Serious Frustration (PC Conflict)


Advice


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So my Pathfinder games have been going down the toilet lately. One game I'm playing in is frustrating because our GM is always busy taking care of her kids and husband. I'm not trying to harp on her, we all have things we have to do; but we hardly get anything done in a session.

So I decided to start a new game on Sundays with my boyfriend and some of his friends. It started out great with a bit of metagaming but mostly getting things done. They finished with the first magazine for Carrion Crown in a month. However, things have since gone down hill. The problem is largely conflict between myself (the GM) and one other player. He is one of those people who have played a lot of DnD games (though he's younger than I am by a couple of years), but all the games he's played have been those *crazy* kind of games. You know, the ones where everyone plays by the game mechanics, but all kinds of crazy things go on such as characters from anime jumping in and the like. He's played by the rules by never played *by the rules*. I like to run a game that is logical, orderly, and run by the social/economical/judicial rules.

The conflict all started with alignment. He decided to make his ratfolk Lawful Good. The problem is that he does not play his character as a Lawful Good character. Now I understand that alignment is not set in stone, but he tries to justify all of his actions and thoughts within his alignment. For example, thinking that it's a good idea to punch through a wall in a derelict farmhouse with the entire party in it. No matter how hard he tried to argue the point, lets face it that was not thought or act of a LG character.

I also think that he is one of those people who like to incite party conflict for "fun" while trying to justify it as roleplaying. Example, this evening he tries to explain that he does not trust my character and thinks she is psychotic. I am also role-playing a LG Inquistor of Pharasma. The PC's reasoning behind this was when I started off the group running them through the Godsmouth Heresy my character rushed in to attack the alchemist who was *clearly* creating undead. He (and the other party members) also let one of the undead creations go without my character's knowledge. Now I kind of get that action and it could possibly be construed as a "good" and/or "lawful" action since we were in Kaer Maga at the time. However, claiming conflict with my character based on a general convention against undead and necromancers of any kind does not make sense to me. Most societies view undead as evil and the destruction of them as good. As a LG character, viewing another LG character as crazy evil is ridiculous.

I get that he is *trying* to roleplay his character, but the problem I'm having is "is he roleplaying his character realistically, or is he just trying to stir up conflict". He has already stated that he likes party conflict, but in this game he seems to have singled out me as his target. I don't think dropping my character from the game would actually solve any problems because I think he would just turn the conflict on npcs and cause problems with the campaign and throw a fit when I have npcs act accordingly to his attitude.

I played with a group when I first moved up here where I had the same problem. Only with this group of people, a few of them went out of their way to do things in game to piss me off. I ended up quitting that game because it ended up feeling like a chore.

I don't want to act like a douchbag dm dictating how people play their characters, but no one HAS to start crap with other players and be purposely distrustful or annoying to roleplay.

At this point my boyfriend is pretty much going to quit the game because he doesn't want to deal with the arguing. I would kind of like to have a sit down conversation about this, but also feel like that particular player is just going to claim that he's not trying to start fights and feel like I'm trying to control him by telling him to knock off the party conflict.

At this point I think it might be a good idea to take a break from roleplaying for a couple of months.


I find you cannot be both a GM and a player and expect to run a successful game.

You may be appearing to give your character the lucky breaks or making insightful choices based on GM knowledge and not player knowledge. You may also be getting annoyed that the player isn't making the choices you want him to make and therefore playing the adventure out like you think it should happen, presuming you have already prepared the adventure material. It is highly likely from what you are saying is that the player is reacting to your dual role and deliberately making choices that disrupt your plan, probably because they want to be the one driving the direction of the game for a while.

My advice, is that if you want to GM, you should not play a PC in the same adventure. You should think ahead about what the players may do and plan the encounters and reactions of the NPCs in advance (I keep a diary/log of my NPCs reactions to different events both PC and non-PC related). Once you have that in place, enjoy the session regardless of what the PCs decide to do and don't try to railroad them. They will go off script but you will at least have an idea of what is likely to happen and will have the pleasure of seeing the story being written as it is played.


