| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I think your method somehow manages to be even more childish and vindictive than Wildfire's, Nobody.
"Oh yeah sure we can totally houserule things (but lulz I'm going to passive-aggressively use that thing you might do every now and then against you constantly because I don't have the balls to just say no in the first place)"
Well, I'll say you're taking my post to the extreme, but yes, it CAN easily turn into a childish contest of, "Who's the most passive-aggressive?"
But let's be honest. You're at the table. You have a problem player you can't kick from the table for reason XXX. That player wishes to engage you in a 20-minute debate on every. Single. Rules. Question. That comes up.
I've been there. It's painful.
I gave up GM'ing that person rather than continuing to say, "No," to him. Over, and over, and over again. I just said, "This isn't fun any more," and closed the campaign rather than deal with him.
I watched the next GM just say, "OK, we'll do it YOUR way."
And then, WHEN TACTICS DICTATED IT, her bad guys did the same thing.
And he objected. And tried to argue. And pouted.
But gods, it sure as heck shut him up the next time he tried to argue about what he "should" be able to do...
So if you read my post as, "All the bad guys do it, all the time," then yes, it's childish. If you read it as, "Bad guys can do it when it's reasonable for them to do so," I'd argue it's hardly passive-aggressive, but rather good tactics on the the bad guys' side. And I'd argue for the latter.
I think a better way to do it is to explain to the players what can happen to them if the new house rule is used, and then ask them are they willing to accept the consequences. That way they are not surprised when the rule comes into play. Sometimes when players propose houserule they don't think about it from the other side.
I think a better way to do it is to explain to the players what can happen to them if the new house rule is used, and then ask them are they willing to accept the consequences. That way they are not surprised when the rule comes into play. Sometimes when players propose houserule they don't think about it from the other side.Wow, I think your method somehow manages to be even more childish and vindictive than Wildfire's, Nobody.
"Oh yeah sure we can totally houserule things (but lulz I'm going to passive-aggressively use that thing you might do every now and then against you constantly because I don't have the balls to just say no in the first place)"
Well, I'll say you're taking my post to the extreme, but yes, it CAN easily turn into a childish contest of, "Who's the most passive-aggressive?"
But let's be honest. You're at the table. You have a problem player you can't kick from the table for reason XXX. That player wishes to engage you in a 20-minute debate on every. Single. Rules. Question. That comes up.
I've been there. It's painful.
I gave up GM'ing that person rather than continuing to say, "No," to him. Over, and over, and over again. I just said, "This isn't fun any more," and closed the campaign rather than deal with him.
I watched the next GM just say, "OK, we'll do it YOUR way."
And then, WHEN TACTICS DICTATED IT, her bad guys did the same thing.
And he objected. And tried to argue. And pouted.
But gods, it sure as heck shut him up the next time he tried to argue about what he "should" be able to do...
So if you read my post as, "All the bad guys do it, all the time," then yes, it's childish. If you read it as, "Bad guys can do it when it's reasonable for them to do so," I'd argue it's hardly passive-aggressive, but rather good tactics on the the bad guys' side. And I'd argue for the latter.
You guys are SOOOOOO making me late for work!
Yes, of course we always said, "Well, you realize that if YOU accept this as a rule, then my bad guys can do it too, right?"
Resulted in VERY few houserules ever passing muster...
Wow, I think your method somehow manages to be even more childish and vindictive than Wildfire's, Nobody.
"Oh yeah sure we can totally houserule things (but lulz I'm going to passive-aggressively use that thing you might do every now and then against you constantly because I don't have the balls to just say no in the first place)"
If you remind the players that baddies can do it too when they're deciding on a rule, then it's fair. I've had rules where I did exactly this and the players saw it as just logical that the baddies can do what their PCs can do. (I forget what exactly the rule was -- I think it might have been jumping over a low obstacle as part of a charge.)
I was speaking more about calling the police to remove someone who's using the threat of violence to stay.Call the police and have them kick him out of the house.
Maybe he'll even fight back, and be removed as a problem in the longer term. =)
OK, gotta get back to work, but let's be serious for a moment.
What's more childish? Using the rules a player establishes himself to punish the player and "educate" him that playing in a selfish manner sucks, or calling the police to remove a mostly-harmless man-child from your house?
Accepted. I just think the pat answer of, "Kick him from your group. Otherwise you're a wimp and deserve what you get," is a bit over-used.
Social groups are rarely that simple.
In this case, the problem is that he's the one whose parents give rides to 3/4 of the group.
Also, the reason we couldn't just let his character die of his own weakness is that the other members of the group would inevitably risk life and limb to keep his character safe, even if he probably wouldn't do the same for them.
