|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I am reading the issue we have here is the group is "Rollplayers" and he is a "Roleplayer". At least that is what it appears. He is playing his character, He is choosing these actions because he has designed a character that does these actions. To force him to play it differently is detestable. If he was a Paladin and playing his Paly as the LawfulStupid one that takes the law party litteraly and not the good, would you be as mad when he disrupted the party because actions he deemed were inappropriate or against his alignment? The answer is probally yes. And that is the problem here, you want the group to have no internal problems, the rules do not appear to been written down that he could not make a character that was against the party. Either you join in and have fun roleplaying the game and dealing with his actions or you tell him to roll up a supportive character that is a cookie cutter to your group.
I suspect you are being a troll here but if not here's my response.
Roleplaying conflict within a group is fine. There are disparate alignments, beliefs and systems of morality within any group. I play several different characters all of whom will or will not do certain things. I have an inquisitor of Pharasma who won't consider working with anything undead. I have LG characters who will not kill a surrendering opponent. On the other hand I have also played murderers, thieves and assassins who would happily sell their own grandmother for a few gold. All these things have the potential to cause inter party conflict. That's fine, that's roleplaying.
This guy on the other hand, is being a jerk. He's on a power trip and he is having fun making everybody else miserable. I would actually contend that what he is doing is not roleplaying.
Let me explain. A Lawful Stupid pally, whilst a bad character choice, is at least a roleplaying character. On the other hand, this character is going out of his way to cause inter party conflict. Why? Because it's a power trip, that's why. Put it this way, if you worked in a workplace where someone constantly physically and emotionally assaulted you you would get out of there right? Or at least take the matter up further? Of course you would, it's called bullying. The only other option is to sit there, take it and be miserable. In real life this can ruin people's lives.
Now I'm not saying that this fictional PC will ruin anybody's life but it is ruining people's fun. He is acting as a bully in a team, throwing his weight around and manipulating events to his benefit. Worse he is directly assaulting the other PC's by using non beneficial magic on them. In no healthy organisation or group does someone get away with this. An NPC who acted in this manner would just get killed but this is a PC and killing a PC is a whole different ballgame.
Herein lies the issue. This player is using OOC reluctance to act to gain advantage IC. There's a word for this: Metagaming. The player can get away with these acts simply because he is a player. What he is doing is being disruptive deliberately because he knows that the other players wont act because doing that would infringe on the offending PC's fun. In essence the offending PC is being a jerk because he knows he can get away with it. Worse, this metagaming is anti roleplaying because this OOC reluctance to act has led to acts that would never actually happen in real life. No one would hang around with this guy normally but because everyone else doesn't want to spoil this guy's fun he gets away with it and continues to bully. That's just bad roleplaying.
The difference between appropriate inter party conflict and inappropriate inter party conflict comes down to a simple distinction. If the conflict comes from a situation that the GM has presented (such as killing surrendered prisoners or the old goblin baby chestnut) then that's fine. This is called reactive conflict. This guy however is actively causing conflict with other players for his own amusement. That's called proactive conflict and it's unacceptable.
It's nothing to do with rules or rolling dice. It's metagaming and bad roleplaying. Pure and simple.
Let's face it, LG can be just as disruptive as CN.Can be. Agreed. Absolutely.
...but not as often.
How often you can is meaningless before how often you do.
The alignment is not the source, the player is.
Such a player will be disruptive no matter what alignment he plays, or even if alignment is not used.
What I've found in 30 years of playing (off and on, not weekly) is that there seems to be a subset of players who seem to get off on derailing the game. I've been lucky to not have to deal with many of them. I'm not sure if they're actual sociopaths, or merely play them, but the result is the same: They turn what should be lighthearted amusement into stress.
I'm not talking about a new player who doesn't quite understand things and goes overboard with a goofy character, but someone who's almost pathological about making mischief in a pen and paper fantasy game played with miniatures by people who just want a fun flight of fancy.