First: is there an out-of-game dynamic between you and the player in question that may be affecting your attitude toward them? If so, the solution is 100% interpersonal, and not related to the game. I'm not sure it applies to your situation, but this crops up a lot, so you have to look for it.

Second: I'm not personally certain how "punching through a wall in a derelict farmhouse with the entire party in it" is unlawful or non-good behavior. I understand that for you, this is merely an example of many instances where the character was "pushing" his alignment, but it serves as a good example of how alignment disputes need communication between the player and GM. You didn't give me enough information to make the call in your thread, which means you may not have given the player enough information... it happens.

Was there some consequence to punching a hole in the wall? Was a ceiling collapse imminent? Did the player know this?

Now, I'm not taking the player's side specifically, just working with the information you gave.

The question you and your other players need to ask is, is this guy the kind of person you would want to spend an enjoyable evening with doing anything other than RPGs? Dinner? Movies? "Hangin' out"? If the answer is no, he needs to go. If the answer is "yes", you need to talk it out with him away from the gaming table; treat it as a personality clash between friends with no game context.


Call a time out. Have an actual conversation about what you're looking for in a game.

Serious or funny?
Sweeping saga, or episodes?
Careful attention to rules or focus on story?
Exploration or combat?
Social in character role playing or diplomacy checks and move on?

As GM, you're able to run anything you like. But the players have the right to say, "no thanks, sounds dull"

Try to meet in the middle.


Hugo Rune wrote:

I find you cannot be both a GM and a player and expect to run a successful game.

You may be appearing to give your character the lucky breaks or making insightful choices based on GM knowledge and not player knowledge. You may also be getting annoyed that the player isn't making the choices you want him to make and therefore playing the adventure out like you think it should happen, presuming you have already prepared the adventure material. It is highly likely from what you are saying is that the player is reacting to your dual role and deliberately making choices that disrupt your plan, probably because they want to be the one driving the direction of the game for a while.

My advice, is that if you want to GM, you should not play a PC in the same adventure. You should think ahead about what the players may do and plan the encounters and reactions of the NPCs in advance (I keep a diary/log of my NPCs reactions to different events both PC and non-PC related). Once you have that in place, enjoy the session regardless of what the PCs decide to do and don't try to railroad them. They will go off script but you will at least have an idea of what is likely to happen and will have the pleasure of seeing the story being written as it is played.

I have thought about dropping my character because two weeks ago there was an issue, but due to a difficult conflict last weekend they decided to leave my character in.

That being said, in general my character doesn't run around forcing the group to do much because I don't want them to feeling like I'm ram rodding them into doing what I want them to do. The only time I step up and do anything special is if it becomes an character specific issue. For example killing any undead that shows up. She is a follower of Pharasma and that is a mandate of her religion.

This particular character is doing little things that don't really involve the direction of the game, it's more like he's trying to start deliberate conflict with my character for no reason. The roleplaying excuse I don't think cuts it since it's conflict from a LG character against a LG character as opposed to conflict with the CN party member.

I don't think that me dropping my character would honestly change anything because I believe this particular person would just shift his distrust/arguments to NPCs and then disrupt the actual game instead of just dealing in in-party conflict.

I think part of the problem is that this adventure is probably build more for Lawful character types or Good character types and all of my players are essentially playing Chaotic Neutral characters (no matter what they're alignment is) They are typical young men who just want to play games where they run around and kill things and start fights. I am, unfortunately, when running and playing a game like this to run things as the adventure path dictates. I've thought about this before, but I think this group would be a lot more suited to playing something like X Crawl where any kind of conflict fits and is perfectly fine and antagonism toward the Dungeon Judge is encouraged (and I've been fine roleplaying this before). But trying to run a serious campaign in a country like Ustalav doesn't work with people that all want to essentially play Chaotic Neutral characters and do whatever and not want to face the consequences of their actions.


rkraus2 wrote:

Call a time out. Have an actual conversation about what you're looking for in a game.

