DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[Hjorimir]

Everything I've ever seen you (and Force User) post here has led me to believe that you're a pretty excellent GM with a good group, Hjorimir. I wish you luck in getting this thing resolved and I think it will probably work itself out.

I caution you against seeing Bob as "playing wrong" or having "Wrongbad Fun". Bob is just playing the game in the way that makes him happy and fulfills the reason that he enjoys gaming in the first place. We all do it and it is great when those approaches work adequately or even synergistically together. But when they don't it doesn't mean that anybody is a "jerk" or is intentionally ruining the game for the rest of the group. It just means that they have fun in a different way.

Does this mean that I think everybody needs to play with anybody who wants to no matter how their styles might clash? Of course not. But if we can compromise and work together to include them then I think that is the nice and compationate thing to do rather than kick them to the curb and tell them to find another group or to attempt to force them to change their style of gaming. And that goes (at least) double for people who are our friends.

I think you'll probably have the most success in finding the middle path (as Henry puts it) if you can come up with very specific compromises you're willing to make and to ask him for very succinct (and small) compromises in return. I think people are always more willing to meet you halfway when they can already see you walking toward them.

Thanks for the kind words, Rel. This is actually ForceUser's game we're talking about. Ironically, Bob plays a Favored Soul in my campaign as it was an easier time for the both of us (DM and Player) if I didn't have to worry about his lack of knowledge when it comes to religion (the Favored Soul doesn't even have that as a class skill).

I do think the idea of a diety more in line with his play style may be able to help smooth the conflict. Alas, that will be between ForceUser and Bob.

I can easily see this. He definitely seems to have been singled out. Did you tell the other players that two other players want to play priestly characters so they couldn't? Have you ever told another player they couldn't play the character they wanted to play, but allowed other players to do so?

The problems is clearly that this player is incompatible with the group. The obvious solution is to put him not playing on the table. You clearly don't consider this an option.

So, you are left with incompatible players. Unless you can find some middle ground, you are left with adjusting one side or the others play style. Either get Bob to move towards your ideas of what a game should be, or have the other players be more tolerant of his play style.

If you can't find a middle ground, you are pretty much stuck with a situation where people are not going to be having fun.

I once told ForceUser he couldn't play a spiritual character. At them time, we were in very different places and were just not seeing eye-to-eye on the matters of faith, religion, and gods. Since then we've pulled more into alignment with one another and he is currently ramping up to play a shaman (OA version) in a new game I will be running. I'm pretty excited to see where the character goes. I even like the character's name; Laughing Crane!

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! Subsequently, I have offered Bob my original character (a barbarian/ranger) as it is as those were the first two classes he mentioned.

The point of him playing a divine caster is now more a point of pride than desire.

Lastly, I think it is too late to play the "too many clerics already" card, as he will see it for what it is.

 

[gizmo33]

I've had the same problem in the past. It's a lot easier to deal with this when you're not trying to railroad players (Who really cares if he doesn't heal people?) The whole "Exalted" idea (if I understand the concept) seems really unrealistic anyway - it goes against human nature to think that you'd have thousands or more clerics running around the world and they're all paragons of virtue and none of them would be as goal-oriented as Bob.

IMO a campaign world built on a more realistic view of human nature would take into account Bob's actions. So the question that the DM asks himself is: "Suppose I'm a deity in my campaign world, and I have a cleric serving me who acts like Bob does, who does this get handled?" Perhaps faith points, mandatory quests, review panels of fellow clerics, etc. I suppose the specifics would depend on the alignment/personality of the specific deity - some may allow more latitude. Some may be goal-oriented themselves. Who says there isn't a deity out there with the same exact personality as Bob?

Again, this is based on a style of DMing where you accept the players actions, and then have your campaign world respond accordingly - rather than attempt to railroad the player into behaving a certain way upfront.

 

[TheGM]

I've had the same problem in the past. It's a lot easier to deal with this when you're not trying to railroad players (Who really cares if he doesn't heal people?) The whole "Exalted" idea (if I understand the concept) seems really unrealistic anyway - it goes against human nature to think that you'd have thousands or more clerics running around the world and they're all paragons of virtue and none of them would be as goal-oriented as Bob.

IMO a campaign world built on a more realistic view of human nature would take into account Bob's actions. So the question that the DM asks himself is: "Suppose I'm a deity in my campaign world, and I have a cleric serving me who acts like Bob does, who does this get handled?" Perhaps faith points, mandatory quests, review panels of fellow clerics, etc. I suppose the specifics would depend on the alignment/personality of the specific deity - some may allow more latitude. Some may be goal-oriented themselves. Who says there isn't a deity out there with the same exact personality as Bob?

Again, this is based on a style of DMing where you accept the players actions, and then have your campaign world respond accordingly - rather than attempt to railroad the player into behaving a certain way upfront.

Wholeheartedly agreed, but I think the point is the roll-playing vs. role-playing issue at the table. If Bob is ruining everyone else's game, then they have to resolve that underlying problem in the context of the entire group before this is an option.

 

[Hjorimir]

I've had the same problem in the past. It's a lot easier to deal with this when you're not trying to railroad players (Who really cares if he doesn't heal people?) The whole "Exalted" idea (if I understand the concept) seems really unrealistic anyway - it goes against human nature to think that you'd have thousands or more clerics running around the world and they're all paragons of virtue and none of them would be as goal-oriented as Bob.

