| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider myself empathetic and moderate, and an excellent communicator. But I've yet to deal with a situation like this one. Something tells me that I'm just too close to the problem.
I'm not looking for a "solution"; real-life social issues are way too complex for me to describe accurately to total strangers, let alone for said total strangers to understand the problem or "fix" it. I guess I'm mostly curious to see if other people have had to deal with things like this.
So, the player. Known them for twenty years. An intelligent, witty and charming personality.
They've been much more active in the gaming scene than I have for many years. Shadowrun, Fiasco, Kingdom Death, Torch Bearer, OD&D.
I'm trying to start up a game. We've had session Zero and discussed who wants to play what.
My friend had proven...resistant to any kind of input from me regarding their character. They seem to resent the idea that their character could be anything less than 100% their creation.
So they have taken skill focus twice, along with far shot. They've "decided" to spend about 65% of their starting wealth and discard the rest, and not to take all of their class features.
I've asked my players to get their character sheets completed and a copy sent to me, mostly so I have a backup if they lose theirs and to have an idea as to what the party is capable of, but also to double-check the math and make sure everyone's got everything they need.
Several months later, I have my friend's character sheet. And there are several problems.
Some of them are minor; a forgotten houserule or the like. Some are more fundamental; an extra point of base attack bonus, not adding size, strength or racial bonuses to attack modifiers. Some are significant; attempting to prepare bonus spells before the class has spell slots at those levels.
So I reach out and mention the potential errors that I noticed. I attempt to be as concise as possible (so as not to seem like I'm lecturing) and as casual as possible (so as to avoid coming off as condescending).
Their response was fairly passive aggressive and turse. They tried to argue that the errors I had found were in fact the accurate interpretation of the rules, for example. Then they sent me an updated character sheet.
...there are still errors.
My current plan is this: I will write up an accurate sheet of how their character should be and keep it for my own records. But I will not police their rolls and cross-reference everything they do. All in all, their mistakes hurt their character far more than they help (a lvl5 full BAB with a primary attack of +10, 1d6+2). If I notice something significant off hand (like trying to cast a spell that's two levels higher than they should be able to), I'll shut it down. But beyond that, their character is their responsibility. I have made an honest--and, frankly, Herculean--effort to be both helpful and respectful, and have been offered spite and obstinacy in return.
Here's my theory: I've seen enough to believe that the rapid-fire math and juggling of various modifiers that's so common to 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder does not come easily to this player. I think they sort of hide behind the "role-playing over roll-playing" attitude to cover this up. If they can't successful build a mechanically potent character, they can at least succeed at deliberately building a mechanically inferior one.
But that's not entirely fair; a big part of it is probably just that they aren't interested in the mechanical part of gaming. At least, in the mechanical elements that lead to strong, effective characters. They LOVE crunchy rules systems that are extremely unforgiving, random and punishing (like when a character sees their first monster, rolls poorly to resist fear, has a heart attack and dies. 15min into the game).
Which would all be fine; like what you like. But whenever I bring an idea to this player that would both fit their character AND be mechanically sound (how can your character concept be "the greatest X in all the land" when you deliberately choose to be less good at X?), they just sort of scoff at my ideas, giving me some kind of "don't you know there's more to gaming than numbers?" treatment.
I honestly don't know if I'll invite this friend back to my table after this game. We just seem to want vastly different things from the hobby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue (as described) is simple enough.
The player isn't willing to listen to you or cooperate. Their reasons are somewhat irrelevant, because they're not willing to talk with you about it.
You are almost certainly too close to the problem, but that's inevitable. If you trust your other players, you might have them talk to your problem player.
But unwillingness to compromise or collaborate (or learn, even) in character creation does not bode well for the rest of the campaign.
Regarding being resistant to any kind of input about their character... YEP! So hard from one of my players!
I've tried to smooth corners a little with him. Rather than suggesting something that would perfectly to fit into the campaign I'll try nudging in a direction so that I can change the campaign to fit... he'll be on-board with it and then a week later will have completely forgotten the conversation and ended up even more in the opposite direction.
