DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[MoogleEmpMog]

I've never understood the "it's not worth ruining friendships over" concept.

Maybe it's not.

But in what sense is an inconsiderate git who takes impersonal matters personally, behaves in a childish manner and refuses to budge in the slightest to facilitate his so-called friends worth being a friend of?

The work relationships I can understand, but to call this guy a "friend" of most of the people at the table, when after YEARS he HAS to know that he's actively impairing their ability to enjoy what is apparently a major leisure activity for them? That's absurd.

RPGs are sometimes a great way to find out who your friends are, and who is just using you for their own aggrandisement, sometimes at your expense.

Where I come from, we don't call the latter group friends - we call them "Good riddance."

 

[DarrenGMiller]

Allow me to rephrase my earlier advice:

When people play the same game with vastly different expectations of how that game works, bad things happen. I have been there. I vented here and elsewhere. People repeatedly told me to boot the player. I responded with lofty things about friendship and how kicking people out of the game was not an option (for some of the same reasons you have been reluctant to do so) and I resented the suggestions of some (some respondants suggested I find a new group altogether). Guess what? It got worse and worse until I not only had to ask the player to leave, but due to the damage caused to the group, I had to eventually lose 5 players and bring in 4 new players. It saved my game. I have 2 of my "old players" left. I haven't been a happier DM in about 12 years.

If you and the rest of the group have honestly communicated your expectations and philosophy regarding the game and it still does not work, losing the player(s) who break the game is the only reliable way out. Don't let it damage the remaining relationships be trying to save this one (or these).

Believe me, I know what you are going through. DO NOT try to solve it through game mechanics. It is an out-of-game problem manifesting itself in-game. Do the incredibly undesirable task ahead of you and save your game. "Bob" has to go. Sorry.

My $0.02.

DM

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. As I said, one of my closest friends just is not in any way a gamer. He made games MISERABLE. Horrific. He wouldn't just not play, but he wouldn't "play right" either. It came down to me, of my own violition, deciding to remove the situation rather than the person. Outside of game time, he was a great friend. We'd do anything for eachother. Talk for hours about everything and nothing.

And some of the people who I game with and like gaming with very much, we never really see or contact eachother outside of the game. And that's cool. They're my friends as well, but quite the same type.

I'm sure "Bob" just sees the situation very differently. It's a game, with rules, in a book, where he can "do things" and succeed at challenges by creatively putting together rules, rolling dice, and ticking off "hit points" on another counter faster than his own are ticked off. And that works for him. And his friends just can't see that's what it's about for him. Does that mean he has to not be friends with them anymore?

And I'm not saying Bob's "right" ... I'm just saying I don't think "those not Bob" have the moral high ground because they decided how the game aught to be played and somebody that's important to them won't toe the party line.

--fje

 

[DarrenGMiller]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. As I said, one of my closest friends just is not in any way a gamer. He made games MISERABLE. Horrific. He wouldn't just not play, but he wouldn't "play right" either. It came down to me, of my own violition, deciding to remove the situation rather than the person. Outside of game time, he was a great friend. We'd do anything for eachother. Talk for hours about everything and nothing.

And some of the people who I game with and like gaming with very much, we never really see or contact eachother outside of the game. And that's cool. They're my friends as well, but quite the same type.

I'm sure "Bob" just sees the situation very differently. It's a game, with rules, in a book, where he can "do things" and succeed at challenges by creatively putting together rules, rolling dice, and ticking off "hit points" on another counter faster than his own are ticked off. And that works for him. And his friends just can't see that's what it's about for him. Does that mean he has to not be friends with them anymore?

And I'm not saying Bob's "right" ... I'm just saying I don't think "those not Bob" have the moral high ground because they decided how the game aught to be played and somebody that's important to them won't toe the party line.

--fje

I am not saying, "Stop being friends." I am saying, "Stop gaming with him." This "removes the situation."

DM

 

[Dragonblade]

Read the five geek social fallacies:

http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. As I said, one of my closest friends just is not in any way a gamer. He made games MISERABLE. Horrific. He wouldn't just not play, but he wouldn't "play right" either. It came down to me, of my own violition, deciding to remove the situation rather than the person. Outside of game time, he was a great friend. We'd do anything for eachother. Talk for hours about everything and nothing.

And some of the people who I game with and like gaming with very much, we never really see or contact eachother outside of the game. And that's cool. They're my friends as well, but quite the same type.

