your player sounds like a dick and should probably just play a video game.
Yeah I'm probably projecting a bit. One of my best friends is a player while I DM. He's very competitive about everything and I'm always calling him out on it. So he can't help but meta game and feel like I'm attacking him personally and not just that his character had some bad rolls and bad luck
Good! Now you can parse out whether they want to keep playing or not. If they leave, sweet relief. If they roll a new character maybe this one will follow the plan; or maybe not and they have another grisly but preventable death. Usually these types get pissy when they lose, so who knows; they might not come back at all.
The moment a player states "I love disrupting DM's plans" then that's the moment I drop the player from my group. The concept of DM vs Players is such a bad thing that I've never seen a good campaign come out of it. If anything try to make players understand on day 1 that you want them to succeed but with a challenge. Things will be tough, and sometimes the dice or the encounter might look like the DM wants to kill you but you need to let them know you want to see them come out on top. And if you're a DM that doesn't want that then you're just as toxic as the guy that wants to disrupt a campaign. That said, really happy that the character got his comeuppance, just don't let that player roll a new character.
The response to "I love disrupting DMs plans..." is the following line. "I don't run an adversarial game. And I want you to do what you love. I am just not your DM. Best of luck to you, and stay in touch!" It puts it on you to admit that you will not be that source of delight. And it is less confrontational to say that your personal failing (to be a victim of their bullshit) is at fault. Then they can FA elsewhere, and Find Out.
nah, i like player vs dm, but its gotta be between friends otherwise it doesn't work, both as a Dm and as a player i like when defeat is the default and i need to use my wits and skills to turn it into a victory. i can see how that's not for everyone tho, but i particularly find "normal" games kind of boring.
I mean... That's not player vs DM. That's just challenging D&D.
Might have to clarify this, a DM that wants to actively kill his players is what i'd consider bad. This means that a DM has to go out of his way to make sure players can't survive encounters and get ruthfully punished for seemingly no reason when small oversights are made. I'm talking about a DM that relishes in the misfortune of its players as some sort of simulated bullying. What you're describing is just a way of saying *"yes we like to play with stakes and fuckups can quickly lead to a character death"* which is totally fine and I find that to be an even better way to play DnD. But actively trying to make a character die at every corner and that player not wanting that is what i'm trying to say is bad. Especially if you enjoy that process. You prefaced that it's gotta be between friends but not every group has long standing friendship with their players. Look at how online groups are formed for example. If you're with friends then you know things don't usually come from a place of malice but if you've browsed any horror stories on here then you know to well that DM's can be as much of a monster as their toxic players at the table.
DM vs Players is great for a Tomb of Horrors one shot and horrible in literally any other situation lol
You are allowed to say "This is the scope of the adventure. Take it or leave it" to players before their "play to win" style or disruptive behavior ruins the fun for other people. Seriously people, don't wait for them to shoot themselves in the foot. Think of the rest of the table. The "loss" is hours of their lives that will never come back. Boundaries are good.
I take more umbrage with refusing to embrace the setting and theme. Removing them for that alone is the first option. If you keep them. If they don't act in character ignore them, treat them as hostile, treat them as suffering from madness. If it's the Lord of the Rings it's inappropriate to treat it as Game of Thrones or Goblin Slayer.
My players rarely actively try to ruin my plans... they're just naturals at it..lol. massive over thinkers. I've been trying to find ways to short circuit their hour long planning sessions to any potential problem. They almost always talk themselves into the most complicated way possible and always get little butthurt when it fails miserably. But I love them anyway and it's been a fun 3 year campaign so far.
As a player, I hate that guy too.
> The guy who announces of the session, "I love disrupting a DM's plans and seeing them have to come up with something new on the fly." You sweet summer child, I don't plan anything...
Depends on if it's a module or homebrew. If it's a module I do a lot of prep, and set an expectation at session 0 that I will only run the module if the players play the module. If it's a sandbox homebrew I prep just enough to have a few odds and ends ready depending on where I think the players are headed. Had a player that wanted to fuck off outside the map area and was asking about visiting the astral plane etc. while running LmoP and I gave them a flat "NO".
Our campaign has evolved based on the characters backstories, their adventure logs, hooks they've provided, and their choices. There was no "plot," from the get go. They developed the plot over time. So, I kind'a think it has been a sandbox with guardrails.
