Player, DM, or PC call? (longish)

[ZSutherland]

I'll bite, Fenes2. What would you suggest?

I actually thought about it seriously when he first showed back up, but put it out my mind after just a few minutes thought. The personal problems we have/had with this player (in the short non-detailed versions) have to do with a few actions he took behind his girlfriends back (we all think of her as our little sister) that we knew would hurt her if she found out. Despite the fact, that, out of game we don't get together with him much, he let us know about this, but of course, we couldn't tell her (not our place and we couldn't countenance causing her the pain). Well, of course she found out anyway, and we were right, though for some reason she eventually got back together with him. I figure she's a grown woman and made up her own mind, and we outta respect her decision, so I'm trying my darndest not to let it interfere. However, I can just see this tearing the group apart if we sit down roundtable style and say, "Okay nameless player, some of the other players have a problem with you. I wouldn't bring it up, but it's apparently interfering with the game."

This is where I and the dwarf player run and hide, because we don't like confrontation, and we hope when we come back there's not a pile of corpses where we left our follow gamers. It's their personal life, but I can't make the rest of these people forgive nor forget it. His less odious habits of tardiness and interruptions aren't helping.

Like I said, I'm a big wuss and try to avoid confrontations and such, and would be reasonably happy (not thrilled, but at least relieved) if it just came down that he (and his girlfriend if she insists on going with him) left the group, but I've been friends with this guy forever and am not comfortable asking him to do that. The alternative of making it an open discussion however seems like the stuff of nightmares, so any advice you've got on how to handle it will be taken with my thanks (if some trepidation.)

Tysr, sorry about that. Your comments came across as a little caustic, but I'll try to read them w/o interpretting.

Z

:edit spelling:

 

[billd91]

The personal problems we have/had with this player (in the short non-detailed versions) have to do with a few actions he took behind his girlfriends back (we all think of her as our little sister) that we knew would hurt her if she found out. Despite the fact, that, out of game we don't get together with him much, he let us know about this, but of course, we couldn't tell her (not our place and we couldn't countenance causing her the pain). Well, of course she found out anyway, and we were right, though for some reason she eventually got back together with him. I figure she's a grown woman and made up her own mind, and we outta respect her decision, so I'm trying my darndest not to let it interfere.

Aside from the other annoyances (tardiness, etc), you are doing the right thing by trying to keep this issue from messing up the game. And your other players should as well. It sounds like his girlfriend was the hurt party and she's apparently forgiven him whatever it was he did. The rest of you should to and leave it at that.
As far as trying to hijack your game, he may have well known you had something planned but he may have come up with an interesting idea that day or on the way to springboard off of and wanted to see if it was going to go anywhere. Try not to look at that as a malicious hijacking. He may have just had a reasonablyl cool idea and wanted to see if he could get the rest of you to defer a night from the regular adventure. Maybe he just felt full of DMing goodliness that night. Who knows? He might not have been malicious at all, just kind of insensitive (there are plenty of gamers who, while otherwise clever, are like that).

As far as keeping personal issues out of the game, that's good. Keeping things from friends, even if they're being done by another friend, is not. Having been on the other side (friends knew something my then girl friend was doing but decided it wasn't their business to tell me), friends tell friends things to keep them from getting hurt or taken advantage of (as I was). Sometimes it's unpleasant, but if she really was like a little sister to you, why would you let him hurt her even if he is your friend? If some of your players are still holding a grudge about this particular issue and it might be affecting the game, bring up their own culpability in letting him get away with his behavior. Tell them they should be more forgiving. After all, his girl friend seems to be... of him... and you as well.

 

[Fenes 2]

I'll bite, Fenes2. What would you suggest?

I actually thought about it seriously when he first showed back up, but put it out my mind after just a few minutes thought. The personal problems we have/had with this player (in the short non-detailed versions) have to do with a few actions he took behind his girlfriends back (we all think of her as our little sister) that we knew would hurt her if she found out. Despite the fact, that, out of game we don't get together with him much, he let us know about this, but of course, we couldn't tell her (not our place and we couldn't countenance causing her the pain). Well, of course she found out anyway, and we were right, though for some reason she eventually got back together with him. I figure she's a grown woman and made up her own mind, and we outta respect her decision, so I'm trying my darndest not to let it interfere. However, I can just see this tearing the group apart if we sit down roundtable style and say, "Okay nameless player, some of the other players have a problem with you. I wouldn't bring it up, but it's apparently interfering with the game."

This is where I and the dwarf player run and hide, because we don't like confrontation, and we hope when we come back there's not a pile of corpses where we left our follow gamers. It's their personal life, but I can't make the rest of these people forgive nor forget it. His less odious habits of tardiness and interruptions aren't helping.

