|
You don't want to try to out-munchkin a munchkin
That's great advice. What you describe is like MAD (mutually assurred destruction) - the policy of cold warriors decades ago to ensure that if the Ruskies launched, we would launch too to ensure the post-apocalyptic landscape wasn't governed by neo marxists.
Besides - if you're needed to kill a character, then you've given up on true communication. That's really important for a GM, regardless of the circumstances. Good luck, but you'll get no munchkin help from me on this.
In essence, the way each operates (possibly after errata) is that they each let you wield a weapon one size category larger than yourself.
Note that I said "should." This particular "ruling" is highly questionable. Core, with no special abilities or feats, any medium character can wield a huge kukri. And while I'm fine with magic effects (strongarm bracers, balance weapons) not stacking with anything similar, two unrelated (Ex) abilities have no business being mutually exclusive.
And the -2 is not for monkey grip. It's for wielding an oversized weapon. Monkey grip just doesn't explicitly remove that penalty, like the other options do.
Wait, I think i know this guy...Drow, Sorcerer, longsword and blaster spells, armour... wants to outdo whole gorup...
Does that need comments?
Good luck in case that you are playing with him
How do they plan to accomplish all this?
Whining at the GM. Suiciding characters who didn't roll higher abilities than the rest of us.
Trying to reincarnate the dark goddess who died in the last compaign... by building an altar and fiddling with the dice long enough to get a natural 20. Or at least trying to pick up the remaining gear from his previously fallen characters. Previouly fallen in a compaign 300 years in the past.
Trying constantly to take personal sub-quests for more XP and soloing as much as he could. Of course that he didn't want the others to take any quests with him, unless he was the boss and got the lion's share of the reward.
Actively and passively opposing the other players - Destroying quest items, running away from encounters to trap the escape route 'just in case some creatures tried to run', ... aehm... what you you think that you can accomplish by throwing a fireball on an archlich at level 6... oh, the drow have a spell resistance while the rest of the party doesn't... tough luck guys. Petty revenge for foiuled plots of the previous characters.
Attacking anything for XP.
Awaking the Tarrasque and asking for XP for destroying the kingdom.
Chainmail bikini. Yes, the not-so-slim guy had ALWAYS played a female character with 18 CHA and approached diplomacy with power, breasts and gold solve every problem attitude.
... a lot of meaningful advice for the others to follow.
Yeah, try this on a guy who somehow thinks he can win the D&D game.
Take this as a warning and an example where bad attitude can spol the fun for the others.
I gotta build for your problem player.
Gnome Bard-Ranger-Mystic Theurge.
You get divine spells, arcane spells, decent armor, and passable melee attacks!
And the skill points you'll rack up! Man, you'll be ready for ANYTHING!
Or, if you're willing to give up the l33t studmuffin rangering stuff, go Bard/Oracle/Mystic Theurge! This way, all your spells come from Charisma! And you get your charisma bonus spells twice!
On the off chance someone thinks I'm being anything other than facetious, check the gain on the sarcasm detector. :)
In my 25 years of gaming I have learned that the best way to fix these types of problems is to avoid them entirely.
Personally, I am very selective about who I let in my campaigns (the campaigns I care about anyway). My campaign currently has 3 players that I spent 3 months looking. After selecting from my existing friends who game, I joined meetup groups and met with potential players that way. At this point in my life, I'd rather not game that game disfuncionally.
I know that doesn't help you, but you're basically asking us how to fix a problem that is only fixable with a time machine. Your only recourse now is to kick him out of the group. If you can't man up and do that, end the campaign and start a new one without inviting him.
If you want a bandaid to get you by, you can split up the party. Have his character do his own thing while the other players play in the "real campaign". At that point, throw some nasty monsters at him and have him run the combat himself. Any muchkin worth his salt will gladly take the opportunity to prove how tough his character is.
As far as killing characters goes, my standing rule is that I only kill characters if the player wants me to. I'm not opposed to reducing a character to being carried around on the fighter's back because he has no legs, but I won't kill him outright. A DM's goal should be to create adversity to advance a character's story, not to beat the players.
I gotta build for your problem player.
Gnome Bard-Ranger-Mystic Theurge.
You get divine spells, arcane spells, decent armor, and passable melee attacks!
And the skill points you'll rack up! Man, you'll be ready for ANYTHING!
Or, if you're willing to give up the l33t studmuffin rangering stuff, go Bard/Oracle/Mystic Theurge! This way, all your spells come from Charisma! And you get your charisma bonus spells twice!
On the off chance someone thinks I'm being anything other than facetious, check the gain on the sarcasm detector. :)
NONONONO
It must be the sorcerer, the single most powerful class since Baldur's Gate II was around, Drow, or at least an elf, which are always slim and physically attractive and be an armored spellcaster (shush with the gnome). Ranger and bard are soooo weak and they don't get spells that go boom. Skills other than diplomacy, bluff and search are for loosers. When he says he does it and gives detailed description of how he intends to do it in a GM proof detail, it works as intended, or GM is maliciously opposing him. Divine spells are for loosers (other side-kicks... I mean players). The Sword is to be a +5 life stealing weapon that allows casting two spells in one round, the armour aside from it's other properties simply has 0 interference with the spellcasting. Of course that a Ring of Wizardry IS an appropriate treasre for lvl 3 players. It was to be found in Baldur's Gate on that level anyway.
Seriously we don't play with the guy for quite some time, but he's a source of amusement for us ever since.
Zmar wrote "Actively and passively opposing the other players - Destroying quest items, running away from encounters to trap the escape route 'just in case some creatures tried to run', ... aehm... what you you think that you can accomplish by throwing a fireball on an archlich at level 6... oh, the drow have a spell resistance while the rest of the party doesn't... tough luck guys. Petty revenge for foiuled plots of the previous characters."
