Oh my I can recall tons of cases like this during our 20+ years of gaming. countless fights one I will never forget where we had a totally evil guy and the paladin got into it. Good thing about stuff like this is you learn from mistakes like this nowdays we try and keep alignments roughly in the same line so if we do a good campaign we don't allow evil alignments anything good - neutral is fine on the other hand evil campaigns just the other way around.
Forgember Yea that is a bit of an issue. Consequences in game may need to be used to dissuade them. Also if the act against their alignments you can always penalize them if what they do is bad enough. Look up Hound of Ill Omen. -Nerdarchist Dave
Guys, glad to see that you brought this up. The Adventurer's League group I was in had several issues from the get go ...too many players, 3 who insisted on hogging all the limelight all the time, one who stole from the party (who wasn't even a Rogue), same three who hogged the DMs time also insisted on doing the job of the two Rogues - while the two Rogues sat there and twiddled their thumbs, one of the three continually cheated on the values on his sheet. Two never paid attention to their character abilities or learned spells - they insisted that the DM or other players tell them what their characters did.....and so on, and so on and so on. The DM should have clamped down harder on all of this, but never did. We tried for a session zero, but could never get everybody at the table and on topic. When we actually did get everyone around the table, all players said they were ready to go - then once the adventure started, two had no idea what their characters did and the wizard "never had the time to decide what spells to take" (he had three weeks). Things just went to Hell from there. This came to a head one night when the DM called for a clearing of the air. Adventure League has rules for conduct, and I had adhered to this. Apparently, I was one of the few, and I brought up the code of conduct. One problem player quit. The other two sulked. After three more sessions, the DM quit. Then the rest of the group left en mass when their key player (one of the three) quit because, as he said "we can't agree all the time", even though I took the time to find a new DM. Looks like I was the problem player. I wanted to adhere to the code, give everyone a fair chance to have game time, and not cheat. I expected everyone to actually know what their characters did, and didn't tolerate obnoxious and immature behavior. I arranged the group, found the DM, and provided minis. When the DM quit, I found a new DM. The store owner who hosted the event followed the whole issue and has told me that he sympathizes. He watched it unfold and pretty much agrees with my assessment of the situation. He may even sit in on a casual game with myself and the new DM if we can get a couple of more players.
Good luck Mike people are the problem and the solution often times. Hope you are able to get a group together that can be on the same page. -Nerdarchist Dave
Dave, I am already on the case.:) We have leads on three possible players at this date. The new DM is eager and is part of the group assembly process, unlike last time. The shop owner is also assisting in this endeavor. With luck, we'll geta group together in time for the next League start. Thanks for the good wishes.
Is it a problem? Think of the Avengers where you have the Boy Scout Captain America vs the bad boy Tony Stark vs the ruthless spy Black Widow. That interpersonal conflict between different characters with different moralities is what makes that movie interesting. I have to question the idea that some DMs have that all of the players have to be on the same page with similar alignments and views. I think it's OK for a DM to allow players to clash but only if it happens in game between the characters and doesn't bleed over to out of game between the players. If the players are taking it personally and arguing out of game then the DM needs to step in and tell them all to dial it down.
Old comment I know but that comparison is kinda a false equivalency to the situation described it's not their moralities clashing in Avengers they're all good aligned even Black Widow it's their personalities and sometimes methods that clash. That isn't the same as having an obvious and unrepentant evil character in the same party as a good aligned character. Think of it this way a Paladin might disapprove of a Rogue committing theft but if it helps the greater good they'll disapprove of the Rogue's methods but overlook and grudgingly accept them as a necessary evil. But if that same Rogue is just being a selfish asshole and hurting others for his own gain no good aligned character would let that slide they would try to stop them especially a Paladin. Keeping characters within a similar ballpark of alignments in game helps prevent players clashing and to keep the game running smoothly.
Ran into this with two players in a game I ran. There was a paladin and a rogue but fortunately the paladin was very "good trumps law" so early on, he sat the rogue down and said hey, no killing or stealing from innocents and the poor. I'll have to stop you... however, if you take from the super wealthy and the evil, then by all means, and I will always then provide character references at your trials if you get caught. They got along pretty great. Sure, the rogue ran off mid combat to steal treasure early. That happened once or twice and he got a slightly larger portion of the treasure. Paladin caught it a few times and decided to follow him one day, took off his armor and trailed him in a city, found him donating to an orphanage. He was proud. What he didn't know is the rogue saw the paladin tailing him and got wise and changed his plans, donating that one time. From then on the paladin was perfectly fine with the rogue stealing an extra cut. It was hilarious and great role playing on both parts. He eventually had enough stuff that he slowed the interparty theft... The Mimic chest nearly eating him while the rest of the party was busy fighting may have helped.