I've never been able to understand why someone would act that way, but it happens. My experience has been that such people are not going to change. You can explain yourself, or not. They will not acknowledge that they're doing anything wrong, and will think you're being a jerk for not liking it.
Talk to the player out of game. Make it clear that if he doesn't change his tune, he's out. If he won't (can't?) play cooperatively, kick him out.
The sad thing is that eventually, he'll probably turn around and do the same thing to someone else's game down the road. He thinks the table full of people who won't play with him anymore are the jerks. They don't know how to really roleplay...
What I've found in 30 years of playing (off and on, not weekly) is that there seems to be a subset of players who seem to get off on derailing the game. I've been lucky to not have to deal with many of them. I'm not sure if they're actual sociopaths, or merely play them, but the result is the same: They turn what should be lighthearted amusement into stress.
I'm not talking about a new player who doesn't quite understand things and goes overboard with a goofy character, but someone who's almost pathological about making mischief in a pen and paper fantasy game played with miniatures by people who just want a fun flight of fancy.
I've never been able to understand why someone would act that way, but it happens. My experience has been that such people are not going to change. You can explain yourself, or not. They will not acknowledge that they're doing anything wrong, and will think you're being a jerk for not liking it.
Talk to the player out of game. Make it clear that if he doesn't change his tune, he's out. If he won't (can't?) play cooperatively, kick him out.
The sad thing is that eventually, he'll probably turn around and do the same thing to someone else's game down the road. He thinks the table full of people who won't play with him anymore are the jerks. They don't know how to really roleplay...
You make good posts, mister. And I agree. We just fired such a jerk from our PF group. Everyone in the group wonders why we didn't do it sooner.
|
Players like the one the OP mentioned don't last long. Your party are Neutral Good, not saints. It seems like to simple options to me:
1) Party leaves him. It's justifiable, he is hindering you on your quests, in real life if a 'friend' is stealing from you and constantly being a dick towards you, so stop being their friend and leave them.
2) Kill him. He is stealing from you, you are not confined by any particular laws, that in itself is justifable enough to just cut him down. Being Good rather than Evil I would recommend warning him that his actions will see him dead.
Just the other week my Paladin punched and threatened to kill a party member. The member is a coward and of no use to us during combat, that my Paladin reluctantly accepts. However, in this circumstance a number of the team were trapped inside a building and the coward was at the back and used a spell to create an opening into the wall and excaped - without even bothering to let the rest of the party know there was an escape route. To my char this action was unacceptable and a warning was issued, were he to repeat such an act I would have no second thought killing him.
|
Buy a powerful airhorn and blast it right next to his ear. When (and if) he recovers his hearing, explain to him that you were just roleplaying your character -- an airhorn aficianado.
Oh man, I am so late to this game. You beat me to the punch by a LOT
I have a taser that could be used for roleplaying a Spellslinger (or as Buhlman says... "LIGHTNING GUNNNNN!")
Taze him and say "I'm roleplaying the fact that your character annoys mine. I just shot you. Sorry, it's what my character would do."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, what I do when I meet such a Player is asking him:
"So, you had free choice of what character you wanted to play and you choose a prick that goes on everyones nerves instead of someone nice and helpful, is that what you mean when you say 'I am only RPing'?"
Players like the one the OP mentioned don't last long. Your party are Neutral Good, not saints. It seems like to simple options to me:
1) Party leaves him. It's justifiable, he is hindering you on your quests, in real life if a 'friend' is stealing from you and constantly being a dick towards you, so stop being their friend and leave them.2) Kill him. He is stealing from you, you are not confined by any particular laws, that in itself is justifable enough to just cut him down. Being Good rather than Evil I would recommend warning him that his actions will see him dead.
Just the other week my Paladin punched and threatened to kill a party member. The member is a coward and of no use to us during combat, that my Paladin reluctantly accepts. However, in this circumstance a number of the team were trapped inside a building and the coward was at the back and used a spell to create an opening into the wall and excaped - without even bothering to let the rest of the party know there was an escape route. To my char this action was unacceptable and a warning was issued, were he to repeat such an act I would have no second thought killing him.
