Player challenging DM authority and competative

[ggroy]

The thing is as I've got to know him I've found out he is desperate to DM, but the rest don't appear to want to be his players. Secondly he is very competitive and can be childish when he doesn't get his way.

I was in similar situations in the past. It got to the point where I ended up resigning as DM, and just handed over the DM slot to the powergamer player in question. Sometimes I stayed around and rolled up a new character. Other times I just walked away.

What typically ended up happening is with the "powergamer as DM", the game ended up collapsing shortly thereafter. Sometimes the players just walked out en masse, or it was a steady attrition with players showing up less and less frequently and/or making more excuses to not show up at all.

It was as if the "powergamer as DM", was hanging themselves with their own rope.

 

[fanboy2000]

For the more experienced DM's out there what would you do, would you ask him to leave if he doesn't do what you said? Would you let him play his character and give him a bit more room to see what happens?

First, here's my advice:

As Dan Savage would say, DTMFA.

Now, on to a few other things that I think will help in the future.

1. If a player isn't happy playing a PC, then their unhappy about playing that PC. Telling them to suck it up because you think they might make a class you don't like isn't they way to go.

What you want to do is set character creation ground rules from the beginning. Say upfront what classes, races, feats, and books you allow. This will keep people from making PCs you don't.

We'll get to optimization in a little be.

2. I have a new rule, I'm made it up on the spot.

Fanboy's Rule #3: Don't force the make-up of the party. (Thanks Felon!)

Back in the day's of 3e I ran a long game where, for whatever reason, no one ever wanted to play a cleric. We had a druid for a while, but he refused to cast heal spells. (We also had a Ranger who never used her spellcasting ability. Ever.) People would join the group, look at the party composition, and promptly not make a cleric. (There were a couple of exceptions, but they were short lived.)

Sure, 4e works well with multiple types, but it's not mandatory. Also, I think that controllers can be easily sacrificed. FWIW.

3. Don't be afraid of "optimization". I understand if a guy doesn't work well with your group, but don't be down on someone just because they want to make a PC that find fun. Building is a fun part of the game for some people. Trust me, I understand about having a hard time challenging the players, but remember, not the challenges are supposed to very from easy to almost impossible. If it's a little harder to get to difficult or almost impossible, that's something you can handle with encounter design.

That said, he's a bad fit for the group and you should boot him. But you do need to understand that, when a person wants to change PCs, you need to listen.

Picking a fight with a PC is not a valid method of usurping the DM.

 

[Riastlin]

Here are my personal opinions on the matter.

First, I never require a player to continue playing a character that they do not like. Often times what seems like a great concept at Char Gen ends up not being what was envisioned as the game plays out. So long as the player in question is not being taking advantage of it too much. i.e. I don't mind if a player rerolls mid-campaign. If he starts bringing a new character every session or three though then continuity does require you to eventually tell him to pick a character. Basically, I find this approach to be better than waiting for the character in question to die. If a player really wants to abandon a character badly enough, he'll find a way to "retire" that character. The problem is, its likely that doing so will at the very least annoy the rest of the table and at worst, lead to a tpk.

Second, as to his requested new character, I can see where there might be a problem. I think though that the first step is to talk to the player of the current rogue and see what his thoughts are. A lot of players (particularly the non-powergamers) won't care so much so long as they still get to roleplay their character. Again, while the party would likely benefit from a controller, I would be hesitant to require him to play one. The party doesn't need a controller, rather a controller would simply be helpful. By way of comparison, one of my current groups is almost to 11th now, and most of the campaign has been played without anyone playing a leader. Ironically, the three times that a PC died (campaign started at level 1) the party did have somebody playing a leader.

Finally, in the end, its best to talk to all of your players. Perhaps with the problem player separately and then the rest of the players with the problem guy absent so everyone feels free to let their thoughts be known. As unfortunate as it sounds, its entirely possible that the best solution may be to thank the problem player for playing, but to ask him to leave. Naturally, this should be the last resort but it is sometimes necessary. Not every player is compatible with every group.

 

[Dausuul]

There are some essential facts missing from this whole business.

So I retconned this as I wouldn't have allowed this to happen if I knew what he was up to (long story).

What's the "long story" here? And how would you have gone about disallowing it?

I talked to him after the game briefly and took his character to see what he'd done. But in truth I don't feel he should play this character for the trouble it will cause and the way he tried to engineer it to.