I use to enjoy playing a rogue but it sucks when it is spoiled for you. We are playing an "evil" campaign. First time playing a campaign like this, and I am a rogue. I waited till they slept and slowly stole portions of their gold which wasn't easy as I had to pass a lot of contested rolls, but it was that kind of game I had already almost died at the hands of a different party member. When they finally figured out it was missing they did accuse me (Being the only rouge), but I had buried the gold on an island so there was zero proof. The DM with "their character" would not let it go, even though the others had moved on to the well what do we do now trying to progress the story. But the DM would not let it go without their character wanting to fight it out, so I suggested we take a 15 min break.. Let cooler heads prevail, and come back to figure it out. 7 minutes into the break I get the message from the DM to not come back. No talking about it, nothing.. I had to talk to another one of the players of the campaign about why I was banned later to figure out what the heck happened. Was it a "Bad Player move" to take money from other party members... Yes, I fully admit that a team working against itself gets kinda harsh, but in my own defense since others were doing it I thought it was just part of the evil campaign. Since then I have stayed away from Evil Campaigns I think it could be interesting to have one where the people are subtlety working against each other but it left such a bad impression I doubt I will do it again. Edit: Just saw the player vs player episode.. Maybe this should of put that in there instead oops. =)
tly playing in a "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" supplement in a party consisting of NG Rogue, CN Monk, LG Fighter, and LE Cleric (me). Even having an evil character in the party with a 'pseudo-paladin' hasn't really been an issue. An npc cleric called me out right in front of the Fighter last night. Instead of murderboxing, we chose to turn the situation into an opportunity for some good roleplay. We ended that particular scene with the two of us riding back to the tavern to regroup in that awkward silence lol. It's all about having players that would rather roleplay than kill something at every turn. Much like Dexter, I may be evil but I still find a way to function in society as a productive member.... So what if I have some hobbies I keep to myself? :p
I'm having a similar problem, but different in that the DM is the dude with the problem. I'm playing a planar oracle of Time (A blind Cleric of time), and with some lucky rolls was able to research a blood/Water to wine spell. The DM has an issue with my production of wine for the party, and my ignorance to the non-combat/merchant rogue selling some of the kegs and donating some of the profits for the group slush fund. He wants me to play the character as LG to fit his storyline, despite my god being True neutral, and my PC's will to live, other consequences be damned! The DM sent a Hydra, and the Oracle used color spray to blind all 5 heads at once. A King tried to execute the oracle for flooding the peasantry markets with wine, the oracle used 3 hero points and one Inspiration to have the peasant rebellion infiltrate the execution and bust him out. A dragon tried to eat the oracle, but was age-restored to a hatchling. Then there's the Black Widow Queen who couldn't land a single hit against him, while the oracle was using his cane...
Nerdarchy the character has a charlatan background, as he approved in session 0. Think Rasputin as a street preacher, and you have some idea of what he is like. That is why he fits in so well in the group of thieves, outcasts and weirdos that make up the rest of the party. He is the party's Walter White, the producer, while the party distributes the product to the dealers, launder money, run front businesses etc. He's in too deep, and can see no way out.
Our main DM's rule is this- as soon as you attack someone in the party, you are no longer treated as part of it. you are just another encounter, and he's not going to pull any of he group's punches (though maybe some of yours). but this is flat-out attack. I've secretly started plagues in the dutchy the others are sworn to protect, we've had people attempt to destroy the cleric's religion. we've even had fistfights. but the second you say 'I'm going to kill that character you've put a lot of thought and X dozen hours into playing because screw you' or you take IRL quarrels into the session, you've crossed the line. thankfully our players generally keep true to that, and while we might screw each other over on conflicting goals, we at least respect each other's subtlety. we're all here to have fun, don't be a dick to each other unless it was made clear at the beginning that it's ok. don't take your dislike of the person or annoyance that they don't want to act OOC for your brilliant plan out on the character. and as a DM we've founf it best to just throw more stuff at the guys. make a problem so big they have to work out thier differences and stand together or all die. most quarrels can be hammered out when literal hammers are swinging at them.
I gm and I have yet to have players try to KILL each other I've had tons get in fist fights and even knock people out with swords but never try to kill
I'm doing a Horde of the Dragon queen campaign on roll 20, I have three separate groups. One of the groups has a player you insists on being the contrary player. He was the only human in a dragonborn/tiefling group and he hated humans. So every time a human comes along he either intimidates them or attacks them, he tried twice to kill significant npc's. He died. He is re-rolling a new character and he was informed I wasn't interested in continuing that play style.
I can on an intellectual level appreciate members of team at cross purposes, like black widow and Capt. America in Avengers. The player I was mentioning just wasn't integral to the group, nor did he really have a reason to do what he did. His charcter was my fault, because his backstory pretty much warned what he was going to do, and I should have stopped it earlier.
Just before 5th came out, I reached out to my old players, and a few new players. We dusted off 2nd to get some game time in and knock off the webs. In the group, there are two real life brothers in the mix. around the 5th or 6th game, the "rogue" attempted to assassinate the other brother (which was the cleric). After that attempt, the rogue was killed by the group and the undertones of that game shadowed our table over a year. Be wary about being a dick. BTW, it wasn't the cleric that harbored hurt feelings, it was the rest of the group.
