Tit for tats never work out well. Try having a conversation with your champion and see if there's a way you could recontexualize things in a way that feels better for him, because at the end of the day you're handing out buffs and bonuses like everyone else and having a martial refuse to participate is kind of a bummer. I'd emphasize how you're handing out bonuses like a bard or marshall and try to focus on how nothing about the way his character needs to play or act or fit within the party needs to change. He's not 'becoming a soldier' or being any more or less involved in a war than before.
You might be able to work something out if you're upfront about how much you want to play this character and try to address his concerns without hostility toward them.
If that doesn't work idk yeah some people just suck try to have your fun with the rest of the party.
You aren't 'commanding him' making him take your orders. You are a teacher and strategist whom sits down in the morning with their pals and discusses how they can work more cohesively together and potentially surprise [not cheatingly trick] their opponent to get yourselves an advantage to help keep everyone alive.
It could be pointed out that that refusing to coordinate or listen to you could be similar to refusing to listen to the cleric or wizard whom is detecting magical auras to avoid unnecessary damage to the party, collateral innocents, or nearby terrain.
It could be the champion may have a historical memory of the old Paladins and some of the struggles with working around a companion thief whom would make the team seem like criminal elements stealing away in the night.
In the end I wouldn't do the well if you won't cooperate, then I won't accept your help. All that does is hurt the rest of the players, and thus indirectly all the players.
The most likely 'rational' explanation I can come up with short of just arbitrary, story-wise they decided it sounded interesting to not be cooperative, is that perhaps the player had issues in the past with other players 'driving, or taking control, or credit' for their character's contributions, and perhaps 'taking orders' from a 'commander' sounds like it is going down the same path.
Perhaps talk to the GM about calling the class Strategist and make it clear that what you enable to ability for the party to do these cooperative actions. It isn't by you 'forcing' it, but rather simply enabling it for those interested.
On second thought, perhaps they are worried you are going to 'consume' their reactions which they want to keep for their Champion reactions. If that is the case, point out that they don't have to participate in the reaction if they don't want to, but they can when they think it is good for them, as long as they have trained as part of the squad. It enables options, it doesn't dictate actions. Unless you are short on number of people to include in the squad and don't want to include him because they seldom participate, it can be made clear it opens up options, not restricting their options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you play with people who don't want to engage with you in a team based game? Well you don't. They don't want to play with a group then there isn't much you can do about it.
Being level 18 doesn't make much sense to scrap a character for a new one, why not save the commander for your next game? Then you can learn it as you go, and maybe have people who will be more willing to engage with the group.
They built an anti-war PC for an AP w/ "war" in its title? Awkward.
And does he not think the party's an actual squad? Because it is. Squads aren't only military (who aren't only war), they can be police officers, firefighters too. Assuming he's heroic in the least, he should be able to accept a squad for such civic duty.
It is ill luck that Paizo kept Commander rather than a less hierarchical name, but that doesn't mean his PC is accepting your PC's authority, only their insight, sense of timing, etc., like a boxer's coach where it's still the boxer in charge.
With that small a party (and such a high level) I'm surprised you'd want to try a Commander. Even if the Champion's player plays ball, that and Guardian make for poor synergy w/ Tactics anyway (compared to other classes, not dysfunctional). It's just those three class tend to live vicariously by supporting the offense of others, so I hope they both went with big weapons at least. Seems that Druid's going to be working overtime, even as they're protected like a prince.
So yeah, glad you're considering switching back, maybe waiting for better opportunity w/ less adversarial RPers and class synergy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The champion came back from holiday and told me he woudn't be squad mate because he felt that made his character too much like a soldier and he is antiwar.
He's "antiwar", in Spore War? Did he not read the name of the adventure? This is like showing up for Kingmaker with a character that doesn't want anything to do with exploration or a kingdom, or coming to Strength of Thousands with an "anti-magic Barbarian."
While odd concepts done well can be really engaging, it's a players job to create a character that wants to be in the adventure and wants to work with the party. This person is breaking that basic part of the social contract of TTRPGs.
