Rant about my Party

Nagol said:

Right. So that's the time to dump the character. Much like a PC that offends the party's sensibilities, the PC with strong objections to party direction should either leave or be forced out. Hopefully, you can reprise the character in the future with a group more suited to its values.



You decide the original psyche of the character. You, as player, take actions in-game based on those decisions and input from the game world. However, you, as player, also have a responsibility to keep the game moving in a way that affords the other players having fun. How are you going to do that? It could be the original psyche gets redefined. It could be the character gracefully exits the group at the next port of call. Depending on the group social contract, it could be the character takes a principled stand and kills them, gets mowed down, or abandoned.

It can suck when you really want to play X, but the group can't tolerate it. If the group is running murder-hobos then bringing in a character with strong values can only lead to table drama. Look around the table, identify one or two players that you think would enjoy a game with X in it and either run it or find a DM who will.

Click to expand...

So, to understand the point here, a player has an affirmative duty to play in a way that's not disruptive to the other players. How does this actually work, as it would seem that the other players have the same duty? Is it not also incumbent upon them to bend to my desires?

Disruptive is bad, disagreement isn't. And if it's a case of moral differences, that's what out of game frank discussion is for -- why are we playing as a group, what do we want from the game as a group, how do we achieve that? Just rolling over to get along is not good advice; it allows problems to go un-aired and fester.

Ovinomancer said:

So, to understand the point here, a player has an affirmative duty to play in a way that's not disruptive to the other players. How does this actually work, as it would seem that the other players have the same duty? Is it not also incumbent upon them to bend to my desires?

Disruptive is bad, disagreement isn't. And if it's a case of moral differences, that's what out of game frank discussion is for -- why are we playing as a group, what do we want from the game as a group, how do we achieve that? Just rolling over to get along is not good advice; it allows problems to go un-aired and fester.

Click to expand...

A player can be annoying to other players; a player can disrupt some of other player's plans and actions. A player has an affirmative duty to not block play by adopting a stance opposed to the rest of the group.

Typically, such situations tend to be self-resolving at my table: either the blocking situation is discussed and resolved (by PC roster changes, group adjustment, whatever) or the blocking player leaves.

Nagol said:

A player can be annoying to other players; a player can disrupt some of other player's plans and actions. A player has an affirmative duty to not block play by adopting a stance opposed to the rest of the group.

Typically, such situations tend to be self-resolving at my table: either the blocking situation is discussed and resolved (by PC roster changes, group adjustment, whatever) or the blocking player leaves.

Click to expand...

So, if you have a player making a principled stand on an issue well telegraphed by their previous play, you are saying that it's that player that has an affirmative duty to alter their character to suit the rest of the group? When and how do you adjudicate who has the duty? Is it majority rules? So long as I have more players on my side, the other side has the duty to capitulate? Does it only manifest when the every other player is against? I'm trying to understand how and when you assert this duty.

Chaosmancer said:

I suppose in the context of character vs party, but it rarely starts out that way. Far more often you end up with Character vs character, and then the party takes sides and that’s when it becomes clear you have the party siding against you.

Click to expand...

I agree, sometimes You say "Hey we shouldn't do X and everyone agrees (or at least majority) but when you bump heads 2 or 3 times and it almost always you in the minority...

But, again and again, I get this line of “You the player are 100% in control of how your character thinks, and justifies things” and it doesn’t answer the problem. How does a character who believes in mercy supposed to justify a murder of convenience? How does a character who last session tore into their squire for white lies, because we taking an oath against lying, supposed to justify lying to make life easier on himself?

Click to expand...

but again you decide how much of a hypacrit your character is. You also get to decide if you are going to think "Hey maybe I was wrong to lay into my squire, things can be WAY more complicated than black and white" You don't even need to retcon then, just have the character grow.

Sure, they can do it, but that just makes their beliefs weak, they don’t truly stand by their principles, they set them down when the time comes that they are inconvenient for the party.

Click to expand...

again, you can see it as setting aside principles, or as acknowledging growth and change...

Or, you have your character walk, leave the table, and come back the next week with a lying murdering bastard, and all the work and effort you point into your previous character and their connection to the story just turns to dust and is never mentioned again.

Click to expand...

I love the way you make the 2 extremes...you could come in with a good guy who just realizes sometimes the few guys in white hats need to take a back seat to the ever darkening grey ones...