Dude LOL, I lost it as soon as you said two brother. I game with both of my younger brothers and as you may already know Nerdarchist Ryan is my brother. Nerdarchist Ted is my brother in-law so yea I get the dynamic. The don't be a dick is a good rule of thumb not for just gaming but life in general. - Nerdarchist Dave
Don't forget that the Paladin can hide his true intentions as well. The third dungeons and dragons movie is a good example of this (though not a good movie lol). If he has a reason to be with the party, he might pretend to fit in, but secretly help people 'behind the party's back'.
I once had a player at the table who would *always* insist on solving his problems with PvP. His characters were always problematic when it came to any form of conflict; there was no gradual escalation with violence- it went straight from 1 to 100. Once- somebody at a tavern made fun of his elf ears, so what did he do? Blew up the whole fucking tavern with a spell. Somebody once took a crap on his boot, so what did he do? Nearly killed him, and was just about to finish him on the ground. He would also try to (in-character) commit suicide if he had to suffer ANY inconveniences, such as damaged equipment or ability score penalties. We would always try to stop him from killing his own character- not because we cared about it, but because he could take 1 to 4 hours just to make a new one. Eventually he stopped showing up, probably because he would always suffer under the consequences without learning a damn thing. I've already had to fight his characters about 10 times to stop them from killing anybody, and killed about 1 or 2 of them to be completely sure the conflict is over.
The title was misleading. I thought you were going to talk about problem players, not problem characters. I have had both in my time, but my most recent was the problem players and I'm still looking for more ways to handle it in the future.
Tim, they are basically one in the same. Player characters cannot exist without players, and it is the players that determine what the characters do. Problem players generate problem characters
No. No they are most certainly not. A problem player is the person sitting at the table. They might not be paying attention, they might be argumentative towards the GM and/or the other players, they might be using their knowledge as a person outside of the game or the situation within the game to benefit their character, they might be hogging the spot light and showboating, these are all things that a problem "player" does. A problem character is the person in the game that is interacting with the game world, the other characters, the environment, and such. They might be causing conflict in the party because the actions they take are not coherent to the rest of the party's values, they might spread discord and malcontent where ever they go, they might have had a little too much time spent making sure that they have the "best" available stats, equipment, and situational benefits, they might be the talk of the encounter by every character (and their respective players) because of the actions they take in the course of the game, these are things that a problem "character" does. When you have a problem character as the situation described in the video suggests there are really two options to choose between: the character has to go, or the character can stay until he/she/it can't take it anymore. Eventually a paladin that is morally opposed to the antics of thieves will confront those thieves and it may end in bloodshed. Alternatively he/she/it may decide to simply leave having realized that he/she/it cannot change the party. When you have a problem player it becomes a little harder to deal with, especially if that player is a friend. My most recent bout with this was in the form of a problem player who made it clear that after being called out on basically holding the party up for almost two hours on a fight that his character initiated without warning (because he, the player, wasn't paying attention) that he would not change the way he was playing and he didn't feel that it was right for the rest of the players (or me as the GM) to tell him how to play the game. Things have since worked out, but it's still a topic I try to explore whenever I am given the chance. That was why I clicked on the video in the first place. TL; DR? To sum it up: No, that's wrong.
Two words: Session Zero. And as the GM, it IS your place to determine if a group is working out, and NOT his/her place to tell you. If that is the issue, then the player has to change or go. I've been there, and I understand. It's a personality issue, and that's where my player-character reference comes from. I understand the difference, but they are forever entangled concepts. When a player starts to tell the Gm and the rest of the group that his concepts are more important...he or she has to go.
Three words: Where you there? Five words: I can be sarcastic too. I have been game mastering since the day I started playing (admittedly only a short ten years ago), and unlike some certain people, I could GM up until the day I die and I will never put myself in a situation to where I would say or make the claim that because I have GM'd X amount of years I know enough about GMing to give out advice on it, or that my advice is anything more that any of this is: opinion. So before you go on spewing yours with your sarcastic phrasing and all cap'd words let me remind you that neither did I, nor anyone else, ask you for it. I have had problem players in the past who had the ideal characters. Characters that grew over time, that went through the ringer and came out all the better for it, but whose player was horrible at the table. Conversely I've had the perfect players who have made the worst problem characters imaginable. The players are always ready, they know what they're doing, they're enjoying themselves, but the characters are the epitome of problematic. So no, the two concepts are not "forever entangled". And for your information, not that I feel I owe you any damn explanation of my game, I always have a Session Zero. I hand picked the five players for this game out of a group of about 14 interested players, we then sat down and the game concept and world was explained to them. They built their characters together, they established their individual back stories and their group back story and we started. It wasn't until quite a few sessions (several months as we only play every other week) that the problems started creeping into the game and I had to find ways to deal with it. It wasn't until a few sessions later that the player mentioned made it clear he had no desire to change, but was willing to leave if it came down to it. Now the game is going strong and it has turned around so much that every one of those five players who were only a few short weeks ago at each others throats are constantly messaging each other on Facebook about how excited they are for the next session. I can't take credit for the turn around, but damnit if I could I would in a heartbeat. TL;DR? I (and because that is already capitalized let me make sure to point out that I am cap-locking that for sarcastic effect) did not ask for your opinion, but "thanks".