Serious or funny?
Sweeping saga, or episodes?
Careful attention to rules or focus on story?
Exploration or combat?
Social in character role playing or diplomacy checks and move on?

As GM, you're able to run anything you like. But the players have the right to say, "no thanks, sounds dull"

Try to meet in the middle.

It probably would have made sense to pose this question before I picked the adventure path. Though at that point I think most of them would have wanted to focus on the story, especially since the majority of them haven't played that much. After running the game for awhile I should have switched to running X Crawl, I think it would have fit the group much better.


@ Hugo Rune: I actually am both GM'ing and playing in a game at the moment. Funny enough, I'm having an opposite problem from what you described. My character's not acting much at all because I'm constantly working on everything else going on in the game. (Hopefully it should get smoother as it goes though. Other than myself, all the other players have not played in any tabletop RPGs at all, so confusion on rules abounds.)

To the OP: It's hard to offer insight on this, because I don't know all the specifics. However, it sort of sounds like you are having a difference of playing styles. You want a game that is logical, where events happen for a reason - in short, it sounds like you are going for a moderately realistic setting, and expect the PC's to act appropriately in this world.

Your player on the other hand sounds like he is not as invested with that kind of setting. He wants to act a bit crazy at times, be silly with some of his actions, like inciting other players in game, and it sounds like he expects that based on previous games. (On inciting players though, if it seems sort of malicious, which it may be if it is causing OOC arguments, that's a whole different problem)

Basically, it seems like your styles of play are not matching up. In that case, I think you do need to talk to him, and possibly the rest of the group as well, in order to find what works for the majority of the group.

If everyone is interested in playing a bit crazy, like this player seems to be, then it may be best if you modify your setting, and let things like that slide. If everyone wants a realistic setting like you currently are going for, you need this player to get more in line to keep from breaking immersion.

In the second case, if the player continues to act outside of what seems natural after it being discussed, and it is having an impact on you and the rest of the players and how you want the game to go, you may need to start wielding your authority as GM to keep things in line.

Like I said, you obviously know more about your situation than I do, so this may not be an accurate portrayal of what's going on. Best I can think to say though as of yet.

(Moderately ninja'd by rkraus2)

Edit for a typo.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
First: is there an out-of-game dynamic between you and the player in question that may be affecting your attitude toward them? If so, the solution is 100% interpersonal, and not related to the game. I'm not sure it applies to your situation, but this crops up a lot, so you have to look for it.

He's not a person that I know very well so there isn't any out of game issues, but I have noticed he is a rather argumentative person and seems to want to get the last work/correct people about any number of topics.

Quote:

Was there some consequence to punching a hole in the wall? Was a ceiling collapse imminent? Did the player know this?

The act in question could have caused the building to collapse. As a group we had a discussion on this as a group and everyone in the group agreed that this was not a LG action (to put the entire party in danger), but he still tried to argue that alignment is flexible enough to allow it.

Quote:


The question you and your other players need to ask is, is this guy the kind of person you would want to spend an enjoyable evening with doing anything other than RPGs? Dinner? Movies? "Hangin' out"? If the answer is no, he needs to go. If the answer is "yes", you need to talk it out with him away from the gaming table; treat it as a personality clash between friends with no game context.

He is a person that I met when I started running this game. I'd probably hang out with him periodically, but not often as he seems to be the overly corrective/argumentative person who likes to do it just because and not to have a discussion on interesting topics.

I would like to have a conversation with him, but I don't think it would get anywhere as we are both the kind of people who like to be right. He would make the argument that he's roleplaying his character and if I try to get him to stop with the conflict with me that he will see it as me trying to lord over him and make him play a gm controlled zombie.


