Player Problem, need advice

[BSF]

Doh! Double Post.

 

[Arnwyn]

"Optimised is fine. Excessive isn’t." I've made exactly one "excessive" character, the aforementioned cleric, apparently a high level character should not be capable of actually holding his own in a fight.]

Regardless, if this is against the grain of the group's playstyle, then what you are doing isn't appropriate. What you are doing is right (ie. "not wrong") - even DragonLancer has admitted that - but not necessarily right for this particular group. And that's where the problem apparently lies.

Have you considered looking at and emulating what the other players (those players who "fit in") play? That might get you a better idea of what this group considers appropriate.

My "rules arguing" only occurs in situations where house rules are used.

Apparently, evidence has been given that shows otherwise. If you complain about situational modifiers, for example, I question your rules knowledge.

IIRC, DragonLancer has said this is an established group - and you're (relatively) new. I think my comment here is fit in or leave.

DragonLancer: if this is the player who I think it is, then you have my sympathies. He reminds me of one of my players.

 

[Carpe DM]

There are several issues here, and one difficulty is that they are not being separated.

1. Rules-lawyering and DM Credibility.

The first issue is the role of rules. Rules exist to serve serveral functions, but one function that Dragonlancer may be overlooking is that they serve as arbiters of DM neutrality. If I were a player and sensed that my play style was *withing the rules* but *under attack from my DM*, I'd be a stickler for the rules too.

So, DL, I think one thing you have to work on is your credibility. Players will let a gamemaster they trust bend the rules. Players will be sticklers for the rules if they sense the DM is trying to bend them to a certain playstyle.

I do the following things to build credibility when I start any new group:

A. I state a list of all RULE 0s that I am currently aware of. That way they know in advance. (And, to be honest, I have some doozies -- for example, in my world, resurrection past a month's time is very rare. The dead tend to stay dead).

B. I roll in the open and state target numbers before the roll. The players do the same. That way, if an orc charging with a greataxe rolls a 20 and confirms, the player who is now going to die saw it happen. This is not me out to get them.

C. I scrupulously follow the rules unless there is an ingame reason to do otherwise. Players invest in the rules because the rules give them power over the gameworld. A DM's power to break the rules is a direct threat to the player's source of power. Therefore, any time I break the rules (and I do so occasionally) there is an INGAME -- not METAGAME -- reason why.

D. I state the rulesets that are applicable (for me, WOTC-published books, subject to rule-0 on any item that creates an instant or unavoidable kill).

2. "Chaotic" behavior and Hack'n'Slash.

A lot of people here think this is a typical "problem player" thread. One guy plays a chaotic-evil rogue / wizard / assassin and kills other players, won't roleplay, and generally is out to be obnoxious.

THIS IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. The player in question is guilty of powergaming (so am I, and in fact so are the best DMs out there -- how do you think we keep you challenged?), but not anti-party behavior. If he were, the solution would be simple -- ask him to stop.

Another problem is that people see the rest of the party as "immersive" roleplayers. They're not. They just don't like anyone (ANYONE) doing over 100 damage in one round. (some bad news: My wife's character in 3.5 managed 1500 damage in a round, and I am a stickler's stickler for the rules -- see the old SMACKDOWN post series).

Adding artificial limits on combat smacks of favoritism.

3. General Party Dynamic

However, I do have something to say in DL's defense -- even though his statements that someone who plays by the rules "refuses" to see his side of the picture is pretty rampant hypocrisy (and why is it that it isn't you who "refuses" to see his side?).

I have never had a problem with being a powergamer in a roleplaying / immersive group. I play characters designed to *hurt* things. I regularly hand out obscene amounts of damage. I roleplay well, and I cooperate with the party. I have never had a group that didn't cheer me on as I handed out the whoopass.

That's because I am a cooperative, polite player who knows when not to argue with the DM for the sake of the story. I know when to pick my fights about the rules (i.e., when the DM is 1. WRONG and 2. someone's life is at stake). When the DM is changing rules just to help the story, or when nobody is going to die as a result, I just let it slide.

