DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[Rel]

Yikes, things have gone from bad to worse while I was away from my computer.

This is a really tough situation for those of us on this end of the internet to diagnose and prescribe a remedy for because we are not privy to a lot of the information at that end. Some of it could be the perspective of the people posting the information here (even though I admire both of the posters directly involved, I'm too familiar with how my own perspective colors my actions and the percieved actions of others to discount that factor).

I find myself somewhat in agreement with Joshua Randall in the idea of loosening the restrictions you're putting on Divine Casters and moving away from the "stick" approach and toward the "carrot" approach. It sounds like the deities you envision hold their worldly representatives to a high standard and when that standard is not upheld they are punished by the witholding of spells or abilities. I think that's fine when it works for the group as a whole but clearly it does not.

I've got a pretty diverse group of players who are all good friends with me and with each other. So I try to define things loosely in terms of what is allowed but more tightly in terms of what is rewarded. Religion in my games is sort of like a professional football team:

If you are a solid player who shows up every week, doesn't screw up too bad or too often and generally contribute to the success of the team then your spot is pretty secure. If you are a "Star Player" who makes outstanding contributions on an almost weekly basis, expect your salary to be high and to get plenty of perks when you ask for them.

So the NPC that is Bob's character's deity takes a look at the PC and says, "This guy is not a standout and I'm not going to be directly intervening on his behalf any time soon. But he generally smites those I want smitten and he prays every morning and he yells my name in battle once in a while. So he gets the spells and whatnot."

The PC's who go out of their way to be particularly devout and uphold the ideals to the letter and beyond (i.e. everybody else in the group who is a Divine PC) are the ones who get extra holy benefits, visions from their god, offerings from the villagers and so forth. In other words, they are REWARDED instead of merely not PUNISHED.

I don't know if that really helps or if the situation is too far gone for compromise to work at this point. But I find that a looser view on these sorts of structures allows you more wiggle room to accomodate new and different personalities.

As before I wish you the best of luck.

 

[fafhrd]

I am going to make a controversial statement: I think that ForceUser should stop running his campaign the way he has been running it.

So to sum up, there are no incorrect styles of play. There are however incorrect ways to run a game. Is that a fair representation of your comments? If so, then you're right, I find it controversial and also pretty absurd. DMing isn't a charity. The DM sets the table. If you don't want to play by the established conventions, then find another game.

I think the DMGII has done us a disservice by putting the onus on the DM. Remember when the most oft cited rule was "have fun"? Well, ForceUser doesn't seem to be having fun. In the less inclusive days of gaming, say prior to DMGII, we might have expected a litany of calls to "boot Bob". Instead, we get elaborate RP solutions to what sounds like nothing more than jerk behavior.

 

[Shadowslayer]

The player of our Smashdor is one of my best players, really. He doesn't have a single role he's into ... in our SWRPG game he plays a mostly-non-combatant Healer. So ...

He had a running joke that he was going to summon a Celestial Bison to mate with the Druid character's bison animal companion (the "Battle Cattle") and open up "Hanaur's Celestial Bar and Grill" ... at the same time, this is the player who volunteered a religious quest for his character in order to take the Mighty Contender of Kord PrC ... which involved bringing the good word of Kord to some neutral Orcs in the nearby mountains, building a shrine, and then demonstrating the strength of Kord by strapping himself to a stone outside of the shrine with chains and staying up there until he could make the DC 26 Strength check to break them ... with Fort saves against cold and hunger as the days progressed.

Great character.

--fje

heh...This guy sounds like a fun player!

 

[Joshua Randall]

So to sum up, there are no incorrect styles of play. There are however incorrect ways to run a game. Is that a fair representation of your comments?

Not quite.

There are, of course, some incorrect styles of play -- but I define them narrowly. Hack-and-slash or kick-in-the-door styles are explicitly correct styles of play.

And yes, there are incorrect ways to run a game. Most of these involve DM power trips at the expense of the players. (I don't think that is the case here; I just think the DM is being unncessarily inflexible.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I find myself somewhat in agreement with Joshua Randall in the idea of loosening the restrictions you're putting on Divine Casters and moving away from the "stick" approach and toward the "carrot" approach. It sounds like the deities you envision hold their worldly representatives to a high standard and when that standard is not upheld they are punished by the witholding of spells or abilities. I think that's fine when it works for the group as a whole but clearly it does not.

Actually, it clearly does work for the group as a whole, unless the posters involved are lying, which based on prior experience with them I find highly unlikely.