How did he try to engineer it? What kind of trouble will it cause, and how?

Based purely on what we've seen so far, this whole thing seems like very heavy-handed DMing to me. I mean, you list one of your reasons for disallowing the assassin/rogue as "the party needs a controller." That sounds like you're taking a much more active role in trying to dictate party composition than I think is reasonable for a DM.

Not that the player sounds blameless in the whole business--he's not dealing with the situation in a mature way. But I'm not seeing the basis for disallowing his character choices. A player who doesn't like his current character should NEVER be forced to keep playing that character; you shouldn't have to "suicide" in order to roll up a new PC.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

This kind of nonsense used to happen to a group I was in (as a player, not DM) many years ago (2e days - late 90s); there was a powergamer who was always switching characters for something "more effective" (read: broken).

He was constantly pulling stuff out of his arse that he would claim "was in a Dragon magazine," but when asked to produce said issue, it would always be "at home." This led to us first banning Dragon material. Trying to enforce this guy to stick to one character was hopeless. Trying to DM-veto his characters didn't work; he would just start playing them anyway. It was a large group (~10 players) and difficult to keep track of each individual player sometimes.

We eventually just stopped calling him. Problem solved.

That said, I have been in a situation where one of my players had a character that was stepping on the toes of another player's character, and I was unwilling to give him the boot over it, as I consider him a good friend, and he was an excellent roleplayer. The situation was made even more complicated by the fact that the offended player was my then girlfriend (now wife ).

The thing is, the offending character was only broken because I allowed the player to continue using it. Some of the "brokenness" came from the fact that it was a heavily houseruled game (3e -based this time), but at the end of the day, it was my responsibility to deal with it, and should never have allowed it in the first place.

When a player feels like their character is outshined by another, it can really be hard on the group. It nearly tore that one apart. Lesson learned (I hope).

As others have suggested though, if the two rogues are at least somewhat different, they just might be able to get along. Perhaps the non-assassin is a 'Face' type? I can't see an assassin-rogue hybrid offering much competition there. And while I have not looked into hybrid assassins much, as has been suggested by others, most hybrids are very much 'also ran' mechanically, so it might not be much of a worry.

You could always check the charop boards to see if his particular build is presented there. Some of them have some niche rules loophole exploits that can make them pretty dangerous to game balance. This player may also be relying on loopholes that have since been errata'd (how on top of this are you?) or which do not work the way he thinks they do ("That power; I do not think it works the way you think it works...").

You could even post it here and have some of the better optimizers or rules lawyers here pick it to shreds; perhaps we can defuse the situation.

Then again, if this Rogue|Assassin ends up not being as good as this guy thinks it is, based on what you've told us, he will just get bored of it when it isn't dominating combat, and want to switch to something else. Sounds like this guy has a major case of "I must WIN at D&D" for which there is no known cure, except getting over it.

Sorry for the overly verbose post. Hope it was helpful.

 

[MrMyth]

A hybrid Rogue|Assassin seems like a great idea in theory, but is so unbelievably terrible in practice.

I don't know about that. Basically build it largely as a standard rogue. Build up shrouds on the opponent while sneak attacking it. Every other round, when you build up to 2 shrouds, launch an assassin attack. During those rounds, unleash your rogue minor/free/interrupt action attacks to get Sneak Attack in anyway.

Now, no idea if this guy was pursuing anything along these lines. And, yeah, I think lots of other combos are much more optimizable. But an optimized character, even one of unusual design, will still often outshine some relatively average characters.

 

[Goonalan]

In both the groups I DM at present we've had players decide that they are not enjoying their present PC and have changed them out- I hate it when it happens (from a narrative perspective, don't get me wrong I cover the tracks but...)

Then thing that strikes me as most odd is that all my players on the swap out tend to float their ideas with the other PCs (and sometimes even me) before making the switch, for four weeks prior there'll be little hints...

"... the Monk Class looks good..."
"What?"
"Nothing, whose initiative is it?"

That kinda thing which finally expands into an e-mail frenzy, narrative dilemmas, and other virtual shenaningans until player turns up with new character, which has been part mauled already by several of the other players (and less often me), and toting a grin a mile wide.

I would have thought that the above process is the norm.

You play D&D with a bunch of guys, who do you ask about your new D&D PC, got it- the bunch of guys you play with.

From your comments above then...

You're not all friends already?

