Gaming through denial

[Greenfield]

Although I gave this the "Any D&D" tag, we're playing 3.5, and the specific rules issues refer to that edition.

I have a gamer in my group who is driving me crazier than I already am (Trust me, I can't afford to be any crazier than I already am.)

His style seems to be "Success through denial". He simply insists that things are different than they are.

For example, his current character is female, but says that she disguises herself as a man.

After playing this for a while, the DM (me) finally asked how many ranks she had in Disguise. The answer was one. Even that was a lie: The PC is a Cleric/Fighter who spent one skill point, buying half a rank in the cross-class skill. (Yes, you can do that, I had to look it up.)

With a 12 Charisma, the PC's total bonus is 1. It is impossible for this character to have carried off that masquerade with the group for any period of time. (We just made 3rd level). This was pointed out. In fact, the "Disguise one gender as another" has a DC 30 as an example in one of the books. You might pass it off if walking through a crowd, but not with the people living and traveling with you.

We pointed out the impossibility of the claim. Player's response? "Yes, but she's totally disguised, and you all think she's a man."

And that was the answer to every argument.

In play, the characters ended an adventure at the court of the Unseelie Fey, and were invited to stay as guests. The character said the only thing she wanted was a hot bath. It was pointed out that the Court is in a fairy circle, and is in effect a party. Where they would get a hot bath was a mystery. As DM, however, I accommodated, observing that it would be impossible to maintain the disguise. I went so far as to mention that at least one of the men present offered to "Help her". Player had her accept.

Now the player is insisting that this was a private thing, and that he said so. Nobody, including the DM at the time, recalls any such statement.

When we pointed out that his character had essentially stripped down and climbed into a fountain at the party, and that it was impossible to have maintained the disguise, the player's reply was, you guessed it: "Yes, but she's totally disguised, and you all think she's a man."

There are other examples on other issues: She wants to sign on as a deck hand on a ship, but plans to work the deck in splint mail. I asked how she would climb rigging in such armor, which has a -7 Armor check penalty, that doubles for climb checks.

The player simply insisted the character had training (one point in Profession - Sailor), and could do it.

Finally agreed to peel down to lighter armor. How light? Player said, "My character had the money to buy lighter armor. That's what I'm wearing."

When she dove overboard to save someone, the character was suddenly wearing no armor. Where did the "Lighter armor" go? Player insists that he said his character took it off earlier. Nobody heard any such declaration, and there was no game-table time between the argument about climbing in armor and the storm that washed someone overboard. We transitioned directly from one scene to another.

Player still insists that he told us these things, and that we heard them.

It's becoming impossible to play with when the player simply declares things to be a certain way, or tries to retroactively rewrite events, and continues playing as if his version of events is what happened.

His lies are incredibly blatant, yet you get the feeling that he believes them.

Have you ever faced a gamer like this, whose "fantasy gaming" takes the fantasy to that extreme?

 

[trancejeremy]

How familiar is he with 3.x?

A lot of other systems aren't so strict when it comes to what is possible based on ability at a skill.

And in the case of something like that (pretending to be a man), is it really needed? It's a staple of fantasy and adventure fiction (or it used to be). Cut your hair short, wrap your chest, viola, you're a man. (The other way is a bit harder)

Then again, in my game, I have a gnome pretending to be a human by wearing a hooded cloak and wearing elevator boots.

While the armor and water thing is certainly something, at the same time, I think you need to differentiate somewhat between what a player does, and what a character would do. What the character take off the armor before jumping into the water? Almost certainly.

It's really not a game of "gotcha", you aren't being an adversary. I'd probably just say something like "I'll assume you're taking off your armor first?". Sometimes the DM has to be the voice of common sense for the character, if the player doesn't have any.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH, from the description, the player is insisting that the disguise of manliness is being maintained when it patently impossible for the PC to have done so.

This isn't so much about "gotcha", but a player who is playing by a different set of rules...seemingly made up on the fly.

You could do a lot of things- recording the sessions, banning the player from your table if he doesn't play by the rules- but the first step is using the DM's core power, saying "No."

Not necessarily the word itself, understand. Letting the impartial and fickle dice do the job for you is quite effective. For example, make the player make rolls to maintain the disguise, citing the rules' stated difficulty for the task. It is fair to the player in question and the others at the table.

 

[Herobizkit]

Would this be the same player that wanted to worship both halves of a Light and Darkness deity (which was strictly against the priesthood as written) so he could get the best Domains and abilities from either side?