I don’t know, that “You are your character, make it work” line is just particularly aggravating, because every time I raised objections in character and we ended up talking about it out of character that was the line I got from them.

Click to expand...

As you should...this game is played by humans who make believe... if you really can't imagine a scenario where your character works with the others you have to make believe a new character...

5 people sit down. 1 is DM and 4 are players. the 4 players make a LG Pally a CG Rouge a NE Necromancer and a Druid that wrote CN on his sheet but really just doesn't like alignement and really wants unaligned... The pally and the Necro are going to clash...maybe you keep it in game and it works, or maybe the DM has such a huge threat you have to put aside differences to work together, but most likely 1 will get the other 2 players on there side and 1 will have to either reimagine what they do with this character, or make a new one.

You should back down and twist your characters beliefs and outlook until they can justify whatever the party wants to do, because your character isn’t a real person with internal logic, they are a set of numbers on a piece of paper and you are the one in the driver’s seat. I’m a writer, that just doesn’t make sense to me. A character has an internal logic that can’t just be overwritten because it would be more convenient for it to not be there. That isn’t how characters work.

Click to expand...

I'm a writer too (You should check out my YouTube channel sometime I talk all about stories and story telling) I agree that a character has internal logic...but writing a story is VERY different than a game. You are not the only writer, but one of many here.

Lanefan said:

So what?

If one character wants to do something that another does not, there's either going to be a) someone conceding their morals, be they good or bad, or their entire character; or b) a great big argument, sometimes involving spells and weapons.

Click to expand...

that about sums it up... unless the group has a no PVP rule (we do sometimes) in witch cas it has to be A because B isn't allowed.

I have no problem at all with option b - provided the players can keep it in character - if a session gets bogged down in party infighting it's no skin off my nose as DM, it's not like I'm running to a schedule. And as player, just let us fight.

Click to expand...

as long as everyone is having fun I agree...however I rearly (not never) find people have fun when it stretches on game after game

see that is the big deal fun

The problems the OP mentions are rendered worse when the player closely associates with the values of the fish out of water character, as all attacks on the PC feel like personal criticism of the player themselves.

One piece of advice I give players in similar positions is to deliberately make up PCs who have some views or opinions that you the player don't agree with. This makes it easier to compromise with the other players on party decisions and courses of action, and takes the sting out of the compromises that you the player make.

People new to RPGing often create a PC who is an idealised version of themselves in the gameworld. Some people never expand their repertoire beyond this point. One of the potential problem with avatar characters is that they may any criticism or failure in the gameworld more personal and possibly make compromise more difficult.

Ovinomancer said:

So, if you have a player making a principled stand on an issue well telegraphed by their previous play, you are saying that it's that player that has an affirmative duty to alter their character to suit the rest of the group? When and how do you adjudicate who has the duty? Is it majority rules? So long as I have more players on my side, the other side has the duty to capitulate? Does it only manifest when the every other player is against? I'm trying to understand how and when you assert this duty.

Click to expand...

Or retire it, sure. After all, if a principled stand is causing the issue, why would that PC want to continue with the group that violated it?

As to adjudication, like many things, it depends. In my experience, there are a few possibilities:

The situation is new (new group, new player, or a situation that has heretofore not been seen). This is the most common. Something has come up that is in some way unexpected that threatens to stall the game/destroy the group. Typically, players have become wedded to tactics that are mutually exclusive (e.g. kill-them-all vs. save-the-innocents). This is a player fight. Players are expected to discuss what happened, what the PCs will do about it, and how to resolve the situation. PCs may retire, or players may effect some change in PC personality to limit further conflict. If the table cannot resolve the issue, a wider discussion is necessary to determine how the game will move forward. This might involve an agreement that such a situation will never occur again in the campaign, involuntary PC retirement, or changing the game participants. Things rarely get this far. I think I've seen it twice in my gaming career.

Some PCs are at loggerheads. Typically this is a result of differing faction support in-game. The situation can escalate to PC-PC conflict if the social contract allows which usually solves the issue. If that is undesirable, the table has to discuss what to do outside the game to resolve the situation (for example, I once ran a game for a step-dad, his wife and two 11-13 year old children where the mother was playing LE and taking advantage of the children's PCs through her out-of-game relationship. PC-PC conflict was not something I wanted to pursue).

A player is acting out. Relatively obvious to spot. Sometimes the player is being a Richard. Other times the player is acting in character in a way that is at odds with group expectations. The player will talked with to determine how they continue with the group.

