Hey all, I'll cut straight to the point here before going into a TL;DR post.
Player gets extremely and openly frustrated/mad any time they fail saves involving effects that remove control of their character and to a more minor extent anytime his character fails at ANYTHING. He is a good player outside of this, but now with a new DM its causing more trouble than it used to. Looking for a way to help the player have fun when his character fails and or a way to help diminish the disruption.
So, the player is a very willful person and often spouts about how they just have to want/will themselves to do something and they can do it. Now, normally it isn't much of an issue as he is a good guy for the most part. However as said, with a new DM and constant outrage/defeatism when his character fails a save is more apparent and more pushing the DM for advantages.
----
example: playing a paladin at level 2, failed a save and became feared. Player openly shouts about how that's stupid and how his character wouldn't be afraid etc in the situation. Now, normally if I am DMing, I can handle the situation by just saying magic blah blah and sit him in his corner of the table to sulk for a few minutes/rounds before he is back to normal. However there is a new DM running sessions now, and its his first time DMing. And said player has in the first session caused disruption in a vein similar to the above. Even once having an effect lessened because of his complaining that his special character wouldn't do X. He also has started trying forcibly get his character into advantageous positions before what he thinks will be a fight. This latter part is fine, if the villain wants to monologue, then you don't have to stand there. It just leads into the next issue, trying to change/talk his way into having made the "proper" choice because "its what my character would have done/what I meant to do". This occurs less often, but has derailed the game for some 10-30 minutes before.
I'm just looking for thoughts on how to best talk to the guy about this, as I do NOT believe he is willfully trying to "bully" or the like. But he may think he is being cheated or some such. Any advice would be wonderful.
And please, no "remove/find different group" its not THAT bad, I'm just looking for ways to talk to the guy and lower disruptions to the game, and or help him have FUN when his character fails a save and "does something he wouldn't" or just fails.
Sounds unpleasant.
For starters, have everyone else get together without this player and talk things over and list all the issues they have with him and his behavior. Write this down and rewrite it in as conciliatory and polite language as possible. Avoid making things sound accusatory and confrontational. Putting someone on the defensive right off the bat is a bad way to start a discussion.
Once you have done this, have a group meeting with everyone and ask the player to explain his problems thoroughly and (hopefully) without shouting or getting worked up. Doing this outside of a normal gaming sessions is best, because you don't have to worry about eating into normal game time or Player coming down off another tantrum.
Start off with something like "It's obvious you feel there is something wrong; let's talk about it and see if we can fix things."
Let him go first. Ask questions for clarification but don't contradict until he has had his say. Then bring up your side of the story. Point out things like that the rules work the way they work and everyone else follows them; why should he be given special consideration over the rest of the group?
Tempting though it may be, I would probably try to avoid asking if Player truly wants a game where he can't fail at anything and everything goes his way at the expense of everyone else. It may come to that if he refuses to make any admissions of wrong-doing, but best to keep that as a last resort.
Paradoxical as it may seem in an RPG, "It's what my character would do" can be both the best and the worst motivation for a PC's actions. When this is the excuse leads to everyone else having less fun because of dickish behavior, it's not acceptable. Roleplaying is a social activity and at times you have to go with the flow to avoid making things unpleasant for everyone else. One shouldn't have to stand abusive behavior from other players, bigoted behavior etc.; just accept that sometimes what you want from a character or game is not what everyone else wants. It's the players choice to play a specific character and if that entails behavior that ruins things for everyone else, the player is to blame and should not be allowed to hide behind "but mah karaktur".
Hope this helps.
rorek55 wrote: ...with a new DM and constant outrage/defeatism when his character fails a save is more apparent and more pushing the DM for advantages. I think you need to simply and clearly tell him that the DM's decisions are final. The guy could certainly dispute a roll / ruling ONE TIME, but if the DM says, "No...the roll stands" then they guy needs to shut up and let play proceed. Period. Hopefully the rest of the party is also modeling the right behaviors and he'll see that he is the outlier. With respect to Bjorn Royrvik, I don't think you need a team meeting at this point. I think you or the DM needs to pull him aside and just say, "Look. If you disagree with a roll or decision you and make your case one time, but once the DM has made a ruling you need to get over it and play on." If he continues to be disruptive and ignore that advice then maybe you move on to the entire group participating in an "intervention" as Bjorn describes.
