Player Problem, need advice

[DragonLancer]

Thats actually an argument that the player in question gave during our discussion the other day. The designers have turned 3.x D&D into a game where it is based more on combat than previous editions. 3rd ed reads more like a videogame, with feats (this is the main problem I think) replacing powerups, and turning the game more combat orientated.

1st and 2nd editions, didn't really have anything like feats, and so combats were straight forward and simple with the only mods or changes coming from a bonus on a weapon to some funky spell a cleric or mage cast. With 3rd edition, combat has become much more heavy handed, and feats have added power.

Myself and my group are still very much into the style of 1st and 2nd edition, where as the problem player came into the hobby when 3rd was released, so he sees the game differently.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I like Dannyalcatraz's advice.

If you prefer not to kick out a player, then you need to make appropriate changes to the game so he can have some time every session doing what he likes. If he likes combat, let him kick ass. But that same general idea applies to other players at the table, and even yourself the DM. In an ideal world, every participant at the table gets to have situations that are suited to his preferred style. If that means heavy roleplaying that bores one particular player for 3/4 of the session because that is the predominant preferred style, that is really his problem. If you and the other players are willing to bend a little to accomodate him, he needs to do the same. It may so happen that bending your game in a manner that is fair to the other players will not be 'good enough' for this player; so be it.

 

[tonym]

... I think his main issue is that the game is written in stone, and that he can't abide it when the game requires the DM to make rules judgements based on the given the situation...

Uh oh.
The classic willful-player-questioning-the-DM's-authority problem.
.

... (his current character isn't too bad as yet, but we'll see...) ...

His current character isn't too bad? Sounds to me like the guy has listened to the complaints and has taken a step towards your Point-of-View.

I vote for cutting him some slack.


Tony

 

[Ibram]

Dont punish in game characeters for their player actions, thats an abuse of your powers as a DM.

If you dont want to kick him out then tell him straight up that your games dont focus as much on combat as other games might (this is something I always tell my players) and that he should design his character accordingly. If he insits on creating combat monsters then just ask him to leave, telling him that his style of play does not mesh with your own.

just beacuse he may be acting like a rude jerk (that comment about "crap" characters was very much out of line) is not an excuse to act the same way.

 

[Gothmog]

This sounds clearly like two different playstyles butting heads (deep immersion vs. hack-n-slash). Unfortunately, these two styles are utterly at odds, and there isn't much of a middle ground IME. In every case I have had a munchkin powergamer in the group, we've eventually had to get rid of them because they are so destructive to the type of game my players and I like to play. Now one thing to consider is that this guy is new to gaming (2 years), so he might mature past this phase. But if he is deriding and antagonizing other players, his butt belongs at the curb.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi DragonLancer,

We had a similar situation to this with our group so I can speak from a fair degree of experience. I think I can isolate your problems to two issues:

- He likes following the rules to the letter - that means precise rulings are demanded from him. In other words, he is most likely putting a fair amount of pressure on your own knowledge of the rules. Where as you are happy to go on the fly with what feels right - a la 1st, 2nd - he demands that the rules be followed to the letter.

- It seems like you are dissatisfied with his role-playing more so than his roll-playing. This is especially true if he is primarily playing chaotic characters - who generally sway away from co-operative efforts. This alienates the character from the party and from there, the player will quickly follow in terms of the group.

I would suggest the following:

If you want to play 3rd ed. try to follow the rules as much as possible without consistently hiding behind rule zero. If this does not suit your playstyle, previous versions may be more suitable for you guys. 3rd ed. requires a deeper knowledge of the rules on your part - to rules lawyer status at least.

Encourage the player to play chaotic characters to their wisdom score. As long as they have a reasonable wisdom, they are aware and cognizant of the consequences of their actions. They can play a chaotic character without being totally unco-operative with the rest of the group.

If you want to expand the players roleplaying skills, tie rewards not to XP and Gold - the primary rewards from combat encounters - but to social interactions. This is campaign specific and so I'd need to have a better idea of the background of your game before giving further advice on this. He can have fun maxing out his diplomacy as well as his to hit pluses.

Post back if the above sounds familiar.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[S'mon]

2 possibilities if you were desperate to keep him:

1. Iron control over PC generation. PHB core rules only, 25 point-buy (or even Default Array - yeah...), all characters sheets to be lodged with GM. The less he has to work with, the less he can munchkinise his character beyond the other PCs.

2. Use a different, less rules-based, RPG system. If he doesn't like it he can leave.

 

[DragonLancer]

Uh oh.
The classic willful-player-questioning-the-DM's-authority problem.

