RithTheAwakener
First Post
Just *accidently* throw some fireballs that include him in the blast radius, and also *accidently* force him to shift off of a cliff and/or into lava. The more grizzly the death the better.
Help reign in a player who refuses to play his role
Sounds like it could be a classical form of protest play. Does the player feel like an outsider, not in the "in group" in the campaign? Does he feel like nobody is listening to his opinions? Was he overruled when it came to the decision to move to 4th?
There are times when extreme play can be a sign of people feel that they are not "seen" or being ignored unless they do something drastic.
In that case, "punishment" or shutting the player out even more will only make the situation more extreme, until something snaps, and you find yourself less one player, and with a bad mood in the campaign....
There are times when extreme play can be a sign of people feel that they are not "seen" or being ignored unless they do something drastic.
In that case, "punishment" or shutting the player out even more will only make the situation more extreme, until something snaps, and you find yourself less one player, and with a bad mood in the campaign....
alanpossible
First Post
First off, I'd ask him what aspect of his character concept makes him a paladin, since there's nothing paladin-y about the way he is acting. Quoting from the description of Paladin in the PHB: "To you is given the responsibility to unflinchingly stand before an enemy's charge, smiting them with your sword while protecting your allies with your sacrifice" (P89).
Religion isn't the exclusive domain of the cleric/paladin.
Next, I'd ask him why his character concept doesn't fit in to a role such as rogue, since, as others point out, he could be a religious zealot. I'd also point out that his actions (standing at the back, throwing daggers) fits the striker role which is a different role than the one he has selected.
Assuming he's trying to "prove" that 4e is broken by preventing him from creating a particular concept, you just need to make him understand that his "proof" is only valid if he follows the instructions in the book. Otherwise, he's not playing 4e and he's just showing that his incorrect interpretation of the rules is broken
He'd be just as wrong if he did the same thing in 3.5. In fact, with total reliance on healing from a cleric/paladin in 3.5, he'd probably be worse off.
Personally, I find character classes to be a complete abstraction; something that the "converting your character" series on the D&D site seems to confirm. At the end of the day, the name and even the description of the class are fluff and the only relevant bit is what the class is supposed to do (it's role). As far as I'm concerned, the cleric could be non religious, the fighter could actually be a monk and the warlock can be a witch; using a little multiclassing where you need to blend two themes together.
I asked a recent new-to-4e player what he wanted his character to do, and he described how he wanted to run in to battle, and through the sheer grace and power of his attacks, rally his allies. I pointed him at the Warlord. Disgusted with the name and role of "leader", he dismissed it - saying it was just someone who ordered others around. I tried to convince him otherwise, and he just wasn't having it.
So I told him I'd write his own class for him and asked for suitable names for the class and role ("Knight" and "Inspirer"). I went away and came back 45 minutes later with the "Knight" (a level 1 warlord, with all the power names changed).
He loved it and has been happily playing since. Whenever he levels up, I transcribe any new warlord powers, give them flashier names and he picks out what he wants
That said, the game is up if he ever studies a PHB too closely. At some point I'll have to come clean
Religion isn't the exclusive domain of the cleric/paladin.
Next, I'd ask him why his character concept doesn't fit in to a role such as rogue, since, as others point out, he could be a religious zealot. I'd also point out that his actions (standing at the back, throwing daggers) fits the striker role which is a different role than the one he has selected.
Assuming he's trying to "prove" that 4e is broken by preventing him from creating a particular concept, you just need to make him understand that his "proof" is only valid if he follows the instructions in the book. Otherwise, he's not playing 4e and he's just showing that his incorrect interpretation of the rules is broken
He'd be just as wrong if he did the same thing in 3.5. In fact, with total reliance on healing from a cleric/paladin in 3.5, he'd probably be worse off.
Personally, I find character classes to be a complete abstraction; something that the "converting your character" series on the D&D site seems to confirm. At the end of the day, the name and even the description of the class are fluff and the only relevant bit is what the class is supposed to do (it's role). As far as I'm concerned, the cleric could be non religious, the fighter could actually be a monk and the warlock can be a witch; using a little multiclassing where you need to blend two themes together.