So, where there's smoke, there's fire, Likuidice. I would suggest that you rules-lawyer-out on your DM only when he is 1. DEAD WRONG (not just arguably wrong like with silly fights over circumstance modifiers) and 2. only when someone's life is at stake. Otherwise, roll with the punch, and have fun with whatever new scenario is at stake.

DL, I would say: Roll in the open, state your Rule 0s ahead of time (not after the fact), and don't Rule 0 if you don't have an ingame reason for it. Saying this is a "playstyle" thing doesn't seem quite honest: he plays immersive and roleplays just fine. You just don't like the damage his character does. If the rules let his character do that damage, then let him do it.

I wish you the best of luck.

Carpe

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
You're the DM-the only way a combat monster gets into your campaign is with your permission, either by action or inaction. You control player access to all of the classes and feats.

Look at it this way, is it fair to Player X if I allow him access to a feat or class, but not Player Y? If theres no reason to restrict them I don’t. I’m sure you don’t either.

I see. We have a failure to communicate here. I didn't mean to say that you restrict feats from use by Player X and not Player Y. I mean eliminating certain powergaming feats from the campaign altogether. Power Attack + Cleave is one thing, but putting Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack on top of it, and a power gamer could create Sir Cuisinart Von Ginsu. So, while the warrior will still shine in combat, he won't be cutting such great swaths through the minions that you could drive Bill Gates' cash-convoy through it.

And, for clarity's sake, if you eliminate certain high-end warrior feats, certain item creation and metamagic feats would need to be excised as well, to prevent spellcasters from becoming magic item factories or arcane field howitzers.

But when you have a character (whether fighter or otherwise) who is pulling off damages far in excess of what anyone else can do, that’s not right. Even at 18th level no character (fighter or otherwise) should be pulling off over 105 points of damage on everysingle single attack. That’s epic level stuff.
And in the last campaign that’s exactlly what Likudice’s cleric character was pulling off! That’s excessive.

A fighter SHOULD be dropping damage bombs in excess of other characters, at least in melee. 105 pts of damage? I've seen worse. Powergaming? Matter of opinion.

But YOU let him have the combination of Feats, PrCls and equipment that let him do that 105pts of damage. Quite simply, the responsibility for that level of power yours- Likudice just used the rules you provided him for PC generation/development.

YOU have the power to say "No," so USE it. Its not your job to give Likudice everything on his PC's wish list.

As has been posted (almost to the point of frustration on my part) its not his feat or class choices, its his desire/choice not to play to the level of game that the group enjoys.

So, besides his obvious combat prowess, you don't like his acting chops? Is that it? Not every player is a talented amateur thespian.

He knows how to play Og, Slayer of the Many. Learning how to play a convincing Enchanter/Bard sybarite takes time.

Your gaming group I’m sure would be happy to have a player like Likudice and his style of play. It works for you and your group. It doesn’t for ours.

A nice, if inaccurate, barb. We HAVE our Captain Killcrazy, but it bugs us not in the least. Why? That PC is a source of damage dealing and attack absorbtion that lets me play Pierre Chanson, the whip-wielding subterranean archeologist (Human Ftr/Rgr/Div/Spellsword) who probably will never have an offensive spell better than True Strike and will take weeks to do 100 points of damage. Because of his PC, another guy can play a gnomish monk whose combat contribution is just barely better than that of a kamikaze moth.

In other words, he kills stuff so we don't have to get involved in it. And we have dealt with this player's variations on the theme for 6 years. His basic, cookie-cutter slayers give us the freedom to explore the esoteric with impunity.

Quite simply, his powergaming isn't a liability because we don't let it be a liability.

So lets see… dragonslayer isn’t a class that fits the setting? You actually know the DL setting?

And I allow psionics (and have tied it into the nature of the world/setting) and although rare there are psionic individuals and monsters. Its not unbalancing.