The thing is in this player's situation, the PCs are not aware the problem PC is doing the stealing, per one of the OP's posts awhile back.
In game, the players need to learn to play their PCs better and catch him in the act.
But the real solution is out of game, because the player has chosen to play an antagonistic character for some reason, and that is the issue that really needs to be addressed. MicMan's offered a great solution. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too much drama, too many sarcastic possible responses, too many posts about dealing with this in-character.
Next time he pulls his crap, you look across the table at him, and you say, "You are making this game unfun for me. I do not care why you are doing it, and I do not care what 'your character would do.' Either you stop it, or I stop playing with you."
Then if he calls your bluff, you show that it wasn't a bluff, and you find another group to play with. If your friends agree with you, then they'll rather play with you, and they'll kick him out and invite you back.
|
|
The thing is in this player's situation, the PCs are not aware the problem PC is doing the stealing, per one of the OP's posts awhile back.In game, the players need to learn to play their PCs better and catch him in the act.
But the real solution is out of game, because the player has chosen to play an antagonistic character for some reason, and that is the issue that really needs to be addressed. MicMan's offered a great solution. :)
Very true. Bit it tend not to take long before you discover in game that a character may be a bit shady. Better yet, you don't even need to if you have any char who has particular views. One of my chars outlined 'party rules' pretty early on (regardles of whether or nt a Rogue was even in the group) which made it very clear that stealing from the party could hold the penalty of death - that is often enough to put off anyone from being a pain.
In game you know who acts a bit sneaky and dodgy and if you don't trust him quietly tell your GM that you want to keep an eye on them. Eventually your perception check will catch him then kill him or leave him.
Huh, while I think the detect thoughts might be going a bit far am I the only DM who expects that N, CN, and occasionally CG thief characters will try to skim and steal minor things at first from the party? The party has perception checks and are pretty much guaranteed to catch them soon, sort it out in character, and come to an understanding with the thief if they need him/kick them out of the party if not.
That's the risk of playing any character that can act against the party's best interest. Paladins, Clerics, barbarians who answer every question with "kill it", bards that answer every question with, "talk our way past it", and similar concepts are all potentially disruptive to a party. Any player choosing a concept like this is told at the start that if they choose to play that concept they have to accept the consequences of it, and I try to get input from my current players before accepting a new player.
That said, if the other players in the group come to me and tell me they want anything another character does stopped then I will talk to the player about it and stop it, giving the character a chance to tone down that aspect of their character, redesign their character altogether, or create a new character. In the end it is about fun, all the players' fun, from the sneaky thief to the paladin who kills any undead on sight. If either of those concepts severely infringe on the fun of all the others then unfortunately majority rules and they will need to change the concept to keep the game fun.
Check the rules. You should get perception checks against his stealth and Sleight of Hands and Sense Motives checks against his Bluff and saves against his spells. Eventually when they find him doing something wrong, the party can get suspicious and actively start looking for clues when things go missing or they feel they are being manipulated. When the party gets proof of what he's doing then you can murder him. All in character so he can't complain. Then tell him to make his next character someone that can work with the party.
Interesting stuff
Thanks! I would never have figured it was that deep-seated.
|
|
Gentlemen, allow me to solve this problem!
I love that macro. That's totally where I swiped my axis too.
Better yet I think I'd take it in TF2 version (I'll get on that).
Sniper's been my go-to guy for examples on how to play an LE character that works well with the group for a long time now. :)
From what I am reading the issue we have here is the group is "Rollplayers" and he is a "Roleplayer". At least that is what it appears.
Nope.
That Guy is actually a major cause of metagaming and undermining of roleplaying when he decides to be the Herp Derp party antagonist and tries to force everyone else to stop playing the characters they wanted to play. "Roleplaying" is not a blank check to piss all over the group's fun, however that may be described in their social contract which differs from group to group. Does the group not want any PvP? Don't make an antagonistic little @#$% that either forces it or forces the players to fundamentally compromise their characters so you can have yours.