Like I said, I'm a big wuss and try to avoid confrontations and such, and would be reasonably happy (not thrilled, but at least relieved) if it just came down that he (and his girlfriend if she insists on going with him) left the group, but I've been friends with this guy forever and am not comfortable asking him to do that. The alternative of making it an open discussion however seems like the stuff of nightmares, so any advice you've got on how to handle it will be taken with my thanks (if some trepidation.)

Man, that is a minefield. My experiences with problems at the gaming table don't include such emtional/personal problems, so I can't really judge those.

I'd try to have a discussion among the players how to reconcile the characters (and limiting it to that), with each player and the DM thinking up ideas. Let the players decide where their characters draw the line first (i.e. "won't work with cowards, but respects cautious people", "can be persuaded/baited/orderd to scout, but will not let anyone bully him into walking into a known trap" etc.) then look for common ground and suggest changes to views of the characters or even the characters themselves in order to make the party work.

Possible solutions:
- It was all a dream
- Some bastardly enemy influenced the whole party, using suggestion etc to make them lose their wits ("What were we thinking, forcing X to open the doors! Why did we leave Milo at home?")
- The players agree to have the characters grow closer, and the DM helps with providing situations that let the PCs rescue each other.
- Maybe the rogue will get a bit more courageous, and the others a bit more forgiving.
- Make the "cowardly rogue" experiment with ways to disable traps without using disable device - i.e. set them off safely by various means. Could become a character trait "Wait, let me try out my newest gimmick. This hooked, non-conductive stick allows me to set off a trap from behind a corner! It should work in theory..."
- Perhaps a PC "Will forgive anything if someone saves his life"
or "May try to reform the coward, even if it seems hopeless" (which keeps the two PCs in the same party)

 

[Hejdun]

I think there is far too much metagame influence for this situation to be handled responsibly in game. I think that the vindictiveness of those involved proves that.

The party relied heavily on metagame information to make an incorrect asssumption, but they were told of the mistake before anything dangerous happened. No one forced the PCs to open that trapped door. They knew perfectly well that they were going into a trap infested den without anyone who could handle traps.

I would try to resolve it in person, because the source of the problem is out of game. The players expected the player to play a rogue who could disable traps. Never did the rogue in character say that he disable traps, and never hinted that he could. They are upset with the PC because the player didn't want the drag along the trap handy rogue.

All of these issues are what caused the problem, and none of them are in character.

As for a solution? I would handle it in person, because the PCs are incapable of handling it in character. If I did have them do it in character, then I would dole out some pretty heavy experience penalties on the vindictive PCs, because they are metagaming out their rears right now.

As for the rogue, I'd probably give him bonus experience (to offset his uselessness) because he was the only one smart enough to realize "Hey, we're going into a trap infested den without a way to disable traps. Maybe we shouldn't go."


As for the other problems (tardiness, "useless" PCs, etc), those are completely IRL conflicts that you should just talk about. I would be willing to bet that the "munchkin" player playing the rogue is trying to tell you something by doing all of this. It's kind of hard to say without knowing the players, so those issues are up to you.

 

[Agback]

Now, I have an excuse to get rid of the absent player's character for the game so no one gets stuck running two.

Face it, this wasn't very clever. You knew they were about to face a lot of traps and that the other rogue couldn't deal with them. Someone 'stuck' playing two characters was never going to be even half the problem they were going to have without that character.

Ask yourself: "What did I do this for?"

So, when they head back to the dungeon the next night, I say, "If no one has a problem with it, Milo's not coming, but if you want him along, work out between you who'll run him and let me know."

You set them up. Then you sucker-punched them.

Really. You knew that the decision to leave Milo behind would leave them ill-equipped to deal with a lethal threat that you knew they would face. And then you specifically encouraged them to do so.

The PCs where, needless to say, pissed at the rogue and his player.

With a bit more insight they would be pissed at you.

I told them I wasn't going to do anything about it because I felt it was an entirely in character matter.

There shouldn't be an in-character problem. Because as a lot of other people have pointed out, the characters have no reason to suppose that the rogue had any particular responsibility for dealing with traps.

If anyone blames the rogue in character you should penalise him or her for bad RP.

I did, however, encourage them to decide how their characters would react to this.

Thus encouraging more bad decisions.

The ranger's player is not really all that bright IRL and so hasn't figured out what wrong (she may actually be a bit peeved at me)

Well I don't blame her. Although you are carefully passing the blame off onto others, you have hamstrung the party, killed her character, and encouraged her friends to victimise her boyfriend.

Perhaps she's more socially perceptive than you give her credit for.

So, my question is, did I do the right thing telling the players to handle the squabble amongst themselves

Absolutely not. You are fomenting out-of-game ill-feeling between the players.

What you ought to have done (and perhaps still ought to do), is to say to your players "Sorry guys, that was my fault. I shouldn't have urged you to leave Milo behind. I knew that you were going to need him."