Yup. Played it for years in 2Ed, and its 3Ed incarnation is about 2 feet from me right now. Does the concept of a Dragonslayer fit Krynn? Yes. But the PrCL as written in the Draconomicon could become uncontrollable in the Krynn setting. That ability to apply Improved Crit to ANY of his weapons is powerful by itself, and they have more besides.

Of course, how unbalancing a Dragonslayer would be in Krynn would depend on how you handle their powers. Do you let Likudice apply his PC's Dragonslayer abilities to Draconians and Dragonspawn as well as Dragons?

As for the psionics-its good that you've spread it throughout the setting. Too many people just drop it in and are surprised when the Psion or the PW start running rampant.

Rules arguing? I'm with you in that it doesn't have a place at the table once its disruptive. If its about a genuine question that matters-fine. Its just, from what I have read here, Likudice's perception of how he is regarded in the group is only frustrating him, which will feed the fire of rules bickering.

 

[Saeviomagy]

DragonLancer

Quite frankly: Show me the money.

What I'm seeing here is you attempting to build a case out of personal judgements.

Show use the stats of a couple of characters - preferably two of the most recent batch, one liquidice's and one not.
I wouldn't mind seeing that cleric either.

Give us some rules argument that couldn't have been avoided by you, and that actually held up the game. The only one you've brought up was directly caused by you stopping the game to discuss mechanics.

Give us SOME form of unbiased information.

 

[DragonLancer]

DragonLancer: if this is the player who I think it is, then you have my sympathies. He reminds me of one of my players.

Cryptic… Who do you think he is?

There are several issues here, and one difficulty is that they are not being separated.

1. Rules-lawyering and DM Credibility.

The first issue is the role of rules. Rules exist to serve serveral functions, but one function that Dragonlancer may be overlooking is that they serve as arbiters of DM neutrality. If I were a player and sensed that my play style was *withing the rules* but *under attack from my DM*, I'd be a stickler for the rules too.

So, DL, I think one thing you have to work on is your credibility. Players will let a gamemaster they trust bend the rules. Players will be sticklers for the rules if they sense the DM is trying to bend them to a certain playstyle.

I do the following things to build credibility when I start any new group:

A. I state a list of all RULE 0s that I am currently aware of. That way they know in advance. (And, to be honest, I have some doozies -- for example, in my world, resurrection past a month's time is very rare. The dead tend to stay dead).

B. I roll in the open and state target numbers before the roll. The players do the same. That way, if an orc charging with a greataxe rolls a 20 and confirms, the player who is now going to die saw it happen. This is not me out to get them.

C. I scrupulously follow the rules unless there is an ingame reason to do otherwise. Players invest in the rules because the rules give them power over the gameworld. A DM's power to break the rules is a direct threat to the player's source of power. Therefore, any time I break the rules (and I do so occasionally) there is an INGAME -- not METAGAME -- reason why.

D. I state the rulesets that are applicable (for me, WOTC-published books, subject to rule-0 on any item that creates an instant or unavoidable kill).

A. I don’t really have any. Any house rules are always written up and given to the players before the characters are even drawn up, and are posted to the EGroup we use.
B. I don’t roll in the open. Never have done. I keep my rolls separate from the players. I don’t fudge rolls or pretend I rolled a critical when I didn’t...etc.
C. Same here. I have made a couple mistakes before, and in that regard Likuidice’s knowledge of the rules has been of great assistance. As much as I find rules lawyers annoying, I also find them useful when I can’t recall rules or we need something quick.
D. Again, same here. All suitable feats, PrC’s, spells and relevant books are given out to players before characters are made, and are posted to our EGroup. On occasions when I buy a new book, something may be added to the list but its not often and I decide what is and isn’t added.

Adding artificial limits on combat smacks of favoritism.

Why does it? I assume you mean in favour of the other players? It is one of those things the group favours in their gaming. That’s up to group how that works, not for Likuidice to decide.

However, I do have something to say in DL's defense -- even though his statements that someone who plays by the rules "refuses" to see his side of the picture is pretty rampant hypocrisy (and why is it that it isn't you who "refuses" to see his side?).