Some players are at loggerheads out-of-game. Similar to the previous. Slightly less obvious for me to spot. Players will be talked with individually and together to determine how the game will move forward.

Some basic priorities as to which side should consider deferring include
Is one side acting against the basic campaign premise?
Is one side acting against the social contract, explicit or implicit?
Is one agent acting against the wishes of the rest of the group?

Sub groups with irreconcilable differences can become a problem. At that point, the question may be does the game continue at all or does something replace it?

Lanefan said:

Conceding the character is an option; and in the OP's case might even lead to his retired character becoming a foe to the party - he knows what they're like, and what they're capable of doing if not stopped!

Click to expand...

I specifically asked that this not happen. A) I don’t want to cause more trouble and B) I don’t want to fight my old character.

We talked out that my character would return to his community with the information he has gathered (which was a significant religious discovery already) and work on strengthening his community and building up a force to go forth and save the Goddesses that have been trapped. Unless they seek out my character (which frankly, I doubt any of them who are left would have bothered to remember where my home was) he isn’t going to run into the party again.

GMforPowergamers said:

but again you decide how much of a hypocrite your character is. You also get to decide if you are going to think "Hey maybe I was wrong to lay into my squire, things can be WAY more complicated than black and white" You don't even need to retcon then, just have the character grow.

Click to expand...

But I can never decide that they are not a hypocrite? I can decide for them to be a little hypocrite or a big hypocrite, but they must absolutely be a hypocrite. That isn’t a whole lot of choice?

And yeah, things are more complicated than Black and White, I totally get that. I never raised a fuss when they stole a journal off of another NPC, despite the fact she was going to bury it with its owner as part of his last wishes. However, I did raise objections to slavery, torture, and murder. I don’t want my character to growth to be, “Ok, I can accept that you were in a bad mood and so murdering that woman was totally justified” which is exactly an argument that was posed when my character left the party. The murderer was upset, the woman attacked him when we broke into her home with no warning, and so he killed her. And then killed her again when I tried to bring her back to life, and I was the one who was in the wrong. I was the one being unreasonable and needed to change my actions to make it work with the party. I needed to accept and rationalize the murder of a scared woman because she didn’t get out of our way fast enough.

GMforPowergamers said:

As you should...this game is played by humans who make believe... if you really can't imagine a scenario where your character works with the others you have to make believe a new character...
I'm a writer too (You should check out my YouTube channel sometime I talk all about stories and story telling) I agree that a character has internal logic...but writing a story is VERY different than a game. You are not the only writer, but one of many here.

Click to expand...

And I am making a new character, but I guess this is what bugs me more than anything.

I never changed my stances, and I tried so many times to work with them, but they kept going further and further down the path. For no reason at all, they decided to start going with more and more evil and quick answers to problems that didn’t exist.

The party changed around me, and never once did they acknowledge my character’s point of view. The closest I got to a concession is that of disgust at me being unreasonable.

I know, I didn’t change and that’s the problem, but they knew exactly what kind of character I had and had no problem with him at session 1, by session 15 I was butting heads, and now he’s leaving the party because both him and me can no longer stand it.

I should have changed, I should have become a hypocrite, I should make a new character, I should, I should, I should

But where was their responsibility in all this?

If you have a cleric in the party, shouldn’t you not desecrate a shrine to their god?
If you have a good character in the party, shouldn’t maybe hold off on the random murder?

Heck, I know for a fact out of character, that one of the other characters was explicitly trying to murder my character because we got into a fight over destroying something. Long story short after fighting and this guy throwing me into some mutagenic ooze that might have killed me, I cured him of lycanthropy against his will. We have another person who is a werewolf in the party, so it’s not like he couldn’t have gotten it again if he wanted it, unlike my character being permanently altered, and his character is so against people telling him what to do that he told me if he ever diagreed with me again I’d have to just step back and let him do what he wanted with no objections, or he would kill me. When I refused and cured him, he started hatching murder plots against my character like giving me a fake potion of Water Breathing when we were down in an underwater temple.


But I needed to be the one to give and change my character and not make any objections.

Like I said, this is mostly just a rant and venting space for me. I don’t want to leave the game, I like the guys, and I’ve made a character who could not care less what they do, so they are free to screw up as many situations as they like now, but it still is aggravating. (The woman they killed in the session where my cleric left, she was the only living person in the house, and the only one with the information we needed. We’d have hit a brick wall if I hadn’t brought her back to life so we could talk to her, and they killed her again afterwards just because essentially)

Nagol said:

Or retire it, sure. After all, if a principled stand is causing the issue, why would that PC want to continue with the group that violated it?

