DM-player conflict; input appreciated

[Thundering_Dragon]

I would really like to hear the other side of the story here, mostly because of this quote:

("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.")

It sounds like the group actually has a problem with the way the character is being played in a mechanical, rules based sense. ""Bob" is a Cleric, so why isn't he healing us?" Seems to be the attitude that's presented here.


Who says a Cleric cannot be a "self buffing fighter"? It's really aggravating that certain classes in D&D are automatically assumed to HAVE to fit into a certain role. Clerics are not required to heal any more than Rogues are required to pick pockets. If "Bob" was playing a Psychic Warrior or another class with self buffing abilities no one would say a word, but since the Cleric also has heal spells he's automatically consigned to the role of walking band aid?

I have also run Clerics similar to this one, and it's really irritating how the other players simply assume you are there to heal them. Now, whenever I run a Cleric like this, I make certain to inform the rest of the players and the DM beforehand the type of character he is going to be.

Finally, there are plenty of Gods who would encourage "Bobs" behavior, rather than disapprove. Clerics of Tyr, Tempus, Clangeddin, Corellon, and many more have goals that focus on fighting the wicked, rather than protecting the weak or healing the sick. It seems to me the only real problem here is everyone expects "Bob" to fill a presupposed role that does not fit what he actually wants the character to do.

With two more Clerics in the party, this is the perfect opportunity to allow "Bob" to play a battle oriented Cleric without the party missing out on the healing he could provide, since it is already covered.

 

[Hjorimir]

Honestly, it isn't about what Bob does in combat or when/if he heals. It is about how he represents the theology of the character that falls totally flat.

I don't think this is a right or wrong issue, it is far more organic than that. It is all good and well to suggest that the DM fulfill all of the player's desired playstyles, but sometimes a player's playstyle ruins the fun for the other players.

For us, verisimiltude and emersion are highly important. I'm not advocating our way is "better" or "right" or any such nonsense. But I am saying that it is right for us (at least the majority of us).

 

[TheGM]

Honestly, it isn't about what Bob does in combat or when/if he heals. It is about how he represents the theology of the character that falls totally flat.

I don't think this is a right or wrong issue, it is far more organic than that. It is all good and well to suggest that the DM fulfill all of the player's desired playstyles, but sometimes a player's playstyle ruins the fun for the other players.

For us, verisimiltude and emersion are highly important. I'm not advocating our way is "better" or "right" or any such nonsense. But I am saying that it is right for us (at least the majority of us).

Some of us got that, some seem to think that pleasing all of the players all of the time - even when pleasing one will displease others - is a GM's responsibility.

Seriously, explain to him that he's ruining it for everyone else, and you want to work it out without losing him as a player. Tell him you want to find a way for him to have fun without interfering with others' fun.

Someone else's suggestion to help him learn how to Rollplay isn't bad either if you haven't tried that yet.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

Well, could you give an example of how the character fails to meet the roleplaying standards for his character?

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, the aforementioned paladin and his mount (in one of my earlier posts) is an example. In a different campaign when his entire church was getting ready to be excommunicated his attitude was along the lines of a shrug of the shoulders and "we don't need the church."

He just doesn't role-play a religious character. He is just a guy with spells and, for us, that hurts the experience. I'm not sure how else to state it.

But he is like this in a lot of ways. He cannot seem to get the idea of having rights out of his head (as in the Bill of Rights, Constitution) in a fantasy setting where you can be killed by a lord's word alone.

 

[ForceUser]

Seriously, explain to him that he's ruining it for everyone else, and you want to work it out without losing him as a player. Tell him you want to find a way for him to have fun without interfering with others' fun.

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). Besides, most of the time Bob doesn't complain to me. Hjorimir, however, always gets an earful whenever Bob gets mad--whether it's my game, Hjorimir's, or someone else's. We're all very frustrated with him. He's the one square peg in a group full of round holes, and I, for one, am tired of it. I don't want to compromise anymore. I've done so for years. Hjorimir is far more patient than I am; if it weren't for his influence, I'd have kicked Bob to the curb years ago.

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. He emailed me today, furious that I won't allow him to play a divine spellcaster, and threatened to quit the game. As far as I'm concerned, he can take a freaking hike.

But.

But Hjorimir and others who work with him are my friends. Sigh.

 

[Thundering_Dragon]

If his character is Chaotic in alignment I do not see the issue with his statement. I suppose this just comes down to a difference in playing styles. I do not view Clerics as any more special than a Fighter or a Rogue, they are simply people who are able to channel the energy of the Gods to further their own goals. Basically, I would just suggest "Bob" choose a God that aligns with his own characters ideas about life, and take it from there.

 

[ForceUser]

If his character is Chaotic in alignment I do not see the issue with his statement. I suppose this just comes down to a difference in playing styles. I do not view Clerics as any more special than a Fighter or a Rogue, they are simply people who are able to channel the energy of the Gods to further their own goals. Basically, I would just suggest "Bob" choose a God that aligns with his own characters ideas about life, and take it from there.

In our view, clerics are not just "guys who cast divine spells." That's absurd to us. They are a chosen few, exalted individuals ordained by God(s) to prosectue holy wars, defend the faith, and live up to the same ideals that real-world Christian clergy, Islamic clerics, or Buddhist monks aspire to. It's not a role to treat lightly; we don't use the standard D&D gods, instead, we form our own cosmologies and homebrew religions that are more "true-to-life." This is how the majority of us, especially we three DMs, enjoy the game. We always warn people thinking of playing divine PCs that this is the standard they must role-play--they must play divine proxies and emissaries of their deities. Guys who just want to be self-buffing fighters have plenty of other character options (battle sorcerers, fighter/wizards, psychic warriors, etc...there are tons of other ways to play this role if that's all you want to do).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

He's like a tick on my arse that I can't seem to dig out.

Wow. What a mature hobby we all participate in ... :\

 

[ForceUser]

Wow. What a mature hobby we all participate in ... :\

Don't judge me. I'm expressing frustration.