Gee, pent up aggression much? If we're going to "dick measure", I've been doing this since 1981. Furthermore, if you are going to post publicly, expect others to do so as well. That means that you are just as open to disagreement, comment, and criticism as the rest of us. If you cannot handle that sort of environment, then I suggest you take your anger and focus it elsewhere. No sarcasm was originally intended, but since you've decided to interpret everything I say in a negative fashion, I welcome you to interpret this: Either participate like an adult and accept that the statements of others are also welcome, or move back into your mother's basement and grump to yourself. I no longer care. Vent away, Timothy. The floor is yours.
This is an unfortunate problem I've encountered in many games, even amoung friends. In one of the groups I play with there is always one bloke who wants to be the "bad guy" even though we're trying to play a band of heroes. He often goes out of his way to play monstrous races too, if the GM will let him, which only heightens the turbulence amoung the various players. At one point his character was acting against the group in a very important situation that ended up spoiling the on-going story between a noble family and a time-traveling twilight dragon we were trying to aid. The group was rather upset and after a hard vote we asked him to either tone down his evil tendencies or quit. The game simply wasn't any fun with him mucking about. Thankfully he agreed to tone things down, but he still has his moments. I personally hope that as he is exposed to different play styles he'll come around. Playing evil is fine if you do it right. I'm playing a cunning Rogue in a different game who's always working behind the scenes to "obtain" resources or influence (slaves, information, weapons, etc), none of which any self-respecting hero would be happy about. But as those scatter-brained companions of mine have never really poked around or asked too much, I've gotten away relatively unscathed, with resources to spare, which has only increased my notoriety amoung the criminal underworld. My advice is to try and work things out of game, since these types of conflicts are rarely the result of character actions and more to due with player attitude and play. Session Zero is incredibly important, as is a healthy understanding that D&D is a game of fun, and if someone is doing something consistently that isn't fun for everyone else, then you have a major issue that needs to be resolved. If the players in my Rogue game became incredibly upset with my shenanigans I would go out of my way to tone things down and restructure the character as needed. Hopefully things came be done nicely, but every now and then you just need to let someone go. Sometimes people just want to be jerks and their isn't anything in or out of game you can do about it other than move on without them.
Zachary Nancekivell If you have a blatently evil player running around with a bunch of heroes you could always deal with it in game through RP or combat. Enough of this type of action will cause the player to either change the way he plays or stop going. Nerdarchist Ted
Nerdarchy I've seen that happen, though just the once. He came back to the table a few months later with an apology and much improved attitude. Sometimes tough love works.
Hmm DM 911. Lately I've been stuck on this campaign I've been running. Inspiration just doesn't want to hit me. The campaign is loosely based on the forgotten realms. It's mainly about a brewer dwarf that ends up in a jungle where he discovers a clan of dwarves that are trying to rebuild an old dwarven city that is under the ground. At first there were some problems with lizardfolk, but now those are solved and I need a new challenge/ threat/storyarch. Anyone have any good ideas I could use?
I didn't read-up on the new Paladin thing you mentioned, about them not being goody-two-shoes. Man, I am so stuck in AD&D 2nd Edition. I've been egging my Paladin player to keep my rowdy Sorcerer player in line. The Sorcerer keeps trying to seduce every female NPC, He tried to get "lucky" with the cleric of the Shrine of Luck in the Mines of Phandelvin adventure, in the Starters Kit, and he rolled a "1". I had her blind him for three hours and I think that worked. We'll "see" next week.
Oh my I can recall tons of cases like this during our 20+ years of gaming. countless fights one I will never forget where we had a totally evil guy and the paladin got into it. Good thing about stuff like this is you learn from mistakes like this nowdays we try and keep alignments roughly in the same line so if we do a good campaign we don't allow evil alignments anything good - neutral is fine on the other hand evil campaigns just the other way around.
Yea you kind of need everyone in the boat paddling in the same direction or things get rocky.