Thanks Darkwolf. You've said what I think is going on: a serious conflict of play styles. I can always try a sit down conversation about this. But it all depends on getting my boyfriend on board since he's already stated that he is going to quit because of all the conflict.


I see four problems here.

1. You should try not to take your own "character" through games while GMing because it tends to make the other players uncomfortable, and it inspires mistrust.

2. You have a player who has stated that he is disruptive and that he likes to be, and so he IS being disruptive, and you need to let him go. (Get rid of him - he will never change, on that you can trust me.)

3. You seem to have issues with other players, which you mistakenly put on them as their responsibility. By that I mean that all of your games seem to end, by your own admission, and you state that it is everybody's fault (for pissing you off) but yours. But I submit that it is more likely your problem that is causing this.

It's just simple math. If I take nine people who seem to be able to play together, and the only thing all of their bad games have in common, is the tenth person, who coincidentally is the one complaining that EVERYBODY ELSE sucks? I'm going to call the problem on Number 10's attitude.

4. All of you people with problems concerning a disruptive player (#2, above), really, really, really, really, really need to memorize this and the other 2,561,845 threads about disruptive players like this, all of which end pretty much with "get rid of him."

You shouldn't need to be told that. But at least do a search before bringing it up again for the 2,561,846th time.

Really. Does anybody NEED to be told to not hang out with somebody who irritates the hell out of them?


The other game that is going on is A. Not run by me B. Not a problem with any sort of party conflict.
I actually specified that the GM is busy with real life stuff during the game and we just get nothing done. I previously ran a game with this group and it went just fine. The game is not a bad game, it's just not going anywhere very fast and I am not the only person that feels a little frustrated. My boyfriend and myself are going to suggest board games because that way we can get together and don't have to worry about people needing to stop mid game to do things.

The issue is that I just started this game about 2 months ago and this player was invited because he is a friend of one of the people I specifically wanted to invite. I figured someone who had played DnD before would be an excellent edition to the game. I think (and I am not the only one) that trying to kick this other player would be a dick move at this point. The game is young and as Darkwolf stated, it's partially a play style conflict issue. I also don't want to alienate the person that I specifically wanted to join the game. So the choice here is to just drop the game completely or follow the good advice of the people here.


Couple comments -

Your NPC (GM player character): You should avoid running one. If you need one for party balance or becouse of the back ground story the party is involved in, turn that NPC over to a play to run for combat.

Alignment conflicts: These will always come up. If you think the player is doing something completely out of alignment. Stop him and tell him why before the action happens. Then if he continues telling him that you'll keep track and might change his alignment by DM fiat. Just dont do it all at once or make it happen after the action. As he might have his own reasons why what he is doing is in alignment. Allow him to give reasons and try to change your mind.

About the thread: It does sound like the group would much more prefer a dungeon type crawl where they just go around killing the bad guys.


Sarine wrote:
They are typical young men who just want to play games where they run around and kill things and start fights. I am, unfortunately, when running and playing a game like this to run things as the adventure path dictates.

It reads very much as though you want to play very different games. If you do decide to continue I would:

1. Turn your character into a player controlled NPC. Write up a personality profile and give it to the players - this would include, at a high level, her likes,dislikes motivations and things that would cause her to disassociate from the group. Only intervene if the player does something contrary to the character's personality profile. Then your actions are covered in relation to your ex-PCs actions.
2. Have a GM to player discussion about the nature of the campaign and explain that you are going to run it as written and that the PCs actions will have consequences.
3. Let the Adventure Path guide your game but don't let it dictate it. For many people creating the story as you go is part of the fun. If they wanted to follow the adventure script then they could read the Adventure Path themselves, or buy a book. When the party does something that goes off the AP script, imagine what would happen and build events from there. You may even decide that the party has gone so far off track that you decide to throw in a side adventure or two. Meanwhile develop events on the main AP, let it become your group's adventure.