Wow... 100++ posts. Roleplaying seems to be a point of issue for everyone...
Thanks again for all your insights into this problem. It has been an eye opener and I feel much more informed on how to approach this player on his RPing.
Just answering some questions.
@DeathQuaker,
I am not trying to defend him. Its just that given my own shortfalls on the rules, I feel that I should take some responsibility for the outcomes of his actions.
On Saves and such,
I am not sure, but I think that player has via base ability and spells, able to reach pretty high scores on hiding his actions against us.
I AM reading up more on the rules and the specific spells to guard against his actions. Not... all of us have good perception. (Facepalm.)
On RP VS Roleplay,
Some posters feel that the party is not RolePlaying, but rollplaying and therefore against a RPing player. We are all RPing in the adventure, its just that when face with a scenario, we usually come up with a variety of choices and pick the one that both allow us to role-play our characters as well as benefit the party. Even if the action brings harm to the party its usually one that help makes the adventure immerse.
The Player mentioned, does whatever "its what my character would do" at that point of time, regardless of other possible options. Its a very one track way of thought and more often then not it brings some kind of unwanted result on the party.
This is still acceptable to most us, but he does this every single time.
If he feels his character MUST do something, he will do it. There does not seem to be other options as far as he is concern.
On Munchkining,
Don't think his character was Munchkined, its only optimized for its role. Its just that none of our characters are a proper counter to his actions.
What I think I need is a way to tell the player, that his role-playing actions are less then appreciated, without me, myself appearing as the one that is the Prick.
The issue, as I understand it, is that you feel he's keeping your PC from being as powerful as he could be. So? Your character is imaginary. Why should you care how powerful your imaginary character is? Now, if he were hogging the shine time from you so that your character is getting pushed into the sidelines, I could understand your reason to be upset. But that's not what you've said. In fact, you've got a pretty interesting character arc getting ready to happen as soon as your character figures out what's happening.
But to complain that he's playing wrong because his imaginary character is keeping your imaginary character from having all the imaginary gold you want to pretend he has is like two six year olds playing cowboys and Indians and getting in a big fight over who is supposed to play dead.
He is keeping me from enjoying the game, aka having fun.
We spend 6 hours a week siting down for a game. We could have been playing video games, going out or do some other thing.
But we all came down to play, have fun and enjoy the story of the adventure.
We are not trying to get the perfect outcome, or the most gold or treasure or experience points. We just want to role play our characters and have fun.
He is taking that joy away from the game. Is that something I should be ok with?
curse of disgust
What I think I need is a way to tell the player, that his role-playing actions are less then appreciated, without me, myself appearing as the one that is the Prick.
What I've learned from this thread is that he's probably what we think he is: A troubled person using the game to satisfy his own id. He's "acting out" at everyone else's expense. He has no business playing Pathfinder with anyone who doesn't think like him, and no one old enough to walk really does.
He won't change, and will certainly say YOU are the prick. You're not. He is, and he can't or won't acknowledge it. Tell him ahead of time that he's not welcome to play with you anymore, and watch the psychodrama begin. He'll certainly try to turn it around on you. Repeat your position and don't elaborate. He wants the drama, so don't indulge him.
Don't wait 'til he shows up. Cut him off before you all sit down again. You'll all be relieved, and it will be your best game session since he started showing up. Your GM will agree.
[...] Herein lies the issue. This player is using OOC reluctance to act to gain advantage IC. There's a word for this: Metagaming. The player can get away with these acts simply because he is a player. What he is doing is being disruptive deliberately because he knows that the other players wont act because doing that would infringe on the offending PC's fun. In essence the offending PC is being a jerk because he knows he can get away with it. Worse, this metagaming is anti roleplaying because this OOC reluctance to act has led to acts that would never actually happen in real life. No one would hang around with this guy normally but because everyone else doesn't want to spoil this guy's fun he gets away with it and continues to bully. That's just bad roleplaying.The difference between appropriate inter party conflict and inappropriate inter party conflict comes down to a simple distinction. If the conflict comes from a situation that the GM has presented (such as killing surrendered prisoners or the old goblin baby chestnut) then that's fine. This is called reactive conflict. This guy however is actively causing conflict with other players for his own amusement. That's called proactive conflict and it's unacceptable.