It wouldn't work for me. I like Eberron's hands-off approach to the gods, perhaps because it's also the Robert E. Howard approach, and as such it's the one I've been using since long before Eberron. If a GM were to use the approach ForceUser has, I would be disinclined to play a cleric.

I'm not there, and not relevant.

What is relevant is that, by Force User's description, the group as a whole does like this setup, and likes it a lot.

One person does not. That one person continually chooses to play a cleric over and over again. Despite the wishes of the others? From what I've heard here, I'd guess rather more because of those wishes, with the premeditated intent of being an ass and seeing how much he can abuse his so-called "friends."

If "Bob" were a powergamer, he could switch to druid and be better than he already is. Or he could be a psychic warrior. Or he could be a cleric with the serial numbers filed off.

If I, as "Bob's" GM, believed that he wanted to play a cleric for powergaming reasons (once or twice), I would be delighted to file those serial numbers off. I crusade against D&D's pseudo-archetypical classes all the time.

But when he continually does it over and over again in a campaign where the cleric issue is clearly very important to the other players?

BOOT. NOW.

 

[William Ronald]

It seems that the DMs and several of the players have one set of expectations, abnd that Bob has another set of expectations. I agree that there are multiple styles of play, most of which are legitimate. However, I think one has to ask whether the DMs and the other players are having fun, and whether Bob is limiting their ability to enjoy the game.

I think an alternate class other than cleric MIGHT work for Bob. However, he seems to be unwilling to abide by the SAME restrictions and rules that other people in the campaign are expected to regarding clerics. I find this troubling, as I think that the same rules should apply to everyone at the gaming table. If a cleric or a champion of a deity is expected to behave in a certain way, I do not see it as fair as allowing one player to operate such characters under one set of rules and others having to operate under another set of rules. (Possibly some of the alternatives suiggested here might work provided that they do not alter the mood of the campaign world. Is this something that the players and the DMs want? )

Each campaign setting has its own unique feel. So, I think that Force User and Hjormir have to ask whether Bob is adding to the enjoyment of the game or not. I agree that DMs have to be flexible, and that there is always a certain amount of compromise involved in any campaign. However, Bob seems to have been unwilling to seriously consider the views of the DMs and the other players. It seems that Bob wishes to operate under a different set of rules than everyone else. "Anything goes" does not necessarily apply to each gaming table.

Force User has been called somewhat inflexible in this thread. However, I think that there are limits to flexibility for each DM and each campaign. It varies from setting to setting, and DM to DM. In the context of what Force User and Hjormir seem to be comfortable with, and the nature of their campaign, they seem to have tried to make accomodations with Bob. Bob, however, seems to have been unwilling to make accomodations with them and the other players. (Even in Eberron, where faith alone seems to power clerical magic, there are at least social considerations in the campaign world. Thus, a cleric claiming that each member of the Sovreign Host and the Dark Six are actually the same being may have the faith to cast spells. However, killing him might be one of the few things that worshippers of the Sovreign Host and the Dark Six can agree on. At the very least, I would expect such a character to face incredible social prejudices.)

I think that RP solutions can work, provided that they do not suspend belief in the setting or the enjoymene to the DMs or the players. It seems that Force User and Hjormir have tried to direct Bob to some other class choices. I think they must ask themselves if they think that they can find a RP solution that fits the setting, and that they and the other players will respect. Even if Bob plays a divine champion with the blood of a god in his character, a deity that makes its will known to its worshippers would want to have a champion represent its views.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Ok Ive read all the posts and I have a couple ideas here.

First of all, I think the DM needs to take a step back and take a deep breath. Put things in perspective a little. I know some guys resent being told "relax, its just a game" but its valid. Take a couple game nights off to regroup...go to a movie instead, hit a pub...something besides gaming. Do not exclude Bob. Tell him, "hey man, things have been getting a little tense, so lets take a break." The best groups do lots of other stuff together too.

Then shop around for a different game! Say "lets try something new"

My old longtime group played mostly D&D. It was the baseline game that we always came back to. But once in a while we'd break something else out. One guy loved Palladium, so we'd play his game for a while. I was a pretty good gm for WEG Star Wars, so sometimes we'd do that (complete with soundtrack and all the goofy extras that the game recommended.) Every guy in the group maintained a Blood Bowl team too. (no RP, lotsa crunch and agression...Bob'd love it)

In your case, I'd suggest a more storytelling based game. ALthough I'm a pretty vocal C&C fan, I'd advise against that one, as its spirit is too close to D&D. I dont have enough experience with other games to actually suggest one, but go with something with a simpler ruleset, where advancement comes from story stuff rather than killing stuff. (WEGSW was good for that) MAybe other more learned board members can help here with game suggestions. I'd suggest a change of genre too, just to get out of the D&D mindset.