I once played in a campaign with multiple GMs who also ran a PC. Everthing went fine and dandy until it became...let us call him Jim...Jim's turn to GM.
Now the norm was that the GMs PC would play a passive role but Jim's ran off down the corridor, found the secret door which by-passed all traps straight into a room full of all things nice for Jim's PC.
The next scenario consisted of another GM placing a sword (special purpose "Kill Jim's PCs") as a main treasure...
Then we all grew up and stopped playing silly b$^7ers.
I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.
Have you perhaps thought of a lateral solution to this problem?
I don't know your level of roleplaying vs. straight combat, but could you have the local townsfolks take offense at something the character did? Perhaps he insulted the blacksmith, who also serves as the town's mayor? Has he ever pinched a tavern wench? In some cultures this is a duellable offense. If he hasn't yet, it is easy to set something up. Play the NPCs like they have their own pride and agendas, and players will often trip themselves up in their interactions with them.
When I am dealing with someone who shrugs off attacks, making his character unliked or taunted constantly is a good way of 'cutting' him down to size without pulling out the big orbital bovine launcher. After all, someone with a few levels of paladin can't really go around killing every peasant who throws a rotten tomato at him in the street. Having his bad-azz character constantly reviled in the street presents him with an issue he can't solve with a sword.
Just a thought ...
|
I was once playing in a group where we let a couple of younger players in and they were terrible. Their characters had at least three 18s (these were 2nd Ed days). If anything happened they magically appeared even if they were in another room or place. It was very annoying.
So, my character and the worst character of the crew were on the top of a ruined tower and their was a desk (the tower had obviously been exploded sometime in the past) and the charcter pushed mine aside to get to whatever was in the desk. Alas, it was explosding runes and he went down. We were burning goblin zombie bodies outside the tower so I lowered a rope down the side of the tower and put the body on fire. The player never understood what happened to his body and I was much relieved. Earned my dwarf the nickname of Elfburner (still proudly worn).
Don't know if I would recommend it but I decided to take care of it as a character. I think he decided not to play after that...
I sometimes vette new players by doing character creation with this:
It does a very good job of weeding out the people I *don't* want to play with, and gives everyone else an interesting and mutually acceptable concept to build towards if we switch systems. (About 2/3 of the time, we don't - we have enough fun with Minimus that it's become our 'no real effort required' RPG')
|
First off you've been too lenient with this player since day one. Remaking characters is one thing (heck, we've remade twice now in a 15 year campaign as we've done edition switching), but players choosing to do it on their own is completely inappropriate. As a DM you need to learn to put your foot down a little and try to nip some of this kind of activities in the bud.
Now for your current issues, I've been in this same situation. The best advice I can give is that the passive aggressive approach (read: killing the character) will not work. You'll just start a war of escalation in which everybody at the table will begin to resent the game. Eventually everything will fall apart for everybody, and my guess is that's not your goal.
Your only effective means for controlling the situation is to approach the player directly (friend or not). Tell him that his actions are making it difficult for you to effectively run a fun game for everybody at the table, yourself included. Let him know that you want him in your game, but he can't continue the same attitude. If he really is a good friend he'll understand, if not, then maybe it's appropriate he's a friend that doesn't play RPGs with you. Learning to give and be on the receiving end of constructive criticism is a life skill that it sounds like both of you need to experience.
Trust me, trying to rescue the situation by not addressing the situation has a much better chance of causing somebody to blow than just simply stating the facts as they are.
<Pauses from washing the blood off his set of cockatrice feather quill pens.>
For those who missed it, back on Page 1 the original poster did say he was going to try diplomacy:
To be honest I think I'll talk to him first. You rascals convinced me ;) Failing that I might do it, though I doubt it.
He has no plans to kick him out of the group. He just said he will kill his character, so how does that solve anything?
PS: I dont know if the OP still plans to kill the guy. That was just the idea from the initial post. It seems as though alternate solutions may be attempted.
<Goes back to cleaning his quills and drops out of the thread.>
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So I've decided to kill one of the characters ... he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him.
Killing him is bad.
It is much better to follow the rules, go straight RAW if you need to, then disallow him doing anything he doesn't a rule to back up.
If he debates, tell him that 1) your ways is RAW, and 2) even if your way wasn't RAW he needs to accept that your way is how the rule will be implemented.
Do not allow debate, just tell him that if he wishes to play in your game he needs to accept your interpretations of the RAW.
He will get on board, or find another game. Simple solution.
Disallowing debate is bad. It's the height of tyranny to refuse your players the chance to explain themselves. And it's saying, "I am right. I am always right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, no exceptions." That's just not something the DM should be saying, particularly since it's entirely possible for the DM to be flat wrong, and interpret a rule incorrectly and in such a way that ruins the game that the player agreed to come and play, rendering their perfectly valid and legal and fair character pretty much unplayable.
It's abusive and disrespectful of the players; your friends.
|
The one other thing I might recommend. Make sure that if this does come down to a PC kill for this character, use a weapon/spell-effect/spell that prevents resurrection. If he is as... adamant about certain things as it would seem from your commentary, he might get really dog+bone about bringing this character back on general principle.
Eberron has the "Keeper's Fang" weapons, for example.
I'm with Viletta on this one. Killing a character to solve a player problem (and/or disallowing debate) just seems like an all-around bad idea.