Nerdarchist Dave
Forgember
Yea that is a bit of an issue. Consequences in game may need to be used to dissuade them. Also if the act against their alignments you can always penalize them if what they do is bad enough. Look up Hound of Ill Omen.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Guys, glad to see that you brought this up. The Adventurer's League group I was in had several issues from the get go ...too many players, 3 who insisted on hogging all the limelight all the time, one who stole from the party (who wasn't even a Rogue), same three who hogged the DMs time also insisted on doing the job of the two Rogues - while the two Rogues sat there and twiddled their thumbs, one of the three continually cheated on the values on his sheet. Two never paid attention to their character abilities or learned spells - they insisted that the DM or other players tell them what their characters did.....and so on, and so on and so on. The DM should have clamped down harder on all of this, but never did. We tried for a session zero, but could never get everybody at the table and on topic. When we actually did get everyone around the table, all players said they were ready to go - then once the adventure started, two had no idea what their characters did and the wizard "never had the time to decide what spells to take" (he had three weeks). Things just went to Hell from there.
This came to a head one night when the DM called for a clearing of the air. Adventure League has rules for conduct, and I had adhered to this. Apparently, I was one of the few, and I brought up the code of conduct. One problem player quit. The other two sulked. After three more sessions, the DM quit. Then the rest of the group left en mass when their key player (one of the three) quit because, as he said "we can't agree all the time", even though I took the time to find a new DM.
Looks like I was the problem player. I wanted to adhere to the code, give everyone a fair chance to have game time, and not cheat. I expected everyone to actually know what their characters did, and didn't tolerate obnoxious and immature behavior. I arranged the group, found the DM, and provided minis. When the DM quit, I found a new DM.
The store owner who hosted the event followed the whole issue and has told me that he sympathizes. He watched it unfold and pretty much agrees with my assessment of the situation. He may even sit in on a casual game with myself and the new DM if we can get a couple of more players.
Good luck Mike people are the problem and the solution often times. Hope you are able to get a group together that can be on the same page.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Dave, I am already on the case.:) We have leads on three possible players at this date. The new DM is eager and is part of the group assembly process, unlike last time. The shop owner is also assisting in this endeavor. With luck, we'll geta group together in time for the next League start. Thanks for the good wishes.
Mike Gould
No problem and I never doubted you would. You seem like a get things done kind a guy.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Keep Calm and Roll Initiative. :)
Mike Gould I think I saw that shirt on facebook. Nerdarchist Ted
Is it a problem? Think of the Avengers where you have the Boy Scout Captain America vs the bad boy Tony Stark vs the ruthless spy Black Widow. That interpersonal conflict between different characters with different moralities is what makes that movie interesting. I have to question the idea that some DMs have that all of the players have to be on the same page with similar alignments and views. I think it's OK for a DM to allow players to clash but only if it happens in game between the characters and doesn't bleed over to out of game between the players. If the players are taking it personally and arguing out of game then the DM needs to step in and tell them all to dial it down.
Good points. Also a game that degenerates into PVP can be a hassle.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Old comment I know but that comparison is kinda a false equivalency to the situation described it's not their moralities clashing in Avengers they're all good aligned even Black Widow it's their personalities and sometimes methods that clash.
That isn't the same as having an obvious and unrepentant evil character in the same party as a good aligned character.
Think of it this way a Paladin might disapprove of a Rogue committing theft but if it helps the greater good they'll disapprove of the Rogue's methods but overlook and grudgingly accept them as a necessary evil.
But if that same Rogue is just being a selfish asshole and hurting others for his own gain no good aligned character would let that slide they would try to stop them especially a Paladin.
Keeping characters within a similar ballpark of alignments in game helps prevent players clashing and to keep the game running smoothly.
Ran into this with two players in a game I ran. There was a paladin and a rogue but fortunately the paladin was very "good trumps law" so early on, he sat the rogue down and said hey, no killing or stealing from innocents and the poor. I'll have to stop you... however, if you take from the super wealthy and the evil, then by all means, and I will always then provide character references at your trials if you get caught.
They got along pretty great. Sure, the rogue ran off mid combat to steal treasure early. That happened once or twice and he got a slightly larger portion of the treasure. Paladin caught it a few times and decided to follow him one day, took off his armor and trailed him in a city, found him donating to an orphanage. He was proud. What he didn't know is the rogue saw the paladin tailing him and got wise and changed his plans, donating that one time.
From then on the paladin was perfectly fine with the rogue stealing an extra cut. It was hilarious and great role playing on both parts. He eventually had enough stuff that he slowed the interparty theft... The Mimic chest nearly eating him while the rest of the party was busy fighting may have helped.
I use to enjoy playing a rogue but it sucks when it is spoiled for you. We are playing an "evil" campaign. First time playing a campaign like this, and I am a rogue. I waited till they slept and slowly stole portions of their gold which wasn't easy as I had to pass a lot of contested rolls, but it was that kind of game I had already almost died at the hands of a different party member. When they finally figured out it was missing they did accuse me (Being the only rouge), but I had buried the gold on an island so there was zero proof. The DM with "their character" would not let it go, even though the others had moved on to the well what do we do now trying to progress the story. But the DM would not let it go without their character wanting to fight it out, so I suggested we take a 15 min break.. Let cooler heads prevail, and come back to figure it out. 7 minutes into the break I get the message from the DM to not come back. No talking about it, nothing.. I had to talk to another one of the players of the campaign about why I was banned later to figure out what the heck happened.