(I do admit I deducted a bit of the rogues exp because he did nothing valuable

First you criticise this guy for being a power-gamer. Then, when he tries role-playing, you recognise what he is doing, so you

1. Trick the players into a fatal OOC decision.

2. Foist the blame onto the power-gamer.

3. Kill off his girl-friend's character.

4. Encourage the other players to start bullying him in character for out-of-character reasons, blaming him for your mistake.

5. And dock him experience points for playing his character properly, a character that you vetted and approved when he suggested it.

Now think about this carefully. What do you expect him to do?

Regards,


Agback

 

[Hjorimir]

As far as what happened in the adventure it should be handled in character.

If those other players don't like the way he is running his chracter they can roll up a rogue and play that instead. I often hear this kinda thing about how the cleric isn't doing such-n-such ("it his his job to..."). I tell my players the same thing; then you play a cleric and you won't ever have to worry about buffs of heal spells again!

As far as the real-life stuff it should be handled out of character.

Oil and Water don't mix...no matter how much you stir. It is more respectful to be honest with people when you have issues. Try to talk them out. If that doesn't work then maybe you're better off not gaming together.

 

[ZSutherland]

Agback,

You make one wrong assumption. I didn't set them up. I simply forgot the other rogue had no ranks in Disable Device. The place wasn't a trap infested pit. There were 3 or 4 total, and I forgot until he mentioned it to the other PCs. I will take responsibility for that, but I didn't maliciously set them up. I'm not that much of a bastard.


When he said he didn't have it, I considered suggesting to them that they go back for Milo, but I have told them before that after 2 years of playing this game, I'm done holding their hands and want them to learn on their own, so I decided not to do so.

Z

P.S. - She would have lost her character regardless of the rogue. The fact is, they did not have any spell prepared when they started that would have spared her. I'm not blaming him for the character's death. They are, but, considering neither their characters (nor players) know what would have saved her, if they think Restoration would have done the job and that it had to be "wasted" on a cure that wouldn't have been necessary if he'd "been doing his job," then I can't see to call that metagaming at all, beyond the assumption that it's "his job" in the first place.

 

[Tsyr]

I agree with the notion that, if you award RP XP, you shouldn't to the others.

 

[Agback]

Agback,

You make one wrong assumption. I didn't set them up. I simply forgot the other rogue had no ranks in Disable Device.

Okay, then, I'll acquit you of malice in that instance.

But I still say that the thing with the traps, for which everyone is blaming either the rogue or his player, is in fact the result of your mistake. You said "If no one has a problem with it, Milo's not coming, but if you want him along, work out between you who'll run him and let me know." That's what caused it.

And I still say that you are making another mistake by encouraging the other players to mistreat Face-man on the assumption that he alone had a special responsibility to deal with traps, and that he alone had a special responsibility to warn the others that he does not have the 'Disable Device' skill. In fact the problem arose from an out-of-character decision (to go in without Milo) to which everyone was party, and for which if anyone bears a special responsibility it is you.

If the power-gamer is really either a power-gamer or a role-player his character will refuse to have anything further to do with a bunch nut-case who without any intelligible reason (in-character) force him to trigger traps and then blame him for the result. The character will leave, and if the player stays his best course will be to play a munchkin cleric or monk.

It seems from your subsequent posts that you are harbouring a lot of resentment for this player, and that several of your character-players are harbouring more. Deal with it out of game. Or tell the player he's not welcome any more. The way you are going you are letting it wreck your game.

You are deluding yourself if you think that your actions don't contribute to these outcomes. So long as you deny all responsibility for everything that happens you completely disempower yourself: after all, if your action have no consequences, you can't plan actions that will have good consequences. So if you want to fix this up, start by acknowledging your responsibility.

The thing you do, of suggesting a destructive course of action (such as leaving Milo behind, or having the other players take out their unreasonable malice by in-character action), encouraging the players to sign off blind, and then disavowing responsibility for the ensuing disaster, is very, very bad. You ought to stop doing it, even if you have to make a conscious effort over and over. When something falls into your province as GM (eg. adjudicating the actions of a temporary NPC, assessing experience penalties for proper roleplaying, encouraging party in-fighting) you ought to THINK, DECIDE, and ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY. Instead you emote, hint, and pass the buck. It's the road to catastrophe.

Regards,


Agback

 

[David Argall]

plenty of blame to go around

"I didn't set them up. I simply forgot the other rogue had no ranks in Disable Device."

Mistakes kill just as dead as malice. Agback is harsh, but some DM intervention would have avoided this, and some is needed now to soothe things a little.

That the PCs are pissed at each other is fine. They suffered a disaster and should feel it was the fault of some of their own. IG, they can do all sorts of yelling at each other.

But as players that bad feeling has to be eliminated or reduced. Remind them this is just a game. So they lost this time, there will be another. Don't pout, play. Point out their errors, starting with their willingness to enter a trapped area without a good trap handler. They didn't have to open the doors or... And no, they are not allowed to invent IC reasons to attack the thief. Make it down as a learning experience and get back to the game.