Should this be fixed

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'd chalk this up to Newbie DM Learning Curve.

One of the most, absolute most important things you can do as a DM when you start a new campaign is sit down with the entire group and hammer out what I've heard called a Group Template. Before anyone picks up so much as a D4 to start character generation, have a lengthy, detailed conversation about what everyone expects from the game.

Because, looking at this, what I see here is a failure in communications.

People at this table are pretty obviously at odds with expectations of what the game entails and how the game world words. They are at odds with each other and at odds with the DM.

Yeah, I'd go with, "Let's end this campaign right now." as advice. Start over (possibly with the new system) and make absolutely sure that everyone has this conversation. Character generation should be a group endevour. If one player wants to play an extreme "activist" (to borrow a term used earlier in the thread) type character, make sure that everyone at the table is groovy with the implications of that.

So many of these issues are avoidable if the group sits down before the campaign starts and discusses these things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes. I play a game in which the players' make the evaluative judgements.

Hmmm.

How does making clear the norms of society mean that the players don't make evaluative judgements?



RC

 

[Hussar]

A thought about the Dwarf's POV.

People have made a big point about the fact that society in this setting doesn't see necromancy as evil. Does that mean that every player must see necromancy as a non-evil thing? Can't a character be wrong?

The dwarf player, to his credit, is sticking to a consistent play of his character. He's made no bones about the fact that he sees necromancy as evil and that he's playing a "hanging judge" sort of Cuthberite. Not exactly out of line for a non-cleric Cuthberite. He's dispensing justice in his view.

Granted, his view is whacked and quite possibly evil (as per 3e alignments) but, it's still his character.

I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character, now spin around and would boot a player for playing his character in a consistent, established manner. So much for the vaunted player freedom. More like, "You can do whatever you want, so long as I like what you're doing. Otherwise, there's the door."

The DM has to wear some of the blame here for not nipping this in the bud a LONG time ago. This is a lengthy campaign - it's 9th level, so they've been playing for a while. If the dwarf's player was so far out of line with the rest of the group, this should have been dealt with a long time ago.

Instead, it's been left to fester and now it appears that everyone is getting annoyed. This is why it's so important to talk about this sort of thing LONG before it gets to this point.

 

[S'mon]

I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character...

As DM I tend to "PCs can do whatever they want"; but as a player I don't see why I should have to put up with the jerk PC. If he can do whatever he wants, then so can I, including stickling a dagger in his head.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As DM I tend to "PCs can do whatever they want"; but as a player I don't see why I should have to put up with the jerk PC. If he can do whatever he wants, then so can I, including stickling a dagger in his head.

This is it exactly.

Imagine that you were running a game using Ye Olde Framework. The players decide what they want to explore, plan which players/characters to bring (because in Ye Olde Framework, the GM runs multiple adventuring parties), and then a time for the expedition is negotiated with the GM. If more than one group wants the same potential game time, the GM usually goes with the larger group.

Now, imagine that jerk player again. Natural selection occurs. No one wants to invite him on expeditions. He must either change his behaviour, or play when the GM is willing, but no one else wants to....and in those circumstances, he disrupts no other players.

Natural selection can take place in Ye Current Weekly/Monthy/Whatever Group Model, too. It just takes a little more work. And the jerk player ends up with no game at all.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Hang on a tick here though.

Why is the dwarf player a jerk? He has established a character and no one in the group, in character and, up to this point, out of character, said anything to the contrary.

Again, I just find it funny that people who claim to be all about player choice are the first ones to eject a player from a group for making choices that the DM doesn't like.

Me, I'd much rather have sorted this out months ago. This should have been dealt with before even the murder/death of the LG necromancer. Arguing that the player is now a jerk for playing in a consistent manner that no one took him to task for beforehand is a bit like closing the barn door after letting the horse loose.

Now, if the player was playing his character inconsistently, I could really see your point S'mon. But, apparently, he isn't. He apparently didn't realize how disruptive he was being and (at least judging from what Elf Witch has posted here) has amended his behaviour once it was pointed out that it was disrupting the group.

I just find it rather sad that people jump up and down and point fingers at the player, calling him a jerk, without really knowing a great deal more context, actually getting any more information other than what Elf Witch has provided and simply branding the player a "problem player" rather than making any attempt to drill down to the root issues here.

 

[billd91]

It's not that the dwarf's player isn't doing what the DM wants, it's the dwarf player not listening to the other players that makes him a jerk. Let's put it this way: If that dwarf were in your adventuring party, would you get rid of him for what he's done - including committing murder and destroying valuables all of the rest of you were interested in selling? I certainly wouldn't be that keen on having him around and I don't really care how consistently he's being played. Consistently being an ass is worse than occasionally not being one.

 

[Elf Witch]

When we started the game we sat down and talked about what we all wanted. The DM talked about the campaign and what she wanted.

This game started in 2008 we used to play every other week but we have also had breaks due to real life stuff. We have only played three sessions this year because of my back injury in December.

Over this time there has been a change in the amount of players at the table. And some real life stuff has happened to all of us.

I don't consider the player of the dwarf to be a jerk at all. He has only done two things in the game that most of the party have objected to.

I thought the ingame consequence for killing the necromancer was funny. The dwarf who has no sense of humor spent three weeks trapped in a cell with gnome who drove him crazy.

As for this last thing it was only one player who was upset and that was because of the lost gold he needed for some magic items he had commissioned. In the last session the DM fixed it for him by letting him borrow the money from a money lender.

My character was miffed with the dwarf but me the player was not. For me it was more of a roll of the eyes moment. My concern was more for my roommate and helping her make a decision of either fixing this loss of treasure or letting it stand.

Now the other issues of two much power has been brewing as we leveled. The DM was honest about this and most of us are okay about fixing things. Again one player not the dwarf is having issues.

To be honest the other player is the one we have the most issues with at the table. He is an immerse kind of role player and sometimes this has caused friction at the table.

I know some of my frustration has come out on this thread. As someone who loves the role playing aspect of the game I have now come to believe that there can be such a thing as to much role playing.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Way back, in first edition Warhammer FRP, there was a player who would have no clue as to the value of things.... He gave away a 50 gallon barrel of Brettonian brandy, and a literal ton of tobacco, destroyed trapped boxes after the traps had been disarmed and the keys found.... Even after other players told him that those things were the treasure.

Eventually the other players made sure that he had no say in the redistribution of wealth. He just could not grasp that the money was not liquid, even though in the case of the brandy it kind of was....

The Auld Grump

 

[TarionzCousin]

I know some of my frustration has come out on this thread. As someone who loves the role playing aspect of the game I have now come to believe that there can be such a thing as to much role playing.

As long as everyone is having fun most of the time and enjoying being with each other and playing the game, I think you're doing well.