See, in short, D&D by the book kinda rewards the stuff you're trying to avoid. Now I hope people dont take this as a slam...its not. I read the boards a fair bit and see the "my player(s) wont roleplay, what can I do?" question a lot. My feeling is that some of the time, its just that they're playing the wrong game. If you want heavy RP etc, you need to find a system that supports that in the rules...something that D&D isnt really intended for. It may take a different game to teach him the principles you're trying to apply to your D&D game.

And if not, your group can say they had fun playing something else for awhile.

It sounds like a long way to go for one player. It must seem like its easier to just boot him, but I can guarantee you that its worth it to try and help this guy a little. Hes a friend right?

So do a changeup, expand your gaming horizons, and his, then come back to D&D.

Hope this helps.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

Actually, it clearly does work for the group as a whole, unless the posters involved are lying, which based on prior experience with them I find highly unlikely.

What is relevant is that, by Force User's description, the group as a whole does like this setup, and likes it a lot.

One person does not. That one person continually chooses to play a cleric over and over again. Despite the wishes of the others? From what I've heard here, I'd guess rather more because of those wishes, with the premeditated intent of being an ass and seeing how much he can abuse his so-called "friends."

<irrelevant parts snipped>

BOOT. NOW.

Moogle is smart. Listen to Moogle.

DM

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I just wanted to clarify my position a little: I'm not saying that ForceUser is wrong or that his style of play 'needs' to change or anything of the sort. If the whole group really gets into literary gaming and deep character, that's cool. I'll illustrate a similar position in an anecdote, because I can't help but be a storyteller.

My wife REALLY loves those kinds of games. She doesn't like any other kind of game, at all. Too much combat turns her off, combat at all in general she doesn't like unless she can role-play through it. Her first gaming experiences were all with free-form "Role Play" games where the game was mostly a collaborative moment of story-telling and nobody had any rules. They called it D&D, but they didn't have dice. That's what she thought D&D WAS until she met me.

The groups we have to play here are mixed. But, in total, nobody else where we are likes the same "no rules, all story" approach to gaming that my wife likes. Some people like just the opposite. All hacking, all day. I, as a DM, try to cater to EVERYBODY. The RP people get to RP, but I try to put combat into every session so the combat people get combat. That's my GMing style. Alot of people like it. My wife doesn't. If it's not all-story-all-day she gets bored and wanders off. Literally. Like she'll go get a coke and two hours later we find her in the kitchen reading a book standing at the counter. Eventually we came to an agreement that HER style wouldn't work for everybody else ... nobody wanted to just talk in character for several hours and visualize combats without dice and minis. And she couldn't keep focus on a game where people were measuring fireball radii and arguing about where one can and cannot take 5' Steps to. So she doesn't game with us anymore.

But it's a solution we came to together. She was amiable to not playing RPGs with us, she didn't feel butt-hurt about it or anything like that. Our game-club here has loads of board-games and stuff, which she oddly DOES like, and on game-nights she goes into the other room and plays Settlers of Catan and whatnot while I play D&D.

But here's the thing. She's my wife. I can't just "kick her out". Had she been obstinant about wanting to play without dice and just couldn't deal with not being in the game, well, she's my WIFE. Even if she were being juvenile or a "jerk" about the situation, I think most people can accept that, as my wife, I can't just tell her to shove off and that gaming is more important and everybody else at the table is as well. Maybe some people would say: "Dude, get a divorce, she's totally a beast." but, in the end, it would be my decision to quit gaming and find something else to do that my wife and I could do together. Because that relationship is more important than gaming.

SO ... what I'm SAYING is ... if there's no way to get rid of Bob because the work and friend relationships will be ruined by kicking him out, then the decision is not: "Can Bob play the way we want him to play?" but "Is our game or our style of gaming worth more than the work and friend relationships that will be hurt by kicking him out." THAT is what has to be addressed, in the final summation. If the game is more important, then intestinal fortitude will need to be called on and Bob will have to be evicted. If the relationships are more important, then the whole group needs to stop bellyaching about Bob and learn a compromise style of gaming. OR if the relationships AND the style of gaming are too important to lose ... then the whole game needs to go.

Bob, really, has become irrelevant. Once it has been determined that Bob is going to be a known and finite quantity in the equation, then the other variables WILL HAVE TO BE changed around Bob. Whether that makes him a jerk or the patron saint of mixed vegetable side dishes isn't part of the math.

--fje

 

[Rel]

HeapThaumaturgist is smart. Listen to HeapThaumaturgist