I've had lots of time where as DM I've said something like, "Suddenly a magic missile hits you" and the player retorts with, "Wait! I was invisible! Was I seen?". Sometimes my answer is "Crap! I forgot...never mind! No Magic Missile!" But other times my answer is "You don't know anything other than you've been hit."
Once I've ruled as DM, the player is done arguing. I don't want to hear the player continue to disagree...I've ruled. Period.
I'm not sure it is really relevant, but I am curious as to the age of the player.
"My character wouldn't..."
"You're right, and he knows that, so doing so despite his will is even more terrifying."
I have a player who does this sort of thing, though he knows it's a problem and works on improving. This happens either when the player's idea for the character is more powerful than mechanically supported, or when the DM tries to use in game failure as a means to belittle someone.
You can either tell the dude he's embarrassing himself and hope he's big enough to accept the criticism, or talk about characters as someone progressing toward a goal. Talk about next level, next feat, next ability or whatever would help the failures not happen or not matter.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I went through that stage as a teenager. This is not something that is "fixable" with a single conversation. I had to grow up, learn to cope with failures, and reach maturity on my own, wasn't really something anyone else could tell me how to do.
(I doubt his issues have anything to do with the game)
I've been a problem player a few times. For instance, I once made a character that was immune to fear. If the character got scared by some monster or spell effect, I would fight the GM over it. The fundamental problem was I made a different character than what the rules allow. I had this mental idea of a bad ass character who could do some awesome stuff,.. but we weren't playing that game. These were 1st level characters, which are supposed to be above average to normal folk, but also not exceptional or amazing.
If you were playing some horror game, then you should expect some fear and sanity mechanics. Characters will freak out and maybe get killed. This is likely because they're not adventures. If you were playing something cyberpunk, then you should make characters that are ready for action at anytime. If you are playing DND staring at level 1, you shouldn't be claiming that you bested an army of a 1000 orcs or be capable of casting world altering spells. Trying to play a different game makes you look dumb and stubborn.
For me, I grew out of it and learned the rules of the game. I changed my expectations. Still, if the player doesn't like something, it might be a sign that they would want to play a different game.
I am curious as to what kind of video games this player plays. Maybe they play some FPS that they are good at, so failure doesn't happen often to this player.
OmniMage wrote: I am curious as to what kind of video games this player plays. Maybe they play some FPS that they are good at, so failure doesn't happen often to this player. Maybe if they are playing single player against bots? All of the multiplayer FPS games I know teach you to deal with death/failure. Nobody starts godlike, and very few people are shocked to die if they are playing at their level.
Of course, there are players that constantly create new accounts so they can continue to play below their level. Or they use scripts to hack. Honestly never understood hacking. You aren't playing the game, you're just running scripts and ruining other people's fun.
Anyways, if OP reads this far my actual advice would be to have a talk away from the game with the player. Before the game starts isn't great, but it isn't horrible either. After the game might be ok, just not if the player is still emotional from his last 'failure'.
Bring up in Pathfinder there is always a chance of failure. If you roll poorly, you fail. Rolling is not a skill. Nobody gets better at rolling, or if they do that is cheating. Failing a roll doesn't reflect you or your ability to play. It is just a mechanic that keeps the game 'fair'.
While it is good to have an image of our characters, the image guides us in our choices and decisions. It doesn't dictate the results of our actions. Just because we call ourselves a great swordsmen it doesn't mean we always hit. And if we call ourselves brave, it doesn't mean we're immune to fear effects.
Class abilities can make you like that, but as long as you aren't immune, you can roll a 1 and fail a save even if you're bonus is higher than the DC. Rolling means accepting there is a risk of failure. Complaining about it won't change things, so don't fixate on bad rolls and instead figure out what you'll do next.
Perhaps the GM needs the other players to help when this one person starts to be a problem.
The new GM likely isn't confident in having a confrontation so let them know that you support their decisions and let them know that if they need your help you're there for them.