I'm glad to hear that more diplomatic solutions are in the works, and I would be curious to hear how it turns out.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Disallowing debate is bad. It's the height of tyranny to refuse your players the chance to explain themselves. And it's saying, "I am right. I am always right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, no exceptions." That's just not something the DM should be saying, particularly since it's entirely possible for the DM to be flat wrong, and interpret a rule incorrectly and in such a way that ruins the game that the player agreed to come and play, rendering their perfectly valid and legal and fair character pretty much unplayable.
Viletta, as I mention above, I'm wholly in your corner when it comes to dealing with the situation like a couple of adults.
But I think James is talking about debating the rules at the table, during a session. And I don't know anybody who wants to stop play and argue about how Pathfinder's Cleave and Vital Strike interface, in the midst of a Hill Giant Barbarian's attack on the party. The GM makes a ruling and goes on.
I would wager you'd agree with that.
On another note: you, I, and most every other person who runs a home game has house rules. Given that, a Game Master can announce ill-considered house rules, can erroneously claim to be playing rules-as-written, or can rule inconsistently from one week to the next. But in a home game, the GM can't be wrong. It's only in organized play environments, playtests, or other similar circumstances where GMs "interpret rules" correctly or incorrectly. In home games, GMs make rulings.
In my campaigns, if I announced that some phenomenon happened, I'd be vexed if a player announced I was "flat wrong". The player would get a great deal more milage out of asking whether I'd intended the phenomenon as a rules change.
--+--+--
All of which is tangential to the two main issues here:
1) For the GM to send an attack against the PC because its player is irritating is churlish. If the group wants the player to remain, there should be out-of-character talking. If they want him to just leave, there should be an out-of-character dismissal. But an overwhelming assault on the PC sends the player the absolute worst message: we want you to play, but to be competitive, you need to twink out your next character more.
2) It is very difficult to dispose of a player's body, particularly in a large metropolitan area. Burial in a very large body of water and being fed to pigs are two pretty common solutions, but pigs hate the taste of D&Ders (they say we taste "gamey") and arcane casters float.
But I think James is talking about debating the rules at the table, during a session. And I don't know anybody who wants to stop play and argue about how Pathfinder's Cleave and Vital Strike interface, in the midst of a Hill Giant Barbarian's attack on the party. The GM makes a ruling and goes on.
I would wager you'd agree with that.
That is entirely dependent on the consequences. If it's a case where a character is going to live or die depending on this ruling, you stop the game and make sure that it is indeed by the book. If it's a case where the full-health Barbarian is going to take ten damage from the ogre before it gets put to sleep and coup de grace'd, you make a temporary ruling, set it aside, and figure it out after the session.
On another note: you, I, and most every other person who runs a home game has house rules. Given that, a Game Master can announce ill-considered house rules, can erroneously claim to be playing rules-as-written, or can rule inconsistently from one week to the next. But in a home game, the GM can't be wrong. It's only in organized play environments, playtests, or other similar circumstances where GMs "interpret rules" correctly or incorrectly. In home games, GMs make rulings.
If the group is agreeing to come together and play a game, they are agreeing to play, more or less, by the rules of the game, agreed upon in advance. Houserules are made before the game begins, or between sessions, not mid-play except in the most extreme of cases, and even passing a houserule between sessions is a huge deal, as that can change some of the underlying assumptions that led the players to build their characters the way they did.
An example. If one player comes to the table with a warrior/alchemist who slaps quickfrost, quickflame, and quickspark on her sword, and holds that in reserve as her trump card, then when the big bad comes, she lets those out for +1d6 each of fire, ice, and electric damage on her attacks for a round, then charges the big bad, at which point the DM declares that the fire damage and the ice damage cancel each other out? The DM is factually wrong, in a major way that destroys the big moment and what was supposed to be the character's signature attack. Ignoring whether or not stopping the game is a good thing, if the player brings up the books that say nothing of fire damage and ice damage canceling each other out, and the DM simply says, "Houserule," or declares it a 'ruling,' that DM is being a bad DM. This is an ability the player invested in, based on the rules of the game that everyone agreed to play. It's not some Pun-Punesque superpower used to maliciously break the game for everyone. Yet the DM undercuts the rules that were the basis of the character, doing what amounts to telling the Barbarian Power Attack does nothing or BAB counts for half out of the blue.
There is always a degree of flexibility. However, the DM can be wrong. Very much so. The group is gathered to play the game, and if the DM's 'rulings' are so egregious and flagrantly contrary to the rules that that the players ultimately cannot play the game that everyone agreed to come together and play? That DM is wrong and has failed as a dungeon master, disrespected her players, and spat upon the social contract.
In my campaigns, if I announced that some phenomenon happened, I'd be vexed if a player announced I was "flat wrong". The player would get a great deal more milage out of asking whether I'd intended the phenomenon as a rules change.
That which is, that which is known, and that which is announced are entirely different things. That the DM is flat wrong is distinct from there being enough evidence to know and prove it. Which is why there has to be that communication.
Disallowing debate is bad. It's the height of tyranny to refuse your players the chance to explain themselves. And it's saying, "I am right. I am always right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, no exceptions." That's just not something the DM should be saying, particularly since it's entirely possible for the DM to be flat wrong, and interpret a rule incorrectly and in such a way that ruins the game that the player agreed to come and play, rendering their perfectly valid and legal and fair character pretty much unplayable.
It's abusive and disrespectful of the players; your friends.
While you are right to a point, I feel you are completely wrong in the end. From whats been said so far, the DM has tried to talk to the player in question. It seems the players style simply doesn't mesh with the rest of the group. You seem to be suggesting the group as a whole should be willing to compromise their enjoyment so one guy can play the game the way he wants because the book says he can. How do you see that ending? The one with the most time and energy invested is probably the guy running the show. Even if he is completely wrong, if the rest of the group is happy with how things are going, its not going to change. The best thing they can do is simply part ways on good terms. A drawn out debate wont change anything if the group as a whole doesnt like the one players style of play, legal or not.
