Player Problem, need advice

[Bendris Noulg]

Meh. There are a couple of posters who get on these "player vs. DM" threads and clearly show their lack of social skills - these people can be clearly picked out based on previous threads. EN World has a few such notables. (Sometimes I wonder how they manage to get by in real life, much less a messageboard...)

I think that, in face-to-face, people have a tendancy to be more diplomatic (or, as I call it, "playing pussy-foot around the issue"). You are in the room with the individual, can see the individual's face, the individual's eyes, the individual's body language. This puts a lot more emphasis on trying to get your point across without outright offending the individual.

On a message board, the primary concern for many people is saying what they feel without getting banned for it.

That said, I don't feel Dragonlancer's views are illegitament; anyone that has joined an established group is the one that has the task of fitting in or leaving. Expecting (indeed, requiring!) the group to change in order to accomodate the new player is rediculous. My personal theory is that those who feel that Dragonlancer's group should do so are more likely not approving of Dragonlancer's style and feel that he should change to accomodate the style they more prefer.

And, no, I don't think this is short-sighted or hypocritical. If I was invited to join an established group and found their playstyle to be opposite of mine (i.e., combat heavy, little world-involvement, verisimilitude-out-the-window, etc.), I wouldn't complain about it. I'd simply acknowledge the fact that they are different than me and leave.

There's no reason for this to be a situation that results in hurt feelings unless it goes on longer than it should. To which, if Likuidice can't or won't fit into the group, than the group has to be commited to self-preservation and ask him to leave.

In such instances, I do try to hook-up non-fitting players with like-minded groups, although this isn't always possible.

 

[derverdammte]

And from what I can tell, you either haven’t read what I’ve said or are just trying to start an argument.

Based on the replies to your posts, you haven't gotten your point across consistently to anyone. Having read your posts (well, I read quite a bit of the thread, then I skipped it once it became clear that you had no new information to offer), all you seem to be doing is complaining and not getting into the specifics.

Over 7 pages I have repeatedly said that the problem is play style. what more do you want to know? He wants to play a game where the style is that presented as standard in the core books, and the rest of the group wants to play a game thats toned down from that, and its a case of you can't accomdate both and keep everyone happen. Thats the problem. Five of us who like to play the game in certain way, and one who doesn’t, and that one is has drawn complaints from the other players, not just myself. I posted on here to try and get some advice how to handle this split, but all I have got (with some exceptions, and thankyou to those posters) is a lot of hocky about how its my fault, that I’m a bad DM for not letting the player do what he wants, instead of helpful words to get the group back together again.
Try reading my posts!

Try exercising some control over your own game, instead of posting a thread about it, then failing to take control over it in real life. You can accommodate a lot of different playing styles in a single game, and your tendency to post extremely generalized whinges instead of actually SAYING what's wrong gives me the impression that you're, as I said, a lousy DM who's gotten by on players who tolerate his weaknesses.

Admittedly Likuidice hasn’t done anything to help the situation, being just as negative as you have been. He could have put forward something helpful and hasn’t.

If you've been as "helpful" directly towards him as you have been in this thread, I don't blame him for being frustrated. Instead of working towards solving the perceived problem, you're complaining about it and then continuing to mishandle your games. It sounds like you'd be utterly worthless to play with, and it actually speaks against Likuidice that he's still playing at all--then again, sometimes you're just desperate to game.

I've noticed. I'm seriously regretting having come here for intelligent advice. So much for the great ENWorld.

If you're having a problem that you clearly helped caused and are doing nothing to help solve, you deserve ridicule, rather than advice. Especially if you're going to post a thread about it.

 

[gideonn]

One solution: dump him

It is that simple. The moment he termed the other PCs as 'crap,' the die was cast. Stop beating yourself up over this. Tell him to take a hike, hit the road, get lost.

Been through this three times in three different game groups, and the person never changed. Doubt they are capable. Each time I ended up excluding the offender, [and I do find it offensive.]

Dump him and get on with your game.

