Passive-aggressive solutions very rarely solve anything. It's not easy, but if you want real solutions you need to talk to the player.
|
He won't stop...
This game falls neatly into his happy zone. He always wants to play the controlling player, screw saving the world or finding some lost artifact, he isn't happy unless he ends up wielding alot of Power and ruling a country or kingdom...
We can't remove him from the game, we can't make him change, and if I play the kind of character I want to play (I want to try a CHA based caster) people will say I'll be redundant and useless...
EDIT: I do like the idea of calling him out
Solution: Get him to DM his own game.
I'm not usually the type to do this, but we need a character to undermine this one, preferbaly without him really realising and causing bad blood...
Any suggestions?
I hate passive-aggressive stuff and would suggest asking him to leave, but assuming that's not in the cards...
Make someone more leaderlike. A Paladin, for instance, will also have the charisma, rock the social skills, and also be good at battle tactics and actually "leading the charge". And, if the party won't play that way, you can have guardsmen, etc, follow the paladin into danger and what not and ignore the mage who's trying to tell them what to do.
Any type of leader, divination based, or knowledge based character may present certain difficulties in a political type campaign. So it is up to the DM on how to manage it. So everyone should discuss.
And whoever you lead, will certaintly create enemies elsewhere, based on your means and motives.
He won't stop...
This game falls neatly into his happy zone. He always wants to play the controlling player, screw saving the world or finding some lost artifact, he isn't happy unless he ends up wielding alot of Power and ruling a country or kingdom...
You know what happens to people like that? Russians invite them over for wine and cakes (and if they also have 18 Con, they shoot them afterwards).
In other words - he may have a strong personality, he may even be likable, but there will be people who currently have power who will react badly to an upstart honing in on their domain.
|
He won't stop...
This game falls neatly into his happy zone. He always wants to play the controlling player, screw saving the world or finding some lost artifact, he isn't happy unless he ends up wielding alot of Power and ruling a country or kingdom...
We can't remove him from the game, we can't make him change, and if I play the kind of character I want to play (I want to try a CHA based caster) people will say I'll be redundant and useless...
EDIT: I do like the idea of calling him out
So your problem is that you have a player who always plays the same type of character every game, that of the high cha leader type who bosses the party around.
You are a player in this game, not a DM and thus don't have the ability to force changes on him or get him thrown out of the game.
You would like to play a character like that but his always taking it makes other players force you to play something else to avoid redundancy, is that right.
Am I understanding this right? And if so can I ask some follow up questions, a) why is it impossible to have him removed/ forced to play a different character.
b) if he always plays that character type and you want to play it, then you should have the upper hand in that you can say you really want to play it and he has had his chance so he should be the one to play something different.
c) if I'm misunderstanding you can you please clarify the situation so I know what you really mean.
if I play the kind of character I want to play (I want to try a CHA based caster) people will say I'll be redundant and useless...
So you want to try a charisma-based character (say, a sorcerer, paladin or bard) that gets lots of use out of his charisma beyond skills, while he plays a wizard with extra charisma and YOU are the redundant one?
Your best bet is speaking about this. Tell him you don't feel like having him order you around.
If he insists, remember that there exists no rule that says that only because some character has high charisma and wants to lead, you have to follow or respect him.
Well, if he drives you all mad, and won't change and the GM won't do anything, you can always get the rest of the group to leave the group.
Then start a new one.
This sounds like an inter-personal problem.
All I can advise is: don't try to solve this within the game. No correct character choice or GM ruling is going to stop this guy from irritating you if that's how he likes to play.
Pretend it's just like any other social situation, leave the game out of it, and try to settle your friction with this dude. It is possible that this can't be done, in which case you should really leave the group. It's also possible that you guys just need to talk it through, he may not even be aware his behavior bothers you this much.
Nothing wrong with him playing a CHA based character, it's how he plays them, all as egotistical, selfish and morally ambiguous as the last.
We all hate being treated like the third wheel to his own glorious ego trip, there when he needs the protection, but happy to take the power at the slightest chance.
We have lots of high Cha characters in our Kingmaker game. I think it will be interesting to see if there's a power struggle later on! YMMV, of course.
