I have a player who was playing a witch get rather bored with his witch so I let him create another character and killed the witch in an encounter. He wanted to build up to a rage prophet PrC, so he started with barbarian which he'll take to 6 (they're at 4 right now), then take a level in Oracle before taking Rage Prophet. His Oracle curse will be Speak in Tongues, with his mystery being Battle.
This is where I run into trouble -- he's playing a CN barb. Chaotic is fine, and is a class requirement. Neutral is fine, I have no problem with it. But... he wants to play the aimless sociopath style of CN we're all familiar with. Not only that, but apparently, even though he's got an intelligence of 10, he speaks in your super cliche barbarian stunted brain idiot voice. He just wants to play an insane, smash everything type of character with no real effort (his previous character, the witch, wasn't much better) involved in roleplaying, and his answer to everything is "SMASH." He says that the character thinks the spirits/gods that talk to him are the voices in his head that guide him, so he's essentially playing a schizophrenic sociopath rage prophet -- the worst nightmare for a group who is mostly serious about roleplaying.
If you've had players like this, you know exactly what I'm talking about, so how have you dealt with this?
Well. That's what he wants to play.
You could try having him make a deeper character.
Why is his Barbarian an aimless sociopath? Have him answer that question. Just because is not a fitting answer.
Have you tried chatting to him about it?
Well. That's what he wants to play.
You could try having him make a deeper character.
Why is his Barbarian an aimless sociopath? Have him answer that question. Just because is not a fitting answer.
I did ask, and his answer was, "The voices in his head tell him to." I guess as GM, it's my job to say "that's not what they say?" I mean, how much liberty can I take with the guidance he receives as an oracle as GM? Do I have complete control over it? Am I stepping on my player's toes if I tell him that's not what the spirits say?
I guess I should note that we haven't role-played much with this character yet as it was introduced late in our last session, I'm just expecting the worst since I know this player well enough that I have an idea of where he's going with this.
Well, in terms of RAW, you probably have as much authority as you choose to take on.
Realistically, this where the game becomes a social contract. You have as much authority over the characters as the group is willing to give you.
This whole thing sounds like a case of a disruptive character. It reminds me of a post I read on these forums that had a group composed of 4 characters: a professional thief, an assassin, a bloodthirsty revenge obsessed emo fighter, and a highly moral Paladin. One of these things is not like the other... one of these things just doesn't belong... If the entire character concept doesn't fit with the rest of the group, then you need to talk to the player about it.
Having a character like this in the party doesn't need to be the end of role-playing. The key is to integrate him into the party's playing style, instead of letting him set the character up in opposition to the party.
For example, if the the party has a character or two who prefer to negotiate, interact socially, etc., they need to incorporate the barbarian into their methods. Let the barbarian be the "bad cop" to the more-socially-attuned characters' good cops. "We'd like to reach a compromise, but if Grog over there thinks you're cheating us, he's likely to negotiate with his ax. So is 10% off really the best price you can offer?"
Having the barbarian around as muscle explains why the party puts up with his potential for violence. As for why the sociopath is willing to work with the rest of the party, maybe the party knows about the voices in his head. So someone uses the 0-level message spell and a bluff check (I doubt the barbarian's sense motive skill is all that high) to add another voice that encourages him to stick with the party.
Simple. "Bob, D&D is a Game and the idea of a Game is for everyone to have Fun. Sure, you're having Fun with your new PC concept, but I am not nor are the other players. So, let's discuss your next new PC concept....".
Another angle: Sometimes, you just got to get it out of your system. ESPECIALLY if you're a new or relatively new player.
When I first started playing Pathfinder, I wanted to play a mage. It didn't matter to me that playing a caster while you're trying to learn the system only increases the difficulty. I wanted. To play. A mage. So as a concession to the complexity of the full caster, I played a Sage sorcerer. That way all my complexity would only happen while leveling.
My quest for simplicity ended up creating one of the most complex builds I've ever seen. My repeated questions before and after each session drove the senior player of the group to distraction. He vowed that if I ever played a game under him, he would ban all casting classes as creatable characters. The truly ironic thing is that looking back on it with more system mastery, I was really trying to play a bard.
After that first caster character, I dived into the martials. As of now I have a Ninja 8, a Barbarian 5, a Fighter 5/Urban Barbarian 1, a Fighter 2 (TWF), a Fighter 3 (2-handed weapon), a Summoner 3 (who fights with summons and hardly ever casts)... and a single Sorcerer 5 who I rarely play. He's a one trick pony more created to role play gnomes at their craziest than for a fight, but he's my only 'real' caster. I've only just recently gotten interested in playing a full caster again. I'm waiting for the APG to come out so I can play an Arcanist.
Point being... when I started playing, I had a serious thing for casters. I even based my forum name off of it. Ever since getting that first character out of my system, I've played martial characters almost entirely. So... maybe if you let him play his grunting brute of a Barbarian, he'll get over it?
Thanks for the feedback everyone. The Paizo forums have been invaluable to me in dealing with the social part of Pathfinder, avoiding the pitfalls of being a dick GM and so on. I kind of knew what to expect for responses here but wanted a sanity check to make sure I'm not being unrealistic in my expectations from my players.
I've posted before about my expectations of my players and perhaps they're a bit too high, but I think that having high expectations of them and showing that I do pushes them to play better and think about what they're doing. I've seen some glimpses of awesomeness from all of them so far, I just don't want this to devolve into our high school days of mistrusting every party member and everyone ruining everything for everyone else.
|
You know I am a believer that it takes a table to make a gaming group. I know a lot rests on a GMs shoulders but I have found it invaluable to lean on other players for help in a time like this. At my table if somebody is taking something too far, they get the stink eye from the GM and other players. I know this peer presure sounds like a fun squasher but if those couple of people get a return stink eye from the player and someone backs him it turns into a discussion.
I had a rogue in my CC game and he was playing the stereotypical klepto thief archetype. He tried it on the PCs a few times and got the stink eye. We advised him to turn his efforts on the NPCs instead and I gave him plenty of opportunity to do so as GM. The rogue got his fun thieving time and the other players got left alone from those shenanigans. win/win
|
Just go with the flow but ensure that other characters, and especially NPCs, react to this character as they would to any violent powerful person who follows the voices in his head.
Also, all other PCs will be considered unstable/dangerous too and given the same kind of reaction unless they very clearly distance themselves from their mad companion, or even better take steps to ensure that the safety of NPCs is protected from his outbursts.
A cliche personality is better than no personality. As long as the barbarian isn't too disruptive, it could be fun.
It sounds like a cop-out answer, but... it depends.
How are the personalities around the table aligned on this? An argument that the player can play any character they want, the WAY they want, is also an argument that the other four players can have their characters agree that the nutjob barbarian is not someone they want to hang out with and ditch him in any number of creative ways.
If the other players think their characters REALLY wouldn't want to hang with the guy, and the player of the barbarian is mature enough to handle that, then you just let the players handle it.
Of course it can be tough to see if that is the best policy without talking to the players themselves about it.
In the end, the best move would probably be to ask the other players, maybe alone and one-on-one at first, how they feel about the new PC. If they all seem cool with it, then it's just a matter of whether or not YOU want to deal with it.