I asked a recent new-to-4e player what he wanted his character to do, and he described how he wanted to run in to battle, and through the sheer grace and power of his attacks, rally his allies. I pointed him at the Warlord. Disgusted with the name and role of "leader", he dismissed it - saying it was just someone who ordered others around. I tried to convince him otherwise, and he just wasn't having it.
So I told him I'd write his own class for him and asked for suitable names for the class and role ("Knight" and "Inspirer"). I went away and came back 45 minutes later with the "Knight" (a level 1 warlord, with all the power names changed).
He loved it and has been happily playing since. Whenever he levels up, I transcribe any new warlord powers, give them flashier names and he picks out what he wants
That said, the game is up if he ever studies a PHB too closely. At some point I'll have to come clean
Last edited:
Elethiomel
First Post
I would not try to force the player into a different playstyle out of game or by metagaming a contract just because he's being difficult. Talking to him and telling him "You are making your character into a non-contributor by choosing to play this way" would pretty much be the limit of out-of-game discussion on this. Now, I may play in different games than all of you (it certainly seems that way), but I'd allow him to have his character stand back and throw daggers if he wanted to. If the character tells other party members that's what he's good at, they don't automatically know what he's been trained in. Characters do not see damage numbers appear over enemies' heads, but sooner or later it will become apparent that he's not really doing much damage with those daggers, and he isn't using his other abilities to aid the party either, it seems.
Now is the time for the characters to have a good, long chat with his character. This is a role-playing game, yes? So role-play what the characters would think about someone not helping out. The player of that character might like to play kooky concepts and not feel like he's playing a video game; I fully support that. But he should be ready to support those characters with excellent role-playing so that other characters won't kick him out of their party.
Now is the time for the characters to have a good, long chat with his character. This is a role-playing game, yes? So role-play what the characters would think about someone not helping out. The player of that character might like to play kooky concepts and not feel like he's playing a video game; I fully support that. But he should be ready to support those characters with excellent role-playing so that other characters won't kick him out of their party.
Belphanior
First Post
A guy who tries to ruin your games by being contrary and disruptive isn't much of a friend...
The guy has done this several times before it seems. He sounds to me like an attention junkie who craves control over the game and does so in the worst way possible, by setting the whole thing on fire. A game doesn't need people like that. Kill him and take his stuff.
This person is going out of his way to be unhelpful. If he is unwilling to make requested changes to his character's abilities that maintain his concept and increase the fun the other players are having(dagger-throwing zealous worshipper of the Raven Queen works just fine as a rogue), he is not behaving like a friend.
AtomicPope
Hero
Bingo!
Some people feel the need to cause problems to "be original." It's easier to be a problem child for attention than to contribute. I've played many character that caused "problems" but they were always useful. There's a difference between roleplaying a character that is entertaining and just being an A-hole. The latter produces no laughs and sucks the fun out of the room.
OP - you're the player, not the DM. My suggestion is to bring it up with the DM and tell him you're fed up. DM's are not always helpful. Sometimes players need to take over. If the DM won't do anything then it's DRAMA TIME!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw"]Dramatic Chipmunk![/ame]
Time to form a coalition with other players. Start small. Drop out of game hints that you find the paladin's antics to be a drag. If the other players agree then take it a step further. Suggest cutting him out of the treasure. If push comes to shove, kill him. If the opportunity presents itself let the monsters do it.
Example: In one game our rogue was caught stealing party treasure. We had already asked him for the gems back and he played, "what gems?" That clinched it. Later on, he snuck ahead of the party and entired a room with a sleeping Bugbear Barbarian. When he was in the room getting ready for a coup-de-grace I shouted, "Look out!" and held the door shut. As a halfling he couldn't see in the dark and got his @$$ kicked, nearly got killed. I kept saying, "either you give me the gems now or I'll pick them off your corpse." We got the gems.
Wormwood
Adventurer
Similar Threads