I think I will just leave then, there are 4 of us who feel the same, he's a good friend to all of us, but he really annoys us with his gaming...
As many other posted before, you seem to have a problem with the player, his character has nothing to do with the core of your issue.
Leaving the game is fine, as long as you don't leave it in a childish 'bang-bang-you're-dead-or-else-I-stop-playing' kind of way.
If he really is a good friend of yours, then address the problem outside the game. Talk about it. Be an adult about it, even if his own behaviour is childish.
good luck!
'findel
That may well be the best solution... (starting your own game)
But it seems like you're ignoring in-game reactions in deference to out-of-game metagaming (like party roles, etc)
If he runs to the Cleric for healing un-necessarily, why doesn't the Cleric shrug and say he has better things to do? That might waste one round of his actions, but he will get the message quickly. One player shouldn't DICTATE other players' actions.
If he acts consistently semi-evil, not to mention creating problems for the party with his ego-trip solo escapades, why wouldn't they decide he's not really supporting the party and boot him or turn against him?
It seems like the whole party is dropping the ball in terms of deciding how they operate in favor of the unspoken dynamic you have as a gaming group. Realistically, why wouldn't they elect a leader, and really have to do what they decide, barring a group democratic decision? Even if you don't go to that length, why can't your group discuss things in-character, more or less, and decide how you're going to approach things?, i.e. his character is going to fall in line or will face repurcussions (see semi-evil, above).
Honestly, have you asked the DM/group WHY his character (the very similar to what he always plays character) had assumed priority over your own CHA-based Sorceror concept? (I don't even see that argument in the first place, obviously you don't want to have overlapping spells much, but there's TONS of ways to play a Sorceror without stepping on an Enchanter's toes.) It DOES seem wierd if he's somehow automatically having "his place" (CHA skills, etc) being "held" to exclusion of other players' character concepts.
Is this for real?
I feel like I'm being trolled here.
On the one hand the OP says the DM and a few other players are blind to this guy, on the other hand he says everyone is smacking their heads against the wall.\
Which is it? Are just a couple players upset with this guy or is it everyone?
I have been playing D&D and other RPGs for over three decades now and I've never heard of anything even remotely like this. Sure this isn't a troll?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here...
Talk to this guy. Really talk to him. Tell him you are all bored with his irritating characters and want him to play something else. If he won't go for it, then tell him you like him, but you don't like gaming with him, and his disruptive play is ruining the game for all of you. Tell him he needs to be be accommodating here or the group of players won't be able to continue on with their current dynamic.
If that doesn't get him to change his attitude (and change his character) then fire him. Literally. In-character. I've done it. In fact, I did it just a few months ago:
In our group, I was playing a wizard. We had a barbarian who never raged and never did anything but stand and swing his sword at monsters. He didn't even use his feats like Power Attack. Just stand and swing. It was nearly getting us killed (when one character in a 4-man group is not pulling his weight, the encounters are extra hard to survive). When we came to a tavern, my wizard called a group meeting, ordered ale for everyone, and then put it to a vote amongst the other characters to demote our barbarian to hireling status. No more share of the treasure. Just a flat 2gp per day for his services as a swordsman. The barbarian (really it was his player who took it out of character a bit) agreed to start using his character abilities, and in-character the group voted at that time to give the barbarian one more chance. It all worked out very well in the end.
So if you have to, bring it to an in-charcter vote (if every player is really fed up with this guy then it should be a pretty certain outcome). Vote on whether the characters want to keep hanging out with this obnoxious wizard or whether they should put up an ad for a new wizard, or maybe be satisfied to adventure without one.
|
The passive-aggressive approach is never a good idea. It's kinda wussy and surrenders power to the active annoyance, rather than meeting it head on. Even flat-out PVP (the four other PCs turning around and perforating his Enchanter with their very best violence the first time he gets bossy) is probably a better idea than passive-aggressive tactics...
.
Best option - If the other four players at the table *all* agree that he's a problem, talk to the GM to stop rewarding his behavior, and to the player himself.
Second best option - If the GM supports his antics, and the four other players (yourself included) don't like them, take your four players and run a different game without them.