His characters tend to be less involved in the story that everyone else. Sometimes completely removed from the story beyond being someone that interacts with the pieces around him. (No connection to any NPCs, nothing in his backstory that I can use to introduce a plot-point, just goes along for the ride but thoroughly enjoys the game.)
Something to keep in mind: Sometimes people have fun differently than you do.
To me, and most of my players, it seems weird to be so disconnected from the story, but the player always has fun and never seems to feel left out. (And is excited for people when their characters ARE connected and involved with the NPCs and such.)
As for not always taking things that make sense... some people do that. They want to make the game harder for themselves.
The accidental cheating / not listening to you when you try to correct them would get tiring, depending on the situation. Honest mistakes / people not understanding the rules is one thing, arguing and then ignoring the rules (or even just ignoring your rulings on them) would get frustrating.
When that happens, I always encourage open and careful communication. You don't want to come across as saying "NO! You're wrong and I'm right!" so something like "Maybe I missed something, what did you see that says it works that way?" might work instead. (And then, if they're wrong, correcting. Extra spells before they can cast that level of spell seems to happen a lot. A "-" means you aren't able to cast spells of that level yet, a "0" means you can but that you can cast 0 spells of that level unless you have a stat or something that says otherwise.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The player isn't willing to listen to you or cooperate. Their reasons are somewhat irrelevant, because they're not willing to talk with you about it.
Agreed. If this was someone I simply gamed with and wasn't one of my oldest friends, it would be an easy fix.
You are almost certainly too close to the problem, but that's inevitable. If you trust your other players, you might have them talk to your problem player.
That's exactly what I've done.
I'd pointed out they hadn't accounted for all of their class abilities, to which they said "uh, I have: see? It says I MAY choose another. I don't want to."One of my other players confronted them and eventually got them to admit that they were just tired of the character creation process and wanted to be done. Which...I don't know. How do you claim to like gaming, at that point? They're lvl5. It's not a ton of work.
As for not always taking things that make sense... some people do that. They want to make the game harder for themselves.
And I'm fine with that. It's the "I'm a more dedicated, hardcore, "pure" gamer because I don't bother with all the "op" stuff and I'm more sophisticated and blah blah blah." If you're bad at math, that's fine. I'm not great at it. I would never, EVER criticize someone for struggling with something like that. Just don't hide your weaknesses by acting like you're better than me.
You don't want to come across as saying "NO! You're wrong and I'm right!" so something like "Maybe I missed something, what did you see that says it works that way?" might work instead.
Sure, at first. But if you snub my peace offering, I'll give you both barrels.
Here's how that bit went down:
I texted "Hey, got your character sheet. Thanks again for that; that'll make my life a lot easier.
I noticed a few things, listed below. Peruse at your leisure:
...you will have access to the next spell level in two character levels..."
They texted back: "Hey, got your character sheet. Thanks again for that; that'll make my life a lot easier.
I noticed a few things, listed below. Peruse at your leisure:
...you will have access to the next spell level in two character levels.
--See Table 1-3: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells."
(so, just copy/pasted my text and added the last bit. This was undoubtedly an atempt to "show me up"; the smug tone in the subtext is unmistakable from this person.)
I replied: "from Abilities and Spellcasters: 'In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells or use spell slots of a given spell level.'
That's why you have some entries in spell slots that are '0', versus simply '--'. Also, if you were able to cast every bonus spell your ability modifier allowed, you'd have gotten an extra two, not just the one."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Myself I'm kind of confused on how a guy who played/liked things like ODnD, Shadowrun, and KDM is managing to get stymied by PF's ruleset...
I agree. I think they're in love with the IDEA of a super-crunchy system, but haven't realized or accepted that it's just not in their wheelhouse.
There's definitely a difference between Pathfinder's "take Variant 2F of Option 19.4Y, combine it with Subset Rule 7G2" and Kingdom Death's...whatever it is. Complexity versus Cognitive Load, I guess. But even with that said, their preferences are hardly consistent.Either way more on topic, I can generally say that being annoyed at people backseating your char gen is a pretty valid...
I understand that, to a point. It's your character. You should get to play something you want to play.