 

[the Jester]

Wow. I would clarify that the player in question doesn't get to decide what other people think/believe, and that the character in question doesn't get to cheat.

That "I have light armor too" moment? I'd have insisted the pc show me, on his or her character sheet, where the extra armor is. The "I took my armor off earlier" moment? As the DM, I'd say, "No, you didn't. If you said something about it, I missed it - in fact, we all did- but that just shows that YOU need to make sure that you announce what you're doing when I ask and am paying attention, otherwise it didn't happen. Now, you can stop and take your [presumably heavy] armor off, or you can dive in and sink."

I have very low tolerance for players who think that the rules don't apply to them. I would have an out-of-game talk about this, then if things didn't improve, it's the boot.

EDIT: If I were a player in the group, I'd insist on calling the other pc "him" from now on, and wouldn't play along with the nonsense "you have to believe what I poorly put across" crap any further.

 

[Starfox]

If the character is transgender, I suppose I should refer to the character as as he.

Assuming the character has been transgender for a long time, he'd be practiced at this kind of thing and could pull it off. Skill ranks in Disguise generally represents the ability to play ANY role. But a role you've been playing since birth requires no Disguise checks. If the character suddenly wants to act female, I'd ask for Disguise rolls, as he's obviously acting out of his element.

Even barely dressed, an androgynous physical female could probably pass as a male, especially if he's a physically buff person and acting and talking like a man. A well-trained character might not have breasts or hips that immediately scream "female" to observers. Not all men have body hair. And we've not even brought up the issue of fantasy race - onlooker might assume he has a drop of elf blood somewhere in his ancestry that explains the lack of apparent maleness. Totally naked, the genitalia would of course be a deal-breaker, but "smallclothes" are an accepted part of most fantasy (tough largely ahistorical).

But the bottom line for me is, the player wants to explore this role, and its not really giving any serious advantages - why not humor the player and let things be? Why make it an issue?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just because one identifies as transgender or is a long-time transvestite does not mean one is actually good at presenting oneself as the other gender. That takes skill- and arguably, MORE skill the less clothing you wear- and the player has not used the supplied rules of the game to make his PC proficient in the relevant skill.

And there IS an advantage here: by claiming an ability not supported by the PC's skill levels and being permitted to do so, the player has been able to shift a scarce resource- skill points- to other skills.

Besides, from the original post, we can see that the disguise issue is just one example of a pattern of play.

 

[Shiroiken]

Here are my suggestions.

Any time the player wants to do something (such as the disguise thing), force a roll. Every single time, noting the failures.

If the player says they've done something that you (and no one else) acknowledged, simply state they you did no such thing, and deny them their denial. You are the DM, and the final authority on these matters.

If the player refuses to acknowledge your authority on these matters (or anything else, really), they need to go. They are going to ruin the fun of you and the other players very quickly.

 

[Starfox]

Just because: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=645

 

[steeldragons]

There isn't anything in the above about this being about playing a transgendered PC. The PC does not believe she is a man, she's trying to pass herself off as one to everyone else via disguise. Which, flat out, naked is not possible. In "undergarments" might be. But that was not specified in the bathing story we got.

For this player, sounds to me...there is "denial" and then there is "delusion." This player sounds like they are more steeped in the latter than the former. Or simply a compulsive liar in some misguided attempt/perception to "win" and/or play the game they want/imagine regardless of what is actually happening...in which case, they are welcome to go play by themselves.

The player's apparent mental issues aside, which you can do nothing about, this is a DMing issue.

Do not argue.

When the player says "I did this" [and there's no way they did] say "NO" not "When?" When the player says "But you guys all think..." say "NO." As noted above, that player does not get to say what other PCs or NPCs think or believe. If you say "NO" and they insist on "Yes" in the face of actual rules and the DM's rulings, there's no way to reason with the irrational.

If you want a "rules" defense, 1 rank in a skill is not enough to let anything go or make anything in that skill automatic.

My inkling is that, when confronted/denied their story this player will have some kind of meltdown, ultimately refuse to follow your rulings and be generally disruptive to play/the game for the rest of the table. Biiiig no-no. Boot 'em until such time as they are capable of handling the "reality" of the game.

Just from the incidents listed above, I am surprised they are still at the table at all.

They can play well with others...and by the rulings of the DM!...or they can walk. Put your DMing foot down. If they can handle that, great. If they can't (and it sounds to me like this particular player will -perhaps even can- not) boot 'em.