Our problem player knows most of the members of the group from a young adult social group they all attend. Our GM, Wildfire Heart, doesn't attend that group, and as such has less of a social connection to him than the rest of the group.
Besides, on more occasions than I can count, our "problem player" has been the only reason we had enough people to play, since he's easily the most consistently available person.
And honestly, I'd feel kind of bad kicking him out. He may not be mature enough to play on the same level as the rest of the group, but due to reasons that I'd rather keep private, it's not really his fault.
If his character is too weak to contribute or is played as too weak to contribute then reduce the challenge of he combats so he is not taken into account. That way the group does not suffer, and if he wants to hide in combat just don't attack him. Well I guess you can occasionally make someone attack him so he does not feel ignored.
This allows for him to play and be less of a liability.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 to NobodysHome's now-dubbed No Nonsense Goose and Gander (NNGG) method.
A little DM-player adversarial-ness in healthy for the game. As is the consensus-based approach to house-ruling. As is defense of everybody's collective time by enforcing equal share turn limits.
The two extremes are thus. The DM, TPK-happy, runs the game on continuous Hard Mode, and soon having killed everyone else, must play alone or constantly re-recruit. The DM runs the game on continuous Easy Mode, and the players always win, removing any sense of "danger" or "risk" from it, and hence the "fun" with it.
The two extremes are thus. The DM is a tyrant who brutally enforces a secret list of seemingly-arbitrary house rules, turning the game into an appeasement contest built around his or her cult of personality. The DM is a spineless benefactor who interrupts the flow of the game constantly at any slightest protestation about the structural in-egalitarianism of the rules, where the table makes multiple lengthy go-arounds of discussion before putting proposed house rules up for a vote which must be unanimous to pass.
The two extremes are thus. The "fast and furious" DM translates game-time into IRL-time 1-for-1 and anyone who can't take their full action in 6 actual seconds is passed over in the initiative count allowing the opposition to crush them in their inaction. The "diverse learning style accommodating" DM allows as much time as needed to the player whose needs exceed those of the group regularly and without proportion who utilizes computational dead reckoning to make maximal use of their character's turn to either the gamism or storyism tune.
And then there is the middle ground.
Nobodyshome, thanks. You've cleared the air for me. I'm kind of new to pathfinder in general, and all of us are as well (The OP, my friend, and our disruptive player.) you probably already guessed that.
I must admit, the first post you made annoyed me at first, but looking at it, showed admirable restraint. Now that you realize the situation, you have been most helpful. Thank you very much for your advice. I plan on implementing the "1 minute" rule as soon as we go to our next session.
love the avatar :)
Well, as you can tell, we have a similar "socially dysfunctional" group where 1 guy is fine outside of gaming, but is a game-killer. Our guy has ended 3 different campaigns with 3 different GMs with his play style, and 2 of the 3 campaigns I'm now running are a direct result of people asking me to run "problem guy-free" campaigns.
So I'm totally in sync with, "I can't kick him from my group, but he's killing my game."
I do wish you luck. We have ended every campaign with him, and it wasn't easy to subtly kill them all without alienating him. But he's still our friend, and we just don't game with him any more.
I'm just posting the things that were most effective for us:
- "Do you really want to house rule that?" was awesome, because my other players were willing to step up and say, "If we allow that, then NobodysHome is going to do it with his bad guys, and we don't want that" and the house rules got killed. GothBard was far more charming than I, and the very first house rule Problem Guy proposed to her got passed. Then her drow used it to bypass a barrier he had been relying on. It was childish, but funny. I am ashamed to admit that I regretted that I was playing a LG healer who had to run in and endanger herself to save his life.
- The 1-minute rule is an absolute MUST. I don't play PFS, but I wonder whether they have something like it. Sometimes I wonder how I ever managed without it.
- As I said, NEVER make anything personal. YOU cannot be out to "get" someone's character. You're God. You can kill anyone. Any time. For any reason. As Wraithstrike or Mythic Lincoln so eloquently put it, make it fun for your players. That's your job. You're not there to win, lose, or break even. You're there to provide the world with which the PCs interact. No matter how much his PC annoys you, the world can't treat him differently from anyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between a GM just 'arbitrarily' killing a PC and what I did, at least to me anyways. Next session, he'll get a nice new PC, he'll be useful in combat, and the party will have more fun in general, because now they won't have deadweight.
It's a win-win, in my book.
yours is up to you.
