DM-player conflict; input appreciated

The situation: A long-time player who is a gaming buddy is a terrible roleplayer who tends to focus on number-crunching rather than story. 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. This player, we'll call him Bob, is a life-long friend of another player, and has been generous to the DM outside of game. In game, he drives everyone else at the table nuts, and is the favorite topic of conversation out of game ("Did you hear what Bob did this time? Man!") In general, Bob is argumentative and used to getting his way. He is also a coworker of several other players, and a loyal friend to them.

The problem is that Bob gravitates toward the classes that, in the view of the rest of us, require more role-playing and dedication--the priestly characters. In our games, DMs generally expect an exalted (as in, Book of Exalted Deeds exalted) perspective from those who choose to play priests. Bob likes to play priest characters because they become quite powerful at high levels, and to him it's all about the numbers ("If I have buffs A, B, C, & D going all at once, I will RULE! Buwahaha! Oh, you need a heal? Wait until after combat, I'm killin' stuff here.") Bob's perspective has led to many frustrating moments for DMs, who often like to set up epic storylines around religious affairs, and for players, who sometimes find their own characters in jeparody because of Bob's perspective on the role of priests (which we'll call "self-buffing fighter"). This has been going on for years.

In the past, DMs have sometimes deflected his inclination toward priests to less religion-focused classes: favored souls (ironically), mage blades, and psychic warriors. But now Bob is determined--in the new campaign, he will play a priestly character, despite the fact that two other players are also doing so. Nobody wants Bob to play a priest, and the DM has told him 'no' and explained his reasons, but he is incensed. Unfortunately, Bob can't be kicked from the group without damaging friendships, and possibly work relationships. There's no doubt, however, that when he plays it makes games less fun for everyone else, who simply have different priorities (I've no doubt he'd get along just fine in a 'beer & pretzels" group).

Telling Bob 'no' has already caused drama. What would you, as DM, do or have done in the above situation? Suck it up and let him have his way to keep the peace? Be firm, and risk a falling out? I'm curious to hear your responses.

Compromise. If Bob wants to be a priest (Cleric?) character the let him. But the DM should design his deity and church, which is his perogative as DM. Based on what you said about the way he plays, simply create a religion where the clerics woudl behave that way. A God of Conflict or War (say CN or perhaps N) whose tenants are very much oriented around concepts like "Life is Struggle" and "Survival of the Fittest." If Bob is all about getting stronger and killing stuff then let him play a cleric of a god who wants his followers to get strong and kill stuff.

In a group of roleplayers, one guy who doesn't buy into it can be a problem. But social connections should really take priority over gaming. In this case the easiest solution would be to cast Bob in a role where he can be Bob in game.

If everyone adjusted their expectations, and the DM his game, to that effect then you'll have no problems.

He's really not being much of a friend if he is making it so noone else at the table is having fun. If you told him "hey, bob, since you have played the priest the last couple campaigns would it be OK if Joe does it this time? The party could really use a good Bard for this campaign. Would like to try that?" If he still insists on playing a priest then I would tell him no if he wants to play in this campaign he will have to try somthing else.

The new DMG II has some advice on handling disruptive players. In a nutshell, 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.

In this case, the player's "thing" appears to be a combination of power-gaming and a weird fixation on priests (which I will take to mean clerics, in game terms). So, the DM could create some encounters in which the player has plenty of time to buff up prior to the fight, then gets to revel in his uber-ness. Ideally, an encounter that is somewhat about the party's level, but is made much easier with the right combination of buffs. (Monsters that deal energy damage are a good choice.)

Personally, I think the DM needs to have a frank discussion with the player. Let him know there have been some bad feelings about his power-gaming interfering with the other players' more story-based desired. Tell the player that the DM will try to put suitable encounters into each adventure session, but that the player also needs to be patient while the others indulge their storylines. Let "Bob" know that it's really important for everyone to have fun, and sometimes that means waiting your turn.

Separately, the DM should tell all the other players what he is going to do, and ask them to be patient with "Bob". Remind them that not everyone wants to be a story focused player, and ask them to also wait their turn while Bob indulges his power-gamer tendencies.

Stormborn said:

Compromise. If Bob wants to be a priest (Cleric?) character the let him. But the DM should design his deity and church, which is his perogative as DM. Based on what you said about the way he plays, simply create a religion where the clerics woudl behave that way. A God of Conflict or War (say CN or perhaps N) whose tenants are very much oriented around concepts like "Life is Struggle" and "Survival of the Fittest." If Bob is all about getting stronger and killing stuff then let him play a cleric of a god who wants his followers to get strong and kill stuff.