Maybe find a fifth local gamer, so that you can have a four-man party (or just run a DMPC, within reason) or something, and have fun without dealing with the power-trip.
Last option, which is passive-aggressive, but not as bad as some other choices - Only as a last, last resort, if none of this works (or is feasible);
If, as you say, the other players all agree his bossy behavior is annoying, you guys can privately decide to play a democratic party, and discuss plans while ignoring his input (or incorporating any of his 'suggestions' that seem tactically sound, while thanking him for his contribution to the plan), or elect a 'party leader' from among your characters, and follow that characters orders in battle, ignoring his. If the character demands healing, have the Cleric tell him to drink a potion, as mommy is busy beating up the monsters.
Let him bark out his orders, and utterly ignore them, doing whatever your characters think is most tactically appropriate (even if that occasionally is the same thing as what his character said to do). If all of your fellow players ignore his 'leadership' and enact their own plans, he should get the hint that his character isn't boss of anyone but himself.
Given that this is Kingmaker, make sure that one character has a decent Charisma and is suited to the ruler role, whether that character be a Paladin, Bard, Sorcerer or charismatic Rogue or Cleric, since your group seems to be in agreement that they don't want him to be the ruler. Indeed, you could probably make an entire party of high-Charisma sorts (Paladin tank, Selective Channeling high-Cha Cleric as healer, Bard or high Cha Rogue as skillmonkey, Sorcerer or Summoner as arcanist), just for the heck of it, as such a party could be *awesome* for this particular storyline.
"Who'se king?" "We don't 'ave a king. We're an autonomous collective, and take turns in a biweekly session..." "Ooh, there's some lovely dirt over here!"
But crafting your character specifically to foil his character, instead of just playing something you want to play, is giving him too much power over your play. Don't empower him further by letting his actions mandate what you are going to play, even if it's an adversarial choice! Pick the class / race combo that feels fun for you, and fits well with the Kingmaker theme!
Dude, that is totally awesome. I'm scribbling it down in my book of evil PC tricks as we speak.Lost in the conversation, I almost forgot the best way to undermins a fellow character!
Become his lacky.
Scrape and grovel at his feet. Submit to his every whim. Get him into fights by insulting people, telling them they are insignificant compared to HIS great master. Offer his services for every dirty job that comes along. Talk up his abilities, and if he wants to back out, pull a Mark Anthony:
"Well, he says, now, it's not like he is cowardly! He would gladly run this errand. He is not incapable or incompetant either. Nor a loudmouth braggard! No, he can't do it because...master, why can't we do it again?"
Keep getting him into bad situations by talking up his abilities. Then hide behind him. Not only is it undermining his character, it is absolutly hysterical! Likely, he will ENJOY being undermined, even as it pisses him off royally. And it's not like he can just get rid of you. Be Donkey to his Shrek.
forget that. The way our campaigns are going everyone is going to have 2 hirelings each, I need to have the hirelings pull this trick on the PCs a few times.
Lost in the conversation, I almost forgot the best way to undermins a fellow character!
Become his lacky.
Scrape and grovel at his feet. Submit to his every whim. Get him into fights by insulting people, telling them they are insignificant compared to HIS great master. Offer his services for every dirty job that comes along. Talk up his abilities, and if he wants to back out, pull a Mark Anthony:
"Well, he says, now, it's not like he is cowardly! He would gladly run this errand. He is not incapable or incompetant either. Nor a loudmouth braggard! No, he can't do it because...master, why can't we do it again?"
Keep getting him into bad situations by talking up his abilities. Then hide behind him. Not only is it undermining his character, it is absolutly hysterical! Likely, he will ENJOY being undermined, even as it pisses him off royally. And it's not like he can just get rid of you. Be Donkey to his Shrek.
Sir Robins minstrels from Monty Pythons Holy Grail are a perfect example of the above. Play a bard and take him down by being the ultimate fanboy - When somebody asks what he wants sing exuberantly (inspiring courage in the foe) "TOOO FIGHHHHT"
Bravely bold Sir Robin
Rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir Robin.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his pen--
"That's... that's enough music for now lads,
*** there's dirty work afoot*** ???."
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.