I'm sure "Bob" just sees the situation very differently. It's a game, with rules, in a book, where he can "do things" and succeed at challenges by creatively putting together rules, rolling dice, and ticking off "hit points" on another counter faster than his own are ticked off. And that works for him. And his friends just can't see that's what it's about for him. Does that mean he has to not be friends with them anymore?

And I'm not saying Bob's "right" ... I'm just saying I don't think "those not Bob" have the moral high ground because they decided how the game aught to be played and somebody that's important to them won't toe the party line.

I have no problem with "Bob's" style of play. In fact, I enjoy it myself, every bit as much as ForceUser's, and I don't consider either superior.

I have *every* problem with "Bob's" being so outrageously immature as to impose his fun on the other players over and over again. Every problem. That's not being a powergamer or even a munchkin. It's being a jerk, and he should be booted.

If he weren't actually a selfish git (he just plays one at the gaming table?), he would understand why he's being booted and won't break up out of game friendships over it.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Now I might be off my rocker here, but it looks to me that you're in agreement with most everyone else.

Although, I don't see how horrible it would be for a non-good cleric of a non-good diety to not have Exalted status. But, maybe that's just me. Is that just me?

 

[Steverooo]

I'm sorry, I'm just failing to see where you have a problem... The GM told Bob "You can't play a Cleric, in this game." Bob got mad, and said "If I can't play a Cleric, then I'm not playing!" The GM should say "Suit yerself, there, Bobbo... Roll up something else, if you change your mind."

So where's the problem? Friendship doesn't seem to be it. No signs that Bob & the GM are friends! Bob being mad at the other players? Seems like the GM will get all the heat! Bob bending Hjolimir's ears? Well, maybe...

As far as the campaign goes, it seems that losing Bob will only be a bonus. The GM didn't tell Bob he couldn't play in the game, just that he couldn't play another self-serving Cleric. Bobbo volunteered to leave. Problem solved!

Next thing I'd do would be to change the night & time we played on...

 

[swrushing]

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.

Ok, i guess i ought to state my assumptions for the sake of suggestion up front.

Assumption 1: The Gm and other players would prefer to reach amiddle ground rather than just perpetuate an ongoing conflict at a player they are ticked off at. Some of FUs comments make me doubt at least some of that, but hey...

Assumption 2: The repeated comments about how its Bob misplaying the cleric that is causing the problem iare accurate and its not just a glossy covering over "i dont like bob personally."


What you have here is a conflict between your setting ("clerics are ALL of this one type") and one of your must have player's expectations ("Cleric as a buffing fighter is an acceptable character.")

Now, in normal DND, the by-the-book, clerics devoted to an ideal or philosophy and not totally devoted to a god's ideals is fine. Also, in mythology (perhaps even popular fictional mythologies) gods of war or combat who let slide most everything else as long as their follower is good in combat are also presented as acceptable characters.

So, in the interest of making a compromise, since you have already determined that Bob has to stay, create, even if only in your own backstory a NEW CLASS. This NEW CLASS has abilities remarkably similar to the cleric but without the "fits our sole image of what a cleric must be at all times period". Maybe the "inspired warrior" or "combat savant" or whatever you want to call him is divine or not or may just be perhaps of a lineage related to divinity generations past and so his divine abilities come not from being a devout paragon of the "one and only true cleric way" but from having a touch of divine blood running in him due to the daliances his great-great-great-great-grandma had with a divine golden shower (ala Zeus) long ago.

I don't know about you, but i routinely deal with "class doesn't exactly fit my concept" by tweaking the classes to fit our game and the player's desires better. So, it seems to me to be odd to stick to one's limited-stereotype-gun to the point that it causes conflict, if indeed working out a solution and an enjoyable session is what you seek.

Now, if Bob is the sort that telling him the NEW CLASS is not CLERIC but is WARRIOR MYSTIC will cause friction, then don't tell him what name you are calling his class in your heart of hearts. After all, the only reason you are renaming his class is to stop your own personal lack of tolerance from causing you to get upset. bob certainly doesn't see a problem playing a cleric in a manner outside your one-true-way, so the hurdle you need to jump is your own "but he is not playing the cleric the one right way" frenzy.

or, is the setting you chose to play in so inflexible that the notion of a combat oriented character who has divine lineage and thus has divine magic abilites amazingly, jarringly similar to those others reach by devout religios observance something you cannot accept?