Back to the original subject of the thread.
What's the challenge rating of this player? Is killing him going to get you enough XPs to level up?
I suspect you'll want those extra hit points when you're in jail for murder.
(Tongue so firmly in cheek I taste earwax).
While you are right to a point, I feel you are completely wrong in the end. From whats been said so far, the DM has tried to talk to the player in question. It seems the players style simply doesn't mesh with the rest of the group. You seem to be suggesting the group as a whole should be willing to compromise their enjoyment so one guy can play the game the way he wants because the book says he can. How do you see that ending? The one with the most time and energy invested is probably the guy running the show. Even if he is completely wrong, if the rest of the group is happy with how things are going, its not going to change. The best thing they can do is simply part ways on good terms. A drawn out debate wont change anything if the group as a whole doesnt like the one players style of play, legal or not.
The "banning debate is bad" thing is more general advice than specific.
Anyways, "tried to talk," doesn't necessarily mean they're doing it well. If you go to someone and say at them, "You're doing this, that, and the other wrong, so stop it or else, you ninny," that's not going to work, and it doesn't even qualify as an attempt. "I talked to him," doesn't necessarily imply that communication happened, and could just as easily mean, "I talked at him and didn't listen to a word he said."
Assume nothing.
Also, playstyle may not be the fundamental issue. In fact, it could be that if the group really sat down and talked about what they ultimately want out of a game, their fundamental philosophies of gaming, and why they do what they do? They may say, "Now that I understand what you're looking for, we can actually work with that."
It could be that the player is trying to understand the system and use it to get his characters across and failing, and he's getting frustrated, and doesn't know how to properly channel that frustrations.
Many of the problems with how he speaks with people could be just that; the way he talks, not the way he feels or intends things. Some people are coarse and flat rude but don't mean anything by it, and if you get yourself worked up over it, you are quite literally getting worked up over nothing.
And "because the book says he can" has absolutely nothing to do with this case at all. In fact, despite what the opening post says, all reports point to this player being extraordinarily bad at making functional characters and working with the rules.
Now, then. I'm not saying the entire group should sacrifice their fun for this one player. I'm saying they should try to work with this player, to find common ground so that everyone can have fun. This guy obviously wants something out of gaming. If you can find out what it is and give it to him in such a way that the rest of the group still has a game that they enjoy, then everyone can be happy and you're not diminishing the group.
The thing about kicking people out, and the community's frequent knee-jerk, "Kill his character and throw that jerk out," reaction is... this is not a very large hobby. There are not a whole lot of gamers in the world. It's hard to get together a gaming group, and if you kick that guy out, you could well be kicking him out of a hobby that already doesn't have enough people. And the more groups there are that are run by pricks who would sooner kick people out of their little club than try to work with and understand them, the more the hobby is going to bleed out.
It may not work. It may be that the best thing to do is part ways. However, that is not a first resort. It is not a second resort. In fact, that is not a resort at all. It is an abject failure to solve the problem. The objective is not to fail. The objective is to succeed. Assume that you will succeed in making a game that is spectacular for everyone; the DM, the player in question, the rest of the players, everyone. Then work from there, try to understand everyone involved, try to understand what everyone wants, pick apart which expectations are reasonable and unreasonable, and work from there. And if it doesn't work, you fail, the guy's out, and it's a tragedy.
The "banning debate is bad" thing is more general advice than specific...
<Well considered advice>
...
+1
Thanks! This helps.<kai>
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If it's a case where a character is going to live or die depending on this ruling, you stop the game and make sure that it is indeed by the book.
We may differ in opinion. I don't mind questioning a ruling, and I don't mind a player quickly offering up his opinion (or showing the paragraph) to prove his interpretation. What I am referring to is when the DM rules it one way or another and the player continues to try to convince the DM his ruling is wrong.
I simply don't appreciate that as a DM or a player. I tend to avoid (quit playing) games where there is too much conflict over the rules.
I play in 4 games a week (5 different DM's/games), and we rarely ever debate a ruling.
The best thing to do if you differ with the DM on rulings too often for your taste is to quit playing his game.
Now I know this sounds like I'm whining and I should really just talk to him, but the problem is that it's not possible. He'll just explode and probably not want to play anymore. Killing off the character seems like the only solution that gives me some peace and quiet and more importantly keeps the peace in the group.
Question: If this guy is going to blow up at you when you try to reason with him outside of the game, how well do you think he is going to take it when you go out of your way to kill off his character, completely out of his control?
To me the choice is either make the effort to talk to him and see if the 2 of you can come to some sort of compromise outside of the game, or don't invite him anymore. If your plan is solely to go out of your way to antagonize him into blowing up at the gaming table and perhaps hoping he storms out of the door in front of witnesses... well you better hope that none of your other players see through your plan (or read these forums) because that might be the end of all your players.
Now I know this sounds like I'm whining and I should really just talk to him, but the problem is that it's not possible. He'll just explode and probably not want to play anymore. Killing off the character seems like the only solution that gives me some peace and quiet and more importantly keeps the peace in the group.Question: If this guy is going to blow up at you when you try to reason with him outside of the game, how well do you think he is going to take it when you go out of your way to kill off his character, completely out of his control?
To me the choice is either make the effort to talk to him and see if the 2 of you can come to some sort of compromise outside of the game, or don't invite him anymore. If your plan is solely to go out of your way to antagonize him into blowing up at the gaming table and perhaps hoping he storms out of the door in front of witnesses... well you better hope that none of your other players see through your plan (or read these forums) because that might be the end of all your players.
