DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[Troll Wizard]

In summation;

• the DM is not having fun
• the other players are not having fun
• only one player is having fun (maybe?), but his playing style and immature social behavior is the source of problems for the DM and other players.

solutions?

• boot the problem player out of the game - but he is friend to the DM so that's difficult
• Play a different game (deadlands, SW, C&C) - but would this negate his playing style problem or even his social behavior? Probably not from what FU has said so far about his past temper tantrums
• Cancel the game for a month or so, then invite back everyone but the problem player. Keeping the new game secret from the problem player is probably impossible if you are close friends.

Have you discussed the problem with all the other players? From what you have described about his temper tantrums and immaturity, I seriously doubt I would have stayed very long in your game with that kind of player. What do they all feel should be done? Have they provided any other solutions?

 

[fafhrd]

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.

Except this guy doesn't sound like a kick in the door style player. He sounds like a jerk. He doesn't want to play against type, he wants to play as if the type doesn't exist in the first place.

As someone once said, if you want total control over the characters, you're a novelist, not a DM.

If you're unwilling to acknowledge that you're but a part in a Rpg, you should be playing a video game.

 

[Rel]

Except this guy doesn't sound like a kick in the door style player. He sounds like a jerk. He doesn't want to play against type, he wants to play as if the type doesn't exist in the first place. If you're unwilling to acknowledge that you're but a part in a Rpg, you should be playing a video game.

Actually I DO see him as more of a "kick in the door" style player. Just one who likes to play Clerics instead of Fighters or Barbarians. And this in no way clashes with the core rules as they are presented in the book. But of course there are some added restrictions (ones that I'm not sure whether Bob agreed to or were simply presented to him as the desires of the majority of the group) about how Divine characters must behave that go beyond the restrictions in the core rules.

It just sounds to me like if the restrictions that are in place were not in place that this guy wouldn't be that much of a problem and the way the other players played wouldn't need to change much (if any). The only thing that would change substantially is some of the background assumptions of the campaign. Keeping any of the guys in my group would be worth changing some background material in the campaign.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Keeping any of the guys in my group would be worth changing some background material in the campaign.

Would that remain the case if the people in your group repeatedly and blatantly went out of their way to step on the toes of the other players?

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.

You've given an example and posed a hypothetical. Although I can understand where you're coming from, neither applies in this case.

1. Unlike the childish "Bob" ForceUser is suffering with, your wife was a mature adult about it who didn't throw a fit over being removed from an activity she obviously didn't like and in which she didn't gel with the other participants. Note that "Bob" hasn't actually done that, although ForceUser expects him to; he might surprise everyone and be perfectly fine with leaving the campaign. Unless he gets his kicks from ruining the other players' fun, he probably isn't enjoying himself much, either.

2. Your wife IS (or should be) more important than gaming or everybody else at the table. One friend (of dubious value) out of a group of what, half a dozen, is NOT more important than everybody else at the gaming table, who are also presumably friends. One wife is more important than a thousand friends; one friend is not more important than five, especially when his actions demonstrate a lack of fellowship.

3. The problem in your game was one of gaming styles between people who, within their own styles, were not problem players. The problem in ForceUser's game has nothing to do with gaming styles and everything to do with one player being an ass. Maybe he's not, and he just comes across that way, but picking at the scab of this cleric issue (and paladins, so it's NOT a mechanical or favored class thing) is clearly not just a 'play style' issue.

4. In the end, your wife stopped playing with your group. She stopped willingly, with apparent maturity and understanding befitting a rational adult. You did the same thing I'm advising ForceUser to do (albeit with presumably greater tact, considering the circumstances), and it sounds to me like it worked out better for both of you.

I like "Bob's" play style better than ForceUser's, at least when it comes to the role of the set of mechanics called 'cleric' in the core rules. But I would play with ForceUser and boot "Bob," because it's not a matter of play style, it's a matter of respect. Give it and get it, don't and begone.

 

[swrushing]

Having everyone change their playing styles, along with changing the game, for the preferences of a single player, is absolutely crazy.

I dont think anyone is asking them to all change their styles of play. That doesn't seem to be what bob is asking either. Bob wants to play his cleric the ways he sees it. The conflict is stemming from the GM (and maybe some other players) deciding that style of cleric is incorrect and apparently not being willing to entertain any alternative class definitions than their own.

Now is Bob handling the conflict well? nope. But as far as i can tell, no one is. The social dynamics in that group seem to be a mess, unless you can consider "we all get together and laugh at him behind his back" to be a model for good social interactions.

For as long as i can remember, the majority of my campaign detail and definition came AFTER not BEFORE i learned what my players wanted their characters to be like. If i approve a character for play in my game at all, its because i have accepted it and plan to work with it. If i have a problem with it, its my job to bring it up before play. After play, i need to deal with it. So, barring deception on the player's part at chargen, I have committed to incorporating that type of character into my game. Then again, as i said, most of the detail work is done AFTER knowing who my stars are and is intended to spotlight them, to fit with them, as opposed to making them fit to my preconceptions.

Si, I come back to having a slightly looser world where some form of "thing that is statted liken a cleric" does not also bring upon itself their house ruled notion of the "one true way to play a member of this class."