Hey all, thanks for the responses. Yes, the player loves to set up this super powerful, does no wrong ideal for their characters (unless actively steered away from that) But even then will get frustrated when things don't go their way. I remember they played in a heroesque game (gurps maybe? not sure), where everyone got to pick abilities/quirks they used/had. His was the ability to literally will himself forward. If he willed it, it could be done XD.
And just to keep to much bad taste from folk, Its not that bad of an issue, usually. There are times it becomes an issue, but usually its just sulking for a few minutes before they get back into the swing of it. I am mostly looking for ways to help him have fun with failure, and it seems trying to keep his character concepts more down to earth is the best way at this time. Though that will be difficult enough haha. As I feel that may be a big issue in the matter as well. That and a lack of control, they do not like having little say over any aspect of their character and usually play high strength characters that like to get handsy with other to assert their influence.
As for other questions, I don't think it would hurt, the player is in their early twenties, and plays A LOT of ARMA 3, CSGO, which I have little experience with, and some action/C RPGs such as diablo, the old DnD/CRPG games such as neverwinter, baldur's gate, mass effect, morrowind/oblivion/skyrim etc.
Because it hasn't been stated clearly, here goes: a character's shortcomings are just an interesting role-play avenue as his strong points. Embrace them!
Moreover, it is the part of the character's personality that is different than our own that is interesting to play, to probe at, something that isn't me, someone that has other idiosyncrasies.
Whether those are actively codified in the rules such as in games where there are flaws and advantages or in Pathfinder where a low Will save can mean cowardice at times, those are role-play opportunities.
Some of the best stories have to do with the main character failing. You can't always overcome and it is this very point, combined with the fact that you don't know when you can and when you can't beforehand, that makes the game worth playing^^
- Unless you play Pathfinder as a combat simulator in which case the goal isn't to role-play an adventurer in various situations but to win the fights -
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
rorek55 wrote: Looking for a way to help the player have fun when his character fails and or a way to help diminish the disruption. The Skunkworks is a division of Lockheed Martin and its function is to be disruptive. And through disruptive innovation, the Skunkworks became legendary and the very soul of Lockheed Martin.
But it seems like problem is that the player is disrupting the table in a non-Lockheed-Martin-Skunkworks kind of way, and in a non-Joker kind of way: he's not having fun doing it.
rorek55 wrote: Player gets extremely and openly frustrated/mad any time they fail... anytime his character fails at ANYTHING. Don't we all?
Remember what
Yoda wrote: Failure is the best teacher of all. This should be a learning experience for him.
rorek55 wrote: Player gets extremely and openly frustrated/mad any time they fail saves involving effects that remove control of their character This might be a legit complaint. After all, it's a roleplaying game, and that might mean he's there to roleplay, and losing control of your player might mean you literally can't do what you are are there exactly to do! I don't know this guy or this situation, but it might be a better experience to give him a chance to roleplay his Paladin who failed his saving throw with a Succubus and is now madly in love. Depending on how this is roleplayed, this has the potential to be an epic romance like Batman and Catwoman.
rorek55 wrote: So, the player is a very willful person and often spouts about how they just have to want/will themselves to do something and they can do it. That makes him sound like an a+**#%*. If he is, you should probably find a way to tell him he is showing his a~*!&&! too much at the table, and he should show other parts of himself instead.
rorek55 wrote: Now, normally it isn't much of an issue as he is a good guy for the most part. And you want to find a way to keep playing with him.
rorek55 wrote: DM and constant outrage/defeatism when his character fails a save is more apparent and more pushing the DM for advantages. I think that rather than pushing the DM for advantages, he should try to do 1 or 2 things:
Learn from his mistakes. Figure out why his is failing, and become a more skilled power player. You should offer to look over his character sheet and build and ask for our help to make a better munchkin out of him. He should not be asking for advantage-boons, but for rules clarifications that he can twist and exploit.
and/or
Get a sense of the DM's artistic vision. The thing you guys are doing at that table is ostensibly roleplaying, and the thing each player is playing with is a role. The DM creates the setting: you all created characters. Between you, you collaborate to create epic stories. I think the DM and that player should have a conversation about creative vision, get a sense for what each is trying to create, and work in tandem with respect for each other's visions.