****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
("I never!")
I'm mostly curious as to why the DM allows this type of behavior to take place. Something is going on there.
I'm mostly curious as to why the DM allows this type of behavior to take place. Something is going on there.
Generally, it is because the DM is trying to remain neutral. Unfortunately, that can be bad to the enjoyment of the game in some cases.
|
|
I'm mostly curious as to why the DM allows this type of behavior to take place. Something is going on there.
It could simply be he figures the players would do something if it bothered them. He could find the other player amusing and not be thinking about his effect on the other players - especially if they don't speak up.
All in all, it's best to address this earlier rather than later. You're already at the point where you're considering leaving the group - and it sounds like you have yet to have a conversation with the player on how their behavior bothers you. This player could not realize how he presents himself to others. It's never pleasant to be told you're being an obnoxious jerk, but I've been taken to task for bad behavior before, and while it hurt, it also helped me improve myself. You could be doing this guy a huge favor by showing him how he can improve his social interaction.
You have a quick look at how the conversation could go from this thread already - you've been asked for specifics and are unable to give many. Have specific illustrative examples ready for the conversation. Talk with the others you know are annoyed and get on the same page - examples that typify the worst of what you don't want to face again and possible satisfactory solutions.
No matter how you approach this, it's going to feel like an accusation - I assume both the player and the DM will deny anything unfair / unfun / obnoxious is happening. They're probably going to be very defensive, so be ready for counter-accusations. If you want to keep playing with these people, the key is to focus on the solution, not the problem - ranting about what you hate about this guy will only break the group and possibly friendships unnecessarily.
I'm mostly curious as to why the DM allows this type of behavior to take place. Something is going on there.
DM's spouse/bofriend/girlfriend? (perhaps genders have been changed to protect the innocent?)
Yeah, the other posters have said it, talk to the DM, it's his game and if multiply players are not enjoying his game then he needs to do something about it.
Good luck.
....... When we came to a tavern, my wizard called a group meeting, ordered ale for everyone, and then put it to a vote amongst the other characters to demote our barbarian to hireling status. No more share of the treasure. Just a flat 2gp per day for his services as a swordsman. The barbarian (really it was his player who took it out of character a bit) agreed to start using his character abilities, and in-character the group voted at that time to give the barbarian one more chance. It all worked out very well in the end.
So if you have to, bring it to an in-charcter vote (if every player is really fed up with this guy then it should be a pretty certain outcome). Vote on whether the characters want to keep hanging out with this obnoxious wizard or whether they should put up an ad for a new wizard, or maybe be satisfied to adventure without one.
An excellent idea.
Lost in the conversation, I almost forgot the best way to undermins a fellow character!
Become his lacky.
Scrape and grovel at his feet. Submit to his every whim. Get him into fights by insulting people, telling them they are insignificant compared to HIS great master. Offer his services for every dirty job that comes along. Talk up his abilities, and if he wants to back out, pull a Mark Anthony:
"Well, he says, now, it's not like he is cowardly! He would gladly run this errand. He is not incapable or incompetant either. Nor a loudmouth braggard! No, he can't do it because...master, why can't we do it again?"
Keep getting him into bad situations by talking up his abilities. Then hide behind him. Not only is it undermining his character, it is absolutly hysterical! Likely, he will ENJOY being undermined, even as it pisses him off royally. And it's not like he can just get rid of you. Be Donkey to his Shrek.
I have played with similar players. I wish I had thought of this one.
|
|
He won't stop...
This game falls neatly into his happy zone. He always wants to play the controlling player, screw saving the world or finding some lost artifact, he isn't happy unless he ends up wielding alot of Power and ruling a country or kingdom...
You know what happens to people like that? Russians invite them over for wine and cakes (and if they also have 18 Con, they shoot them afterwards).
In other words - he may have a strong personality, he may even be likable, but there will be people who currently have power who will react badly to an upstart honing in on their domain.
lol, Rasputin FTW
|
I've experienced similar situations when I first started playing at conventions. Inevitably there'd be louder, more experienced players, ones who were known to the GM running the session, and it would be difficult to get a word in edge-wise.