Was it a "Bad Player move" to take money from other party members... Yes, I fully admit that a team working against itself gets kinda harsh, but in my own defense since others were doing it I thought it was just part of the evil campaign. Since then I have stayed away from Evil Campaigns I think it could be interesting to have one where the people are subtlety working against each other but it left such a bad impression I doubt I will do it again.
Edit: Just saw the player vs player episode.. Maybe this should of put that in there instead oops. =)
That would be a hilariously awesome confrontation to build up to, lol.
Good stuff guys! You pretty much covered everything I would have told him :)
It's like we were reading your mind.
-Nerdarchist Dave
tly playing in a "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" supplement in a party consisting of NG Rogue, CN Monk, LG Fighter, and LE Cleric (me). Even having an evil character in the party with a 'pseudo-paladin' hasn't really been an issue. An npc cleric called me out right in front of the Fighter last night. Instead of murderboxing, we chose to turn the situation into an opportunity for some good roleplay. We ended that particular scene with the two of us riding back to the tavern to regroup in that awkward silence lol. It's all about having players that would rather roleplay than kill something at every turn.
Much like Dexter, I may be evil but I still find a way to function in society as a productive member.... So what if I have some hobbies I keep to myself? :p
LD_Raine 424 You can have a party with all kinds of compositions. It really is what the players do with it.
-Nerdarchist Dave
I'm having a similar problem, but different in that the DM is the dude with the problem.
I'm playing a planar oracle of Time (A blind Cleric of time), and with some lucky rolls was able to research a blood/Water to wine spell. The DM has an issue with my production of wine for the party, and my ignorance to the non-combat/merchant rogue selling some of the kegs and donating some of the profits for the group slush fund.
He wants me to play the character as LG to fit his storyline, despite my god being True neutral, and my PC's will to live, other consequences be damned! The DM sent a Hydra, and the Oracle used color spray to blind all 5 heads at once.
A King tried to execute the oracle for flooding the peasantry markets with wine, the oracle used 3 hero points and one Inspiration to have the peasant rebellion infiltrate the execution and bust him out.
A dragon tried to eat the oracle, but was age-restored to a hatchling.
Then there's the Black Widow Queen who couldn't land a single hit against him, while the oracle was using his cane...
Nerdarchy the character has a charlatan background, as he approved in session 0. Think Rasputin as a street preacher, and you have some idea of what he is like.
That is why he fits in so well in the group of thieves, outcasts and weirdos that make up the rest of the party.
He is the party's Walter White, the producer, while the party distributes the product to the dealers, launder money, run front businesses etc.
He's in too deep, and can see no way out.
Our main DM's rule is this- as soon as you attack someone in the party, you are no longer treated as part of it. you are just another encounter, and he's not going to pull any of he group's punches (though maybe some of yours). but this is flat-out attack. I've secretly started plagues in the dutchy the others are sworn to protect, we've had people attempt to destroy the cleric's religion. we've even had fistfights. but the second you say 'I'm going to kill that character you've put a lot of thought and X dozen hours into playing because screw you' or you take IRL quarrels into the session, you've crossed the line. thankfully our players generally keep true to that, and while we might screw each other over on conflicting goals, we at least respect each other's subtlety. we're all here to have fun, don't be a dick to each other unless it was made clear at the beginning that it's ok. don't take your dislike of the person or annoyance that they don't want to act OOC for your brilliant plan out on the character.
and as a DM we've founf it best to just throw more stuff at the guys. make a problem so big they have to work out thier differences and stand together or all die. most quarrels can be hammered out when literal hammers are swinging at them.
Some points. Don't be dick is a good rule to live by.
-Nerdarchist Dave
I gm and I have yet to have players try to KILL each other I've had tons get in fist fights and even knock people out with swords but never try to kill
shawn black
Wish I could say the same, but it has happened.
-Nerdarchist Dave
I'm doing a Horde of the Dragon queen campaign on roll 20, I have three separate groups. One of the groups has a player you insists on being the contrary player. He was the only human in a dragonborn/tiefling group and he hated humans. So every time a human comes along he either intimidates them or attacks them, he tried twice to kill significant npc's. He died. He is re-rolling a new character and he was informed I wasn't interested in continuing that play style.
The direct method is the best method.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Alexander Maxwell yea and im the dragonborn in that campain :P tho it made for some intresting moments
I can on an intellectual level appreciate members of team at cross purposes, like black widow and Capt. America in Avengers. The player I was mentioning just wasn't integral to the group, nor did he really have a reason to do what he did. His charcter was my fault, because his backstory pretty much warned what he was going to do, and I should have stopped it earlier.
dont beat your self up about it. ik i was still having fun and in the end isnt that all that matters
Just before 5th came out, I reached out to my old players, and a few new players. We dusted off 2nd to get some game time in and knock off the webs. In the group, there are two real life brothers in the mix. around the 5th or 6th game, the "rogue" attempted to assassinate the other brother (which was the cleric). After that attempt, the rogue was killed by the group and the undertones of that game shadowed our table over a year. Be wary about being a dick. BTW, it wasn't the cleric that harbored hurt feelings, it was the rest of the group.