You are assuming he will be useful in combat. Since he is a problem player who just had one of the most powerful classes in the game and was deadweight I see no guarantees that he will be any more useful the next time around.
|
umm...no. The character in question has been disruptive to the group across several sessions, occaisionally actively hindering the group. His backstory (where it existed) was cliche and did nothing but give him unfair advantages or reasons for doing things he otherwise wouldn't.
for example, one character and an npc considered family to that character shares a common language that most party members don't. (ignan) he tells the party that his dead mother has told him to take ignan as a language for no other evident reason but to hear what that character was saying.
Another example. His (old) character tried to use his familiar (a monkey) for EVERYTHING, up to and including using it in combat.
His new character was much the same, and he built his character with next to no backstory other than the fact that he hates the dark summoners (the BBEG is one of them). This character...I don't even want to get into it. 90% of what he said was a varient on "I hate the dark summoners", or "My parents are dead".
I'm also helping him build a new character, one that can actually do something. he likes magic, but doesn't seem to like hanging back during combat, so I'm making him a magus, and we'll see if he likes it.
But when he did die, I spent about twenty minutes arguing with him about it, then (because time was short) had him res SOMEHOW as a medium ice elemental just to get him to the point where we could continue with the adventure.
I actually had another thing planned, whereby the party was separated by a magical device, and you had to fight a creature by yourself. The summoner would have died there in all probability, and this conversation would never have happened.
But the term "giant dire leech" is actually just the words I used to conjure up an image. I could have just called it "Blood sucking thing from the outskirts of the void".
I was gunning for him, but I did so reasonably, I think.
If he's a bad/disruptive player:
1. Tell him he's ruining everyone else's fun.
2. Tell him that if he continues, he's out of the group.
Killing a PC because the player is disruptive does not solve the problem.
If the person is disruptive sit down and talk to him(with the group or one on one) like an actual adult to try to get this worked out, if this doesn't help you need to just kick him from the group
|
Frankly killing pc is too easy legally. I killed a player with a mythic power attack critical hit from a mythic minotaur with his greataxe, wasn't even optimized, just the straight out of the book Mythic Minotaur, but well, mythic power attack is ridiculous.
But anyway, just talk with the player and express that you dislike his playstyle or doesn't want this kind of character at your table, would be better.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Solution here is simple, for the player in question. Just accept that your PC is dead.
And have your next character come in carrying a big ol' sack of giant dire leeches.
So he isn't a good combat character so you kill him.
Wouldn't letting him keep his familiar (buffing it) of his Wiz rather than killing help. Neither would the Summoner's death...
Except it wasn't a giant leech. It was a giant dire leech. There is no standard Bestiary entry.
Well, according to the GM, the only reason it did so much damage was because these leeches are used by giants to heal each other, and the summoner was a Halfling, with easily 1/8 of the amount of blood that a giant has.That's fine...except that giant leeches don't do what he says by the rules are written.
Now there's nothing wrong with house rules. In his custom world the GM is perfectly able to ignore the base rules and create whatever he wants via Rule 0.
So in his world, Giant Leeches do 1d8+2 Con damage instead of what the standard bestiary rules entry state.
Dire is a template you apply. It's here: Dire Creature
Size and Type: If the base creature is Tiny or smaller, increase its size to Small. Otherwise, increase its size by one size category. The dire creature does not gain the benefits or penalties to ability scores that arise from increased size.
AC: Natural armor increases by +5. If the base creature has no natural armor bonus, it gains a natural armor bonus of +5. This bonus stacks with the bonus gained from the increase in size.
Hit Dice: If the dire creature is Small, it has a number of Hit Dice equal to the base creature +1 (minimum of 2 HD). If the dire creature is Medium, it has a number of Hit Dice equal to the base creature +3 (minimum of 4 HD). If the dire creature is Large or larger it has a number of Hit Dice equal to double the base creature (minimum of 6 HD). Recalculate base attack bonus and base saves according to the dire creature’s new Hit Dice total (base attack bonus equals 3/4 Hit Dice, Fort and Ref equal 1/2 Hit Dice +2, Will equals 1/3 Hit Dice).
Speed: Same as the base creature +10 ft.
Attacks: Adjust damage dice of all natural attacks upwards to the dire creature’s new size according to the natural attack progression table.
Special Attacks: Increase the damage dice for any special attacks to its new size (usually by on step).
Abilities: Str +8, Dex +2, Con +8, Wis +4 and Cha +4.
Feats: Same as base creature, with additional feats gained through the usual means from the increase in HD. If the base animal has Weapon Finesse and the feat would become useless after its increase in Strength, then it may trade Weapon Finesse for Weapon Focus with one of its natural attacks.
Skills: A dire creature gains skill points equal to 2 + Intelligence modifier (minimum 1) for each HD it gained. Its class skills are unchanged.