I have run this AP myself, and it is good for alignments that are not lawful. Remember LG dose not mean that the PC is a shining beacon of compassion, just have a ordered code and do what they think is right. When I first started GMing I tried to "guide" the group to do what I thought was best. Conflict in the group started then I backed off and went with the flow. No more conflict. Everyone has a different idea of a fun adventure, but everyone hates sitting at the table and watching a fight to see who is right. My 2 cents. Oh and don't stop GMing it gets better.

Shadow Lodge

I agree that even if you don't think it will help step one is to relinquish control over the NPC party member and see where that gets you. Step two is a conversation about party styles.

Is everyone else having consistent problems with the guy's playstyle, or is it just that the DM and player are having a personality/playstyle conflict and the rest of the group is just sick of the two clashing? In particular, your boyfriend says he's bothered by the arguing, but not necessarily that he's bothered by the ratfolk player's actions in general. It's possible that he has no particular problem with the ratfolk alone but is only frustrated by the way that player causes you problems. That sort of empathy can be significant with gaming SOs. If that is the case, if you resolve your frustration, your boyfriend's problem will disappear.

Zarine wrote:
This particular character is doing little things that don't really involve the direction of the game, it's more like he's trying to start deliberate conflict with my character for no reason. The roleplaying excuse I don't think cuts it since it's conflict from a LG character against a LG character as opposed to conflict with the CN party member.

While the conflict might very well run deeper than roleplaying, I wouldn't dismiss it as artificial on the grounds that it's LG vs LG. Alignment is a very broad philosophical descriptor and not the only or best source of conflict. I recently played a LG Inquisitor whose best friend in the party was the CN sorcerer. Sure, the sorcerer was a self-absorbed trickster, but their tactics and skills complemented each other, and they bonded through adventure. On the other hand, the Inquisitor never got on that well with a LG Paladin NPC since the latter was stuffy and elitist, and he had serious conflicts with a LN NPC who he considered both mercenary and prone to hubris.

My advice is not to sweat the occasional alignment violation. It's not a straitjacket, it's a suggestion. If he consistently acts non-LG and the group agrees then you can alter alignment, but minor inconsistencies are no big deal.


I have played with a number of people over the years who get enjoyment from throwing wrenches into the games they play in. It might be one thing if that were a character the player is role-playing, but I get the impression that the person is the kind of player - and some of you know the type I am talking about - who enjoys throwing wrenches.

Perhaps in their minds it is to stir up the game and cause exciting situations. This can happen sometimes and can be fun, but honestly it gets predictable and old, because its inciting conflict. The player's motivation to play could change, through maturing, experience, whatever, but some people will not change quickly enough for you to put up with forever. So it is up to you to access the situation and make a decision you can live with. Get your gaming friends' opinions on the matter. Talk to problem player at least once, and maybe you both be adults avout it.

Maybe the situation will work itself out, maybe it won't. You need to decide how much enjoyment of the game you are willing to sacrifice in order to find out.


Just a note on GM PC's for those bringing them up: I personally don't see that it has much bearing here, and in general, I don't think it is much of a problem. Yes, some GM's might be dicks about it and have them play in god mode. That's a problem with the GM.

Provided the GM is not doing that, it really isn't too difficult to avoid metagaming if you make a decent attempt not to. If the players trust the GM not to abuse their avatar in the game (and, indeed, are correct in this trust), it really does not need to cause any problems in a gaming group.

At least, from what I've seen. YMMV, I suppose. Perhaps it is something I ought to bring up with my players though. I guess I could be making assumptions for them.


I make it a point not to do any actions that involve my knowledge of the AP which means that for a lot of things I do not suggest courses of actions or do searches for specific things unless the party suggests it.

I do agree with you all that I should just drop my character and the party will have to make do without a healer, which they can do. That should at least end the conflict between my player and the other PC. The issue then becomes if that person starts conflict with npcs and the like to stir up trouble. Of course if that happens I can roleplay the consequences.