Like, is he not engaging in any of the combat? Because if he is, he's already in a war and simply being more effective at it doesn't change that. The PCs in every AP get sent off to do things independently of larger forces. They're a squad by definition. If suddenly having a mechanic called that is their problem... I mean, yeah. Like, would they also not allow a Bard to buff them? It's the same thing with a different label.
Is it reasonable to say I won't engage with his characters class features infuture so he can't champions react for me, I don't flank with him and don't benefit from his aura etc.
No, it's not reasonable... but you're not dealing with a reasonable person right now, so expecting them to respond to reason is optimistic. Turning it around on them by doing the exact same thing they're doing is entirely fair play. "I only consider people actively working to win the war as my allies, and as you are refusing to do that, I do not consider you my ally for any purpose." That shuts down a whole pile of stuff.
Doing this basically forces the GM to get involved because it creates a toxic, dysfunctional situation amongst the players. It's not a nice way to handle it. But you're following the standard this other player is setting, behavior wise, so it's not like they can claim its unfair.
What would you do ?
Well, first I'd go to the GM and point out how this person is not following the social contract by actively refusing to work with your character, and how it's something you're excited about. Try it the nice way first.
If that doesn't work, then you need to decide if you're going to be the bigger person and work around it (either by changing classes or just ignoring this person with your tactics), or if you're willing to respond in kind. Personally? I'd probably respond in kind, because sometimes I'm petty and I really dislike people acting unreasonable and expecting everyone else to roll over for them.
Sometimes, that tendency of mine is necessary. Other times... it's not a virtue. Is this a hill you're willing to fight on? Only you can really answer that question.
(That said, as someone else mentioned, Commander may not be the best fit for this group because it leans on the tanky side. A Fighter or Barbarian with how much defense you have would be free to charge in and smash, and would give those defensive players something to really play up what they're building for.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damn. Player using an RP reason like that to no work with your Commander character? Are they doing no combat at all or just being ridiculous in regards to your character?
I find players that try to disrupt the group really annoying. Last time that happened a long time ago, we killed their character. Ruined the game, but that PC and the way the player played them was annoying.
He also played some cowardly rogue based on the rogue from Conan the Destroyer. Wouldn't engage in a fight, always looking to hide, and that really angered the group that this rogue wouldn't check for traps or scout. Just always playing scared.
I wonder why the heck are you adventuring as part of a team and not carrying your weight? Why would we keep such a useless fool around like that.
If they want to RP, we'll RP that we don't keep useless fools that don't want to engage in teamwork around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be pretty upset about this myself. I also was someone advocating for a different name than commander, especially as tactics are not commands, they are just shared good ideas. I would probably talk to the GM about switching my character up too, but high level does make that a pain. Did the player decide this in play after the character was made? Or voice the concern earlier? This feels incredibly antagonistic and like a party that is going to have a lot of problems with difficult encounters
I'd talk with the player, of course. I think the problem is that this player probably would be fine with "my character won't accept your reactions" or someone's character refusing divine healing for character reasons. As a result, those won't be useful examples. It's probably good to know how much of the anti-war thing is at a character level, and how much is the player being uncomfortable playing a soldier.
Assuming that they won't change, it's okay to go forward in an unoptimized fashion. Having a companion around will at least let you take advantage of two martial allies, even if one is mostly flanking. In-character, I would probably have your character see it as a holier-than-thou uncooperative nature, but that this is too important to stoop to their level. Try to persuade the champion that cooperation is necessary to defeat evil, and see if it can be an arc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The champion character and player sound like hypocrites to me.
They're "anti-war" but are in a game where the presumably perform plenty of violence to achieve their goals.
Why they suddenly decide to be very selective about associating with your commander characters...makes no sense.
Is this person your friend? They sound rather like a jerk.
|
Best to understand what they mean by "too much like a soldier" and why it does not fit their concept.
And then you work together so that your PCs can adventure together.
I feel a mere change of words might be enough. You will play a tactician, or an advisor, or a coach. And their Champion can be one of your PC's mates, even call them Merry Mates for the nice CG ring of Robin Hood's mythology.
That might just be enough.
Also, IIRC, the Commander's abilities do not force other PCs to act in any special way. So, your PC is merely making suggestions that their PC can freely choose to follow or not.