But it's MY WORLD, and your character belongs in it. I'm trying to tell a story with a cohesive genre and tone.Just fix the math errors, glare in Rule 0 if they kvetch about it, and let things ride from there...
That's just it. They've thrown such a fit over me having the gall to point out that they didn't add their Str modifier to damage, I really don't feel like reaching out a second time.
But you're right, they most likely won't mind being useless. I'll just have to revamp the game structure to 3.25 PC's instead of 4.Hear your friend out. Make your ruling. Explain why. Make sure he knows he's been listened to. Offer ways for him to help him accomplish what he wants to accomplish within your rules framework. It sounds like there are ways his character are sub-optimal anyway, and there is wiggle room.
But in the end, be firm. Your rulings have to be final. You are the GM.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, here. I've heard them out and taken great pains to be respectful, sensitive and clear, as I said earlier.
My discussions with this player aren't like the debates on these forums. They don't know any of the source materials or supplements; this is someone who doesn't know what the size modifier is to your CMB, or how the class skill bonus works, or how much of a bonus scale mail provides.
Character builds are involved and highly personal. If your player(s) have character concepts built that they are excited about, you should respect and value that and try to help them make their dreams come to life. You want your players to be excited by their characters. That will improve everybody's fun, including yours.
Ley me be clear: I'm not some control freak who needs my players to make the exact characters I want.
This player came to me with an interesting concept, one I found genuinely compelling. But their execution of the concept has been deliberately bad. Example: in my houserules, Skill Focus gives either a +5 to one skill, +3 to two or +2 to four. They wanted to take the feat twice, +3 to four skills total. I pointed out that they could take +2 to four twice and get +4 to all of them. They insisted on keeping in the same.And again, if finding combinations and synergy and getting that instant gratification just isn't for you, then fine. But don't look down on me for enjoying some numbers crunching alongside my storytelling.
|
I play in a group where half the players don’t want to create charactersheets or update them. So our GM provides a short character “menu” to choose from at game session zero.
The players that want to customize their character just make the changes they want. The rest play their Character off the bat and let the GM update the sheet. Perhaps they sometimes tell the GM that they want some particilar skills or feats.
They are a cool bunch of people, but most dont have interest in reading rulebooks - We shift between systems often - but they are fun and very into to the story/plot of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Software like Herolab provides a faceless, hard to argue with authority which might be useful here. Asking them to use such software could save you from a lot of hassles if they're willing to spend money on that.
I play in a group where half the players don’t want to create charactersheets or update them. So our GM provides a short character “menu” to choose from at game session zero.
The players that want to customize their character just make the changes they want. The rest play their Character off the bat and let the GM update the sheet. Perhaps they sometimes tell the GM that they want some particilar skills or feats.
They are a cool bunch of people, but most dont have interest in reading rulebooks - We shift between systems often - but they are fun and very into to the story/plot of the game.
As a GM who regularly takes on more than their fair share at the table, that sounds like an awful lot of work to dump on one person.
This hobby requires a fair amount of work. Even artsy theatre-of-the mind games like Dread that don't have numbers or dice require quite a bit of effort at character creation. I'm all for helping players out, but I feel like GM advocacyis sorely lacking. We're all here to have fun. Why am I putting in three hours of work for every one I get to enjoy in-game?Sadly, I still wish I could just do something like this. It would save me a lot of headache. But this player is extremely passionate about character creation (despite the fact that they got tired and gave up halfway through, apparently).
Then be firm in your rulings.
Man. I...I'm sorry, I just can't help but feel like you're having an entirely different conversation than everyone else.
What exactly are you talking about?Software like Herolab provides a faceless, hard to argue with authority which might be useful here.
I would, if I used it.
At any rate, it's not the lack of authority that's an issue. This player knows I'm right, I'm sure of it. They've conceded on all of the issues I've addressed with them. The problem is that they threw such a fit and made pointing out things like basic math errors a chore, and it's not one I feel like continuing.