I remember one time the group were discussing a way around a problem. I tried suggesting something twice, and was talked over by other players, or ignored by the GM. It was when one of the other players suggested exactly the same thing that I had just said, and the GM says "okay, your character does that" that I realised I could never play with this GM again, and avoided his sessions thereafter.
So I'm very familiar with building a high CHA, Diplomacy skilled character, and feeling ineffectual due to beign talked-over by other players, or ignored by the GM, and feeling I should have just created a Fighter instead.
I'm sure we all have our faults running games, GMing is a difficult task that requires your attention pulled in many directions. But based on this experience, when I GM, I always try to include new players, or more quiet-spoken players over the loud or more experienced players.
Loud players always get the first word in, but when someone else is trying to have their say, I make a point to always turn my attention back to them so they can be heard and enjoy participating as much as anyone else.
This is particularly important for new players, who may otherwise feel pushed out of the game. This game needs to include players, not push them away, and everyone plays a role in this and should check their behaviour at the table.
As someone else suggested, I would recommend trying to start up your own side-game if possible. I realise the enjoyment and responsibilities are different between being a player and being a GM, but GMing doesn't have to be a monumental task. If you've played a range of characters before, you're experienced enough to deal with the mechanics. If you haven't GMed before, start small, organise one session, maybe a four-hour 1st-level Pathfinder Society scenario, and see how it goes.
You don't have to abandon your friend's campaign, but by starting your own side-game and setting an example - every GM has his own style - you might find that you gain the respect of your friends, and attract the sort of players you like to game with.
|
|
So I'm very familiar with building a high CHA, Diplomacy skilled character, and feeling ineffectual due to beign talked-over by other players, or ignored by the GM, and feeling I should have just created a Fighter instead.
You'd be surprised at how easy it is to attract attention as a fighter. Try this next time the high CHA jerks try to talk over you: tell the GM "My fighter draws his sword, jumps over the counter, and TELLS the innkeeper the night is going to be 2gp, not 5gp." Then have your character address one of the high CHA jerks, "You got a problem with my negotiation skills, partner?"
I have been playing D&D and other RPGs for over three decades now and I've never heard of anything even remotely like this.
Then you are lucky. I've experienced this somewhat, and have heard it a number of times.
In a recent situation, I've had to tell someone that they should approach the game differently. If the DM and half the group is okay with the way things are going, and you aren't going to change it, then your survival tactic is to adjust your attitude about the game and, to pull a line from Whatever Works, filch any little joy you can out of the game.
Don't go into this trying to get "the perfect D&D game" since that's clearly not going to happen.
.
So this guy wants to play himself as the big guy that doesn't actually do that much, and you have at least a few people who are in the same boat that doesn't like it? Fine.. it sounds like you have enough people in the group for his combat inadequacies to not affect your group that much.
If you want to play a Charismatic player, resign yourself to playing the role of "putting out the social fires" that he starts. Pump Diplomacy, et al, so that when things go badly, you can try and set things right.
Sure, you might not get credit, but at least half the group won't feel like you are being the fifth wheel.
If anything, this *might* show how he's the appendage here (I say might, because it sounds like it might not matter going by the DM's attitude).
It's strange that the others are telling you not to play a Bard or Sorcerer... do they need a meatshield, or are they saying that the other player is just going to overwhelm anything you try and do Charisma-wise?
With a Paladin you have game mechanics that dictate how you should be reacting to situations (code of conduct). You can even object to some of his behavior in character due to the Associates section regarding "those who consistently offend your morale code", which includes acting with honor (no cheating, lying, stealing, using poison, etc).
In fact, Paladin might be perfect here. They have a perfect reason to have Charisma (especially now that their spellcasting is based on it), and the Diplomacy skill is just one point per level. Those two things, plus your morale code, should put you to the forefront of any social situation. Any out-of-game objections by the DM or the player in question can be met with rules-based arguments in your favor... you'd lose your Paladinhood if you didn't act this way.
I'd say this would probably be your best course of action if you still want to play the social/charisma/leader type.
In a game I played a while ago, we had a player who was acting as the "swashbuckler/womanizer/sticks his foot into his own mouth" type. He had decent Charisma and I *think* some Diplomacy, however the player kept making bad decisions.