Adds some stats, improves armor class, gets faster, adds hit dice and skills, and increases damage dice by one step. Looking at them now, you'd also probably increase their damage by 1 step to 1d2 Con and 1d2 Str.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between a GM just 'arbitrarily' killing a PC and what I did, at least to me anyways
No, what you did is explicitly arbitrarily killing a character. You ignored / changed / house-ruled a large number of rules simply because you wanted a character dead:
1) The spell would not have caused the giant to react the way he did.
2) A giant dire leach does not do that much damage.
3) The grappling rules were trampled over just atrociously. Just amazingly, atrociously, and completely.
4) The giant dire leach needs to wait a round before it does damage.
What you did has absolutely no standing in any of the rules - it was all house-ruled stuff, all spontaneous, and all created explicitly for the purpose of killing a very specific character. That's the exact definition of arbitrarily killing a PC.
What you don't seem to understand is that there are people (with considerable experience) on here trying to give you (a self-admited novice GM) advice on how to be a better GM. Take their advice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leeches don't even heal people, in any science or literature ANYWHERE.
"Bob got stabbed, grab the leeches! They will stop the bleeding, close the wound, and mend the flesh!"
Just. Does. Not. Happen. Never has. They are not healing potions and have never been (nor should be) treated as such by any culture, real or fantasized.
Leeches were traditionally used to remove "bad blood" or various forms of "internal maladies." They didn't necessarily actually do any of that with any great amount of success, but that's nevertheless why people utilized them.
This is immaturity, ignorance, and inexperience all around. This situation should have been handled out of game with an honest, mature conversation.
Dire is a template you apply. It's here: Dire Creature
** spoiler omitted **...
And its also not a Pathfinder template. It is a third party template. There is no official Pathfinder dire template. So again, there is no standard Bestiary giant dire leech.
Leeches don't even heal people, in any science or literature ANYWHERE.
"Bob got stabbed, grab the leeches! They will stop the bleeding, close the wound, and mend the flesh!"
Just. Does. Not. Happen. Never has. They are not healing potions and have never been (nor should be) treated as such by any culture, real or fantasized.
Leeches were traditionally used to remove "bad blood" or various forms of "internal maladies." They didn't necessarily actually do any of that with any great amount of success, but that's nevertheless why people utilized them.
This is immaturity, ignorance, and inexperience all around. This situation should have been handled out of game with an honest, mature conversation.
I'm going to politely (and slightly) disagree.
For people with severed digits, doctors find leeches are a fantastic way to promote blood flow through the reattached digits.
So, "They have never been used like healing potions to heal damage," is correct.
I just happen to be a big fan of "bug medicine" (sterile maggots to remove necrotic flesh, sterile leeches to promote blood flow, etc.) so I'd like to at least acknowledge that leeches have a place in modern medicine. A niche place, but still a place!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of leeches that don't exist, one campaign I was in among old friends, we kept encountering leeches in any water higher than knee deep.
This town is flooded by a tidal wave from the ocean? Looks like the tide brought in ocean-native saltwater leeches.
Sacred pool in a temple sealed off from all living creatures for thousands of years? Obviously there are holy leeches that until getting on our characters, have been sustained by faith alone.
We started joking about the eventual magma leeches and void leeches we might encounter, and more seriously looking into options for rubber pants.
Leeches don't even heal people, in any science or literature ANYWHERE.
"Bob got stabbed, grab the leeches! They will stop the bleeding, close the wound, and mend the flesh!"
Just. Does. Not. Happen. Never has. They are not healing potions and have never been (nor should be) treated as such by any culture, real or fantasized.
Leeches were traditionally used to remove "bad blood" or various forms of "internal maladies." They didn't necessarily actually do any of that with any great amount of success, but that's nevertheless why people utilized them.
This is immaturity, ignorance, and inexperience all around. This situation should have been handled out of game with an honest, mature conversation.
I'd like to point out, that I work at a modern western hospital - and we uses leeches for some treatments.
To be fair I'm pretty sure the DM in question is already aware and at least tepidly in agreement with our assessment that it was a bad call. Right now we're just indulging ourselves in a general blather-fest of rules and fiction and tropes and medical science throughout the ages.
This is true. I'd like to call an end to the piling-on in the hopes that maybe he absorbs the message from the majority of posters here, since I feel we're all pretty well-meaning.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strangely Useless Cleric: Why are you throwing giant dire leaches at our comrade?
Stone Giant: To better treat his disease of course!
Strangely Useless Cleric: But he doesn't have a dis--
Stone Giant: HE IS THE DISEASE!!!
lol.
Dire is a template you apply. It's here: Dire Creature
That is a 3rd party template. I am not saying 3pp is bad but they were talking about official Pathfinder rules.
edit:ninja'd by almost 5 hours. :)