OKay, let's begin by looking at how people in the game view and treat Bob:
ForceUser said:
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!")...
We're all very frustrated with him...
Patryn has a point regarding bringing this to the boards, but honestly, where else can I blow off some steam about a D&D-related problem and have people understand what I'm talking about?
What we can see here is a group of otherwise civilized people all venting to eachother in private about what a jerk this guy is. Does this sound like the behaviour of people who are in stable friendships with this fellow? So I have to begin questioning what kind of "friendship" exists between Bob and the other members of the group.
Now let's look at how Bob treats people in the game:
ForceUser said:
He has a hard time separating "in-character" events from "out-of-character" events, and this leads to much frustration for everyone involved. He often assumes rulings unfavorable to his character are an act of vindictiveness on the part of the DM, when in fact it is simply the DM having his NPCs react appropriately to the situation
So, Bob can't distinguish between things that hurt or imperil his character and things that hurt or imperil him. But...
ForceUser said:
("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")...
It's pretty clear that Bob doesn't care if his conduct hurts or imperils other people's characters. Bob appears to be uninterested in treating people by the same standards by which they treat him. He seems unable to grasp the Golden Rule. Furthermore,
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).
Again, it appears that it does not matter to Bob whether other people have fun in the game. And then there is the question of how he gets his way:
He emailed me today, furious that I won't allow him to play a divine spellcaster, and threatened to quit the game...
Telling Bob 'no' has already caused drama...
In general, Bob is argumentative and used to getting his way...
I did this. He got angry...
As Hjorimir noted, I could have used more diplomacy, but frankly, Bob frustrates me, has always frustrated me, and the only reason I keep allowing him back in my games year after year is because not inviting him would create a large amount of friction for Hjorimir (his lifelong friend)...
Unfortunately, Bob can't be kicked from the group without damaging friendships, and possibly work relationships...
Bob gets his way through intimidation and extortion. People fear these rages and he knows it. So he can control people around him. Failing that, he will act in an explicitly extortionate way, threatening to quit if he can't have exactly what he wants. Furthermore, people seem pretty sure that if ForceUser kicks Bob out of the game, Bob won't just punish him; he will punish ForeceUser's friends. What kind of person maintains relationships by implicitly threatening to hurt you and, if that doesn't work, hurt your friends?
ForceUser said:
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...
I hear what you're saying, and even agree to an extent. But in our games, at the end of the day, cleric means "blessed with divine power and exalted purpose." We want the players of such PCs to be onboard with that concept. If they're not, they're welcome to play something else. We make this clear at the beginning of each campaign. It's not a secret.
I haven't been able to find it in the SRD but I'm pretty sure that one cannot unilaterally choose one's class without DM permission (I, for instance, would go nuts if my players felt they could impose the Monk class on me). But let's suppose this is a House Rule; the group has the right to maintain a set of house rules in any game, from D&D to Monopoly. It is not merely that this guy wants to play under the rules with a different style; he wants a special set of rules that only apply to him.
ForceUser said:
I don't know how you run your games, and I'm not judging you, but in our games, a paladin is a holy exemplar of the faith, and would not whore out his celestial axiomatic dire lion mount just to make a few gold pieces. But when the DM in that game, Hjorimir, pointed out how un-paladinlike such an action would be, Bob became defensive and angry, and a game-stopping argument ensued...
So, when Bob's paladin tried to profiteer from his celestial axiomatic dire lion mount by selling tickets for the masses to come in and gaze at the monster we have an issue. (Real story.)...
The point I'm trying to make is this: if Bob played a "rogue cleric" and lost his powers, he would take personal offense, accuse the DM of being unfair, cause a big stink, and ruin the fun for everyone at the table.
Now, those of you who label Bob as a beer 'n pretzels gamer, power gamer, munchkin or the like need to take a good look at this quote. The SRD contains the requirement for a Paladin code; Bob decided that if he yelled loudly enough, this part of the SRD wouldn't apply to him. And he was right. Bob is not about playing by the rules; Bob is about absolute control. He has no attachment to the rules. He has an attachment to getting his way. If the rules don't let him do that, shouting, threats and ruining everyone else's evening will.
ForceUser said:
Besides, most of the time Bob doesn't complain to me.
Furthermore, just as the other players, do about Bob, Bob complains about ForceUser behind
his back.
ForceUser said:
I, for one, am tired of it. I don't want to compromise anymore. I've done so for years...
At this point, I'm so tired of the potential for conflict, of always being on my guard while I DM, aware that anything I rule could be taken out of context, or just taken badly and turned into an argument, that yes, I'd have to say that I'm rather gun-shy around good old Bob...
I agree. That's why the situation is so frustrating. I feel like I've made concessions for years that weren't fun for me, but were made in the interest of keeping the peace...
But no, I have to continue to deal with it. He's like a tick on my arse that I can't seem to dig out.
And as a result, ForceUser isn't having a good time anymore. Now, various of you seem to feel that Bob having a good time is more important than ForceUser having a good time. I think this is utter crap. If you're in a game where you have to choose between one person having fun and another person having fun, it's time to end the game.
Hjorimir said:
The whole thing between ForceUser and Bob has me on edge. I just want to play and have fun. I've now spent more time on the subject of Bob's character than I have my own!
As you can see Bob's usual mode of working is proceeding right on track. He has now so inconvenienced his "friend" that Hjorimir is encouraging ForceUser to once again subordinate his own enjoyment of the game to Bob's because until he does, Bob will continue sucking up his time and energy on this conflict.
ForceUser said:
He is also a coworker of several other players, and a loyal friend to them.
Sorry but I beg to differ. Sure, this guy does favours for people like giving them rides but this, alone does not make someone a friend. It is very clear that Bob believes it is okay to hurt and punish his friends in order to get his way over, frankly, minor picayune things. Does this sound like a friend? For instance, when Bob's friends get together for a nice evening of a shared activity, Bob has no problem having a tantrum and ruining their night the moment his needs come into conflict with theirs. Does this sound like a friend? Bob seeks to control people who are not his friends, like ForceUser, how? By holding over him the implicit threat that he will hurt their mutual friends and possibly damage them professionally. Does this sound like a friend?
Finally,
Hjorimir said:
The point of him playing a divine caster is now more a point of pride than desire.
He's not even doing this because he wants to play a cleric. He's doing this because he cannot accept not being able to control ForceUser. This isn't even about Bob's enjoyment being more important than other people's; it's just about punishing people who won't cave in to his bullying.
Bob is a bully who will accept nothing less than complete control over the people around him. When dealing with bullies, it's the same as when you were six. You can cave or you can stand up to them. It's not pretty but that's how it is.
