And now for an update on the situation. Here is the latest email from my DM:
Thanks Mr. B.
And now that we've begun the annoying Internet debate tactic of copy/paste...
When I ran my last game I gave some basic parameters of character creation and enforced them. We had talked about it before that game too.Last game I created a character specifically designed to counter Mr. R's thought process on alignment. Gildon was Good to the point of being evil intentionally and unapologetically, and thus I accepted Mr. R's alignment philosophy specifically to put it to the test in character.
So clearly the "problem" didn't go away, it just became part of the plot. At least she was useful that time.
I disagree on all points.You missed the points. I didn't accuse the party of doing those things. They are typical things you can expect an adventuring party of good characters to do.
Mr. R seems to be the only one drawn to this play style and I do not understand why that should be catered to especially when it has caused such problems in the past.I'm not catering to that style. The rattling was a pregenerated NPC, I didn't print him in the book and draw his picture. The fact that he didn't die was a matter of proper rule adjudication, not a desire to create a moral dilemma for Mr R's benefit. He had 9hp and Mr. B did 12 damage... The fact that NPCs get -10hp before death like PCs is a matter to take up with the Pathfinder folks.
But I think you knew this [alignment issues] going in or you wouldn't have set the parameters that you did at the start of the campaign.Yet we agreed on a prequel.
I only really wish that you would have enforced those parameters. Instead, now you have allowed Mr R to play an enemy sympathizing evil character who wants to EAT PEOPLE. It is part of his core character concept. This couldn't be further from what those parameters were meant to avoid happening.We're adults. Well most of us. Honestly I'm not all that fond of the alchemist either or the Roc with the Zen Archer sidekick (sorry Your Son). Even the gunslinger presents problems. Yet,ultimately the only thing I can enforce is the rules.
That's the kind of game you want. I can persuade you. I can boot you. I can quit. I cannot create your character for you and tell you how to play it. I can set the world up to kill you if you are of a certain mindset, but you are free to quit as well. That is why I warned you of the type of campaign this will be and what types of behaviors I'm not willing to DM. Just to remind you here is the list.
The post apocalyptic theme of this world is to attempt to unite your characters regardless of alignment based upon the need for survival. Promise Hold as the origin is there to make sure that you at least function as a group, and to make sure that you oppose the apocalyptic world rather than just surviving by peaceably settling in it.
As for the things I won't DM (I wrote most of these up during the WLD):
- splitting from the party for more than a brief period of time.
- "relationships"
- being intentionally useless, intentionally harming the party, plotting against the party etc. unless the players are okay with it.
- taking away control of another player's character without their permission.
- the PC should be the focus of the character concept, not its cohorts, allies, pets, companions, summoned creatures, alternate forms, equipment, etc
- becoming so powerful as to render the rest of the party moot.
- stealing significantly from the party.
- try not to make me cater the treasure to your concept.
- characters designed to spoil the adventuresAs you can see I have made exceptions for everyone. Not just Mr. R.
And I need to clarify some things here. First of all I also called and spoke with my DM regarding these issues and cleared up a couple of points. First of all there seemed to have been a miscommunication about what I meant when I said that he was "catering to Mr. R's play style". My DM thought that I meant that he was running the sort of campaign that allowed him to take advantage of his play style. You see... Mr. R, aside from having poor personal hygiene habits and a sometimes annoying play style also has a proclivity for rats. He loves rodents. Yeah, I dunno, he is odd... what can I tell ya? My DM thought I meant that he was putting ratkin foes into the scenario to appeal to Mr. R. I explained to him that this was not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that he had setup parameters for character creation pre-game and that by not following those for one player he is catering to his disruptive play style.
That issue alone, I think, caused a lot of confusion in his response above. As for the issues with the characters that he brought up I was unaware of these issues prior to the email. For my alchemist he doesn't have any issue with the mechanics or the RP of the character. It is more of an issue of combat being primarily something he does in an alternate form. I think he wasn't clear on how it worked though and after I explained that it is really no different than a long lasting Barbarian Rage, or a spell buff he didn't have any issue with it. The issue he did have was more for trying to figure out beneficial loot for the character but that has been discussed and really is a non-issue.
The issue he had with my son's character was about him having a Roc as an animal companion. He doesn't like characters that are focused on their animal companion, cohort, familiar, etc. We knew this going in. It was explained that the Roc would not be getting involved in combat likely ever and would simply be used as a means of transportation. He is fine with this.
