Help with a player who "Roleplays" on other party members... Too Much! Graps!


Advice

151 to 162 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Or perhaps my PC wouldn't kill the other PC. Perhaps my PC would like to know why. Is the other PC possessed, or under influence of some magic (perhaps dominated by some evil creature), or is the PC blackmailed into it (rape X or we kill your family and X's family). Or was the PC drugged or poisoned and went mad? Do we need to cast neutralize poison and/or break enchantment. Or is the PC cursed? Etc, etc.


If it were me?!

Be a prick - tell him straight up 'i'm just playing my character' isn't a good enough reason to disrupt the party like that because you're all there to have a group dynamic and play together - if he wants to play that way he should play vampire or something.

Read the damn rules on the SRD and find out how to stop his manipulation of them, or if he's manipulating a lack of knowledge, GET THE BLOODY KNOWLEDGE... That was the one part I didn't understand - session one of now knowing how he 'beat' my character and I'd find that rule right quick.

Tell your gm you want to make a new character and make one to stifle him at every turn - a maxed out perception, detect magic etc, with your new knowledge of the rules.

That or start a new game and take the good players with you - I'd rather GM a good game than play in a crappy one due to player disruption - I realise this isn't an option for everyone so see the first two paragraphs if this does not appeal.

Also to be nosy - what class/race/level does the party consist of?!


Oddly, an AT pulled this type of crap a few years back in a 'less than experienced group' I part-timed in with a Ranger (one FE was 'casters'). Overconfident as he had become, he started a spell on me and my Ranger proceeded to Spellcraft him (failed) and assumed the worst. I 5' adjusted and full attacked.

Never try to gank the party's only healer.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

The biggest problem I've seen with people "roleplaying" party thieves and backstabbers is the people who tend to pull the "I'm just playing my character" line, are often the least capable of coping with the reasonable consequences of their characters actions. We had someone pull that in our group, betrayed the party to the enemy so his character could survive. When the encounter was over and we eventually beat the enemy, it turned out no-one wanted him in the party. "You can't do that, that's not fair". Suddenly roleplaying wasn't a huge issue, we had to be fair to him. Forget about the fact that any normal group of intelligent people wouldn't want to be anywhere near the backstabbing jerk his character had become.

This has been a recurring theme throughout my roleplaying experience. You have to cater to the idiocy of the 'jerk' character so the player can indulge in his selfish roleplay. The social expectation is that since everyone is playing the game you can't kick said selfish idiot out of the group, but that is often the most reasonable response.

Yes, in real life if you catch someone stealing from you, don't tolerate their crap on an on-going basis. You kick them to the curb. In game you have little mechanism to deal with this issue that doesn't inevitably lead to IRL strife with the player.

Additionally, it is also selfish play because inevitably you wind up with the GM having countless 'aside' conversations with said selfish player as he deals with the duplicity and petty games. All in all not conducive to good group dynamics.

I can certainly see a rogue character grabbing the occasional 'low hanging fruit' so to speak. But when you are using spells against party members it's clearly gone way too far.


Kaisoku wrote:
"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?"

That would be a friendly and good way to test the waters with this guy. I like it. How would I react? With "OK".

Dennis Baker wrote:
The biggest problem I've seen with people "roleplaying" party thieves and backstabbers is the people who tend to pull the "I'm just playing my character" line, are often the least capable of coping with the reasonable consequences of their characters actions. We had someone pull that in our group, betrayed the party to the enemy so his character could survive. When the encounter was over and we eventually beat the enemy, it turned out no-one wanted him in the party. "You can't do that, that's not fair". Suddenly roleplaying wasn't a huge issue, we had to be fair to him. Forget about the fact that any normal group of intelligent people wouldn't want to be anywhere near the backstabbing jerk his character had become.

THAT is a jerk. I understand why he is a jerk, but he is a jerk. I did kill very few characters in my larping time, but one of them was a betrayer to our side, who even boasted about that. That player was OK with the killing, he even wanted it. So no problem there. If some character would betray my group in a fight with an enemy, I would smite him seven ways of hell. At least, he would get a shot in the leg and I would walk away.

One little thing, very OT: Please feel free to correct my writing or grammar. I can read and understand english, but my active writing (or talking) skills are bad. Not much training here in europe...

Scarab Sages

LilithsThrall wrote:
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 supposed to play dead.

I agree that before he (or his group) issue any ultimatum, they need to set out a list of grievances that they can all agree on, with examples, and work on delivering it without getting angry.

And they need to back each other up; not interrupt each other or undercut the argument.
"Actually, that time he made you cluck like a chicken in front of the king, I thought was funny..."

LilithsThrall wrote:
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.

The loss of control over your own PC, the loss of spotlight time, the inabilty of the group to actually get on with the adventure; these are all worth bringing up.

But is it unreasonable to be upset by the loss of gold as well?
Hit points are imaginary, and they grow back, too.
But if the new player's first action after being introduced, was to cut a chunk out of my PC, I'd consider myself justified in asking him "WTF you doing, you tool?".

It's fair enough to suggest he needs to formalise a more complete list of grievances, but not to suggest that the grievances he did mention were infantile.