Sir:
If you had read the thread, you would have noticed that Mr. Tarvoke had posted lower down on Page 1 that he is going to try discussing this with the player in question.To be honest I think I'll talk to him first. You rascals convinced me ;) Failing that I might do it, though I doubt it.He has no plans to kick him out of the group. He just said he will kill his character, so how does that solve anything?
PS: I dont know if the OP still plans to kill the guy. That was just the idea from the initial post. It seems as though alternate solutions may be attempted.
You are making an open doors check on an already open door.
<Wanders off grumbling about the impatience of orcs these days charging in regardless after only a quick glance at a situation.>
We may differ in opinion. I don't mind questioning a ruling, and I don't mind a player quickly offering up his opinion (or showing the paragraph) to prove his interpretation. What I am referring to is when the DM rules it one way or another and the player continues to try to convince the DM his ruling is wrong.
There is a point where those repeated inaccurate rulings become a serious and fundamental problem with the game that shatter fairness. Waiting until after the game is alright, but if you're feeling completely and utterly shafted time and time again by the DM invoking rulings that have absolutely no basis within the rules and regularly blindsides you with things that are flat in defiance of the rules, you have every right to take that up with him. After all, it's your game, too, and you have a right to try and enjoy it.
The best thing to do if you differ with the DM on rulings too often for your taste is to quit playing his game.
So, don't try to convey your feelings. Don't try to understand where the DM is coming from. Don't try to find common, mutually acceptable ground. Don't try to make the game something that is spectacular for everyone, yourself included. Just pack your bags and leave rather than talk to your friends about a serious problem. After all, everyone's there to have fun, and if someone isn't, that's a problem for everyone. And if one person is feeling distressed over (in this example) repeated arbitrary rulings in defiance of the rules (though it can be anything; crazy DMPC, poor pacing, unbeatable scenarios), there's a very good chance they're not alone and everyone else is
That sounds like the worst way to go about solving a problem. "Curl up and die" rarely helps.
I had a player once who, out of the blue, basically said, "You're doing X, Y, and Z wrong, so I'm leaving." Thing is, he was right about Y and Z, but he never brought them up so that we could actually deal with them, meaning I was out a player and he was out a game because he was to shy to offer a new DM much-needed criticism, and if he'd just spoken up instead of being such a coward, we could have worked on making a game that better-suited his needs as well as everyone else's.
So I've decided to kill one of the characters in my ongoing game. The player in question über-munchkins and always pushes to go a little further, gain a few more advantages.
Now while I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming, this has started to ruin both my enjoyment of the game. Especially since he sulks and pouts whenever I make a ruling that he thinks has an adverse affect on him. To make matters worse its no use talking to him about it.
What I've decided to do then is to off his character and I've even got a pretty good plot reason to do it, something that really makes sense. Basically I'm going to send an assassin (I can't quite remember the name just now but it's a doppelganger organization led by an illithid in Northwest Fearun) to kill him and I need a sure fire way of doing it. The party is 9th lvl and the character in question has kick-ass saves so all death effects are troublesome.
I know this is extreme but it beats a confrontation that only going to end badly and I don't want to kick him out of the game.
There are frequent player's character fatalities in the games I run. If I can help it without fudging dice rolls (which I never do), then the "squeaky wheel gets the grease", and I'll tell you that there is No Need to be timid or appologetic about it greasing a munchkin player character, Repeatedly. In fact, the only ones I feel even a tinge of guilt about thrashing (even though I still do it) are players who play legitimate, by-the-basics characters. Munchkin players are trying to get an edge, above and beyond what the conventional game affords them, and you're merely giving them a taste of their own medicine. They ought to expect as much, given how they try to exploit the rules and continually push the envelope. I think it is appropriate to repeatedly grease the muchkin characters, because logically, intelligent villains with some knowledge of the group of characters is going to deal with the biggest threat posed by the characters, First, and not after, the munchkin character has had time to shred them.
And it is my hope that all of the rest of you, kindly, RP-heavy GM's will do likewise! In the long run, the munchkin players will be better off by learning to enjoy the game by sticking to the rules and avoiding looking for an edge over the GM and their fellow players, as well as adopting a "team approach". The muchkin player's attempts to "get an edge" puts the rest of the characters in more frequent jeopardy, because the GM has to up-gun the monsters & villains to keep pace with the munchkin character(s). In the long run, it's better for all if the munchkin player characters 'bite the dust' repeatedly. Greasing their characters is a simple and easy way to give the player(s) the "cause & effect" understanding that their attempts to gain an advantage which their fellow players don't have, puts them at greater risk, and makes the game less enjoyable for all. I don't think you need to have some deep conversation with your player(s) in question to try to pursuade him/her not to play a munchkin character. Rather, just grease him/her repeatedly, and they'll get the message.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
those repeated inaccurate rulings become a serious and fundamental problem with the game that shatter fairness ... flat in defiance of the rules ... Just pack your bags and leave rather than talk to your friends about a serious problem.
Many comments since I can't disagree with you more.
1) You assume the player isn't falsely interpreting RAW (like those that insisted Extra Spell gave Wizards Heal.)
2) You ignore Rule 0.
3) You assume the DM wants the player who is being a jerk by disrupting the game over and over again over horrible rules interpretations.
4) You assume the player wants to stay when the game is clearly a correct RAW interpretation instead of a Chuck "I have a speed of 1 light year per move action" base land speed false interpretation and the DM isn't letting him use Theoretical Optimization (or just plain false) rules interpretations.
5) You assume the interrupted game sessions to argue with the DM's correct interpretation isn't essentially "talking to your friends about the rules."