IMO a campaign world built on a more realistic view of human nature would take into account Bob's actions. So the question that the DM asks himself is: "Suppose I'm a deity in my campaign world, and I have a cleric serving me who acts like Bob does, who does this get handled?" Perhaps faith points, mandatory quests, review panels of fellow clerics, etc. I suppose the specifics would depend on the alignment/personality of the specific deity - some may allow more latitude. Some may be goal-oriented themselves. Who says there isn't a deity out there with the same exact personality as Bob?

Again, this is based on a style of DMing where you accept the players actions, and then have your campaign world respond accordingly - rather than attempt to railroad the player into behaving a certain way upfront.

I equate railroading to be where the DM constantly informs the player what to do or where to go. However, our group (of DMs) view divine casters as having a much higher connection to their god(s) and anything they do reflects upon the god as well. 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.)

That is probably the most extreme example I can think of at the moment, but it demonstrates just how far apart the DMs have been with Bob's vision of a cleric or paladin that has tenants to upkeep.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Dude, let him be Smashdor already. If you're keeping him in the group, give him what he wants. So he's a "cleric" on his character sheet, and maybe in-game he's some kind of one-man Spanish Inquisition witch hunter, or some kind of barbarian witchdoctor, or whatever. You've made it clear he's not interested in the religion part, just the mechanics of the class. You can give him that.

I'll tell you what I did when I had a player that I felt was being disruptive by breaking out their schtick all the time. (Boy, that didn't sound right at all.) She was a "lookit me! lookit me!" instead of a "smash the orcs", but the principle's the same.

I worked her schtick as a player into her character's role in the campaign. She liked to instigate trouble (practical jokes and the like) and generally get attention, so I set her character up as someone whose antics would drive the plot. She got to do her thing, the rest of the group got it over with and it led to an interesting scene dealing with the consequences, etc.

So let him be Smashdor. The party needs front-line fighters, no worry. If he's all "break down the doors and kick ass", and there's tension between that and how the rest of the group play, don't pretend it's not true; bring it into the game. Let everybody get a kick and a laugh out of it. "Yeah, Smashdor, you sure did kill those guys dead. I kind of wish you'd given us a chance to question them first..." "NO! They were heretics, they had to burn!" That kind of thing. If there's a tension you can't get rid of, I think making it obvious and not pretending it isn't there is the best approach.

But if you deny him the cleric class because he won't play it right, then you're causing friction and problems between real people (players at the table) for the sake of the consistency of an imaginary place (the campaign). That sounds like the wrong way to go for me.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

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

 

[Particle_Man]

I'd go another route. Have him be a cleric and have his god visit him in a dream saying he has to be less violent; then have that god only grant the cleric "cure" spells in his slots (and for higher level spells, he will get the appropriate "mass cure" slots, perhaps, or have to use lower-level spells in those slots. See what happens.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

Just to be the dissenting voice, let me relate something that I say often when training student leaders in my high school band program: If the leaders do not buy in to the basic philosophy of the band, the band will never truly be successful.

I realized recently that this also applies to gaming. If everyone at the table does not buy in to the game you are playing, the game will never truly be successful.

I discovered this the hard way.

DM

 

[Joshua Randall]

But if you deny him the cleric class because he won't play it right, then you're causing friction and problems between real people (players at the table) for the sake of the consistency of an imaginary place (the campaign). That sounds like the wrong way to go for me.

Amen, amen, a thousand times amen. There is no single right or wrong way to play D&D. A good DM has to strive to satisfy the desires of all kinds of players -- as pointed out in the DMG II and in Robin Law's book. Trying to shoehorn a real person into a certain role for the sake of an imaginary game is bound to lead to bad feelings.

 

[fusangite]

Fascinating! I'm so glad I looked at this thread. I had my tired, "This isn't about system. This is about human relations" line already to go and lo and behold, the problem here, although a social one, can really be solved on a systems level.

I recently skated my way through just such a conflict in my campaign, even though I realized only in hindsight that this is what I had done. The problem you are really dealing with here is that your game system is failing to represent the physics of the world you are running.

From what I can gather, in your world (as in mine), if you are a priest, you actually have to care about certain things, act a certain way and embody certain values. Unfortunately, the D&D game system doesn't represent any of this beyond the alignment system; needless to say, the D&D alignment system would do a pretty lousy job of representing most requirements of pre-modern religions.

I think the way you need to deal with this player is to explain that his deity really cares about how his priests conduct themselves, what they care about and what they believe. And if they fail to live up to his requirements, they may not get the spells they pray for in the morning. And then you need to spell this out in terms of house rules so that the player can see that not knowing or caring about certain things will cause him to lose his cleric abilities.

It sounds to me like this player isn't really up to the task of living up to the requirements such a house rules document might spell out. But why not let him have a try? Just in case, though, see about getting a backup priest/religious official in the party in case things go terribly wrong.

Another possible solution is a brief 16th century Catholic innovation: the Simple Priest. Certain people too stupid to comprehend theology were made into a lower order of priest who could do certain rituals but couldn't do the really intellectually complex stuff like preaching homilies. Such a class might be a fun core class to make and one that the player and GM could collaborate on.

Basically, Bob cares about system. He pays attention to system. So, make the system reflect your ideas about how he should play a priest. Either he will be up to the task and grow as a player or he will fail and beg to switch characters after a while as his spell acquisition and turning abilities keep screwing up.