The gunslinger is Mr. B's character. I had an issue with this character going in because typically I do not like playing in fantasy settings that have black powder technology. Basically I don't like guns being included with my swords and sorcery. I recognize that this is just part of the Pathfinder setting though and have decided to have an open mind about it. Besides, I like his character concept and Mr. B is fun to play with. Also, it was brought up that alchemy isn't far off black powder technology and I can't really argue with that. These were the issues that the DM had as well. Also there is the problem of providing appropriate treasure for this character as well. Not every goblin or orc is going to have masterwork or magical guns laying around.
I did make it a point to explain that the problems that the DM had with the characters that he was only just now bringing up had nothing to do with the players and were things that were easily resolved by either talking about or making some small changes. All of the players I'm sure are willing to do that. The the problem with Mr. R's character isn't something that is on his character sheet. The problem isn't, in fact, a problem with his character at all. It is with the player.
My DM understands this as he has been on the receiving end of it before. I reminded him of last game where he played a paladin and was going after an evil lycanthrope little girl who had just murdered an orphanage full of children. Mr. R's character, of course, wanted to save the lycanthrope and didn't want my DM's character to kill it. My DM made it clear from the very start of this campaign that such behavior wasn't going to be tolerated by his character and he proceeded to smite the lycanthrope girl. It was the right decision. I explained that I feel that I am in a very similar situation currently.
He understood my point and agrees but said that he doesn't feel that he can enforce rules on someone's role playing. I explained that if he felt that way then he wouldn't be able to lay out (or enforce) the rules that he wrote in that email (posted above). But since he feels that he can enforce those then he is very clearly already enforcing rules on someone's role playing. I explained that I do not think this is a bad thing. The reason he made those rules was to ensure that everyone (including him) at the table has an enjoyable game. This situation is no different.
In the end I think we understand each other now at least. I'm not sure how this is going to turn out. My DM said he isn't sure if there is even going to be a next game and wants to talk to Mr. B first. I'm not sure if he is considering giving Mr. R an ultimatum or what. I did explain again that I was unwilling to play in a game where someone is allowed to play an evil, people eating, enemy sympathizing, contrary character that causes this kind of inter party conflict and neither is my son. My son was there during the phone conversation as well and pretty much weighed in with his "if good guys do bad things and ally with the bad guys my character is going to consider them bad guys and want to kill them just like any other bad guy" sentiment. Leave it to a child to bring clarity to a situation, eh?
My DM did have some encouraging things to say though. He did say that he isn't (and never was) going to allow blatant evil actions, people eating or any actual alliance with enemies. He predicted something like this may happen and he was prepared to "bring the hammer down" when it did. I explained that it would have been a lot easier and avoided conflict if he didn't allow those types of characters to begin with. I think, honestly, he is just having a hard time understanding that he really just needs to take a hard line on what types of characters he is willing to DM and what types he is not. Mr. R just plain needs that kind of structure given to him for him to be included in a successful game.
I'll let you all know how it turns out. I might be looking for a new group shortly.
I do not have the power to give that ultimatum.You and your son are two of the group's players. You've also said that you can't easily just chuck Mr. R out because losing even one player could put an end to the game.
Seems to me that you do indeed have the power to give that ultimatum if you so desire.
Now, whether you want to give that ultimatum may be a different question. But it's definitely an option, and not one to be discarded out of hand.
Well, if you want to consider that an ultimatum then you are correct. And I suppose it is, it just isn't the ultimatum that I meant. I meant more for the DM to give an ultimatum of "make a conducive character or theres the door." But I suppose it all really amounts to the same thing. I just do not like being the bad guy here. Especially as I just feel that I am asking for the DM's rules to be followed.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to the DM because I'm asking him to enforce rules that he put out. No one likes calling their friend out as spineless.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. R because he probably sees me the same as I see him: unwilling to bend to someone else's play style.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. B because he just wants to have a fun game and doesn't have as big of an issue with this as everyone else does.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to my son because he just wants to be in a fun game period and doesn't want to have to deal with this kind of conflict. I want a chance to role play with my son rather than for him. Without being the DM I feel that it is hard to provide the proper type of game for him to enjoy, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, someone will be unhappy with.
No matter what you do, some one will be unhappy.
You are going to have to make a hard decision, and piss someone off.
This is something you will have to come to terms with.
The longer you wait though, the worse it will get.
I had a similar situation, and I had to make the hard decision to tell the DM, either he goes, or I go.
You may go another way, but as long as you accept that there will be coincidences, and make your decision soon, then you can avoid a worse situation later.
I am truly sorry that you are put in this situation.