1) You assume the player isn't falsely interpreting RAW (like those that insisted Extra Spell gave Wizards Heal.)
Except... it can give a Wizard access to Heal if they take the feat. It doesn't restrict it by class, and the feat itself is much like the psionic Expanded Knowledge (the most comparable feat in the game). From the, "Is it reasonable?" angle, spending one feat for one spell (and your 15th-level feat at that) is a high price to pay, and there's nothing unbalancing about it. And Wizards can already gain access to Heal with ease through Arcane Disciple. Plenty of precedent. Plenty reasonable to allow it. It's what the rules say. It's not abusive; rather, looking at Expanded Knowledge, it could well be what the spell's intended for. Though arguing RAI tends to be an exercise in futility.
And you're still ignoring the fundamental issue. The DM
2) You ignore Rule 0.
"Don't be a douche?" I'm not forgetting that one. That's what working together and communicating with each other is all about. And the DM is every bit as subject as the players.
The other rule zero, the big mistake, it still doesn't absolve the DM of her responsibilities. If you're going with the all powerful God DM rule zero, the DM still can't use that power however she sees fit; she has to use her DMly powers responsibly and respect her players because her players are the ones who choose to give her this power. Which includes working together with her friends.
3) You assume the DM wants the player who is being a jerk by disrupting the game over and over again over horrible rules interpretations.
You're assuming the player is the jerk in the first place and the DM is blameless. You're ignoring the very real possibility that the DM really is wronging the player and being a bad DM, undercutting everything the player came to game for, possibly even by accident. You're ignoring the possibility that this is a decent human being that you just haven't taken the effort to see eye-to-eye with, who if you'll just talk to and work with, could prove to be a very real asset to the game.
Talk to him. Try to work it out. Just because you're mad at someone at this very moment does not make them a useless human being, it does not mean you can't work it out, it does not mean everyone wouldn't be happier if you succeed.
4) You assume the player wants to stay when the game is clearly a correct RAW interpretation instead of a Chuck "I have a speed of 1 light year per move action" base land speed false interpretation and the DM isn't letting him use Theoretical Optimization (or just plain false) rules interpretations.
What the heck?
Did you even listen to the situation? It sounds more like the guy's putting together crappy builds and getting frustrated when they don't work than trying to pull a Pun Pun. And TO has nothing to do with any of this; TO is just that. Theoretical. Not intended for play. No one suggested anything about allowing things never meant to see use in the game. And it's extremely rare that folks even try it.
5) You assume the interrupted game sessions to argue with the DM's correct interpretation isn't essentially "talking to your friends about the rules."
And if the DM factually in the wrong and stealing the player's thunder in a huge way by doing so? And if the player actually waits until after the session to bring it up? And if the DM's mistake is so big it will kill a character?
You're putting black and white on shades of reality, and filling the void with black spawned from your own imagination, not any sort of facts or evidence or reason. There isn't some magic line between good gamers and bad gamers. There are people. People who can make mistakes. That someone makes a mistake or a series of mistakes is not necessarily a bad person or a bad gamer, and going off on a self-righteous, "Kill the munchkin!" crusade will not help matters.
i noticed the guy is trying to get get an edge, but seems to fail. the fact he is trying to get an edge makes him a munchkin. he is a munchkin, but not a "True" powergamer. i however am not the best example of powergamer either. i play a lot of trap options that look better than they are, but my current dm had a fear of cheese, but he considers any splatbook variant class ability to be "Cheesy". as well as non vancian "spellcasters."
i noticed the guy is trying to get get an edge, but seems to fail. the fact he is trying to get an edge makes him a munchkin. he is a munchkin, but not a "True" powergamer.
Trying to get an edge absolutely, positively does not make you a munchkin.
When you play the orc Barbarian with the high strength and the greataxe, you're trying to get an edge on your slaughter.
When you play the gnome illusionist with the high intelligence, you are trying to get an edge on your illusions.
When you halfling thief with all the racial bonuses to sneakery, you are trying to get an edge on your thievery.
All of these are trying to get an edge. None of them are munchkinry. A munchkin is one who goes over the top and flat cheats, who brings Pun Pun as an actual character, who throws the rules out the window to get bonuses that shouldn't even be possible, who assumes that no listed level adjustment means LA 0. Big difference.
And trying to put together a complicated build that doesn't pan out, then getting frustrated when it doesn't work? That doesn't make you a munchkin, either. It can make you annoying. But it doesn't automatically make you a munchkin.
What is this 'Pun Pun' that's bandied around?
(And if halfling bonuses to sneaky are getting an edge, what's a Halfling barbarian?)
What is this 'Pun Pun' that's bandied around
PunPun was a theoretical optimization build using an incredibly broken monster from a Forgotten Realms location book. He's a kobold commoner 1 that ascends to OverGodhood. As a kobold commoner 1. (at least, I think they finally got the build to commoner 1; the original was something like wizard 4 or 6, if I recall, but they found other ways to get the same stuff)
What is this 'Pun Pun' that's bandied around?
Mind that everything to follow is the height of theoretical and never meant to come anywhere near actual play.
Pun Pun is a kobold native to Toril who has a snake familiar (also native to Toril), the ability to polymorph, and the feat Assume Supernatural Ability. These combine to pretty much make him almighty. The simplest version's a Wizard.
The Sarrukh, from Serpent Kingdoms, has an ability called Manipulate Form. It can affect any scaled one native to Toril (like a kobold Wizard or his snake familiar), and can modify the subject by bestowing limbs, increasing any ability score up to the level of the creature using the ability, change its size, and bestow any supernatural/extraordinary ability.