You're ticked at the guy, and perhaps not seeing straight because of that, he behaved badly- like a child. Then again, you started it by saying 'no', which without caveats (and much stroking of ego- players, don't talk to me about players) is a really bad thing to say. Even when you're right.

You said the other players were all embarrased at his behaviour, you boxed them up- okay.

That leaves the guy with Assassin-Wotnot on his own in the corner, and with even less reason to open up than before.

My point- the Assassin bozo needs to grow up, that's not going to happen until someone shows him how (within the context of the game).

I suggest you all go out for [insert beverage of choice] talk about common ground, get round to the game- agree some rules for future situations such as, and... throw an arm (life-line) around the bozo, I mean Assassin.

If that don't work.

Kill him, that's what I did with my brother...

 

[Sunseeker]

You are in a no-win situation. This person has issues that go far beyond the game, and how it turns out basically hinges on whether he can recognize the issues and address them. Do not, under any circumstances, feel guilty about what you have to do to keep your group functional, even if it means booting him out. And if you feel that the best thing is to accede to his wishes and let him play what he wants, be prepared for more manipulation down the road.

This. First and foremost you should be concerned about group health. A good social atmosphere makes for a good gaming atmosphere. Losing one player who is already grinding with the others is much better than losing a group to please one player.

Try offering to let him play a new character, but not one that overlaps so heavily with another player's? That way you might be able to avoid some of the competitiveness while he can switch away from a character he apparently didn't like?

Assuming the OP wants to keep the player in the game, this is probably the best course of action. There are plenty of awesome min-max builds out there where a "diva" player can shine, without taking over the nice of another player.

1) ask the rogue player if he/she wants to change and, if so, let the Player in questioin play his assassin-rogue
(as a warning from personal experience, the personality type you describe combined with wanting to play a rogue-assassin would set off a red flag in my head. that type of combination in the past has usually led to a PC that is as disruptive as the player: the pc will want to run off and do things solo, all the time leading to everyone else sitting around half the session; or he'll try and murder people for no real reason, etc etc. that's not to say this player will do the same.just saying that's been my experience with the combination of player and character archetype that you're describing)

Getting both players to discuss this could also relieve some of the issues. If the current rogue player is perhaps also unhappy with his character or has no issue, then it's a non-issue IMO. But you never know, people react different when talking to a person in a leadership position vs people who aren't. You might find all your players favor a whole new party makeup rather than figuring things out via DM.

HI all
Basically he seems to like optimising characters, so he wanted to swap out his Warlock, I said see if you can keep him but change his powers/pact etc. This seemed to delay things, but increasingly he'd been acting at odds with the party, provoking the defenders etc until he got this warlock killed by attacking another PC so he could now play this new character (risking another PC to do it).

My group has a similar player, though it's been less of an issue, no matter which character he plays, he is the party diva. The party backs him up, or it starts a fight.

So I retconned this as I wouldn't have allowed this to happen if I knew what he was up to (long story). So I said no to his new character an Assassin Rogue Hybrid, partly because the party had a Rogue and needed a controller and because I think he is doing it to outshine the Rogue and play competitively again.

No offense, but retconing whole situations is generally a bad idea. Comic books can't do it, small games can't do it. Likewise, as it's been said several time, don't force party composition. Especially if you're looking for a fairly niche role. All classes have some controller effects. Defender marks are supposed to control, striker effects are supposed to control, healer effects can control as well. "Control" is also an issue of tactics, if your NPCs are not being controlled, then perhaps your party needs to work on it's tactics better, or perhaps you the DM are ignoring effects placed on the NPCs when they shouldn't be ignored.

A lot of control can come from simple pushing and slowing. You don't need a character MADE for a controller, because especially at higher levels, all classes have so much versatility, a straight controller loses a lot of his niche.

Anyway having said no, he still showed up with the character and began to play it until I realised he wasn't playing his previous character (again long story here). I told him he had to play his old character or role up someone, anyone else as long as it wasn't a Rogue. But he refused and told me he was going to play his new character and that was that! So I said enough, you can sit this out and we'd sort it out after the game. I talked to him after the game briefly and took his character to see what he'd done. But in truth I don't feel he should play this character for the trouble it will cause and the way he tried to engineer it to.

In short, this is your main issue right here. He's trying to play boss and he isn't. For all the player generated content arguments I've had in other threads, when a game is clearly set up that the DM is in charge, THE DM IS IN CHARGE. End of story. He needs to either understand that, or leave.