I wish you luck.
uhh, I find myself agreeing with Blackbloodtroll.... Somebody please check my vitals^^
I feel like I'm the bad guy to the DM because I'm asking him to enforce rules that he put out. No one likes calling their friend out as spineless.
Then again, who but friends are there to tell you in all honesty ?
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. R because he probably sees me the same as I see him: unwilling to bend to someone else's play style.
Yes, and that is utterly normal. People can (and should) only bend so much. Beyond that, it is far easier to keep things separate.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. B because he just wants to have a fun game and doesn't have as big of an issue with this as everyone else does.
Yeah, let's not help the other friends at the table because it would be too much trouble... then wonder why the group is breaking up.
Non-intervention : Mostly not good policy. But his choice. And hence his problem if things go badly.
I feel like I'd the bad guy to my son because he just wants to be in a fun game period and doesn't want to have to deal with this kind of conflict. I want a chance to role play with my son rather than for him. Without being the DM I feel that it is hard to provide the proper type of game for him to enjoy, though.
So you picked a non-perfect group with some troubles. Same as picking a bad game, sloppy ballgame, or stupid spot for a vacation. To me the reactions from the group speak mostly of sloppiness and lack-of-interest for other people's interests. Not really "friendly".. inthe European sense, perhaps.
But if life gives you lemon, make lemonade ? Should you have the time : Offer the GM to master for a while, prepare a good game, and make Mr. R stick to his concept. See what happens.
But if life gives you lemon, make lemonade ? Should you have the time : Offer the GM to master for a while, prepare a good game, and make Mr. R stick to his concept. See what happens.
I just got done doing that. I would like the opportunity to actually play with my son rather than DMing for him.
But if life gives you lemon, make lemonade ? Should you have the time : Offer the GM to master for a while, prepare a good game, and make Mr. R stick to his concept. See what happens.I just got done doing that. I would like the opportunity to actually play with my son rather than DMing for him.
It might still be the least painful way out of the situation, even if... it feels underwhelming ?
The group doesn't seem to mix in any other combination, and Mr R strikes me - by your description of him - as the type of "slightly underachieving" player who needs to provoke a reaction out of everyone else by being different, mildly antagonistic and "counter-clockwise".
You won't change his personality. And he won't change yours. That's how the land lies.
But I suppose it all really amounts to the same thing. I just do not like being the bad guy here. Especially as I just feel that I am asking for the DM's rules to be followed.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to the DM because I'm asking him to enforce rules that he put out. No one likes calling their friend out as spineless.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. R because he probably sees me the same as I see him: unwilling to bend to someone else's play style.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to Mr. B because he just wants to have a fun game and doesn't have as big of an issue with this as everyone else does.
I feel like I'm the bad guy to my son because he just wants to be in a fun game period and doesn't want to have to deal with this kind of conflict. I want a chance to role play with my son rather than for him. Without being the DM I feel that it is hard to provide the proper type of game for him to enjoy, though.
You're NOT the Bad guy. Actually you're the mature guy, and really everyone, even R, will have more fun if the rules are followed.
We're behind you, too. And I think you're the Good Guy. (Read my profile)
I concur. Others will make you out to be the bad guy, sure, but it is they themselves are at fault.
Honestly, boot this player and get some others in.
While I don't have a lot to add to the discussion, reading the SKR interview, I bet he gets pretty frustrated with this board, assuming he still agrees with this statement:
The biggest drawback to d20 is that there are SO many rules and you think you have to use all of them, and people keep adding new rules and subrules to clarify extreme corner cases; it's easy to fall into the trap that you NEED all of these rules, when really at its heart d20 is a very simple game, and much of the stuff people worry about isn't important as long as everyone is comfortable with the DM making rulings.
That seems to be most posters on this forums worst nightmare.
Sounds like Britta from NBC's Community when they were playing Dungeons and Dragons in that espisode.
|
I think everyone here is on the same page. Thank you for your comments.
InTheMouth: I think thats true. The issue here is finding people that will commit to the game if they know he isn't going to be there BEFORE disinviting him.
Pfft, I wouldn't let that worry me.
Ask them, straight up. "Would you be interested in playing on xxxxday night, with me, B, C, and D? No, Douchebag McGriefer won't be there."
I wouldn't be subtle about it, either, I'd shout it into the games store, via bullhorn.