His current character isn't too bad? Sounds to me like the guy has listened to the complaints and has taken a step towards your Point-of-View.

He is a rules-lawyer as well, and as much as that does grate a little, he is a good resource for rules that I can’t remember or don’t want to waste time looking up.

When I say that his current character isn’t too bad, that’s because this is his second character of the campaign, and has only been around for about 3 sessions and he is still finding his feet with it.

Sadly, no, he does not (and I think refuses to) see my POV. He sees his side of the argument as correct, and doesn’t seem to understand mine. I can see what he is saying, about how the rules are different from previous editions and how they lend themselves naturally to a more twinky style (again, no offence, but I can’t think of a better way to describe them).

We had a similar situation to this with our group so I can speak from a fair degree of experience. I think I can isolate your problems to two issues:

- He likes following the rules to the letter - that means precise rulings are demanded from him. In other words, he is most likely putting a fair amount of pressure on your own knowledge of the rules. Where as you are happy to go on the fly with what feels right - a la 1st, 2nd - he demands that the rules be followed to the letter.

- It seems like you are dissatisfied with his role-playing more so than his roll-playing. This is especially true if he is primarily playing chaotic characters - who generally sway away from co-operative efforts. This alienates the character from the party and from there, the player will quickly follow in terms of the group.

Yes, he’s a rules lawyer and a stickler for the rules as written. He has said in the past that he must have a solid frame of rules, and that to make on-the-spot judgements that deviate a little from the rules presented in the core books screws with design of the game and makes characters pointless. An example being, in a recent scenario (just over a month ago) the party was travelling across a cold desert and was attacked by a small band of invisible Draconians. They were flying, so I raised the DC for spotting invisible opponents by about 3 points as I figured that if they sufficiently high enough above the sand it would be less likely that the party would spot any motion in the sand to indicate their presence. He rolled a spot and failed it because I had raised the DC by those couple points. His first reaction was “they aren’t invisible then.” Metagaming perhaps, but I didn’t care really. But afterwards when we (the group) were discussing the game and I explained about that encounter, he was quite P.O.ed that I had made that ruling because it clearly stated that the spot check in the PHB was X and that I had messed with his character design.

It is his roll-playing that we have the problem with. When the guy puts his mind to it, he can be quite the good RPer. He’s just far too hung up on the rules, and insists on making uber-characters. As I have said, that wouldn’t be so bad if the rest of us played like that, but we don’t.

I would suggest the following:

If you want to play 3rd ed. try to follow the rules as much as possible without consistently hiding behind rule zero.

If you want to expand the players roleplaying skills, tie rewards not to XP and Gold - the primary rewards from combat encounters - but to social interactions. This is campaign specific and so I'd need to have a better idea of the background of your game before giving further advice on this. He can have fun maxing out his diplomacy as well as his to hit pluses.

Post back if the above sounds familiar.

I don’t use the Rule Zero all that often in all honesty. But I do make judgement calls when I feel a given situation requires it. The rest of the group understands that and supports it.

I do award XP for RP and diplomacy, not for treasure collection. But the XP gained for combat is still higher than what I award for RP. I don’t think that will change unless I really fiddle with the XP and levelling system. I find that under 3.X that characters level far too quickly anyway.

2. Use a different, less rules-based, RPG system. If he doesn't like it he can leave.

Well, this player and myself have been invited to join a new 1st edition game in a few weeks. I have dug my books out for that, but I have a very strong suspicion that it will drive him mad.

We all like 3.X D&D, but his style and ours just don't mesh. I think that from reading your good advice (thankyou everyone who posted) that I will hold on until he raises the roof again, and then explain that it isn't working, and I will offer to help him either start his own game or find another group more fitting to his style of gaming.

 

[Silveras]

Adjudicating
When everyong gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do out-side the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within a game. Good players will always recognize that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DM's know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel (more on that later).

Emphasis added, of course.

A player who relies on the books for everything should be careful; there are some landmines in there. The above quote is probably just what you need to show your problem player that you are playing by the rules.

Ultimately, Dragonlancer, I agree that it sounds like a matter of style. I ended a campaign a year or so ago because the players and I had different styles. No one was "wrong", we just did not want to play the same kind of game. It is better, I think, to recognize that and walk away than it is to let tempers boil over the frustration.

 

[Hjorimir]

/shrug

How can this guy know the rules inside and out and not be familiar with circumstance modifiers?

When he DMs, he can make the rulings. Otherwise, he should enjoy anything you provide for his enjoyment and entertainment and be respectful of your labors and rulings.