So I don't think I will. I'll just let them play their hopelessly terrible character for as long as they can manage or have a desire to. If asked, I will point out that they're basically running at 25% capacity; when you fail to implement the sub-par choices you've made correctly, you'll suck. Bad. And I'll point out that, due to how my first line of comments was received, I didn't really feel inclined to have another go at it. It's not my character, after all. And I'm not a grade school teacher correcting anyone's book reports. At a certain point, it's on you.
So we'll just continue on per normal and see how they cope with a pack of nine dire wolves five minutes into session 1, I guess. Maybe the other characters will pull this one's weight.
This player knows I'm right, I'm sure of it. They've conceded on all of the issues I've addressed with them. The problem is that they threw such a fit and made pointing out things like basic math errors a chore, and it's not one I feel like continuing. So I don't think I will. I'll just let them play their hopelessly terrible character for as long as they can manage or have a desire to. If asked, I will point out that they're basically running at 25% capacity; when you fail to implement the sub-par choices you've made correctly, you'll suck. Bad. And I'll point out that, due to how my first line of comments was received, I didn't really feel inclined to have another go at it. It's not my character, after all. And I'm not a grade school teacher correcting anyone's book reports.
This is definitely a new breed of problem player to me.
I was going to suggest herolab, but it has already been done.
What you intend seems as good a solution as you are likely to get. Help them fix things if and when they come to their senses.
Last thing. This is one of your oldest friends, so I take it they are not a pain most of the time. Maybe they are suffering in other ways and this is a symptom.
All the people I game with have use hero labs. I have all my players send a copy of their character to me and I import them into a portfolio on my laptop. This copy is the official copy and is the one I use when planning my campaign. Doing this eliminates a lot of the type of things you are having problems with. Since it does all the calculations for you there are rarely an mistakes, or forgotten bonuses.
The main reason I do this is to help planning encounters. By having a good idea of what my players characters can do I can plan encounters a lot better. A lot of times I have my players sweating out encounters thinking that they are in more danger than they really are. Often times after the game is over they often comment that they were not sure they were going to survive. Everyone really enjoys the challenge and has a lot of fun with the campaign.
This is one of your oldest friends, so I take it they are not a pain most of the time. Maybe they are suffering in other ways and this is a symptom.
They can often be difficult/manipulative/quietly bullheaded/etc., but this attitude towards gaming has been slowly growing over the last few years, ever since they moved away and started hanging with a different hobbyist crowd.
All the people I game with have use hero labs. I have all my players send a copy of their character to me and I import them into a portfolio on my laptop. This copy is the official copy and is the one I use when planning my campaign. Doing this eliminates a lot of the type of things you are having problems with. Since it does all the calculations for you there are rarely an mistakes, or forgotten bonuses.
This does seem like the best option, unfortunately.
But my settings include a lot of houserules. A lot. How much after-the-fact corrections would HeroLab require?
If you have a lot of house rules that could also be part of the problem. I have found that the more you change things the less people understand them. Every GM will make some house rules, but I try and keep that more on the play side than the character creation side. Without knowing what your hose rules are it is hard to figure out what is going on.
Hero Labs is actually pretty flexible but it may take a lot of work to get things to come out right if you have extensive house rules. The key is on the adjustment tab. For example for your house rule on skill focus you could use the custom feat in character creation and then add in the bonuses to the relevant skills manually on the adjustment tab. So if they are taking the 4 skills at +2 option add in 4 skill bonuses and chose the skills and set the bonus to +2. You may end up having to do this for your players and send them copies of the character. To me it is not a big deal, but I am an engineer so modifying things is something I find very easy.
If you have a lot of house rules that could also be part of the problem. I have found that the more you change things the less people understand them. Every GM will make some house rules, but I try and keep that more on the play side than the character creation side. Without knowing what your hose rules are it is hard to figure out what is going on.
I always provide a full list of all applicable rule changes at session zero, and moreover this particular player's skill mastery of the d20 system has always been noticeably lacking (after 10 years, 5 of which was all one campaign, they still had no real idea as to how attacks of opportunity worked). So I don't feel like that's the case. My group is more familiar with our version of d20 fantasy (3.52? Pathfinder.5?) than they are with the core game at this point.
I may have to look into this Herolab stuff after all.
