Good form and bad PCs

[delericho]

The current DM keeps trying to talk to me about ways to kill the PC off, but then keeps backing off because he knows that's very bad practice.

Yep. You have an out-of-game problem. In-game solutions are inappropriate.

We currently have such a "problem child", a character that was built using several disallowed sources, and equipped almost entirely from a disallowed source.

That character should have been banned as soon as it appeared. Given that it was not, I see two choices: (1) suck it up, or (2) tell the player the character is causing too many problems and he'll have to be removed. In the latter case, you may well lose the player; you may or may not find that an acceptable sacrifice.

Because of the people involved, and because of the multi-DM nature of our campaign, I don't see our own situation as actually being resolvable. No single DM really feels comfortable laying the smackdown on him, and if we have a group vote it will look like we're ganging up on him.

The multi-DM nature of your campaign actually gives you an out. Because of that, your list of "disallowed sources" doesn't really have an exception for "DM's discretion" - every DM would need to agree to make the exception, and presumably that didn't happen?

So, have the various DMs get together to discuss the situation. Then, they should meet with the player collectively, say that there was a mistake made (DM X shouldn't have let the character in without consultation), say that they've been trying to make it work, but that they've now decided that it just doesn't, and say that his character will just need to be retired.

Of course, that relies on the DM who first allowed the character agreeing to take the blame for the error...

 

[N'raac]

I think delericho nails it. There is no good answer because the good answer had to happen at initial character creation. Placing the blame on the DM(s) for not sticking to their rules seems reasonable if the concern is that this player will be irate. But maybe that also means looking at the rules and all the characters.

Is part of the issue that the approved sources have regular exceptions? Maybe all exceptions have to go, and maybe this is not the only PC that must change as a consequence. Maybe "exceptions" need a better review process. And maybe a character without ALL sources annotated doesn't get reviewed, and the player gets in only when his character has been reviewed and approved (and no, we won't sit for three hours waiting for you to make a legal character - we'll game, you go make a legit character for next time). It's not just this one player's enjoyment that counts.

I'd be interested in how many characters there are, and how many have exceptions (and the same question for co-DM characters only). Is everyone else playing by the restrictions, or are exceptions common?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think I'd treat it the same as if the player had been telling me "the rules work this way" and I took them at their word, but then found out later that they were wrong (mistaken, lying, etc.). I'd basically say "since we agreed to play by these rules, we'll be doing that from now on. Sorry." And then I'd have a discussion about what we could do to keep them having fun. If that means changing characters, so be it.

If this player is breaking the rules, whether house rules or otherwise, I wouldn't let it continue. If something slipped by your banned sources rules, intentionally or not, once I found out, I'd let them know that they can't use those particular bits (magic items, classes, feats, whatever), and that they need to adjust their character. I'd work with them to minimize the damage, but the rules seem to be there for a reason (in that he broke them, and now there are problems).

 

[questkick]

You don't have to kill off the character. Just say it's unbalancing the game and come up with a story for how the character leaves the group, dies, or whatever. Let the player draw up a new character at the same level using only the allowed sources.

 

[Manbearcat]

While having a clear, indisputably frank conversation with the player can be tricky/uncomfortable, the stark reality is that within all facets of life (and especially in gaming), addition by subtraction is a very real phenomenon. Sometimes its shocking just how much dysfunction one component part wrought over the assembled whole. I'm, of course, not at your table, but my surmise is that you have someone who is possesses either/or:

- lack of respect for the GM.

- lack of respect for the players.

- lack of awareness of the dubious nature of his actions.

- lack of awareness of the impact of the dubious nature of his actions.

- much greater consideration for his own self-interest than for that of others (specifically folks who is supposed to be enjoying a leisure experience with).


I would have a frank, honest, circumnavigated conversation with him. If he protested like a petulant child and/or he portrayed (legitimate or not) bewilderment at the whole ordeal...addition by subtraction.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think it is bad form and slightly cowardly on the DM part to kill a problem character to get rid of it. I have seen DMs do it and it rarely works because for some reason it is obvious to everyone at the table what is going on.

When I DM I give a list of allowed things anything else has to met with my approval and if it is something I don't know well I reserve the right to later change my mind about allowing it. The best way to handle these things is to have a frank talk with the player. If the player has a tantrum over it and refuses to see how it is effecting others then I would prefer they not play. Life is to short to play with people like this even if they are friends.

It is impossible for me as a DM to see the consequences of every request. And since I really believe in encouraging player creativity I try to avoid saying no. So I leave myself the option of a way out.

 

[Chase A.]

I had a very similar problem recently. There is some good advice in this thread. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340745-The-problem-is-choice&prefixid=Dnd3e

 

[Oryan77]

Any player that questions that is asked whether they are putting 10-20 hours a week into preparing the campaign.

I once had a player that I was having problems with (very argumentative even when he had no clue if he was actually right or not). The sort of crap that came out of this guys mouth was incredible. For example, when my wife once asked him to stop arguing with me during the game, he responded with "I encourage players to argue rules or in-game actions with me when I DM!" He once attempted to start a new game that he wanted me to play in so (in his words), "I can show you a better way to DM."

When we were discussing yet another game issue (again, during the game), I explained that since I put in hours of preparation every week for the campaign in order to come up with things for both the players to enjoy and for me to enjoy running, I feel that I do have a say on what is or is not allowed in the game. He responded by telling me how much BS that is and that he spends an equal amount of time every week working on his character. He said he gives a lot of thought to his PC and so the work I'm doing is no better than what any other player is doing.

Sometimes it doesn't matter how reasonable and sincere you try to be to a player. A lot of players refuse to let a DM do his thing so he can enjoy the game too (as DM).

 

[Nezkrul]

Have the DM build plot where the player must more or less forcefully retire the character and start a new one under allowed sources

 

[Celebrim]

Have the DM build plot where the player must more or less forcefully retire the character and start a new one under allowed sources

As a general rule, it is always a bad idea to deal with OOC problems with IC solutions, and vica versa.