It's nothing to do with rules or rolling dice. It's metagaming and bad roleplaying. Pure and simple
+1
and he is a jerk or at least acts like a jerk.
This player is maybe really destroying your fun. But then you shouldn't invite him to a ROLEplaying game.
This is just BS.
It's a social game. Getting an invite does not give you a free card to behave any way you want. It's opportunity to prove yourself to be a nice person and good player and perhaps even a friend.
|
It's a purely OOC problem. You, as players, don't like the way he's playing his character. If all the players feel this way, tell him he has to change his ways or leave. He's detracting from the fun of the other players, plain and simple.
I mostly agree with the caveat that getting agreement from all the players is not needed. In the game I run if only one player expressed unhappiness with inner-party conflict I would crush it ruthlessly. I recommend you stat clearly to your DM that his "RP" is making the game unfun. A good DM will fix the problem.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raping is not an appropiate element of games I'm in.
That said, the Overthinking in this thread is disgusting. I like to play with the group, but what you're advocating and what you're are concluding from a small description by the "victim" is so ... I can't describe it exactly.
This player is maybe really destroying your fun. But then you shouldn't invite him to a ROLEplaying game. If a group would use the explanations from this thread to forbid character actions, I would tell them, "Allright Guys, I thought, we were here to play a role. But I can also just use abilities and such things, without the baggage of a real character." Because really, many posts seem to be in this direction.
Or maybe he could play a ROLE which is compatible with the ROLES the other players choose to ROLEPLAY instead of being a jerk.
In other words ROLEPLAYING doesn't mean it's ok to be a dick. You don't have to ROLEPLAY a jerk. That's a choice the player makes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I 100% agree. But to resolve this issue constructively, Leafeater needs to identify what this player is doing that's really hurting his fun time. I suspect, assuming a certain maturity level of everyone involved, that the gold looting/mind reading stuff is a symptom of a deeper conflict. I mean, healthy adults don't get wrapped around the axle over the issue of who has the imaginary gold.
Th gold isn't the issue.
As for "get wrapped around the axle over the issue of who has the imaginary gold.", well that far more locical tha getting upset about a character raping another character since gold acctually affects power level of the game, unlike rape.You did get get wrapped around the axle over the issue of an imaginary character commitingrapin another imaginary character, and the Rape it self was just imaginary.
The "it's only a game" argument is lame. People invest real time and real money in this game. And some of us even spend time on these messagboards.
Assuming the gaming group has their big boy pants on, a jerk is just one of many characters available to role-play. I've had friends recall fondly jerks that I've played. They enjoy the inter-party conflict, because, being adults, we didn't take it personally, we were always looking for ways to one-up the other character in a spy vs. spy sort of way.
If your group is ok with inter-party conflict, fine. Not my cuppa, but to each his own.
My impression is that the group has their big boy pants on, and the jerk player is using the game for his own personal weirdness. He needs a shrink, not a game to act out in. If his "fun" is ruining everyone else's, then it's a no-brainer. He's gotta go. Appeals to reason will not work.
It's not about imaginary anything. Fun-killing is a RL issue. Why sit around a table getting your "fun" time wasted by someone turning your game to #(%^?
Everything you need to know about the guy is in the OP. New player acts like a jerk, and whines like a baby when he's called on it. Classic.
Adios, jerk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's turning your argument back on you.
You're the one who said players shouldn't get upset about things that imaginary characters do to other imaginary characters.
Yet you did give an example of another player, whose actions in game crossed a line.
Why can't the OP declare a line that shouldn't be crossed?