I do see his side. I have never said otherwise. But what I have been saying is that myself and the rest of the players disagree with his view. We can see and understand where he is coming from, but we don’t like the type of game he wants to play.

That's because I am a cooperative, polite player who knows when not to argue with the DM for the sake of the story. I know when to pick my fights about the rules (i.e., when the DM is 1. WRONG and 2. someone's life is at stake). When the DM is changing rules just to help the story, or when nobody is going to die as a result, I just let it slide.

So, where there's smoke, there's fire, Likuidice. I would suggest that you rules-lawyer-out on your DM only when he is 1. DEAD WRONG (not just arguably wrong like with silly fights over circumstance modifiers) and 2. only when someone's life is at stake. Otherwise, roll with the punch, and have fun with whatever new scenario is at stake.

Agreed and agreed.

Saying this is a "playstyle" thing doesn't seem quite honest: he plays immersive and roleplays just fine. You just don't like the damage his character does. If the rules let his character do that damage, then let him do it.

But it is a play style issue and at the end of the day (and this is the important bit) if my other players stop sending me e-mails complaining or telling me the problems they have with him (and yes, they have raised these same issues to him during and after a few games), and instead stop playing… we’re out of a game. So either we leave it as is, and have him annoy the other players more and more until they stop playing, he changes his play style, or we boot him. I would rather the middle option, but Likuidice is forcing us more towards the third option, while some people here would have us take the first. I’m not going to keep letting him spoil the game.

And, for clarity's sake, if you eliminate certain high-end warrior feats, certain item creation and metamagic feats would need to be excised as well, to prevent spellcasters from becoming magic item factories or arcane field howitzers.

I usually ban item creation feats except scrolls and potions anyway. Personal choice. If players can make magic items then I don’t see the point of me including them in the game. Pick that apart of you wish, but its my opinion and nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

But YOU let him have the combination of Feats, PrCls and equipment that let him do that 105pts of damage. Quite simply, the responsibility for that level of power yours- Likudice just used the rules you provided him for PC generation/development.

YOU have the power to say "No," so USE it. Its not your job to give Likudice everything on his PC's wish list.

But if I allow someone else those feats, who isn't going to use them to create the type of character that Likuidice is, thats favortism, and he would have a legitimate complaint. Having the power to say yes and no comes with the responsibility to use that wisely.

So, besides his obvious combat prowess, you don't like his acting chops? Is that it? Not every player is a talented amateur thespian.

I never said that. As I have said early in this thread, he can RP very well when he sets his mind to it, and even his regular gaming face is good as far as I’m concerned. It was one of my players who expressed that opinion.

A nice, if inaccurate, barb. We HAVE our Captain Killcrazy, but it bugs us not in the least. Why? That PC is a source of damage dealing and attack absorbtion that lets me play Pierre Chanson, the whip-wielding subterranean archeologist (Human Ftr/Rgr/Div/Spellsword) who probably will never have an offensive spell better than True Strike and will take weeks to do 100 points of damage. Because of his PC, another guy can play a gnomish monk whose combat contribution is just barely better than that of a kamikaze moth.

No offence folks, but I am getting tired of repeating myself. How you guy’s play is fine for YOUR group. By sounds of it the typical 3.X game as played by folks on these boards is all well and good. But for YOUR groups, not ours.

The style of play that WE enjoy is not like that. We have this unwritten understanding brought about by over a decade of playing together we all understand, and in this instance Likudice is NOT fitting in.

And I’ll repeat myself again… the incidents that I am talking about are from the old campaign (3.0) not the current (3.5). However, my reason for posting was to try and sort something out before we get to that stage in this campaign. But all I end up doing is repeating myself, because it seems (and again no offence intended) that some posters are not reading what has been said before, and are rehashing the same old stuff.

Of course, how unbalancing a Dragonslayer would be in Krynn would depend on how you handle their powers. Do you let Likudice apply his PC's Dragonslayer abilities to Draconians and Dragonspawn as well as Dragons?

Nope. True dragons only. And Likuidice knows this because he asked before he took the class.