As to adjudication, like many things, it depends. In my experience, there are a few possibilities:

The situation is new (new group, new player, or a situation that has heretofore not been seen). This is the most common. Something has come up that is in some way unexpected that threatens to stall the game/destroy the group. Typically, players have become wedded to tactics that are mutually exclusive (e.g. kill-them-all vs. save-the-innocents). This is a player fight. Players are expected to discuss what happened, what the PCs will do about it, and how to resolve the situation. PCs may retire, or players may effect some change in PC personality to limit further conflict. If the table cannot resolve the issue, a wider discussion is necessary to determine how the game will move forward. This might involve an agreement that such a situation will never occur again in the campaign, involuntary PC retirement, or changing the game participants. Things rarely get this far. I think I've seen it twice in my gaming career.

Some PCs are at loggerheads. Typically this is a result of differing faction support in-game. The situation can escalate to PC-PC conflict if the social contract allows which usually solves the issue. If that is undesirable, the table has to discuss what to do outside the game to resolve the situation (for example, I once ran a game for a step-dad, his wife and two 11-13 year old children where the mother was playing LE and taking advantage of the children's PCs through her out-of-game relationship. PC-PC conflict was not something I wanted to pursue).

A player is acting out. Relatively obvious to spot. Sometimes the player is being a Richard. Other times the player is acting in character in a way that is at odds with group expectations. The player will talked with to determine how they continue with the group.

Some players are at loggerheads out-of-game. Similar to the previous. Slightly less obvious for me to spot. Players will be talked with individually and together to determine how the game will move forward.

Some basic priorities as to which side should consider deferring include
Is one side acting against the basic campaign premise?
Is one side acting against the social contract, explicit or implicit?
Is one agent acting against the wishes of the rest of the group?

Sub groups with irreconcilable differences can become a problem. At that point, the question may be does the game continue at all or does something replace it?

Click to expand...

I'm still rather confused as to how you have a monolithic 'party' which is being acted against by one player.

There Wheaton Rule is a good rule of thumb, but I can't get behind your call for subsuming all conflict into the will of the collective. Firstly because I don't believe such a collective actually can exist, it's a bunch of people not a mindmeld, and secondly, conflict can make a game awesome, so long as it's not violating the Wheaton Rule.

Ovinomancer said:

I'm still rather confused as to how you have a monolithic 'party' which is being acted against by one player.

Click to expand...

For instance, it can take time for a new player to learn the ropes in an established group, and the established PCs may give the impression of being a monolithic party, regardless of how close that description actually approaches the truth.

There Wheaton Rule is a good rule of thumb, but I can't get behind your call for subsuming all conflict into the will of the collective. Firstly because I don't believe such a collective actually can exist, it's a bunch of people not a mindmeld, and secondly, conflict can make a game awesome, so long as it's not violating the Wheaton Rule.

Click to expand...

Some people just don't enjoy intra-party conflict in a game, or have hard limits beyond which it becomes unfun for them.

Majority rules isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's the simplest way to make rulings to maximise player acceptance. It is possible to carry this out in an enlightened and civilized way, though this doesn't always happen of course. Players can figure out a tolerable compromise or vote with their feet as always.

Aenghus said:

For instance, it can take time for a new player to learn the ropes in an established group, and the established PCs may give the impression of being a monolithic party, regardless of how close that description actually approaches the truth.




Some people just don't enjoy intra-party conflict in a game, or have hard limits beyond which it becomes unfun for them.

Majority rules isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's the simplest way to make rulings to maximise player acceptance. It is possible to carry this out in an enlightened and civilized way, though this doesn't always happen of course. Players can figure out a tolerable compromise or vote with their feet as always.

Click to expand...

See, when it comes to real people social interaction, simple rules that aren't really just generalities about very complex interactions (like Wheaton's Rule, which doesn't define what the nominal individual behavior is, but goes with the pornography rule - you know it when you see it) just don't work. Majority rules is a great way to bully and abuse a new player as much as it could be a way to learn the social pattern of a group.

Honestly, the OP seems to be the target of some bullying by his peers and it seems like there are a number of people excusing it and saying 'hey, man, just give them your lunch money, you're the problem here.'