The thing is as I've got to know him I've found out he is desperate to DM, but the rest don't appear to want to be his players. Secondly he is very competitive and can be childish when he doesn't get his way.

Then it's no surprise that they don't want to play with him. Do not, at all costs, let him DM or feel that he has some control over the game or it will start costing you other players.

I'm looking over his character trying to decide if its a good idea to let this character roll, or stand my ground and potentially loose him from the group. I think the thing is I could be misjudging him, but the rest of the group was embarrassed by his behaviour. Who needs that in a game which supposed to be fun?

If you can come to a compromise, do so. If not, give him the boot, as he sounds incredibly detrimental to your game.

As a final note, I don't know if you're alloing Essentials or not, but I would point him towards the Hexblade. It's a melee striker that's basically a warlock-rogue hybrid. It may prove different enough from your other rogue to warrant working in the group, but at the end of the day, what seems to be working the least is the player, not his character.

 

[BobTheNob]

I think first and foremost the thing to understand is that you are not alone. People like this is exist, and once you have DM'd for long enough, you are bound to encounter at least one. Its just part of the process.

In a room full of satisfied players, you have one guy who is a problem. Unfortunately for you, as DM, you own the problem. The truth is, he is childish. Hes that guy in the yard that when you play tag refuses to believe he got touched, and if he is ever "it" will run you down and slam you into a wall. He doesnt play the game for the fun of it, he plays because he has to feel on top of the circle he is in, and D&D provides an outlet for this in a way he understands. Again, hes the guy with the problem, but your the guy who owns it.

I am also betting that his life is substandard outside of the game, and that he is lashing out within the context of the game, because that is something he feels he can control.

In our current group, we had a player like that. In a six man party we had 5 guys playing the game, and one guy arguing every point, optimizing the crap out of his characters to the point of invalidating everyone elses. Sound familiar? Well, one night he disagreed with one of my decisions (I wasnt allowing Aid other on one particular skill roll) and stormed out the door (which everyone thought was rediculous). We then spent a year without this player and everything went very smoothly. He has rejoined us since, and he is a changed man (he had alot of issues outside of the game which he is sorting out. I think he recognized his behavior in game was a reflection of this and I can happily say he is working it though)

My earlier point about childish behavior. Thats exactly what it was. I, as DM, set a boundary which went against his desires, and he refused to accept it. So, much like a child, he stormed from the room.

So, my advice. Lookup child psychology websites and see what they have to say. Set your boundries and set em hard. Let him know that you are DM and your decisions stick. Its not a dogmatic regime, its a response to his behavior. If he likes it, he will come back in line, if he doesnt he will walk.

BTW. Dont concede to this guys desire to DM. I know the archtype, I have met them MANY times in the past, and they do make terrible DM's.

 

[Sunseeker]

IMy earlier point about childish behavior. Thats exactly what it was. I, as DM, set a boundary which went against his desires, and he refused to accept it. So, much like a child, he stormed from the room.

So, my advice. Lookup child psychology websites and see what they have to say. Set your boundries and set em hard. Let him know that you are DM and your decisions stick. Its not a dogmatic regime, its a response to his behavior. If he likes it, he will come back in line, if he doesnt he will walk.

BTW. Dont concede to this guys desire to DM. I know the archtype, I have met them MANY times in the past, and they do make terrible DM's.

As the son of a therapist and a nephew of a psychologist, I'm going to jump in here and say please do not do this. Understanding and executing correct techniques for managing children is difficult and pop-psychology books for how to train your children are generally written by people who have NO background in the subject. Even if a person acts like a child, treating them like one will only exacerbate the problem.

There is no problem with setting boundaries, but the more you treat someone like a child the more they will act like one. Treating them as an adult who is responsible for their own actions is more likely to elicit a positive response from them than slapping their hand and sending them to their room.

You are not a psychologist. It's great that your previous player sorted out their issues, but they did this because THEY realized they needed to deal with their issues. NOT because you told him to play by the rules or GTFO. Non-consensual psychology sessions benefit nobody, and will often make a person not trained in it look worse for trying to pull some psuedo-intellectual assault on someone else.

Please do not play psychologist with anyone if you are not one. And certainly don't listen to pop-psychology websites and treat an adult(no matter how childish they act) as a child.