Maybe seeing there's an open call for players to take over his seat, might be the wake-up call he needs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth: I did read your profile. I'm glad that I did. Until I saw where you were located I thought I might know you in real life. You sound a lot like some people I used to hang with. I don't wear a beard and can't be fat, so I can't call myself a fatbeard. I also have never much been into war games so I am not so much a grognard. But I have been honorarily accepted as a grognard for my time in gaming. I've seen you around the boards (here and elsewhere if Im not mistaken) and have a respect for the type of person you are and what you have contributed. I did not personally own your book but I recall seeing it on one of my friend's shelves. Thank you for your support.
Jodokai: Did you like the interview? Maybe I should post it in it's own thread so others see it more. Its kinda nostalgic to me.
Snorter: Well, the thing is I can ask people that question but I can't guarantee to them that "Douchebag McGriefer" will not be there.
...awesome nickname by the way. I may take it to be used in context. ;)
Here is the latest email from Mr. R (the problem player) on the topic:
I don't think I have much to add to this debate. It has all pretty much been said. I have no interest in adding to the heat, without shedding some light. I would note that my people eating powers don't kick in till level 10, and except for WLD our campaigns don't advance that far. What is latest word on next game session? Is it two weekends from now?
"WLD" is referring to a World's Largest Dungeon campaign that we played some time ago.
I think this email shows how little of an issue he believes that his actions have caused. ...either that or I'm making a bigger deal of it than it actually is.
Flashohol: Its included in the thread above.
Here is the latest email from Mr. R (the problem player) on the topic:
I don't think I have much to add to this debate. It has all pretty much been said. I have no interest in adding to the heat, without shedding some light. I would note that my people eating powers don't kick in till level 10, and except for WLD our campaigns don't advance that far. What is latest word on next game session? Is it two weekends from now?"WLD" is referring to a World's Largest Dungeon campaign that we played some time ago.
I think this email shows how little of an issue he believes that his actions have caused. ...either that or I'm making a bigger deal of it than it actually is.
Sounds like the guy is completely clueless when it comes to empathising with other people.
ps It isn't clear in the above posts what the message you sent to Mr R. was.
I did not send anything specifically to him. All of the emails that I posted were sent to the entire group including the message that Mr. R sent that I posted above. I think that may have caused the confusion.
Great Wyrm Gold Dragon: "Welcome to my utopia, if we all work hard we can make the world a better place. What skills do you bring to help us?"
Witch: "I cook people in cauldrons to get boosts for magic and combat."
GWGD: <BREATH WEAPON> "Next?"
haha.. I vote for this...
OR
Offer your son $10 to kill MR.R every time he "goes nuts" ;-0
Seriously tho.. if you've talked to him and doesn't "get it" .. just replace him.
Grollub... you know what? Bribing my son actually is a kind of appealing idea. I mean, sure it would likely be poor parenting to show him that bribing to get what you want is acceptable behavior... but on the other hand it would show that when working towards a common goal you can make the game as a whole better. I could call it "rewarding good behavior" or "positive reinforcement" rather than "bribing" to satisfy my moral compass. ;)
Also, while I definitely agree that it is an option (perhaps even the best option) to replace him I do not have the authority to decide that on my own.
From up thread.
"...
3) If no, then you have to talk about it in as non-confrontational of a manner as possible. "Jimmy-Joe-Bob, would you mind toning back on the morality lessons and angst? I understand where you are coming from and I agree that alot of what goes on in the game is hard to justify as 'good' by modern 21st century morals. But that is the way the game is set up and we're just trying to have some fun. Some of it is ok, but getting in a philisophical debate every single combat is not fun." Something along those lines anyway.
From MY point of view you first have to decide if he knows he's causing a problem for you and others. It sounds like you think he does, but are you sure? Some people find this a fun sort of role playing and don't realize that it irritates others. We can't decide that for you.
..."
From his email, it doesn't sound like this has occured. He doesn't seem to know there is problem. That is why a bunch of us said you have to talk with him first.
If that conversation has occured and he does know he is causing problems but is just lying in the email, then it is a whole different level of antisocial behavior. I would get away fast. No game is worth puttin gup with that.
It was brought up that Mr. R has in the past made a contrary character in an evil campaign as well; he was the do gooder.I knew it.
Me too. I was so surprised to read it I nearly fell asleep.
What hast the outcome been in this situation?
It sounds like the DM is not doing his job correctly. If he has stated that Evil characters are not allowed but then doesn't do anything when the friend shows up with one but lets him play it, then he's breaking his own rule and by definition is not a great DM. He may still be a good DM but to be a great DM you have to be willing to be the bad guy sometimes and say "no, that is not allowed. Now go back and create a different character that meets the rules set up"