This player came to me with an interesting concept, one I found genuinely compelling. But their execution of the concept has been deliberately bad. Example: in my houserules, Skill Focus gives either a +5 to one skill, +3 to two or +2 to four. They wanted to take the feat twice, +3 to four skills total. I pointed out that they could take +2 to four twice and get +4 to all of them. They insisted on keeping in the same.
I can honestly see why that would be confusing. Under the normal rules, you either have skill focus in a skill or you don’t. You can’t really double-up on it, but your house rule apparently allows it (which brings up the question - would you allow someone to take the +5 to one skill more than once?). So this may also be a subtle signal that they don’t fully approve of your house rule or feel it’s too exploitive to use that way.
I was starting off by talking about how, in general, I handle rules conflicts between the GM and the player, in terms of general issues, and how I have handled this sort of thing as a player, then as a GM.
I outlined the basic issues as I see them, and how I generally see them.
So just...kind of a separate thing, then. Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
I can honestly see why that would be confusing. Under the normal rules, you either have skill focus in a skill or you don’t. You can’t really double-up on it, but your house rule apparently allows it (which brings up the question - would you allow someone to take the +5 to one skill more than once?). So this may also be a subtle signal that they don’t fully approve of your house rule or feel it’s too exploitive to use that way.
1. Again, all house rules presented to players at session zero.
2. You can have up to a +5 to a skill from Skill Focus. So +2+2 or +2+3 or +5.3. I struggle to see how a +4 to Profession (cook), Knowledge (geography), Perception and Survival by spending two feats is exploitive, versus +3.
The problem isn't that the character isn't built to my liking or something like that, it's the weird, stubborn, spiteful motivations behind their choices.
4. If a player doesn't approve of my houserules, then they don't have to play my game. I'm the one who's put dozens of hours into this thing before we even started playing, so I'll damn well do it how I want.
But as far as I know, my Pathfinder games are the only ones they've played; everything else is either retro, indy, both or 5th, and they don't like 5th.
5. I don't know how confusing it could possibly be; I said "hey, just take the +2 to 4 twice." They insisted that it "makes more sense for the character this way", which I still can't make sense of. That's not a misunderstanding. That's a deliberate attempt to avoid my suggestions out of spite.
Then again, this player's understanding of the game is almost unbelievably bad, considering how long they've been at it.
And honestly, it's just one of so many issues.
They suggested that, instead of using Roll20, we just use Discord and forgo the grid. I said it's not a bad idea, and it would definitely be easier for a lot of games, but part of Pathfinder is the precision and tactical aspect, and I didn't want to lose that.
So then we're setting up a date to do a system check, and they act all surprised that I'm saying to get on Roll20. "I thought we were just going to use Discord." No, you suggested it and I offered a very lucid and well-reasoned justification for my actions. And you know that's what happened; you're just banking off of most people's natural aversion to conflict and hoping you can backseat DM my game out from under me.
I was also chided--scolded, really--that we had missed our agreed upon start date when (1) we had never actually agreed to such a date, they had suggested it as a possibility, and I had said I didn't want to set anything in stone and (2) they were part of the reason we hadn't started yet; I had asked for character sheets and had yet to receive any and (3) even if it was all my fault, don't come at me like my second grade teacher after I forgot to do my homework.
Anyway. Yeah. It's a lot of things.
...feels good to rant, anyway. Get some of that tension off my shoulders.
The closest I'v ever experienced to what you're talking about was a game I was a player in a few years back. A new player joined the game and the DM is relatively loose when it comes to the rules. It's not that he blatantly ignores them instead so long as what a character is doing seems "reasonable" for their level he won't tend to question it. If something seems off he'll ask how the player is doing such and such.
Anyway, a new player joined one of his games and their character seemed... well they seemed like they could do a awful lot for a low level character. But, they were playing a custom race (a fairy) and had levels in things like monk and druid, so while it seemed a bit extreme it was plausible assuming a highly optimized character. As the character gained more levels though it became painfully obvious that something about the character wasn't right. Enough that the DM privately sent me a copy of the guy's character for me to audit. The amount of problems with the character was astounding. Bonuses didn't add up right, the player had one level in a sorcerer was using their entire character level as being their caster level, things like that.