And... what's the boyfriend's deal?

Also, DMPC... Done right, it's not an issue so long as they don't overshadow or fade into the woodwork. It's not easy, but doable. LG might not be the best alignment for it though. Maybe CG or LN, that way there's some way to justify "going along".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zarine wrote:

So my Pathfinder games have been going down the toilet lately. One game I'm playing in is frustrating because our GM is always busy taking care of her kids and husband. I'm not trying to harp on her, we all have things we have to do; but we hardly get anything done in a session.

So I decided to start a new game on Sundays with my boyfriend and some of his friends. It started out great with a bit of metagaming but mostly getting things done. They finished with the first magazine for Carrion Crown in a month. However, things have since gone down hill. The problem is largely conflict between myself (the GM) and one other player. He is one of those people who have played a lot of DnD games (though he's younger than I am by a couple of years), but all the games he's played have been those *crazy* kind of games. You know, the ones where everyone plays by the game mechanics, but all kinds of crazy things go on such as characters from anime jumping in and the like. He's played by the rules by never played *by the rules*. I like to run a game that is logical, orderly, and run by the social/economical/judicial rules.

The conflict all started with alignment. He decided to make his ratfolk Lawful Good. The problem is that he does not play his character as a Lawful Good character. Now I understand that alignment is not set in stone, but he tries to justify all of his actions and thoughts within his alignment. For example, thinking that it's a good idea to punch through a wall in a derelict farmhouse with the entire party in it. No matter how hard he tried to argue the point, lets face it that was not thought or act of a LG character.

I also think that he is one of those people who like to incite party conflict for "fun" while trying to justify it as roleplaying. Example, this evening he tries to explain that he does not trust my character and thinks she is psychotic. I am also role-playing a LG Inquistor of Pharasma. The PC's reasoning behind this was when I started off the group running them through the...

Zarine,

I see a lot of other responses that I don't necessarily feel address your problem. You want to play, and as the GM, you wouldn't get that chance. I get this, and I often play a "background PC" (sort of a step between a PC and an NPC) just to keep myself involved as the GM. Occasionally, if PCs start looking to my character too much for leadership, I'll lead them down a false path or lead them to some moderate disaster just to keep them from relying on my character too much. But... Enough about me.

Please remember that, as the GM, you control your players' environment. You control the weather, the up, the down, the horizontal, the vertical... You control the world-setting, and how your players choose to interact with that world-setting is up to them, but you define the rules of the world-setting. If your player is working against the harmony of the party, you have a few ways to address this...

The Direct: You approach the player and let them know that this is a problem, and it needs to be corrected. It's not the type of game that you're trying to run and it's actively interfering with your fun as both a player and as a GM (remember, GMs are not slaves to player happiness; they get to have fun, too). Be gentle, but firm. If that's not compatible with how you want to run your games, you may want to find another player for your table.

The Actions Have Consequences: If your player's character is acting out of alignment, let the player know that continued actions in that direction will force an alignment shift. This gives the player the opportunity to make a change or accept the alignment shift (and everything that goes with it). He can attempt to argue this with you, but as the GM, you are the final arbiter of the rules, and if you say that it's going to shift his alignment, then that's just how it is. So long as you're consistent, there's nothing to really complain about, and if he doesn't like it, he can find another game that suits his play-style; no harm, no foul.

The Go With The Flow: Let him play his character how he wants to and just try to have your fun alongside. This might shift the tone of your games, and that may cause conflict with other players, so it might be best to address this with the entire group. Come at it from a "I thought we could..." or "I would like to try..." rather than saying, "Lawful Good Ratkin's Player wants the game to go in this other direction, so..." so that you don't single this other player out for player-on-player ire. If your other players don't want to change the tone of the game, he'll get the message really quickly from his fellow players and then he either has to go with the flow or deal with the consequences.