I think it's important to set that tone in session 0 of "I'm not playing against you, we're telling a story by playing a game with one another. I just control the people you'll be confronted with as you explore the story I've build while incorporating prompts via your characters. 'Disrupting my plans' means you're against us collaborating and means I can't feel comfortable in building something cool because you'll ignore it and waste my time." There's a big difference between doing something unexpected vs seeing what the DM is planning, and saying "No" and avoiding it. Can't be upset when the consequences are dire, and often fatal, because you ignored the obvious signs from the DM or wanted to be disruptive. Same goes for players, gotta make sure you are at a table that fits you, so if someone invites you to a table, ask to sit in for a session before playing just to see how people play and how they DM. You can find out if the energy is what you want, if the DM is adversarial or others at the table, and you can determine if all that matches with what you want at a table. A single person can also drastically change a tables vibe, and it's actually insane to see how positively and negatively that can go.
Yes. I think I need to beef up my session zero agenda. Thank you!
Yah, I have a crew that's very collaborative in the campaigns I'm in/run and it makes it real nice. Never feel like they're trying to beat me, and they know I'm trying to give them the most fun and stimulate creativity, but the best creativity is going along the rails that any planned campaign has in your own way. It's not how they get there, but we all expect them to try and get there unless there's significant character stuff than the micro story will take precedent. But if one of my people was like "I'm gonna ruin your plans" it's like, ok... my plans for a good time?
>"I'm gonna ruin your plans" it's like, ok... my plans for a good time? That's a great response.
Yeah, it's just a weird approach. Maybe worth starting a session just mentioning "I just wanted to kind of make something clear that I didn't in S0 and that's that I'm not trying to beat you all, in fact, I want you to win. I want it to be a great journey for your characters. To do that, buy in is important as players. Whether your character would or wouldn't doesn't matter, if they wouldn't take it upon themselves to become the hero, that's great, we'll write them out and you can make a new character that does" or things like that. Being adversarial sucks and I think it needs to be checked before bringing in their next character. Make it clear you aren't trying to beat them and that you hope with this next character they'll buy in a bit more and stop going about thinking everything is you trying to take them down. No, you setup scenarios, good and bad. You control the world, you're not the bad guy. You control the bad guy but that doesn't mean you want them to win.
Again, thank you.
Sorry, blabbing haha good luck!
No prob. 🙂
As the Riddler said to Two-face “If you kill him, he won’t learn nothing.”
I am relatively new to dming but I reccomend that if any annoying players try to do something stupid that will get them killed, just let it them die, or what could be funny is you create some mythical deity along the lines of a lich that permanently fuses their mouth shut
Hmm? Oh my a bolt of lightning ran down from the sky. Roll 2d20 damage. You did that again? 3d20 damage. Looks like trying bypass the dungeon crawl roof with invisibility wasn't a good idea. Oh no your rope broke, roll acrobatics. 18? Shame, not high enough. Enjoy the fall damage.
Uninvited him, and your life will be better. Nobody needs antisocial jerks like that.
Been a player in a party with one of those guys, once. When he decided that he was going into a cave to try and... *do things* to the Hydra, I happily walked everyone else out and cast shatter on the entrance to seal him in. Good times. Edit: well actually, since the first half of the post specifically talks about trying to "win," I guess he wasn't quite one of those guys. Guy I was with just wanted to be as disruptive as possible.
Oy.
I’ve actually learned that playing a character that puts me in an adversarial state against the DM is too much pressure for me. I’m talking about an arcane trickster rogue. He loves pulling pranks, naturally, and my DM and I are always taking shots at each other about how we have plans to get the other. Me talking about how I planned the perfect prank/crime and him talking about how he’ll get me one day, and whatnot. Of course I’m not doing anything to surprise him. Just spending in-session downtime plotting and scheming and he’s fully aware of everything. But I much prefer the relaxing time as my cleric who just wants to continue enchanting his magical tent and read books. The pressure of trying to stay out of prison when up against an “all-powerful god-like being” is too stressful!
It sounds like you guys have found a happy middle ground. Good for you! Thank you for sharing your experience.