Leafeater wrote:

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?

How badly is it annoying you, and why is it annoying you.

Scarab Sages

Further to the posts, re formalising your grievances, before approaching the problem player or the GM;

Do you have any contact with his previous group(s)?

Since you stated that "He seems a nice guy out of the game...", it would be interesting to see if there's a pattern, where he flips to a different personality when he gets behind the controls of a PC.

If they confirm that they kicked him out for similar behaviour, then that's an ace to keep up your sleeve, in case he tries to turn this into being about you being over-sensitive.
(And I'd have to wonder why your GM inflicted him on you, if that were the case).

If they say that they usually played a Player-vs-Player style of campaign, where everyone was fine with it, then that could mean he doesn't know how to play any other way, or assumes everyone is always OK with it.
It still makes him a dick, for not finding out, before carrying on with that style.

If they say that he played lots of different types of character, and was often a strong pillar of the team, then that shows that this current PC is an anomaly.
That's a more encouraging situation, since it shows he can play well with others, if he tries.
However, it still makes him a dick, because he joined a new group, and didn't try.


Snorter wrote:

If they say that they usually played a Player-vs-Player style of campaign, where everyone was fine with it, then that could mean he doesn't know how to play any other way, or assumes everyone is always OK with it.
It still makes him a dick, for not finding out, before carrying on with that style.

If they say that he played lots of different types of character, and was often a strong pillar of the team, then that shows that this current PC is an anomaly.
That's a more encouraging situation, since it shows he can play well with others, if he tries.
However, it still makes him a dick, because he joined a new group, and didn't try.

Doesn't necessarily make him a dick. As we can see from these threads, a lot of people assume that the way they play is the way everyone plays.

The question is can he recognize that a different playstyle is valid and can he adapt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilithsThrall wrote:
...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.

And that is fine for your group. By your words, the group plays that way and enjoys it. I've also played in groups like that and had a good time.

The OP has a different situation. A single person joined a group that doesn't play that way and doesn't enjoy it. He is having fun at their expense not having fun with them.

That is why he is a JERK.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
...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.

And that is fine for your group. By your words, the group plays that way and enjoys it. I've also played in groups like that and had a good time.

The OP has a different situation. A single person joined a group that doesn't play that way and doesn't enjoy it. He is having fun at their expense not having fun with them.

That is why he is a JERK.

Exactly.


In most stories, characters have vastly different backgrounds in which their story somehow brings all of them together. As a result usually the GM has 4-6 players who by story line have known each other for only a few days (In character).

If one of those characters suddenly decides to attack the group or steal from the group, then the only difference between that and a random encounter is that you know the name of the character who is betraying you.

A player that wants to harm the party, in general, should be treated like any monster who wants to harm the party.

In a game that I played in, one character (never missed a game) tied up another character (absent for 2 games) and proceeded to rape him for months during an ocean voyage. When the group found out, we executed the rapist because it violated party trust, among other things.

When the same player played a new character who thought it would be great fun to betray the group to our enemies, we yet again killed him. He violated party trust and was given the standard enemy treatment. I guess he shouldn't play characters where his decision of "betray the party or not" relies on a die roll.

The same player came back one more time, and played a thieving rogue who skimmed off the top every time we got loot or slept, to a point where he had more magic items than he could use. (He then tried to sell the rest) When our wizard figured out his game, the wizard cast feeble mind on him, and the rogue was "allowed to play his character" which essentially amounted to the group pushing him to the front line as "Trap detection" it has been 4 game sessions since then and the player is still at 1 Wisdom, 1 Charisma, and 1 Intelligence.
Essentially ha has turned into Sloth from The Goonies, but he is less likeable and has less strength. He is also not smart enough to flank anymore but the party enjoys his company so much more.


thejeff wrote:

Doesn't necessarily make him a dick. As we can see from these threads, a lot of people assume that the way they play is the way everyone plays.

The question is can he recognize that a different playstyle is valid and can he adapt.

Exactly.

Complaining over which imaginary character gets the imaginary gold is ridiculous and childish.

Disagreements over what kinds of stories the group wants to play out (ex. spy games or hack and slash or epic war), particularly when some of those stories are mutually incompatible makes sense. You should resolve it the same way you resolve the question of which game system to run your game in.

When a player wants to play a different type of game, it doesn't make them a jerk. Just figure out what motivates you to play the game (whether that motivation comes from the ridiculous need to stroke your own ego in your friend's basement every Friday night (ie. arguing over which imaginary character gets the imaginary gold) or that motivation comes from working together to tell collaborative stories (with narrative complexity more sophisticated than Thomas the Train Engine)). Once you've figured out what motivates you to play the game, figure out what motivates your friend to play the game. Then respectfully look for common ground.

Frankly, though, its sick to compare rape to stealing. Rape is a deeply personal act of radical victimization. Stealing is wrong, but its not comparable to rape. There's a reason many people play Monty Haul DnD, but even those same people feel the way about FATAL that they do.

151 to 162 of 162 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Help with a player who "Roleplays" on other party members... Too Much! Graps! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.