 

[BSF]

Based on the replies to your posts, you haven't gotten your point across consistently to anyone. Having read your posts (well, I read quite a bit of the thread, then I skipped it once it became clear that you had no new information to offer), all you seem to be doing is complaining and not getting into the specifics.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of the issue. As well, I stated many posts ago that the people that have never experienced a wide range of differences in playstyle will not be able to understand the problem. This is not a knock on anyone at all. If you don't understand the underlying problem, it is because you have been fortunate to have compatible playstyles when you have gamed.

This is a situation where there must be concessions made on playstyle, or a parting of the ways. Expecting the established group to change to accomodate what one player wants is not realistic, unless the group values the contribution of the non-comforming member enough to do that. It is easier for one person to change his expectations than to change an established group. If likuidice doesn't want to change his playstyle, that is fine, but he has to accept that this is not the group for him.

It doesn't matter how many people are crying "foul" and "bad DM". It doesn't matter if you think the situation is "fair". Personal attacks are not helpful either. This is a playstyle issue, though it is not a simple one because it isn't a right/wrong conflict.

Dragonlancer, I'm sorry if I can't offer much in the way of usable advice. As I see it, this is a matter of compromise by one side or the other, or it is a matter where it is best addressed by amicably agreeing to disagree and carry friendship through non-gaming activities.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I'm not saying you should you should show favoritism, but it mystifies me you think that there would be a difference in damage dealt if another PC had the same feats.

What is the Feat or PrCl combo that lets him do this kind of damage? How powerful are his arms and armor? And 2 PCs with roughly the same feat selection will do similar damage.

You have run smack dab into the teeth of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Look at WOTC's other big game, M:TG. Certain cards were incredibly powerful when combined with other, particular cards, resulting in near certain victory when successfully played. For tournaments, WOTC couldn't ban the combo, so they banned one or both of the cards in the combo. They didn't want unbeatable combos that made the game less enjoyable, but they still occurred.

Here, Likudice has found a combination of Feats & PrCls permitted in your campaign that you think allow him to do excessive damage. LoUC.

I see only 2 choices:

1) Ban the feats (or PrCls) that causing the massive damage problem. You cannot rationally expect someone not to use a combination of permitted game features just because it doesn't meet your standards of style. Unless there is a hard and fast rule, that style boundary is going to be broken. It isn't fair to say "You can do this, but if I find it uncool in some way down the road, I'll gripe at EN World." It isn't favoritism, its neutering. You are effectively saying to Likudice-"These other players can use this feat properly, but you abuse it, so I really think you ought not use it."

2) You and Likudice should go your seperate ways (hopefully amicably), at least as gamers.

 

[random user]

Look at WOTC's other big game, M:TG. Certain cards were incredibly powerful when combined with other, particular cards, resulting in near certain victory when successfully played. For tournaments, WOTC couldn't ban the combo, so they banned one or both of the cards in the combo. They didn't want unbeatable combos that made the game less enjoyable, but they still occurred.

Apologies for those who don't play M:TG, I will try to make this understandable even without knowing what mtg is. I think mtg actually provides a good analogy.

Take this hypotethical situation:

My friends and I have been playing MtG since it came out in 1994. We were lucky and got the beta cards, and were able to trade around. We played the utterly rediculously powerful 40 black lotus 10 time walk 9 timetwister 1 fireball deck, and all the other incarnations of powerful decks after various rules (such as banning certain cards and only having 4 of a card in a deck) for a while.

Then we got bored and decided we were over it. Now we just play fun decks, like my "OMG it's squirrels!" (which is funny but not that powerful) and my goofy nettling imp/royal assassin/icy manipulator deck (which is gimicky and doesn't usually work and is vulnerable to many decks). My friends have similar decks too, and we have good fun just messing around.

Then I had another friend who recently joined. He's playing the newest affinity deck (one of the top-ish decks at the moment), similar to ones which win tournaments. And he wants to play against us. He doesn't understand the decks we play -- to him they are stupid and inefficient.

It's not that we don't have access to the cards he has, we just don't want to play that way. Our play group doesn't ban cards or come up with other "rules." We have just informally decided that if a deck is too good, it won't be played. This new friend always wants to play the top tournament decks against our decks, and since they decks aren't of a similar power level, it's no fun.

