DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[Thundering_Dragon]

It really comes down to who is strong enough to compromise here. It would be best for both sides to compromise, good for one side to compromise, and disastrous if neither does. Carrying a conflict to the bitter end, especially between friends, and over a game, is just not advisable.

 

[ForceUser]

It really comes down to who is strong enough to compromise here. It would be best for both sides to compromise, good for one side to compromise, and disastrous if neither does. Carrying a conflict to the bitter end, especially between friends, and over a game, is just not advisable.

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.

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? Being a long-time member of the ENWorld community is, to me, akin to being a member of an extended blog community, and I treasure that.

 

[gizmo33]

I appreciate your perspective, friend, but unfortunately, such things have been tried with Bob and they always lead to arguments.

Thanks, I am really just trying to help. I hope you don't think that I think you're foolish or anything. However - I don't think you've considered all sides of this issue, and by examining some other perspectives I submit that you might find a solution.

In your first example, turning his paladin into a death knight is the same as killing his character in our games. We don't allow evil PCs. Thus, Bob would take it as an offense that we would handle his PC in such a way.

So, in a nutshell - you don't kill characters because the player has intimidated you by taking it personally? What happens if he doesn't get enough treasure in a session? My suggestion is to play your deities as NPCs so I'm not sure where the problem arises. You're simply holding yourselves to the same standard you're expecting of Bob. If a character in my campaign sticks his head in a dragon's mouth, he gets his head bit off. It's all about me playing the dragon, not saying to the player "gee - why'd you stick your head in it's mouth?"

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.

OK, then the core issue is really an out-of-game issue. The core rules imply strongly that you cannot get powers as a cleric (and especially a paladin) if you do not follow the tenets of your faith. Since you apparently are averse to enforcing this rule with Bob, it has led to predictable problems. What if Bob wanted his 1st level wizard to cast Wish spells? At some point a DM has to say no.

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. I remember that day clearly. I shudder. There are many more examples of such arguments from over the years.

No offense taken at all - judge away. In my game I take a somewhat long-term approach to deity judgement of character actions. IMO it's more indicative of how an ultra-wise being would act. Who's to say that Bob's cleric doesn't serve the interests of his deity in the end? Consider the LOTR movie and Gandalf's advise to Frodo regarding keeping Gollum alive.

However, that being said, I'm certainly not squeamish about enforcing the rules of the game - and the rule is that if you displease the diety to a great extent (as determined by the DM) you lose your abilities (THAT'S how I run my games BTW).

 

[ForceUser]

So, in a nutshell - you don't kill characters because the player has intimidated you by taking it personally? What happens if he doesn't get enough treasure in a session? My suggestion is to play your deities as NPCs so I'm not sure where the problem arises. You're simply holding yourselves to the same standard you're expecting of Bob. If a character in my campaign sticks his head in a dragon's mouth, he gets his head bit off. It's all about me playing the dragon, not saying to the player "gee - why'd you stick your head in it's mouth?"

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. This is one of the reasons I don't want him playing a divine PC in my campaign--the potential for argument is dizzying.

 

[gizmo33]

I hear what you're saying, man, and I agree in concept. 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. And then where would we be? :\

I see - and I really am sympathetic. Assuming Bob is owed an explanation (and you'll have to decide on that) then maybe try this:

To Bob from Gizmo:

Bob - one basic concept you seem to be unaware of is that deities are NPCs, and thus their actions are the prerogative of the DM. That means you don't get to tell me how it is that my deity acts - ie. whether or not he grants your spells. Simple as that. I don't tell you not to BBQ your pet lion, you don't tell me how to play my characters. Cool?

Now clearly it's not. Look - you're friends with PlayerX and we get along outside the game so I'd like to try to work something out. But I don't want to keep hearing criticisms from you about how I run my games. I'm polite enough not to bust on you for how lame of a roleplayer you are, you can return the favor by keeping your critque of my DMing to yourself. Play your character, I'll play my NPCs, and we'll get along. If you insist on criticizing me for how I run my game, I won't invite you back to play because the noise is bothering me.

 

[ForceUser]

You're my kind of guy, gizmo.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

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!") In general, Bob is argumentative and used to getting his way.

If I were a player in the game, and the disruptive player was in the game only because he was my friend, I'd feel it was my responsibility to deal with it, even if it had the potential to disrupt the friendship. If it was just the GM and Bob that didn't get along, then some sort of compromise would be in order. But if Bob is pissing off the rest of the group, too, then they need to step up and take some of the heat.

Growing up, two of my best friends just got on each others' last nerve. They couldn't help it, they just rubbed each other the wrong way. Eventually, I just had to accept that they weren't going to get along, and stop trying to keep the group together. It worked out for the best -- they were both mature enough to realize it wasn't working, and I ended up with two groups to play with. They (to the best of my knowledge) didn't get bent out of shape over it.

 

[gizmo33]

Thanks ForceUser - I could only hope to prove myself worthy of a simple 1st level cleric spell in your campaign

 

[Glyfair]

I hear what you're saying, man, and I agree in concept. 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. And then where would we be? :\

Honestly, I don't see why he's still in the campaign. It seems clear there isn't a more incompatible player for your group.

I see two options:

1) Continue to run games that people aren't going to enjoy.

or

2) Explain that his play style doesn't fit your group and if he doesn't want to adjust his play style so people are having fun (besides him) then he should leave.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It doesn't sound like there's going to be a solution that both of you can live with. In other words, there is no middle ground. One of you has to stop playing in your particular style to a degree.

One solution is to let him play a Cleric class, but don't consider it a Cleric in-game. He's something else. But, you've already stated that this won't work. This goes completely against your style of gameplay.

Another solution is for him to accept his clerical duties. Play nice with the church in order to keep his cleric status. Apparently, he refuses to do this for whatever reason. It seems it distracts him from killing monsters and taking their stuff.

That's about as incompatable as you get. So there are only two solutions that I see:

1) Don't DM a game. It's easier to handle this kind of thing as a player than it is as a DM.
2) Let him sit your game out. He can play in other people's games, but not yours.

Because, if you two just can't work together, and especially if he can't distinguish between in game and out of game occurances, one of those will happen on their own anyway. Best to get it over with before the game suffers because of it.