rorek55 wrote: example: playing a paladin at level 2, failed a save and became feared. Player openly shouts about how that's stupid and how his character wouldn't be afraid etc in the situation. Feared? You mean like the Panicked Condition, and he was reduced to Cowering or Fleeing? The player was acting stupid to say that's stupid. He failed his Will Save. That exactly means his character is now doing things his character wouldn't do. Now he has to roleplay that. He says he can do anything he sets his mind to do. Present it as a challenge. Challenge him to put himself in the situation of a person who THINKS he is not afraid of anything, and now he just saw himself piss his armor and run like a coward. Now he has to drag his sad tail back to the party and fess up to his frailties. How does the party respond? Do they make fun of him a little, a lot, or not at all? Figuring out how to roleplay situations like this, and channel your own power-fantasies is the very heart and soul of the game and those are the games you still talk about decades later.
Another way to look at it is that Level 2 Paladins are supposed to have very good Will Saves. Was he just unlucky? Was it an encounter where he was set up to fail? Did everyone else fail their Will Saves? Or is there something wrong with his character and somehow manage to have a low Will Save Mod?
rorek55 wrote: Now, normally if I am DMing, I can handle the situation by just saying magic blah blah and sit him in his corner of the table to sulk for a few minutes/rounds before he is back to normal. In the example you described, it makes sense for you to send away from the table a Player who failed his Will Save, got inflicted with the Panicked Condition, and fled the battlefield. I would recommend that you explain the Condition you inflicted on him, and until you call him back to the table, he should think about how he will roleplay it.
rorek55 wrote: However there is a new DM running sessions now, and its his first time DMing. So, maybe there is a problem with the DM being weak, because they are new.
rorek55 wrote: And said player has in the first session caused disruption in a vein similar to the above. Even once having an effect lessened because of his complaining that his special character wouldn't do X. He also has started trying forcibly get his character into advantageous positions before what he thinks will be a fight. This sounds like bad behavior. This sounds like the player is trying to bully a new GM. If that's what is happening, a good approach would be to tell that player to be nice and play along because new GMs need some time to find their sea legs, and a player with a new GM should let the GM have a honeymoon with them.
rorek55 wrote: This latter part is fine, if the villain wants to monologue, then you don't have to stand there. Maybe. Maybe that's the moment for Starbuck to roll her eyes and punch the Cylon in the face. But maybe it's time for Batman to struggle against his restraints, listen to every word, and say, "You'll never get away with this, you villain!"
Thanks for the post Scott, I'll get a more detailed response once I have access to my desktop, but for now know that he has a pretty good system mastery, at least in regards to two-handed melee builds, though has little experience outside of those types of builds. He builds powerful 2handed face smashers and tries to pump his saves as high as he can. Tried to get him to play a 2/3 caster once. Was not about that.
And just a tid bit, all his characters are between 6-7 feet tall or taller if able haha. I remember once an enemy was flying and hitting him with reach weapon, he asked if, because he was so tall he could just mini jump the distance "as a 5ft step" and full attack. I was both pleased and disgusted when he did. I said no, because the entire encounter was designed to show them they had little way to combat ranged threats/flying threats without proving actually deadly.
Failed willsaves are often boring and deadly but some of the funniest moments come from a failed save or Skill check. Not the most heroic but the funniest. Learn to embrace failures is really an eyeopener.
As a GM you can encourage this in serveral ways.
Add a Hostile Bully as a partner of an important NPC that the group needs to get good relations with.
If the player loses a barfight (Perhaps purposefully) to the NPC’s partner it can potentially change the attitude of the NPC to friendly out of pity.
A failed fear check where you run away means that you discovers the ambush from behind and you can shout a warning to save your friends.
Only take away player control if the player is dominated. If he is only charmed then let the player roleplay the situation.
A failed craft or perform skill check can get you sympathy and the epic fail trophy in a competition.
A failed diplomacy check could be a successful handle animal check on the NPC’s dog which loves the scent of poop on your boots.