Furthermore, you go on to give further specifics;
Again, why should I care which imaginary character has the imaginary gold? I don't play the game to engage in wish fulfillment or stroking my ego. I play the game to work collaboratively with friends to create stories. There are things I don't want in my stories (forex. rape) so I don't play with people who are going to inject that. There are people who become time sucks, I don't play with them either. But players who offer stories (ie. how will my character react when he discovers what's happening?) are a good thing.
The problem player isn't collaborating with anyone; he's not considering what their PCs goals might be. He's not considering what kind of stories the other players want to tell. Maybe they'd like to collaborate on a story where a group of heroic adventurers work together to bring down a great evil? Maybe that's corny to you, but it's a staple of the genre.
Great stories are not being created, or any stories of even mediocre worth, because the game is being derailed. Time is being sucked out of every session, because instead of getting on with their own goals, they are chasing their tails.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming the gaming group has their big boy pants on, a jerk is just one of many characters available to role-play. I've had friends recall fondly jerks that I've played. They enjoy the inter-party conflict, because, being adults, we didn't take it personally, we were always looking for ways to one-up the other character in a spy vs. spy sort of way.Raping is not an appropiate element of games I'm in.
That said, the Overthinking in this thread is disgusting. I like to play with the group, but what you're advocating and what you're are concluding from a small description by the "victim" is so ... I can't describe it exactly.
This player is maybe really destroying your fun. But then you shouldn't invite him to a ROLEplaying game. If a group would use the explanations from this thread to forbid character actions, I would tell them, "Allright Guys, I thought, we were here to play a role. But I can also just use abilities and such things, without the baggage of a real character." Because really, many posts seem to be in this direction.Or maybe he could play a ROLE which is compatible with the ROLES the other players choose to ROLEPLAY instead of being a jerk.
In other words ROLEPLAYING doesn't mean it's ok to be a dick. You don't have to ROLEPLAY a jerk. That's a choice the player makes.
I've long since given up on trying to prove I'm a big boy. I'll leave that to you, and you can take the jerks with you.
I know what sort of play I enjoy and it doesn't involve proving I'm a big boy or dealing with idiots.
He's turning your argument back on you.
You're the one who said players shouldn't get upset about things that imaginary characters do to other imaginary characters.
Yet you did give an example of another player, whose actions in game crossed a line.
Why can't the OP declare a line that shouldn't be crossed?
What I said is that the goal of the game is to have friends come together to collaboratively tell stories. I said that we can decide what we want to be in our stories. I said that rape was not/is not something that I want in the stories I create. I said that he probably does have some legit gripe about this player. I pointed out that he hadn't done a very good job of explaining what that gripe is because it sounds like he's complaining about which imaginary character gets the imaginary gold. Which makes this gripe sound like a couple of six year olds complaining about who is suppossed to play dead.
You're trying to argue that he really is upset about which imaginary character is getting the imaginary gold. That's pretty demeaning to him. Again, I'm sure that he does have a legit gripe which is more meaningful than a six year old's. I want to see what it is.
He's complaining that his character is being robbed, manipulated and generally being made a chump by what should be an ally and that is not a story that he wants to participate. I know I wouldn't.
It could be okay for someone to play a jerk, if and only IF that is planned part of the story and the group knows it. Maybe the character is a loner that with time becomes part of a band of brothers. Maybe he's an amoral jerk that steals from everyone including friends but the groups pally helps him see the light and he becomes a Robin Hood kind of hero. Maybe he's a spy for the enemies that will eventually pull a Heel Face Turn. If it has a purpose and it's going to be temporary, having a jerk on the party could be fun, but in this case it's one guy doing it just to mess with the rest of the party. That is not a cooperative story that's one guy being an ass. And I say *censored* that *censored* sideways, with a polearm.To OP: Let me repeat myself:
Check the rules. You should get perception checks against his stealth and Sleight of Hands and Sense Motives checks against his Bluff and saves against his spells. Eventually when they find him doing something wrong, the party can get suspicious and actively start looking for clues when things go missing or they feel they are being manipulated. When the party gets proof of what he's doing then you can murder him. All in character so he can't complain. Then tell him to make his next character someone that can work with the party.