Dude LOL, I lost it as soon as you said two brother. I game with both of my younger brothers and as you may already know Nerdarchist Ryan is my brother. Nerdarchist Ted is my brother in-law so yea I get the dynamic. The don't be a dick is a good rule of thumb not for just gaming but life in general.
- Nerdarchist Dave
I was about to schedule a "trust fall" session to restore the grp, but 5th edition seems to be the ties that bind the best.
Damaged Dice
Thanks now I have the echos of thumps in my head.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Glad to be of service. Great Channel btw!
Damaged Dice
Thanks glad you are enjoying it.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Don't forget that the Paladin can hide his true intentions as well. The third dungeons and dragons movie is a good example of this (though not a good movie lol). If he has a reason to be with the party, he might pretend to fit in, but secretly help people 'behind the party's back'.
Agreed. It's about having a character that is multidimensional.
- Nerdarchist Dave
I once had a player at the table who would *always* insist on solving his problems with PvP. His characters were always problematic when it came to any form of conflict; there was no gradual escalation with violence- it went straight from 1 to 100. Once- somebody at a tavern made fun of his elf ears, so what did he do? Blew up the whole fucking tavern with a spell. Somebody once took a crap on his boot, so what did he do? Nearly killed him, and was just about to finish him on the ground. He would also try to (in-character) commit suicide if he had to suffer ANY inconveniences, such as damaged equipment or ability score penalties. We would always try to stop him from killing his own character- not because we cared about it, but because he could take 1 to 4 hours just to make a new one.
Eventually he stopped showing up, probably because he would always suffer under the consequences without learning a damn thing. I've already had to fight his characters about 10 times to stop them from killing anybody, and killed about 1 or 2 of them to be completely sure the conflict is over.
That player sounds awful. You have more patience than me - I would have booted him rather quickly.
The title was misleading. I thought you were going to talk about problem players, not problem characters. I have had both in my time, but my most recent was the problem players and I'm still looking for more ways to handle it in the future.
Tim, they are basically one in the same. Player characters cannot exist without players, and it is the players that determine what the characters do. Problem players generate problem characters
No. No they are most certainly not. A problem player is the person sitting at the table. They might not be paying attention, they might be argumentative towards the GM and/or the other players, they might be using their knowledge as a person outside of the game or the situation within the game to benefit their character, they might be hogging the spot light and showboating, these are all things that a problem "player" does.
A problem character is the person in the game that is interacting with the game world, the other characters, the environment, and such. They might be causing conflict in the party because the actions they take are not coherent to the rest of the party's values, they might spread discord and malcontent where ever they go, they might have had a little too much time spent making sure that they have the "best" available stats, equipment, and situational benefits, they might be the talk of the encounter by every character (and their respective players) because of the actions they take in the course of the game, these are things that a problem "character" does.
When you have a problem character as the situation described in the video suggests there are really two options to choose between: the character has to go, or the character can stay until he/she/it can't take it anymore. Eventually a paladin that is morally opposed to the antics of thieves will confront those thieves and it may end in bloodshed. Alternatively he/she/it may decide to simply leave having realized that he/she/it cannot change the party.
When you have a problem player it becomes a little harder to deal with, especially if that player is a friend. My most recent bout with this was in the form of a problem player who made it clear that after being called out on basically holding the party up for almost two hours on a fight that his character initiated without warning (because he, the player, wasn't paying attention) that he would not change the way he was playing and he didn't feel that it was right for the rest of the players (or me as the GM) to tell him how to play the game. Things have since worked out, but it's still a topic I try to explore whenever I am given the chance. That was why I clicked on the video in the first place.
TL; DR? To sum it up: No, that's wrong.
Two words: Session Zero. And as the GM, it IS your place to determine if a group is working out, and NOT his/her place to tell you. If that is the issue, then the player has to change or go. I've been there, and I understand. It's a personality issue, and that's where my player-character reference comes from. I understand the difference, but they are forever entangled concepts. When a player starts to tell the Gm and the rest of the group that his concepts are more important...he or she has to go.
Three words: Where you there? Five words: I can be sarcastic too. I have been game mastering since the day I started playing (admittedly only a short ten years ago), and unlike some certain people, I could GM up until the day I die and I will never put myself in a situation to where I would say or make the claim that because I have GM'd X amount of years I know enough about GMing to give out advice on it, or that my advice is anything more that any of this is: opinion. So before you go on spewing yours with your sarcastic phrasing and all cap'd words let me remind you that neither did I, nor anyone else, ask you for it.