Through the joys of Polymorph, or Wild Shape bolstered by Master of Many Forms, or whatever shapechanging you prefer, you can turn into a Sarrukh. Through Assume Supernatural Ability, you can get Manipulate Form, and subsequently use it to grant your familiar Manipulate Form. Follow up by ending the transfer and having your familiar grant you Manipulate Form.
From there, you can go nuts, granting ridiculous abilities to your familiar, and having your familiar bestow ridiculous abilities upon you.
Now, you adjust your familiar's size to colossal, with the huge strength boost, meaning it now has a huge strength. You have it bestow the huge strength upon you, then you shrink it back down, bestow the big strength boost, and repeat the cycle until you have enough strength to kill gods by flicking little wadded up balls of paper at them as improvised weapons. Do the same with shrinking and dexterity, then animal buffs and constitution/intelligence/wisdom/charisma.
All of your stats are now arbitrarily high and you have every ability in the game.
If you're still not satisfied, Ice Assassin from Frostburn is capable of making perfect clones of a creature, with all abilities intact. In this case, you're cloning gods, and you're capable of granting yourself Ice Assassin at will (or rather, your familiar is capable of granting it to you. So, you make an endless army of gods, command one to give you a divine rank of one (you're now a god, but that's not enough), you invest that one divine rank in some minion (say, a squirrel), order another god to bestow a divine rank of one upon you, until you have some ludicrous number of squirrel deities. Now, you recall all those divine ranks and become the most powerful of all gods with every ability in the game and stats in the thousands.
Pun Pun is what is called an "ascended" character.
(And if halfling bonuses to sneaky are getting an edge, what's a Halfling barbarian?)
Depends on the character. But pretty much everyone is trying to get some edge or another, if they're playing the game at all. They may not be getting much out of being a halfling specifically, but odds are they're still going for an edge and investing in high physical stats, lower mental stats, and there's nothing wrong with it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) Except... it can give a Wizard access to Heal if they take the feat.
2) If you're going with the all powerful God DM rule zero ... Which includes working together with her friends.
3) You're assuming the player is the jerk in the first place and the DM is blameless.
4) it does not mean you can't work it out
5) It sounds more like the guy's putting together crappy builds and getting frustrated when they don't work than trying to pull a Pun Pun.
6) Theoretical. Not intended for play ... it's extremely rare that folks even try it.
1) Not by RAW, which proves my point. Your view of what is RAW doesn't make my view (and in this particular case WotC's view of RAW) incorrect. It just makes your belief on what is RAW wrong.
2) Working with is entertaining the suggestion on why it works as the player believes then adjudicating the way it works in the DM's game. Once adjudicated debate is pointless and rude (of the player's.)
3) Yes, and if a player tries Chuck or Extra Spell Heal on a Wizard, he may be a jerk. If he continues to argue after the DM adjudicates, he is a jerk.
4) It sounds like he can't work it out. It sounds like the DM adjudicates, but the player continues to pout, which is the definition of "can't work it out."
5) No, the player is building Chuck's and being upset he can't move at the speed of light (or similar builds since the OP hasn't posted an example build.)
6) If I had a nickle every time someone tried to bring in a TO (like Extra Spell Heal on a Wizard or "sleep 2 hours at 11 am with RoSubstance to get a second set of Wizard spells today" I'd be rich. So it happens all the time in games and the DM either allows it or not. I like playing by the rules, so I don't allow crazy RAW twisted interpretations like Chuck.
PunPun was a theoretical optimization build using an incredibly broken monster from a Forgotten Realms location book.
Which is a good example of twisting RAW, since you needed to twist the meaning of the poorly worded Monster's ability to leap to the "this really means any ability I can imagine" instead of what it is by RAW (paraphrased as any ability that you have.)
|
|
Life's to short to hang around a bunch of @$$bags.
The issues of who is right and who is wrong are irrelavant. If one guy is the epitome of "One of the these things is not like the others," cut him loose and go on about your business.
I've had to do this a couple times in my gaming life and have no issues with it. The sad thing is that this hobby has a lot of members with low social IQ, and just becasue they're there doesn't mean you have to play with them.
2) Working with is entertaining the suggestion on why it works as the player believes then adjudicating the way it works in the DM's game. Once adjudicated debate is pointless and rude (of the player's.)
"The troll eighty feet away from you on a narrow bridge with three armored soldiers in the space between grabs your crossbow, breaks it in two, and laughs at you. No rolls required. That is how Almighty DM rules, and so it shall be done! All who object are bad players! And while we're at it, Sneak Attack deals no additional damage to humanoids, because that is DM's decree!"
It is not the DM's game. It is the group's game. The DM only has power because the group chooses to give it to them. Saying this, that, and the other is the DM's prerogative is evasive at best, and deceitful at worst, because even if the DM has all these powers, she still has extensive responsibilities regarding their use.
4) It sounds like he can't work it out. It sounds like the DM adjudicates, but the player continues to pout, which is the definition of "can't work it out."
You're throwing in the towel way too early, chief.
Ya gotta put forth the effort towards actually trying to work things out. And if you tread carefully, it may even work. "He did this bad thing therefore he sucks," does not constitute any attempt to reconcile differences. And you don't know if something can't work out until you actually try.
5) No, the player is building Chuck's and being upset he can't move at the speed of light (or similar builds since the OP hasn't posted an example build.)
That is absolute rubbish. The guy's presented builds are Favored Soul/Paladin/Divine Crusader, Cleric/Paladin/Divine Crusader, and Fighter/Monk/Paladin. Those ain't Pun Pun. Those are gimped mish mashes that might barely manage one decent trick, maybe.