This wasn't anything like your situation, as we actually enjoyed it. In fact, we accepted it wholly and groomed him to be our leader. Except that the rest of us used our Knowledge skills and Diplomacy skills in the background and as aid another checks to kind of steer things the right way, uh, "despite" his actions, heh.
Playing the exasperated diplomat covering for his bumbling loudmouth friend can be fun as in it's own right.
|
This sounds like an inter-personal problem.
All I can advise is: don't try to solve this within the game. No correct character choice or GM ruling is going to stop this guy from irritating you if that's how he likes to play.
Pretend it's just like any other social situation, leave the game out of it, and try to settle your friction with this dude. It is possible that this can't be done, in which case you should really leave the group. It's also possible that you guys just need to talk it through, he may not even be aware his behavior bothers you this much.
This is probably the best advice here.
Trying to go all passive aggressive or address the problem in-game is likely to cause chaos. Talk to the GM, talk to the player, if you can't get some kind of resolution bow out of the group.
I have been playing D&D and other RPGs for over three decades now and I've never heard of anything even remotely like this.Then you are lucky. I've experienced this somewhat, and have heard it a number of times.
Let me rephrase:
I have seen disruptive players. I have seen irritating players. I have seen players that nobody else at the table could tolerate.
What I have never seen anything like is what the OP described:
A player that everyone dislikes (or at least they dislike his play style). They dislike it so much that they are all beating their heads on the walls. That's not just an annoying player. That's some pretty strong dislike there. Very strong dislike. And the DM does nothing about it. And talking to the player accomplishes nothing. And making competitive characters fails or is plainly shot down. And this situation has been happening for a very long time (multiple characters in multiple campaigns). And all of the players are still sitting there, day after day, beating their heads on the walls and doing nothing.
I cannot imagine a player so annoying that everyone else is beating their heads on the wall and yet nobody does anything about it for what, years? Efforts are made to no avail. And every player keeps coming to this game.
Inconceivable.
I have had players leave my game before - long before they got to the point of beating heads against the walls. Afterward, in private conversations I found out it was because they didn't like some other player, so they left. But not these guys. They keep coming.
I've had irritating/boisterous/domineering/caustic/selfish players before. In my games in games where I was just a player. In all cases the guy lasted about 3-4 sessions before we confronted him (usually not even that long if he was so frustrating as make us think about beating heads on the wall). These guys either changed their ways or they left or they got asked to leave and not come back.
But none of this happens in the OP's game.
They just sit there beating their heads bloody and keep taking the guy's crap and they do nothing - or what they do doesn't work, and everyone keeps showing up.
Inconceivable. At least to me. And in nearly 3.5 decades of constant gaming with, by now, over a hundred full-time players, I have never seen anything like this. Not once. I've never even heard of it - until now.
|
|
So I'm very familiar with building a high CHA, Diplomacy skilled character, and feeling ineffectual due to beign talked-over by other players, or ignored by the GM, and feeling I should have just created a Fighter instead.You'd be surprised at how easy it is to attract attention as a fighter. Try this next time the high CHA jerks try to talk over you: tell the GM "My fighter draws his sword, jumps over the counter, and TELLS the innkeeper the night is going to be 2gp, not 5gp." Then have your character address one of the high CHA jerks, "You got a problem with my negotiation skills, partner?"
It's not just a problem with high CHA players, it's a problem with players who feel they need to control the game at the expense of others enjoyment of the game.
I've also been in a group where everyone at the table spent 20mins preparing a night rescue of a caged prisoner in the middle of a bandit encampment. Players were planning who would use the invisibility spell, who would dimension door, who would sneak, etc. so pretty much everyone had a role in this plan.
Then, just at this plan was about to be put into action, the bored Fighter player who had remained silent until now yelled, "Chaaarrrgggeee!" and ran screaming through the middle of the encampment with his big sword, waking all the guards, and destroying 20mins of careful planning ... roll for initiative, folks!
So I'm not a fan of Fighter-with-Sword "Diplomacy" either. Disruptive players certainly aren't limited to high CHA concepts.