The player's character went though multiple audits like this and I don't think they were ever completely right. I mean, you point out all the glaring things and then once those are fixed the smaller issues become apparent like how they were using spell X to completely negate attacks instead of it just adding to their AC.
He eventually ended up getting kicked out of the group. Part of the reason I was asked to audit the character sheet was because the DM kept getting push back when he would point out things that were blatantly wrong and couldn't quote the relevant rule. I never dealt with the brunt of the push back but I remember the DM telling me that this player kept insisting that they were following all of the rules correctly.
IMO I think the most you can do is pretty much what you're doing. Just fix the things that break rules and don't waste effort pointing out that they are doing things that are sub-optimal.
You said that they moved and have been playing with other groups. It sounds like they may have started playing rpgs that are more storytelling based. Something that uses the Fudge or Fate systems. These systems actually require your character to have flaws and they reward players that lean into those flaws during game play. The player probably feels like their character is "too powerful" because they don't feel like their character has any downsides.
In pathfinder the group over comes challenges by taking advantage of each individual member's strengths and sub-strengths. In a fate system situations become challenges because of the group's flaws. In fact you're not even allowed to use your extraordinary abilities until you've suffered from your character's flaws.
It's a very different kind of gameplay. I didn't really enjoy it much because It almost felt like I was getting punished every time I used one of my racial or class abilities. I was playing a pre-gen character, a vampire. I had a huge list of abilities (super strength, hypnotism, etc.) but only a few points I could spend to activate them. I contributed by solving problems utilizing my character's strengths that didn't force me to spend resources (like using normal persuasion instead of my hypnotism). This meant that even though I struggled to over come problems (since I was using subpar methods) I also wasn't gaining resources to use my big powers. Sure, I used my flaws when I could do so in a way that wasn't detrimental to the group, but that doesn't get you points, literally.
If that's the sort of gaming they've gotten used to and/or enjoy I can understand how getting yet another ability that they can use every day and/or all the time just feels excessive. They would probably be happier if they had a way to take Anti-feats. Since they want their character to be bad at something in a way that actually impacts the game.
...You said that they moved and have been playing with other groups. It sounds like they may have started playing rpgs that are more storytelling based...
I mean, we've played less numerically-driven games before they moved, and they did always seem to enjoy them.
What's changed is the sheer number of systems they've tried out.The confusing part is their fondness for hard, rules-based systems like OD&D alongside more narrative-based systems like Spirit of the Century. The latter seems like something they're more well-suited for, but they seem to take pride in being "hardcore" enough to handle those hard, unforgiving systems.
My point is this: people grow and change. The way they game changes with them. I'm not trying to say what your friend is doing is right; being obstinate to you GM to prove a point is a bit rude, but he's obviously developed a new gaming style that doesn't really gel with yours.
If it was a matter of rules-driven gaming versus story-driven gaming, that would make sense.
But I go to great lengths to do both. I've made a not-insignificant number of players shed real tears during my games. When there's conflict, I break out the dice and dial up the tension, but all things serve The Story. Even the barbarian with +54 to his damage die.
I genuinely don't think this player really knows what they want, or if they do, they won't admit that it's constantly shifting and contradictory. I mean, they complain about players in their games doing the exact kind of stuff they're pulling in mine.
They gave me this character concept, and I really tried to show them how enthusiastic I was about it. I offered up several bits of related setting material to help them make their character part of the world. I created some custom magic items that seemed like they might compliment the character. And they did; the player told me the items seemed like a good fit and were really cool, but they didn't want any. They told another player they didn't like how it felt like I didn't trust my players to make their own characters.
...but then they take several months to make the character, make a bunch of mistakes and throw a fit when I point them out.
I won't deal with another outburst like that. Next time, I think I'll just have to sit down with them and call them out. Gently, and out of care versus anger, but I'm calling them out nevertheless.
Yeah, much as I hate doing it, I've had to butt heads a bit to enforce rules during character creation (and other situations). It's not usually too bad if it can be addressed quickly and decisively, but if left to fester that sort of thing can get out of hand quickly.
