DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[Mirage_Patrick]

I DOn't know about these other arguments, but I see nothing wrong with Bob wanting to play a self-buffing cleric. Obviously, he is not the one you depend on for your healing, but being a cleric does not mean you have to be a healer.

I admit to curiosity that you "require" all priests to be exalted individuals. Have you modified your game world so that there are only exalted style gods? As others have said, I would not expect a cleric of Kord to be the stay in the back healer but rather the type of cleric that Bob likes to play

 

[fafhrd]

Tell everyone to rebuild their characters with low power point buy. The guy will find something else to do and you get the roleplaying game you wanted.

 

[Thunderfoot]

A lot of good advice here - I am currently running a game with another DM and 11 players (yep those number are correct) As you can guess - there are several different styles involved and the balance has to come from us (my co-dm and I) in many ways.

My first suggestion would be to let him play the cleric and focus on a war style domain/pantheon. Then during game play make sure that you help him develop that pantheon to more than just a means to an end. (ie - i want power so I play a cleric) What about holy days, sacrifices, tithing, enemies of the order, political ties or severed political ties, family emninty about the order, etc. Many times we can get so used to playing the game that during the basic creation of characters phase we as DMs forget that we too have to be in the trenches as it were in order to seize upon things the players have (or in this case haven't) written about their character's past.

You may find that "Bob" hasn't ever had a vested interest in his character's feelings (ie roleplaying) simply because he is strictly in "video game mode" make character, kill monsters, collect rewards, repeat ad inifinitum. If you pull him into a character driven plot based on his charcter (talk to the others that have complained and get them to support you in this endeavor) you may find he has had the tools, but not the motivation to be an excellent roleplayer (something we have had to do on several occasions in my current campaign)

I am not excusing his behavior, nor do I condone it, but there may be things the whole group can do to subtely push him in the right direction versus clubbing him over the head with it. You might find that your DM skills, your player's rolwplaying skills and the overall game will be much better for it.

But that's just my two coppers!

 

[GlassJaw]

it urges DM to take control of the situation by creating adventures in which that player can satisfy his particular "thing". The other players need to be tolerant, knowing that they will also get their time to shine.

Giving the squeaky wheel the grease in this case is about the last thing I'd recommend in this situation. Why should the player be rewarded for making the game less fun for everyone else?

In my experience, it's virtually impossibly to get a player to "change his ways" if he is unwilling (which Bob seems to be).

There's no doubt, however, that when he plays it makes games less fun for everyone else

This is the key statement in your post. As a DM, I am extremely concerned that everyone is having fun at the table. If someone isn't, I do everything in my power to find out why and correct it. It's even more of a problem when another player is the reason why someone is not enjoying themselves.

I would discuss "Bob" with the rest of the group. Find out where everyone stands instead of going out on your own on this issue. You need to think of the group as a whole over one individual member. If the group is going to fall apart or not be fun because of this player, something must be done.

 

[IronWolf]

It certainly sounds like a difficult situation, but like you said given that he is a friend and co-worker to several of the players working it out is probably going to be in the best interests of everybody in the long run.

I would look hard for a way to include things that help meet his way of playing while still trying to meet the rest of people in your party. Even with heavy roleplaying there still is probably a need for a more melee, combat oriented party member. He can certainly fulfill that role which would probably make him happy that if when there is combat he is the one towards the front. Moments like that satisfy his needs while the others enjoy the roleplaying in between.

It can be hard finding the right pattern that makes everyone happy, but it may be time for the group to take a step back and approach the game with open minds to either direction before risking severing friendships.

 

[Henry]

Cleric ... Of ... Kord.

Rewrite Kord so he has the Destruction domain.

Pshaw. St. Cuthbert has everything you need. SMITE THE SINNERS!

Seriously, I'm with Joshua R. and Rel on this concept. In light of this quote,

The rest of the group, DM included, are much more story-driven and given to "deep immersion" style role-playing. While not all Academy Award winners, they "get" that story concerns are more important than game mechanics.

It's important to remember that story is more important TO YOU and fellow players, but there's more than one type of play out there, and his 'good time' is not only valid but comptaible with your good time. The secret is finding the middle path, Joshua and Rel have good places to start.

 

[Hjorimir]

I told Bob to just request a list of tenants in regards to a particular faith and see if he feels comfortable with them. The problem, now, is that he feels insulted (due in part to some of the language used to address this and due in part to being overly sensitive, which I told him this morning).

 

[Rel]

I told Bob to just request a list of tenants in regards to a particular faith and see if he feels comfortable with them. The problem, now, is that he feels insulted (due in part to some of the language used to address this and due in part to being overly sensitive, which I told him this morning).

Everything I've ever seen you (and Force User) post here has led me to believe that you're a pretty excellent GM with a good group, Hjorimir. I wish you luck in getting this thing resolved and I think it will probably work itself out.

I caution you against seeing Bob as "playing wrong" or having "Wrongbad Fun". Bob is just playing the game in the way that makes him happy and fulfills the reason that he enjoys gaming in the first place. We all do it and it is great when those approaches work adequately or even synergistically together. But when they don't it doesn't mean that anybody is a "jerk" or is intentionally ruining the game for the rest of the group. It just means that they have fun in a different way.

Does this mean that I think everybody needs to play with anybody who wants to no matter how their styles might clash? Of course not. But if we can compromise and work together to include them then I think that is the nice and compationate thing to do rather than kick them to the curb and tell them to find another group or to attempt to force them to change their style of gaming. And that goes (at least) double for people who are our friends.

I think you'll probably have the most success in finding the middle path (as Henry puts it) if you can come up with very specific compromises you're willing to make and to ask him for very succinct (and small) compromises in return. I think people are always more willing to meet you halfway when they can already see you walking toward them.

 

[Glyfair]

The problem, now, is that he feels insulted (due in part to some of the language used to address this and due in part to being overly sensitive, which I told him this morning).

I can easily see this. He definitely seems to have been singled out. Did you tell the other players that two other players want to play priestly characters so they couldn't? Have you ever told another player they couldn't play the character they wanted to play, but allowed other players to do so?

The problems is clearly that this player is incompatible with the group. The obvious solution is to put him not playing on the table. You clearly don't consider this an option.

So, you are left with incompatible players. Unless you can find some middle ground, you are left with adjusting one side or the others play style. Either get Bob to move towards your ideas of what a game should be, or have the other players be more tolerant of his play style.

If you can't find a middle ground, you are pretty much stuck with a situation where people are not going to be having fun.

 

[der_kluge]

Maybe the suped-up 3rd edition cleric has backfired?

I agree with others in that I think the other players are partially at fault for trying to dictate how Bob should play. If he's an over-zealous infidel slayer, that's perfectly acceptable. At any rate, WRT the current situation, I think I would strongly ask that he not play a cleric since there are others playing a cleric. I think I'd be adamant about not letting him play the same cleric like he played in the last campaign.

Alternatively, ask all the players for character backgrounds, etc. Force Bob to think more outside the box, and not to use the mechanics to dictate who he is. Force him to explain how he arrived at his current mechanical state.