I have had problem players in the past who had the ideal characters. Characters that grew over time, that went through the ringer and came out all the better for it, but whose player was horrible at the table. Conversely I've had the perfect players who have made the worst problem characters imaginable. The players are always ready, they know what they're doing, they're enjoying themselves, but the characters are the epitome of problematic. So no, the two concepts are not "forever entangled".
And for your information, not that I feel I owe you any damn explanation of my game, I always have a Session Zero. I hand picked the five players for this game out of a group of about 14 interested players, we then sat down and the game concept and world was explained to them. They built their characters together, they established their individual back stories and their group back story and we started. It wasn't until quite a few sessions (several months as we only play every other week) that the problems started creeping into the game and I had to find ways to deal with it. It wasn't until a few sessions later that the player mentioned made it clear he had no desire to change, but was willing to leave if it came down to it. Now the game is going strong and it has turned around so much that every one of those five players who were only a few short weeks ago at each others throats are constantly messaging each other on Facebook about how excited they are for the next session. I can't take credit for the turn around, but damnit if I could I would in a heartbeat.
TL;DR? I (and because that is already capitalized let me make sure to point out that I am cap-locking that for sarcastic effect) did not ask for your opinion, but "thanks".
Gee, pent up aggression much?
If we're going to "dick measure", I've been doing this since 1981. Furthermore, if you are going to post publicly, expect others to do so as well. That means that you are just as open to disagreement, comment, and criticism as the rest of us. If you cannot handle that sort of environment, then I suggest you take your anger and focus it elsewhere. No sarcasm was originally intended, but since you've decided to interpret everything I say in a negative fashion, I welcome you to interpret this: Either participate like an adult and accept that the statements of others are also welcome, or move back into your mother's basement and grump to yourself. I no longer care.
Vent away, Timothy. The floor is yours.
This is an unfortunate problem I've encountered in many games, even amoung friends. In one of the groups I play with there is always one bloke who wants to be the "bad guy" even though we're trying to play a band of heroes. He often goes out of his way to play monstrous races too, if the GM will let him, which only heightens the turbulence amoung the various players. At one point his character was acting against the group in a very important situation that ended up spoiling the on-going story between a noble family and a time-traveling twilight dragon we were trying to aid. The group was rather upset and after a hard vote we asked him to either tone down his evil tendencies or quit. The game simply wasn't any fun with him mucking about. Thankfully he agreed to tone things down, but he still has his moments. I personally hope that as he is exposed to different play styles he'll come around.
Playing evil is fine if you do it right. I'm playing a cunning Rogue in a different game who's always working behind the scenes to "obtain" resources or influence (slaves, information, weapons, etc), none of which any self-respecting hero would be happy about. But as those scatter-brained companions of mine have never really poked around or asked too much, I've gotten away relatively unscathed, with resources to spare, which has only increased my notoriety amoung the criminal underworld.
My advice is to try and work things out of game, since these types of conflicts are rarely the result of character actions and more to due with player attitude and play. Session Zero is incredibly important, as is a healthy understanding that D&D is a game of fun, and if someone is doing something consistently that isn't fun for everyone else, then you have a major issue that needs to be resolved. If the players in my Rogue game became incredibly upset with my shenanigans I would go out of my way to tone things down and restructure the character as needed.
Hopefully things came be done nicely, but every now and then you just need to let someone go. Sometimes people just want to be jerks and their isn't anything in or out of game you can do about it other than move on without them.
Zachary Nancekivell If you have a blatently evil player running around with a bunch of heroes you could always deal with it in game through RP or combat. Enough of this type of action will cause the player to either change the way he plays or stop going. Nerdarchist Ted
Nerdarchy I've seen that happen, though just the once. He came back to the table a few months later with an apology and much improved attitude. Sometimes tough love works.
Hmm DM 911. Lately I've been stuck on this campaign I've been running. Inspiration just doesn't want to hit me.
The campaign is loosely based on the forgotten realms. It's mainly about a brewer dwarf that ends up in a jungle where he discovers a clan of dwarves that are trying to rebuild an old dwarven city that is under the ground.
At first there were some problems with lizardfolk, but now those are solved and I need a new challenge/ threat/storyarch.
Anyone have any good ideas I could use?
Yea we can help this one for sure.
-Nerdarchist Dave
I'm looking forward to it then :)
I didn't read-up on the new Paladin thing you mentioned, about them not being goody-two-shoes. Man, I am so stuck in AD&D 2nd Edition. I've been egging my Paladin player to keep my rowdy Sorcerer player in line.
The Sorcerer keeps trying to seduce every female NPC, He tried to get "lucky" with the cleric of the Shrine of Luck in the Mines of Phandelvin adventure, in the Starters Kit, and he rolled a "1". I had her blind him for three hours and I think that worked.
We'll "see" next week.
That's funny. I've got the cure if you got the stomach for it. One word Succubus.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Oh that's cruel and awesome at the same time.
William Colletti That is Dave.Nerdarchist Ted