In a group of roleplayers, one guy who doesn't buy into it can be a problem. But social connections should really take priority over gaming. In this case the easiest solution would be to cast Bob in a role where he can be Bob in game.

If everyone adjusted their expectations, and the DM his game, to that effect then you'll have no problems.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything that Stormborn has said here. Sometimes when there is a close friend involved you just have to adjust expectations and the circumstances in the game to accomodate them.

It doesn't sound like Bob is making huge demands on the group and isn't asking anybody else to change their style just to suit him. He just likes to play the same basic character over and over again.

One thing I think you guys should do is to stop thinking of him as "The Healer" at all. He's really more of a Holy Warrior who is powered up by magic rather than feats. You wouldn't rely upon the Fighter or Barbarian for healing so don't rely on Bob either. If somebody else in the party wants to make a Cleric and do the healing then there is no rule that says you can't have two Clerics in the group.

And, like Stormborn says, if the whole point of his religion is "smiting the infidel" then there is nothing wrong with his powering up and doing just that.

With that said, if Bob is saying stuff like, "Will you guys quit all this blabbing and 'roleplaying' so we can get on with smiting the infidels!" then you're going to have to explain to him that while you won't dictate what sort of character he gets to play, he also doesn't get to dictate how the other players play their characters either.

If it is honestly him wanting to roll-play and everyone else wanting to roleplay, then you need to talk to him alone and explain that.

Tell him you want to come to an arrangement where he can have fun, but not at the expense of everyone else at the table.

We generally use "team force" when correcting someone who wants to be Timmy the Power Gamer. I, as the GM, get a lot of support from players who want to roleplay and don't want to be bogged down with "I get that extra plus one because the sun is behind me and it's Tuesday!" Maybe you can too, but I'd try talking to him first.

Good luck, everyone gets in this situation sooner or later, I've seen groups nearly implode from it. But in the end, extreme rollplayers or extreme number-crunchers can sap the life out of a game, and you have to do something.

Rel said:

With that said, if Bob is saying stuff like, "Will you guys quit all this blabbing and 'roleplaying' so we can get on with smiting the infidels!" then you're going to have to explain to him that while you won't dictate what sort of character he gets to play, he also doesn't get to dictate how the other players play their characters either.

Click to expand...

i agree with Rel.

We dealt with those before, in all honesty it was quite annoying at times. Then again, there are just times where you have to look past all of the fluff (I wanna be a smiter) and get to the core of the issue, which might be that this individual has no idea on what to be besides what he feels most comfortable with. There are times when you have to take this player out and talk to him, try to get at the heart of the matter...

I know that he is friends with everyone and I am not suggesting cutting him off at the knees or anything, but I think that it is something more than just "I want to be this". This might be a good time to figure it all out...

As the DM, I'd tell him other people already called "dibs" on being priests and that I don't want religious conflicts to be the focus of the game so no more.

I'd also suggest that in this campaign it's probably better that he doesn't play a priest anyway since you're requiring the priests be more "religous" than in the past to maintain their divine mandate. (AKA: "the other guys are going to RP being priests and if you didn't your powers would be cut off.")

I've often told people "no, you can't play that character because X." Adults may express displeasure and get on with their lives. I've been told it as a player and as long as the DM isn't choosing the PC for me, I'm good with it. (Outside of cons I *hate* pre-generated characters.)

Cleric ... Of ... Kord.

Rewrite Kord so he has the Destruction domain. Tell Bob to make a Bbn1/ClrX with Destruction and Strength domains. Hand him a greatsword and let him paste everything you run across.

I'll tell ya ... I've never had so much time to be immersive since we got "Smashdor" to hang out with. "Oh no, monsters!" "BLAT" "Ah, yes, what was I saying again?"

Personally I think EVERYBODY's style needs to be addressed at the game table, because the guy with the buffs and the smashing is playing just as much a game as everybody else. Find a way to work with it. Our table has. Not every religion in a pantheistic setting is going to be "clerical" and fully of holy devotees. I think it's just as much fun to have a religion where feasting and drinking are wonderful high-holiday sacraments ... and every weekend is a high holiday, and the warrior-priests all get trashed to the gills and have wrestling matches.

"Oh mighty lord, bless me so that I might break these chains ..."

--fje