Sometimes my table gets folks who have a different idea of what sort of game we're playing. Though I make it a point to have the group decide how "by the book" we're playing before we get into things and revisit the question every so often, that only really works if everybody takes the question seriously and agrees to go with the consensus.
Glad you're not looking for advice--it's a hard problem that probably has different answers for different people. But I feel ya.
Glad you're not looking for advice--it's a hard problem that probably has different answers for different people. But I feel ya.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Since this issue started, the player has complained to me about another game they're in where one of the player's isn't really collaborating and has made several errors during character creation and play. I did my best to sympathize.
Additionally, this player has asked me to join a different game using a new system. They gave me about a week to read a hundred pages of source material before we met for session zero. I showed up informed, prepared and with a few questions. Made my character the next day. They pointed out a few issues and something I forgot. Immediately corrected them and sent them an updated sheet.
I...hope that some of this, any of this, makes an impact. But I think it's time to accept that there's a limit to personal growth and to either roll in different circles or just try to cope with a situation where you give substantially more than you get back.
My friend had proven...resistant to any kind of input from me regarding their character. They seem to resent the idea that their character could be anything less than 100% their creation.
So I reach out and mention the potential errors that I noticed. I attempt to be as concise as possible (so as not to seem like I'm lecturing) and as casual as possible (so as to avoid coming off as condescending).
Their response was fairly passive aggressive and turse.
But whenever I bring an idea to this player that would both fit their character AND be mechanically sound (how can your character concept be "the greatest X in all the land" when you deliberately choose to be less good at X?), they just sort of scoff at my ideas, giving me some kind of "don't you know there's more to gaming than numbers?" treatment.
Sounds like narcissism from his side. Even if you don't trust strangers with their judgment of people they don't know, I really encourage you to read up the signs:
Seven deadly sins of narcissism
(...)
Shamelessness: Narcissists are often proudly and openly shameless; they are not bound emotionally by the needs and wishes of others. Narcissists hate criticism, and consider it "toxic", as criticism implies they are not perfect and need to change. Narcissists prefer guilt over shame, as guilt allows them to dissociate their actions from themselves - it's only their actions that are wrong, while their intention is good.Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to "dump" shame onto others.
Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may "reinflate" their sense of self-importance by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person or their achievements.
Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other person is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed. This exploitation may result in many brief, short-lived relationships.
Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist, there is no boundary between self and other.
I have such a person in my group. They hold grudges over small things for a long time (or until the next small thing draws their ire), they pretend to understand the issues they cause but won't change at all and they still consider themselves great teamplayers. The usual "sit down and talk like adults" approach doesn't work here.
I'm sure this player has at least a few more narcissistic tendencies than the average Joe. But then again, I'm sure I do, too.
That's part of the territory with the hobby, I think. If 1 in 100 people are narcissists, 1 in 10 people who enjoy acting/theater/role playing are.
If this player had zero redeeming qualities, they would never sit at my table or be my friend.
I will be talking with them about this if it comes up after the game starts. I don't know how successful it will be, but I have to try.
I am pretty sure it's very present in the hobby, although the intensity varies a lot.
When I had to talk with my problem player, GM authority ("That's my ruling, no more discussion") worked way better than adressing reason, common sense or empathy. And I had my share of faked understanding and attempts of sneaking around restrictions.
Good luck!
|
This sounds like nothing to do with gaming whatsoever. My first guess would be depression. He's probably dealing with something difficult in his life and it's bleeding over into his gaming/social life. I've certainly seen that more often than I'd like. Sadly not much to do other than try to be a good friend.
This sounds like nothing to do with gaming whatsoever. My first guess would be depression.
No.
Unless you're referring to a chronic sort of depression that's so deeply ingrained in the psyche that it's essentially a part of the person? Then maybe. We've all got one kind of weight on our shoulders or another. This person has had their share of difficulties, for sure. But to say their behavior is due to depression would be a gross over-simplification and akin to enabling.They have reasons for acting the way they do--literally everyone has a reason for literally everything they do--but that does not make it okay. Understandable, yes. But not okay. Empathy does not equal automatic acceptance.
