Player challenging DM authority and competative

[Prestidigitalis]

I'm pretty sure Felon was being facetious.

However, the whole discussion does raise some questions.

What exactly is the social contract for an RPG group?
How does it vary from table to table?
What is the best way to make the contract explicit?
How do you balance the "table contract" against societal norms?
etc.

These issues have been discussed for many years, but it's clear that there is no real consensus yet. Then again, our society doesn't seem to have clear agreement on a lot of issues any more either...

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm pretty sure Felon was being facetious.

Ah, having been in a game like that ages ago, and this being the net, sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

[phloog]

As someone who ran 4e for the first time, this post had bits that scared me....not to start an edition war, but one of my favorite third edition parties i DMed was this: thief, thief, thief, fighter....oh,and a thief...it was a blast. I see some saying to not force all the roles to be filled, but can fourth edition be easily run with extreme role imbalance?

 

[Dausuul]

As someone who ran 4e for the first time, this post had bits that scared me....not to start an edition war, but one of my favorite third edition parties i DMed was this: thief, thief, thief, fighter....oh,and a thief...it was a blast. I see some saying to not force all the roles to be filled, but can fourth edition be easily run with extreme role imbalance?

Yes. A party of 4 thieves (rogues) plus 1 fighter might be quite fun, in fact. You certainly wouldn't have to worry about grindy combats.

 

[MrMyth]

As someone who ran 4e for the first time, this post had bits that scared me....not to start an edition war, but one of my favorite third edition parties i DMed was this: thief, thief, thief, fighter....oh,and a thief...it was a blast. I see some saying to not force all the roles to be filled, but can fourth edition be easily run with extreme role imbalance?

Yeah, I'd say 4E is pretty flexible at it, and honestly better than my experience with it in past editions. I ran a group through the epic levels that was 1 defender and 5 strikers, and they managed to survive. Now, a balanced party will probably do better in general, but measures have be taken so that no one role is ever really required.

In this case, I think the concern isn't that the party will have troubles. It is that one player already had a character along those lines, and the DM was afraid that if this other player brought in a similar but much more effective and optimized character, the first player would feel sidelined.

 

[Cyronax]

Cool. I'll bring a charging Predator Druid (named Z'fba827) next week.

I had a 7-9 level gnome bard MC fey pact warlock (and others) about a year ago. He had a bag of holding (as a backpack) and had announced to the group that he was interested in two specific paragon paths -- the Student of the Seven and possibly the Resourceful Mage or something like that. The bag of holding was part of this character's sctick and it seemed at the time like bags of holding were pretty uncommon in the world.

Another player with a history 'taunting' other players through actions of his own PC's was bringing in a replacement character into our campaign. He brought in a halfling fey pact warlock MC bard (he was replacing a perfectly good dwarf infernal pact warlock that he wanted to retire). He had a bag of holding and also announced he was interested in Student of the Seven paragon path.

Anyway, it was a little too similar to my PC, especially in the way it was played. I admittedly was annoyed.

EDIT: I also know it could sound like not a big deal, but I guess you had to be there and have seen the dynamic played out across about a 3 year period (multiple characters, multiple campaigns, multiple DMs). /EDIT.

In less extreme examples I have seen numerous instances of players indicating that someone playing a very similar build to that person has the potential to be annoying. This is especially true in 4e, where some roles do very similar things and occupy the same trained skills.

Its not a hard rule, but people should try to be a courteous.

 

[Nullzone]

It's good to be sensitive to players who feel slighted, but it's worth noting that as the DM you really shouldn't act on that kind of concern unless it actually manifests itself. Talk with the players as a whole and get them talking to eachother to find a working balance; they may find that they can work together really well and really play up some RP aspect with it.

If it does happen that the other player feels slighted, the "peaceful" resolution here if the min/maxer won't budge is to work with the other player to come up with a different unique character that he can still have fun with and harmonize with the rest of the group, but this requires more effort; the "easy" solution is to ditch the min/maxer, but this will likely be volatile.