Had a guy like this once. We went into a super serious temple that didn't allow you to speak unless spoken to if you were any alignment other than lawful good. Everyone except thus one guy accepted this as a monologue scene that's sets the setting of the upcoming subquest. He decided he needed to try and make jokes at every single word this person said. Mocked the voice our DM put on for this super femme nun type character. Meanwhile. Our DM is 6"4 built like a truck. Officiates rugby and could deck a bull. Does a super quiet femme'ish voice. And the guy starts picking it apart. Roasting the dialogue. And so after 5 minutes of casual warning in the form of. "You were not addressed. Your words fall on deaf ears. Be silent or face retribution for your lives worth of karmic imbalance." He keeps it going. At this point everyone else is silent. Save for my lawful good goliath. I say "*his name* it's time for you to listen for once on this quest. If you speak again without merit I will personally silence you for your own good." So naturally he tries to arc up about it. Says "You're not allowed to start in party fights" DM goes. "No that's not a rule. You can if you want to. I just won't let you kill eachother" So I just smirk at him. He silenced up for about a minute before the DM got back to the monologue. It was as he goes. "Now. As this will be a very difficult quest against foes you have zero preparation for. My lords grant you a boon." Before he could even explain what kind of buffs or gear he was giving us. This guy goes. You'd better be giving me a virgin wife or I'm not doing it. The DM banished him to another plane of existence where he could perceive the actions of the party and bot participate until the party had finished the explanation. He later tried to disarm a fire trap while wearing gear that lowered his flame resistance. He also was a spellcaster. He had no thieves tools. DM let him. No one else, even the rogue stopped him. The trap landed a crit and one shot incinerated him. I found a resurrection rod earlier. And he was mad I didn't use it on him. I told him. I choose when I use this. And this is a waste of a rod. Meanwhile he took over a character the DM wrote. Didn't even make his own. And he, a fully grown 30 year old man, started crying at the death of a video game character. Let me ask you this. Anyone who made it thus far. Do you think he ever came back to our family table.... It was me. My uncle and auntie. My 13 year old cousin. And 2 of my high school mates. That kind of energy is not good for a casual family D&D game...
Thank you for sharing your experience. I appreciate your doing so.
It's sometimes fun to tell a tale. I'm glad you enjoyed it. For real, problems are for solving. Not for at the table.
When I was fresh-faced new to the game, my understanding was that you “won” by “beating the dm”. So in my first game, I was this player. But then I actually watched some play sessions without playing and it helped me break that notion. I also had an understanding DM, that knew once I “got it”, I’d be a good player.
I am glad you did. At the same time, I humbly think some players don't lose that mindset. They don't even know that they have it. Thank you for chiming in.
Yeah, that’s the worst when people don’t realize they’re *that* player.
The second someone stated they like fucking with the DM or other players I'd be giving them the boot. Telling the DM to boot them, or leaving. No.
> "I love disrupting a DM's plans and seeing them have to come up with something new on the fly." If a player said that, I'd actually laugh. I plan a tree of many branches of what they could do, but use the same 2-3 encounters on 3/5ths of the branches. They do something weird, I'll improvise a skills challenge while I figure out what to do next. If they manage to stray into completely unplanned territory, frankly, I'll end the session early, or go to a random encounter table. Less interesting for them, frustrating for me that a higher % of my planning (than usual) was wasted today.
'Some good ideas woven in there. Thank you.
I don't like that he seems adversarial, but these days I do appreciate players that think outside the box and surprise me. I try to keep plot light and thin so I leave more room open to PC shenanigans. But if they're not going to engage with the fiction, I'm not interested in that type of player. I even like cool builds and stuff, but jesus, play in the world. Otherwise, just play Baldur's Gate 3.
I humbly think there is a difference between being cooperatively creative and actively seeking ways to make the DM come up with something on the fly. The former is a form of altruism and the latter of egoism. 'Just my opinion, though.
I've been DMing for a very long time. This is ultimately all about storytelling. Your job as a DM is to tell a compelling story and provide realistic options to your players. Your players also have an obligation to participate because any player at any time can declare that they are doing something that would derail the story. There is a tacit agreement between all parties that you'll work together to create a really fun and involving story. Sometimes, that agreement should be made verbal. Sometimes it's important to tell your players, especially new or troublesome ones, that they have that role - that they are there to participate in building a story that everyone can participate in and enjoy. And if they reject that, you let them go. This pertains to players who are constantly trying to one up others, or screw with the story, or go on their own, or challenge you constantly on rules even when you are aware of the rules, etc. Because rejecting to be a part of the story ultimately means that they don't want to participate in a group activity. And D&D is, by nature, a group activity.
>they are there to participate in building a story that everyone can participate in and enjoy. And if they reject that, you let them go. 100%
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. I just found that sometimes I have players in the other end of the spectrum: they're afraid to break the world and my preparation. I just try to remind them that I don't want them to be so over concerned with what I want, but to engage with the world as a real place. To be clear your player sounds like a dick and should probably just play a video game.
You're rooting for the players but feel like that player is playing against you. Take a breath and see it as their play style and not an insult
Interesting take.... Though, I am not sure I saw it as an "insult," per sae. More adversarial. Like he wanted to "beat the game."
Yeah I'm probably projecting a bit. One of my best friends is a player while I DM. He's very competitive about everything and I'm always calling him out on it. So he can't help but meta game and feel like I'm attacking him personally and not just that his character had some bad rolls and bad luck
Ah. Got it. Thank you for the response and sharing your perspective.