I have to wonder, maybe they can explain, if you also had "one true way of playing a fighter" and decided to support only the plate armor with sword-board style fighter, and had the "one true way of playing a ranger" with twf dual scimitars and the "one true way of playing a wizard" with items creation feats and bulging spellbook but no metamagic and so forth so that other players found their characters on the "we get mad when you play them that way and we laugh at you when you are not there" list if we might see a different perspective dawning.

I doubt it from the comments made here.

Here is what happens after ForceUser changes everything to suit Bob:

Well, before i start predicting Bob's future actions, i would have to say is that I would need some comment or observation from Bob and not just comments from people clearly displeased with bob. One-sided internet perceptions are notoriously unreliable, IMX.

 

[swrushing]

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.

Well, i don't own the DMGII so i can say that its not that books fault... somem of us Gms have been accepting our responsibilities in that regard for some time. me, for at least 15 years.

As for calls to "boot bob" and "sounds like jerk behavior", with one side represented, I am very loath to njust heap on "be more adversarial" style advice, myself. With bob not being here, nothing we say about Bob matters. on the other hand, anything we say about those involved here suggesting changes they can make themselves might actually help.

But it never really sounded from the web of social issues like booting bob was an option to me due to its unpleasant ramifications socially and even employment wise. So, i suspect that might have more to do with fewer "boot bob" and more "here's how you can change to keep him" than the DMGII.

 

[Rel]

Would that remain the case if the people in your group repeatedly and blatantly went out of their way to step on the toes of the other players?

(emphasis mine)

Probably not but I'm not convinced that you're accurately describing the situation. I'm still unsure that Bob is maliciously doing anything to intentionally piss people off. Instead I think he might just be trying to do his own thing and it is intensely irritating to the other people that he doesn't do things more "their way".

I know of what I speak because for MANY years I had a close friend who drove me (and others within the group) to no end of frustration because of the way he approached the game. He just didn't GET it. He was very lazy in his approach to character concepts, had a poor grasp of mechanics, wouldn't bite a candy-coated plot hook if it landed in his mouth and just didn't seem to give a damn. This finally boiled over when I confronted him and he got pretty mad about it. He explained (in rather harsh terms) that all he wanted was to hang out with the guys and the gaming was entirely secondary to him. He didn't want to be an intense roleplayer. He didn't want to put a lot of thought into how his characters were built. He didn't want the plot to revolve around him and he didn't want to be in the spotlight. He just wanted to come be with his friends.

After I read Robin Laws' book I finally got it through my thick skull that this friend was just a Casual Gamer. Once I understood that and quit trying to make him be more a part of the game itself than he wanted we were both much happier and less frustrated. I wish I'd figured this out a lot sooner because he's dead now and I'll never get to game with him again.

I am not suggesting that they need to let Bob have his way because he might keel over tomorrow. But if he is really a "loyal friend" (Force User's words from post #1) and if they want to avoid the reprocussions of booting him from the group then I think it is reasonable to relax the restrictions they've got in place in the game. After all, nothing will be stopping the other players from still maintaining those high standards and the GM will have a great excuse to give them a few extra benefits for going "above and beyond the call of duty".

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

This violation of the CoC seems worth it after Rel's post.

Just let him play the cleric if it is going to cause such a hassle otherwise. Don't bother to centre a theological plot around his character, make him more of an 'enforcer-type' cleric that is sent on clear-cut missions that have already been determined to solvable by force alone.

He would be the hairy ogre of a cleric in a church-like hierarchy that stands apart but has his uses.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm of the opinion that any player that is so inflexible they cannot play a different class is probably similarly inflexible on other, less tractable, issues. Bob is inflexible and his personal friends are tolerant of his behavior.

The DM has accomodated Bob for some time. He, as the person putting the effort into worldbuilding, has the right to put limits on the campaign. Bob can either accomodate the relatively loose restriction ("play a not-cleric") or move on.

Some may claim it's arbitrary, but *every* campaign decision is arbitrary so it's a null factor. If the other players are upset, one of them can run the game.

 

[Painfully]

If the friendship thing is really important to you, consider putting your game aside for a while. Tell everyone you want to enjoy the Summer for a few weeks, take a vacation, exercise, whatever.

Come back in a few months, and invite the people who you DO want to play in your game.

I don't like keeping secrets as a general rule (IRL), but in this case it is for the greater good. It sounds like Bob is the cause of great disharmony among your group, and that it's time for the rest of your players to find out what a game might be like without the distraction of Bob.

Do it because your other players deserve to have a good time, and so do you.

Anything else sounds like it will just create that "fingernails on chalkboard" sound sooner or later, and nobody likes that sound...except screaming monkeys...and Bob.

When Bob comes around after he figures out you are gaming without him. be honest. Tell him the group is 100x better without him. Okay, maybe put that in a nicer way, but don't play shy about it. Tell him the game is going more smoothly, everyone is having fun, and that inviting him back to the table would spoil the campaign's flavor. It is roleplay heavy, and he is not good at roleplay.

There's nothing to stop you from having a long one-shot session where everybody can kill stuff and take loot all day. Tell him you'll invite him to your one-shot session of Keep on the Borderlands or something similar. If you can do these once every 2 months, it may be enough to satisfy Bob, and maybe even some of your other players too.

Hopefully, in the end, you will still game together (at least occasionally), and keep doing the kinds of things that say to each other that you are still friends.