Really, the guy is being juvenile and should be called on the carpet for it. You're all adults (or so I might assume; if not, well, no better time to learn some personal accountability), so talk to eachother like reasonable adults and come to an agreement about what can and can't happen around the table.

 

[Felon]

Make the DM happy was always a bad game. Cruelty and malice towards a character, especially when it's obvious, is rarely warranted and incredibly annoying. Aside from making the player feel like crap, it also annoys the party to no end as no matter what they do to protect him, the DM has it out for them, and attacks them ruthlessly. It makes gameplay feel pointless and it makes players disgruntled.

What have you gotten at the end of the day? An unhappy party, an unfun game, and probably more than one pissed off player. Oh yeah, the DMs happy, good for him.

Sure, that's all true--if you're doing it wrong. You are talking about petty malice sprayed about with reckless abandon. This is not to be confused with precise, goal-oriented, and conscientious brutality. If you'd only consult the project plan for Operation: Carborundum, you'd see that these variables are well accounted for.

The DM has attempted to be reasonable and been rebuffed. He has attempted to be firm only to learn that a firm tone alone means nothing to someone who regards you as a weakling. We have all at one time or another born witness to the sorry sight of parents trying to assert themselves over their unruly children by counting to three veeerrrry sloooowly. Even a nose-picking little brat quickly discerns an empty pretense of authority. The parents' are to be despised, as they have done themselves and their children a disservice by seeking compromise and deferring action.

Instead of quaking in dread hoping your youngster does not assert control over you in public, consult your Curriculum Carborundum.

• Step one: Furnish the child with a toy that the child will cherish.
• Step two: Carry it with you as a plastic hostage. Gird yourself for the next step. It will test your mettle.
• Step three: Entrap the child with an opportunity to provoke you into executing the hostage, and follow through accordingly if the youngling takes the bait.

Attempt steps 1-3 a second time and note the variation in behavior. You are unlikely to experience recidivism. While it is no longer acceptable in this milquetoast society to chastise a child in the proper fashion, I can attest that social mores and folkways are a bit more relaxed concerning snapping the head off a Barbie doll or Transformer while exclaiming "Suit yourself, kiddo!" You will find your children's temprements to be improved for the better when they regard you not as an easily-manipulated buffoon fit only for exploitation--which most parents are--but rather your due status as a Janus-like godhead.

So it is with an unruly gamer running amok in your campaign. Substitute his character for the beloved toy. Granted, this is an adult, not a child, so a slightly more surreptitious approach is required to grind him down, because you don't legally own him. You will have to settle for psychological and spiritual ownership, vis-a-vis careful and deliberate denigration.

If there's a player that is hated by all the other players, make him the player that players love to hate. Nothing unites people like a common foe...except for a good ol'-fashioned whipping boy. Murder his characters in ways that will astonish and delight the others. Make his destruction their entertainment. You will have met your obligation to make the game fun, while making the problem player a better, stronger person by excising the troublesome elements of his personality.

I'm pretty sure Felon was being facetious.

Tattletale.

 

[Cyronax]

So it is with an unruly gamer running amok in your campaign. Granted, this is an adult, not a child, so a slightly more surreptitious approach is required to grind him down, because you don't legally own him. You will have to settle for psychological ownership. If there's a player that is hated by all the other players, make him the player that players love to hate. Nothing unites people like a common foe...except for a good ol'-fashioned whipping boy. Murder his characters in ways that will astonish and delight the others. Make his destruction their entertainment.


Tattletale.

Better yet, make the death done by a rather servile or repeat villain from several levels ago.

The joke in some of my groups over the years has been 'death by goblin with a blowgun.'

Or maybe in 4e's case, just engineer a few solid attacks on the PC and have him done in by a lowly minion.

Use the DDM 'peasant' mini -- you know the one:

Die Hybrid Die

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Tattletale.

Flattery will get you tupperware.