Mostly because I'm human too, with my own issues and reasons for what I do.
I've done my best to be supportive, understanding and patient. I've given a ton for every ounce I receive.
So when it comes down to the moment where I offer them a correct version of their character and they either throw a little fit or completely fail to appreciate what they've put me through, I'm going to talk to them. I won't yell and I'll do my best not to judge, but I will tell them how I feel. How I've been made to feel. And how unfair this has seemed to me. And I'll ask them for their side. If I can't move them to a more empathetic position and their argument doesn't convince me, it'll probably be time to find other tables to roll at.
I would check with the other players and see if your problem player is bothering them. If they aren't bothered then you should just let them play the way they want. In the case of cheating, I'd even let them play as long as everyone was having fun. In your case, your player is deliberately playing bad so I'd just let them as often as their inferior build will lead them to death. If this starts draining party gold and loot then just more in to accommodate this loss.
I would check with the other players and see if your problem player is bothering them. If they aren't bothered then you should just let them play the way they want.
I'msorry, but I have a lot of issues with this statement.
First, let me be clear: at no point have I tried to tell this player that they can't play what they want.
They told me what they wanted. I offered them options and suggestions that would lead to such a character. And I was met with, at best, confusing dodges and deflections as to why "that sounds awesome and would fit this, character, but I don't think I'll take it" and, at worst, passive aggressive whinging and complaining to other players.
Second, my enjoyment of the game souks count for just as much as anyone else's. I am sick of the idea that it's the DM's job to make sure everyone'shaving having fun. It's my job to run a world and a game. It's everyone's job to not be a jerk.
In the case of cheating, I'd even let them play as long as everyone was having fun.
Well, that is...certainly interesting. But there is no way I'd ever be cool with that.
I've told people that if they're ever caught cheating at my table, I will end the session right then and there and they will be asked to leave the game. And all other games.In your case, your player is deliberately playing bad so I'd just let them as often as their inferior build will lead them to death. If this starts draining party gold and loot then just more in to accommodate this loss.
Sorry, I just really feel like you and others have missed the main issues, here.
1. I am frustrated with a player's lack of respect and appreciation for the wor I put into my games.
2. I am confused and annoyed with this player's self-righteous and contradictory attitude toward the hobby.
3. I am not looking for a solution. I was curious to see if other people have dealt with this kind of bizarre hypocrisy.
I would guess that this player regularly commits the Stormwind Fallacy; they probably believe that "roll-players" cannot also be "role-players" and vise versa.
They deliberately build bad characters because they claim that's "how real gamers do it", but also say they love hard, unforgiving and mathematically complex systems.
It all just seems to be different levels of denial, all geared towards the same goal.
So I had a long (and long overdue), rather painful conversation with this friend.
I accused them--as gently and with as much goodwill as I could--of being inconsiderate, manipulative, hypocritical and in denial. The conversation had it's foundation in gaming, but ranged from interpersonal relationship and general morality.
In short, they told me that they did not pick up on subtle social cues very well, and led me to the conclusion that what so clearly seemed like blatant disregard for other's feelings may well be genuine ignorance instead.
In terms of the game itself, they openly admitted to feeling out of their depth and rather embarrassed for it, especially considering how long they've been gaming and how long they've known the d20 system. When I posed my "succeed at being bad over failing being good" and "act like 'this is how real gamers do it'" theories, they basically said I was exactly right and apologized for being so difficult.
I apologized in turn for taking so long to have such an important conversation and pointed out their strengths, both at the table and in general, and we both ended the conversation the better for it.
I think we might have the same player...this sounds identical to one of the people at my table (actually most of them are like this, but one guy in particular this is spot on)
I'm the "book keeper" of the group, the one they all look to when they have a question or need to solve simple math.
I'm about done. This isn't a new thing, we've been playing Pathfinder since it's inception, the math isn't hard, the rules really aren't that hard, yet I'm expected to know how their characters work and to make simple math for them. Now I just glare at them and tell them I hope to god they don't do their own taxes. It is a constant crap show of poorly remembered if not outright ignored rules. I try and help the GM out without crossing boundaries, but it's getting super tiresome.