As a rule, I would not encourage you to drop your character (against the advice of the other contributors to this thread) only because that might diminish your own fun (and this is supposed to be fun for you, too), and as you had mentioned before, your challenging player might begin zeroing in on other players for fun to their detriment. That, and your group losing their healer might cause some bad feelings all around the table as a vital role to the party is lost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I GM I think of all the NPCs as my PCs, and run them accordingly. That way I get to hve fun running a character while not interfering with the group. That way everyone has fun, thats why we play.

Dark Archive

The problem with running a DMPC is it puts pressure on the party and you cannot (in most campaigns) play a DMPC with really strong opinions (such as a pharasmite) because sometimes you end up making decisions for the party (such as killing the alchemist), which might not be where they want to go with that encounter, as an ex-pharasmite cleric himself the possibility of redemption also exists for him.

This can lead to a lack of trust which can cause the very issues of acting out that you have noticed in the ratkins player (as you made a decision that you would kill an NPC that he personally might have believed deserved to live).


Bodhizen wrote:
Zarine wrote:

So my Pathfinder games have been going down the toilet lately. One game I'm playing in is frustrating because our GM is always busy taking care of her kids and husband. I'm not trying to harp on her, we all have things we have to do; but we hardly get anything done in a session.

So I decided to start a new game on Sundays with my boyfriend and some of his friends. It started out great with a bit of metagaming but mostly getting things done. They finished with the first magazine for Carrion Crown in a month. However, things have since gone down hill. The problem is largely conflict between myself (the GM) and one other player. He is one of those people who have played a lot of DnD games (though he's younger than I am by a couple of years), but all the games he's played have been those *crazy* kind of games. You know, the ones where everyone plays by the game mechanics, but all kinds of crazy things go on such as characters from anime jumping in and the like. He's played by the rules by never played *by the rules*. I like to run a game that is logical, orderly, and run by the social/economical/judicial rules.

The conflict all started with alignment. He decided to make his ratfolk Lawful Good. The problem is that he does not play his character as a Lawful Good character. Now I understand that alignment is not set in stone, but he tries to justify all of his actions and thoughts within his alignment. For example, thinking that it's a good idea to punch through a wall in a derelict farmhouse with the entire party in it. No matter how hard he tried to argue the point, lets face it that was not thought or act of a LG character.

I also think that he is one of those people who like to incite party conflict for "fun" while trying to justify it as roleplaying. Example, this evening he tries to explain that he does not trust my character and thinks she is psychotic. I am also role-playing a LG Inquistor of Pharasma. The PC's reasoning behind this was when I started off the group

...

This, +1, listen to this guy here. He kinda ninjaed what I wanted to say.

I myself have had troubles with DMPCs so I am avoiding them for now but I have seen DMs who can adapt and do it like a pro, and it fact make the game 10x better because they use this DMPC.

Shadow Lodge

Some GMPCs can work quite well. But they can also be a big problem.

In my first D&D campaign ever the GM introduced a GMPC who was just better than everyone else - the GM understood the system and basic optimization, the rest of us didn't. I've also seen NPCs who the GM is obviously attached to for whatever reason and who at one point or another derail the experience by taking agency away from the PCs or just upstaging them.

Not necessarily the problem here, but that move to kill the alchemist did hurt player agency and it's possible there are other problems you're unaware of. Alternatively, the ratfolk player could have had bad experiences with GMPCs in the past and that might be colouring his reactions to your GMPC in the absence of any fault on your part.

It is absolutely your right to have fun as a GM, but if the GMPC is contributing to the conflict and the conflict is ruining your fun, it might be a good idea to remove her. Have the cleric take a vacation and see if that helps or hurts the situation. If it doesn't improve anything, you can always bring her back. If it fixes problems, that vacation is now permanent.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Serious Frustration (PC Conflict) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.