If he is a nice guy like you say he is out of character he should understand that what you did was in character and be okay with making a character more in tune with the party.
If he makes a scene he is not as cool as you thing he is. If he just makes another jerk character that ruins everyones fun, talk with the other players, you might have to throw him out of the group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I said is that the goal of the game is to have friends come together to collaboratively tell stories.
Actually the goal of the game, any game is for everyone to have fun.
Period.
End of story.
Now, if coming together to collaboratively tell stories is what is fun for you and yours, great. But don't tell others why they play the game. If someone plays for "wish fulfillment" than that is their prerogative. Regardless of in what way the person is ruining the OP's fun, he is ruining his fun. It's not your place to tell him otherwise. Saying it's just "imaginary gold" is a bad argument. By that standard, if we were say playing Monopoly, and I just reached into the bank and took and extra $30,000 you would have no grounds to complain, because it's just "imaginary" and thus doesn't matter.
Also, you keep bringing up the rape of your character, and by no means do I want to diminish how completely inappropriate I consider that action, it too was "imaginary". But consider also that the player was using magic to reach inside the heads of his allies and take knowledge without their consent. Many, if not most, would consider that a form of mental rape. I know I certainly would.
Personally I feel your argument unfairly diminishes what is happening to the OP and his friends by throwing out "Well it could be worse, he could be having his character rape yours".
I am in a game where we just had a player join the party.
Problem is he seems set on roleplaying against other members of the party.I can tell he is not really trying to make life miserable for the rest of us, it just that he ROLEPLAYS his character too much...
He does whatever he feels his character WILL DO, even if such actions are harmful to other party members.For example, he will use bluff, steal from and use spells against other member of his own party. When asked why he does this, his reply is that he is roleplaying his character. As there are no evil party characters in our adventure, care to guess what his alignment is?
To make matters abut worse, I and the other member of the party are NG and due to the nature of our characters, we can't really "take actions" against his character for in-character reasons.
He seems a nice guy out of the game, but goes "in-character" during the game. When told about how some of this actions are not helping the party, he seems offended and insist that the action make logical sense and is "what his character will do". When questioned further, he starts saying that we are nitpicking on his character and goes on to defend his actions.
What can we do to convince him that his roleplaying is getting on the nerves of the other players? AND get him to understand it without going all defensive?
Frag the character in his sleep, take his stuff, incinerate the remains. Better yet, animate the corpse as a scroll caddy and have his zombified tucas carry his own loot back to the fence for you. Then incinerate the zombie in a really big fire. A note to the GM can work. Or man up and do it anyway.
No one reads my mind and takes my loot without suffering accordingly. If there is a reason, it's simple: God / [insert character's diety name here, ideally the one the pain in the butt character worships] told me to do it.
What I said is that the goal of the game is to have friends come together to collaboratively tell stories.Actually the goal of the game, any game is for everyone to have fun.
Period.
End of story.
Now, if coming together to collaboratively tell stories is what is fun for you and yours, great. But don't tell others why they play the game. If someone plays for "wish fulfillment" than that is their prerogative. Regardless of in what way the person is ruining the OP's fun, he is ruining his fun. It's not your place to tell him otherwise. Saying it's just "imaginary gold" is a bad argument. By that standard, if we were say playing Monopoly, and I just reached into the bank and took and extra $30,000 you would have no grounds to complain, because it's just "imaginary" and thus doesn't matter.
Also, you keep bringing up the rape of your character, and by no means do I want to diminish how completely inappropriate I consider that action, it too was "imaginary". But consider also that the player was using magic to reach inside the heads of his allies and take knowledge without their consent. Many, if not most, would consider that a form of mental rape. I know I certainly would.
Personally I feel your argument unfairly diminishes what is happening to the OP and his friends by throwing out "Well it could be worse, he could be having his character rape yours".