 

[Gothmog]

I use the options available and approved by Dragonlancer, so I'm complained at for doing so? bear in mind that I have not actually used a character worthy of the smackdown threads, no spiked chain madness, no bag o' rats, no silly combos of prcs and such, all characters are created using mostly core material, fairly mainstream vanilla feats etc. Dragonlancer believes that feats such as improved critical and spell focus are munchkinism in the highest form.

My "rules arguing" only occurs in situations where house rules are used. If I take the trouble to learn the rules, why the hell are they not being used?

I think the thing you are failing to grasp is that even though something may be legal by the core rules, that doesn't matter if its not in line with the group's playing style. The core rules are a guideline for play- nothing more. They are not sacred, and every group/DM has the right to modify them however they see fit. No one set of rules is right for every group. Usually house rules are for flavor reasons, or to correct an imbalance in the rules according to the group's playstyle. Thats why many groups (in fact every group I have ever played in) has house rules, which trump and take the place of the core rules. Heck, I've got 8 pages of house rules for 3.5 to reflect the preferences of me and my group, I've prohibited all races but human, and most of the classes are revised to reflect an alternate magic system. And guess what? We have yet to have any major rules disputes because they trust my judgement and that I'll apply the rules fairly, and everyone is there to have fun, not to min/max a character or fight with the DM about rules minutiae.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

100 points of damage for a TWENTIETH level character, on a crit? Was he blind? Missing both arms? Honestly, that's not powergaming by any stretch of the imagination. I think you're just set in 2E thinking that tells you "100 is a big number," without really understanding what 20th level characters are capable of. A Balor (CR 20) has 290 hit points, and DR 15. If this guy is doing 100 points on a crit, that means 50 (or 33, depending on the weapon) on a regular attack - that's what, 8 to 10 rounds to kill an equal CR monster? Would you expect a 1st level character to take 8 to 10 rounds to kill an orc?

What was the rest of the party doing at 20th level? Did wizards not cast 9th level spells because they'd be "powergaming?" I really think the onus is on you to show us some stats, because I can't see how this player could possibly be the munchkin you make him out to be.

 

[am181d]

If I understand things correctly, this gaming group is only using the core books. How can you object to picking feats from the corebooks? What are these mysterious combinations of feats and abilities that are beyond casual gamers? I feel like I'm missing something.

 

[likuidice]

"and everyone is there to have fun, not to min/max a character" min maxing a character is something I find fun.

what I find amusing about this situation is the lack of bending from the rest of the group, I have toned down my characters to fit the group, but they are not willing to work a little toward my play style, I must cater to them, with no corresponding change in their play style to allow mine. it all seems very one sided.

my characters are far from invincible, they have died, just like anyone else, they have all the weaknesses inherent to their classes. and what seems to be overlooked is that my characters are capable of doing their min max thing only in very specific circumstances. the dwarven defender that was retired was capable of an ac of high 30s, but only while fighting a single giant, using max expertise, fighting defensively, dodging, in a defensive stance and possibly standing on one leg under a full moon. under normal circumstances his ac was 26 or 27, hardly gamebreaking for a class based around being a defender.

the ranger that just died was using the two weapon feat chain, and the instant knee jerk reaction was that 4 attacks at 7th level was totally over the top. despite the fact that his damage output sucked, he rarely hit anything, and it was a cool fighting style.

I don't like house rules that are not written down, that appear out of nowhere, or are broken for convenience.
example: the last campaign had an absolute ban on player killing, anyone who killed another character without being dominated etc was instantly shifted to evil and turned into an npc, fine in itself. until two of the other characters took it upon themselves, after an npc asked them to stop my character doing something, to assassinate my character. I'm annoyed, but expecting the offending characters to be npc'd as per the house rule we all agreed on. not only did the characters get very little happen to them as a result, they were actually rewarded for the act! this situation broke two of the rules we agreed on, no player killing, and any overtly evil act would result in being npc'd, with no repurcussions. I still have little faith in Dragonlancers judgement calls because of this.