6) If I had a nickle every time someone tried to bring in a TO (like Extra Spell Heal on a Wizard or "sleep 2 hours at 11 am with RoSubstance to get a second set of Wizard spells today" I'd be rich. So it happens all the time in games and the DM either allows it or not. I like playing by the rules, so I don't allow crazy RAW twisted interpretations like Chuck.
Extra Spell: Heal is absolutely not theoretical optimization. After all, it's trivially easy to get Heal through Arcane Disciple. And it's not even a very good use of a feat. It gets a good healing spell when you have dozens of better things to do with your time, including preventing that damage in the first place. Whether it's legal or not, that ain't anywhere near theoretical, and it ain't about to break any games.
To even put those in the same room as Pun Pun and Chuck E. Cheese and the PAO'd Beholder Mage and this shows a staggering lack of perspective.
Which is a good example of twisting RAW, since you needed to twist the meaning of the poorly worded Monster's ability to leap to the "this really means any ability I can imagine" instead of what it is by RAW (paraphrased as any ability that you have.)
"That you have" is not anywhere within the ability description with regards to granting abilities, and in fact some of the example abilities are things the Sarrukh does not have. Though that clause still doesn't prevent Pun Pun gaining stats in the thousands and killing gods with little wadded up balls of paper.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) It is not the DM's game. It is the group's game.
2) Ya gotta put forth the effort towards actually trying to work things out.
3) That is absolute rubbish. The guy's presented builds are Cleric/Paladin/Divine Crusader ... Those ain't Pun Pun.
4) Extra Spell: Heal is absolutely not theoretical optimization. Whether it's legal or not, that ain't anywhere near theoretical, and it ain't about to break any games.
5) To even put those in the same room as Pun Pun and Chuck E. Cheese and the PAO'd Beholder Mage and this shows a staggering lack of perspective.
6) "That you have" is not anywhere within the ability description with regards to granting abilities
1) It is the DM's game. If the group wants a new DM, the DM loses his players.
2) You put forth the effort when you entertained the interpretation of the player, but if the player doesn't accept it the DM shouldn't cave to the bad player.
3) He clearly violated RAW by wanting to combine Cleric and DC levels for Domain power purposes. The DM ruled correctly by RAW.
4) E.S. is T.O. if you use it to violate RAW and add spells to your spellbook that you can't cast because they are not on your class spell list. E.S. doesn't allow you to add Heal to a Wizard and asserting it does is T.O. as much as Chuck.
5) T.O. and other incorrect interpretations of RAW don't always break the game but they are always in the same room. They are all in the same room of reading more (or less) from the RAW than the RAW says or just willfully (intentionally) interpretation the rules in a way to get your desired interpretation.
6) By my RAW it is implied.
Nice posts Viletta Vadim! I'm glad to see someone arguing your point of view. I'm also glad to see that the OP has decided to try talking with the player.
The problem with deliberately killing a player character is
1. It's unfair
2. It's dishonest
3. It makes you a bad DM
This last few post reminds of a thread that took place not too long ago with DM's that don't realize the game is about the group as a whole, not the DM and his whims. I will never understand the idea of the DM is boss, and if you don't like it go home.
I always see a DM and the players as one group, not as there is a DM willing to entertain a roleplaying group, and I think that false separation between the group and the D&D is what puts many DM's on their high horse.
PS: As for killing the player, the OP has not responded with the results of the situation. We can only wait and see, if he decides to respond at all.
This last few post reminds of a thread that took place not too long ago with DM's that don't realize the game is about the group as a whole, not the DM and his whims. I will never understand the idea of the DM is boss, and if you don't like it go home.
I always see a DM and the players as one group, not as there is a DM willing to entertain a roleplaying group, and I think that false separation between the group and the D&D is what puts many DM's on their high horse.
I think the problem is that many GMs and players develop antagonistic relationships with oneanother. I know in my younger years I often found myself competing with my players. At some point a became just a bit too good at killing their characters. All within the rules and at fair challenges.
When the players started focusing more on survival than on the story I had my epiphany.I have since made it clear to the players that we are creating a story "together" that it is a common experience aiming at having us all have a good time. It makes it a lot easier to adjudicate against the players interpretations. If course there might be some ruleslawyering situations but mostly my players now have faith that I am not trying to make their lives hard.
Developing a spirit of cooperation GM/player is important to any successful campaign.
PS: As for killing the player, the OP has not responded with the results of the situation. We can only wait and see, if he decides to respond at all.
Yeah, I would like to hear how it pans out too.
This last few post reminds of a thread that took place not too long ago with DM's that don't realize the game is about the group as a whole, not the DM and his whims. I will never understand the idea of the DM is boss, and if you don't like it go home.
I always see a DM and the players as one group, not as there is a DM willing to entertain a roleplaying group, and I think that false separation between the group and the D&D is what puts many DM's on their high horse.PS: As for killing the player, the OP has not responded with the results of the situation. We can only wait and see, if he decides to respond at all.
Darn typos
It should have read:"...separation between the group and the DM. "
... I always see a DM and the players as one group, not as there is a DM willing to entertain a roleplaying group, and I think that false separation between the group and the D&D is what puts many DM's on their high horse.
...
Darn typos
It should have read:"...separation between the group and the DM. "
I actually experience that a lot... "the separation between the group and the D&D" or in this case "between the group and the PRPG".
:)
I don't really mind munchkining, and a little power-gaming
I know what power-gaming is, but what is munchkining?
Murder the player... save the game.
I recommend shvitzing a little cyanide in water solution on his dice bag when he's off going through your fridge without permission.
Always better to off a player in real life than have to listen to your table gripe about DM's fiat. But then, I hate confrontation. That said, I love shovels.