It seems to me that part of the players problem is that he has a concept in mind for the character, but his concept is only taking into account what the player should be like at high level. This is fairly common when a player has a specific build that takes a while to develop. At the earlier levels the characters simply is not capable of doing what the concept says he should be able to do. The paladin’s is affected by fear is a clear example of this. Being affected by fear probably seems like it is invalidating his characters concept. In some cases you may just have to remind the player that his character is not quite there yet, but will eventually get there.
If I were the GM I would even try to work that into the story line. Maybe the paladins was so bothered by the fact he let fear stop him from doing what he should have that he swears an oath to never let fear prevent him from doing the right thing. After that (assuming he gains 3r level as a paladin) he is never affected by fear again. If the ability that he does not have is going to take a while to gain he could still start working that into the story.
Ro Rek-room: everything you're describing suggests a player that just... doesn't like failing. To wit, they make the same 2-h, brawny, tall "facesmashers" and eschew other build types like 2/3 casters.
They ALWAYS pump up their melee combat stats; they ALWAYS pump up their saves. This player has good system mastery. In short, they're building to beat all opponents and threats, all the time, in the same tried-and-true manner that's always worked for them in the past.
This is NOT good system mastery. This is figuring out an algorithm for success, one of MANY in this game I might add, and exploiting it to the exclusion of all others.
If he has FUN with the same general type of build over and over, more power to him. Seems to me though that this player might be looking for some magic "win" button. Thing is, Pathfinder uses dice.
A "1" on many D20 checks is a fail. Period. So unless this player is willing to file all the "1's" off their dice, they need to prepare for failure.
Further this player needs to accept that just being the biggest and the strongest and even the most effective in melee combat does NOT make their character the best. Hence the need for this player to try and grind away at GM's to get extra advantages for their characters.
As many have suggested however, limitations aren't a bug of the build, they're a feature.
Being exclusively a 2-h melee brute with amazing saves and defenses likely means the ranged attacks on this character's builds are usually weak sauce. If that's the case, how do they roleplay THAT? Above you mention that one of his characters was just really tall and wanted to use his mad hops to beat the reach of flying foe. Why? B/c the character's ranged attacks were weak sauce.
So... this player would rather grind away a special advantage for himself, putting HIS needs first, rather than adjust his expectations for success and accept a limitation of his character. In other words, HIS clever will should be rewarded always, instead of challenged to adapt to something outside it's comfort zone.
What if one of his ultra-melee types went up against a flying Zen Archer enemy NPC? A foe that hovers 30' in the air and rains down multiple dozens of HP in damage per arrow, with maybe 2-4 of said arrows hitting every round? Acrobatics is a Dex based skill; Dex likely isn't highly prioritized on his PCs and the skill probably isn't maxed, so unless they have an item/spell on them to grant flight all their 2-h melee mastery isn't worth much.
But EVERY build faces this. Yes, even the vaunted arcane-caster-that-wins-everything builds in Pathfinder have limitations, especially at low to mid levels. This is why there are FOUR PCs generally in an adventuring group.
Now, as to losing control of a PC due to a failed Will save... join the freakin' club my dude! NO ONE likes failing a Will save. Even if you get to roleplay it yourself, that means some level of agency and control has just been taken away from you. For the next couple rounds/minutes/hours/days you have to run or cower in fear, be friends with someone your character should hate, divulge truth when your character would rather lie, etc.
Boo... freaking... hoo. I don't like sounding like a jerk but this goes right back to my first statement about the number "1" on D20's. If you're not mentally and emotionally prepared for roleplaying loss of agency due to a failed Will save, don't play Pathfinder. It really is THAT simple.
Some folks play TTRPGs so that they can dominate/win against conflicts. Their fun is derived from success and control. Unfortunately, the very nature of it being a game means that, due to randomness success isn't necessarily guaranteed and control is situational at best. This player needs to recognize he can build to MITIGATE or REDUCE failure, but he can't eliminate it.
So talk with him. Figure out what HIS expectations really are. Does he genuinely believe he should win, all the time, because his builds are so ironclad? If so, perhaps there's a deeper discussion that needs to be had around adjusting expectations of control over a game literally defined by it's connection to random D20 rolls.
For the simple failed fear save and his character being brave, just state the rules. Assuming the paladin doesn't have an archetype that traded this out, she gets immunity at level 3. "Aura of Courage (Su): At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise)."
|