He thinks we should make some better decks so he can have fun too. The problem is my old friends have already "been there done that" and don't have any desire to return to it.

Should we make these decks to appease him? Or should we just play the decks we like and ask him to either make a deck of similar power level or find other people to play with?

<end hypothetical situation>

I don't think you have to explicitly ban anything. His play group has access to killer combos, they just choose to play without them. They (I assume) understand how to min-max, they just choose not to.

While I think there should be some give and take in groups, sometimes the best situation is to just not game together.

Some people can have fun playing a 200 card highlander deck (this deck has only one of each card, and has a large deck size, so a lot of inefficient cards will end up being played ... it's a pretty weak deck overall). Others will be satisfied with nothing less than tournament worthy decks. Making them sometimes play the other kind of deck or character will just lead to frustration and a bad time. This, imo, applies to both MTG and DnD.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Should we make these decks to appease him? Or should we just play the decks we like and ask him to either make a deck of similar power level or find other people to play with?

The problem with this example is, as far as anyone involved has explained it, the newcomer HAS adapted. He now shows up with decks (characters) that are equal to if not inferior to those of the original group. But the original group are saying "no, you're still going to beat us and you haven't changed".

As far as I can see there is no problem here, besides DragonLancer having an inherent dislike for liquidice that is spilling into the game, causing him to make one-sided judgements and playing the game like it's him and his cronies vs liquidice. Understandably the upshot of this is going to be liquidice making more powerful characters rather than less powerful ones. I'm really surprised that liquidice is showing the restraint that he is.

Liquidice - get out of there. DL sounds like he's one of the worst DM's I've heard of.

 

[random user]

The problem with this example is, as far as anyone involved has explained it, the newcomer HAS adapted. He now shows up with decks (characters) that are equal to if not inferior to those of the original group. But the original group are saying "no, you're still going to beat us and you haven't changed".

Well, I don't think that's clear. To keep using, I'll admit not the greatest analogy, MtG, making a 200 card highlander deck but still sticking in the power 9 (9 very powerful cards from the original set) and other tournament level cards makes one appear to be playing the same game, when in actuality there is still a big difference.

There is a big difference between playing by the RULES of the game (ie 200 card deck, one of each card max) versus playing by the SPIRIT of the game (which is whatever the established group has decided it is, in this case perhaps something like "a casual deck with fun cards"... of course it's up to each person to decide what a "fun" card is, and perhaps part of the cause of discord).

I don't think that from these random snippets we (or at least I) can judge exactly what's going on. But, I posted my thoughts on the off chance it allows them to think of the situation in perhaps a slightly different light.

 

[hong]

I am going to deny it. You obviously have not read what I have posted through this thread. I’m sure even Likuidice would agree that I’m not a railroader in anyway shape or form.

Sure, sure.

I find it hard to be a player sometimes because I feel lost without the total control over the game I have as a DM.

You have "total control" over a game that you DM? I find that an interesting choice of words. Because I sure as hell don't think I have "total control" over the game I DM. I think I set the stage, and then the players do as they please. Only a DM who places great store on control could think of running the game primarily in those terms.

The DM has full authority to deny a character taking a PrC if there is sufficient reason to say that the character has not worked towards it IC or that it does not fit the concept that the player seems to be playing.

Notice how the second reason is not because the player hasn't met the prereqs (mechanical or RP), or because the PrC is broken, or because its flavour doesn't fit the campaign. All of these are valid reasons to deny someone a PrC. What you've said, however, amounts to backseat driving: you believe you know better than the player what their character concept is.

It is true that Likuidice’s attitude and personality have caused conflicts in-and outside of the game, with at least two of the players. I’m not going to get into a bashing contest because even with that because everyone is still friends. But I don’t think this has much to do with the fitting in problem. It has been inflamed by his arguing over rules and trivial game matters.

Dude, just dump him from the game before he dumps you. Call him a munchkin if you want. Call him an annoying dweeb. Call him anything, if it'll help the healing process.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If Likudice and some of the other players would post their PCs, I think we'd get a real picture of what is really going on.