+1
Using magic to get sex is also rape. But if I read LilithsThrall correctly he/she doesn't think so.@ "LilithsThrall
As for "imaginary" gold vs "imaginary" rape. No I don't like "imaginary" rape, but that the sort of stuff evil characters or CN characters might do. Murder, betrayal, torture, rape, etc. That's why I never understood why you want to play an evil character. Especially not a NE or CE character.
This is not only a roleplaing game, it's a level based game. The WBL is there for a reason. Sure it's only a guide line, but it's there for a reason. The player can't say: hey now have 100 000 gp more than you. it's only "imaginary" gold and now I "imagine I have the money. The players could however say: Now you character didn't rape my character. My character actually wanted to have sex, and now my character is going to spend the rest of the game telling your character how crappy and pathetic you were in bed.
Finally: Rape can be dealt with in game. Being robed without knowing it can't be dealt with in game unless you get into metagaming.
The jerk isn't roleplaying he is metagaming.
If I were the GM I would say conflicts is fine as long as everyone is having fun. Raping or robbing your allays is not fine.
Edit: And Raping or robbing a PC is also not fine.
He's complaining that his character is being robbed, manipulated and generally being made a chump by what should be an ally and that is not a story that he wants to participate. I know I wouldn't.
It could be okay for someone to play a jerk, if and only IF that is planned part of the story and the group knows it. Maybe the character is a loner that with time becomes part of a band of brothers. Maybe he's an amoral jerk that steals from everyone including friends but the groups pally helps him see the light and he becomes a Robin Hood kind of hero. Maybe he's a spy for the enemies that will eventually pull a Heel Face Turn. If it has a purpose and it's going to be temporary, having a jerk on the party could be fun, but in this case it's one guy doing it just to mess with the rest of the party. That is not a cooperative story that's one guy being an ass. And I say *censored* that *censored* sideways, with a polearm.
This
He's turning your argument back on you.
You're the one who said players shouldn't get upset about things that imaginary characters do to other imaginary characters.
Yet you did give an example of another player, whose actions in game crossed a line.
Why can't the OP declare a line that shouldn't be crossed?
LOL. I smell hypocrisy.
Btw, I would never kick one of my frinds out of the game if his/her character raped my character. But my character would probably kill his/her character or something worse.
I would also ask my friend why. If it turned out my frind had become a jerk, he/she would probaly get kicked out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't about roleplaying, since you can roleplay whatever you want.
This is about he social contract of the group. Now, this is something that is normally not really detailed out like a specific contract (although it can be in some games where the GM has a specific theme and setting in mind).
For most people, it's simply "get together and be cooperative", which is the natural inclination for a lot of people, so it's usually not even mentioned.
From the impression I get in the original post, the game originally was running with the social contract a certain way (everyone playing cooperatively).
This guy was invited into an already running game and decided to make a character that goes against the grain. This doesn't have to be raping another player character to make the gaming tone change drastically.
If no one was stealing from each other before, and now one character is, the mood of the game has changed. If people were getting along before, and now a single character that was invited into the group is now being antagonistic, this definitely changes the mood.
More to the point, the game used to be players coming together to cooperatively take on challenges. Now it's "most of the group cooperatively taking down challenges, despite the actions of an antagonistic 'so-called' ally".
I don't know what I'd exactly do if I were in the OP's position. I guess it would depend on how transparent this issue has been discussed already.
If the issue is already out in the open, I'd probably take it out of game and be frank with the player in question.
"The game we've been playing was sort of a friends taking on the enemy together kind of thing, and we weren't planning on playing inter-party conflict like you've been doing. Could you maybe shelf this kind of jerk character for now, and come up with a more friendly character for this particular game?"
If it were less open, I'd maybe ask the GM if this is something that only I was feeling about the game, and if so, then I'd accept the new tone of the game and adjust my character to accommodate and react in-game appropriately.
If that means kicking or killing that character, then so be it.