Player Problem, need advice

[Saeviomagy]

That was the first and only time, that I can recall. I don't usually add to DC's, unless there is a real reason to do so.

I don't mean DC's - I mean anything at all. Combat rules, rulings on the amount of actions taken to do something, high amounts of damage etc.

I believe so, yes. No more than 2 at most.

See - to someone who knows the rules, this really does seem a bit odd. It's not the normal number for circumstance bonuses, and it just happens that the extra point caused me to fail... It's only a short jump from there to "the GM is screwing me".

I don't believe so. I treat everyone equally in the group, and I don't try to screw anyone over.

I appreciate that you try to do so, but my point was that without realising, you may cause him to think that this is what you're doing. It sounds like you've lost this player's trust.

 

[BSF]

If he doesn't like it then he should know that I wouldn't be offended if he left because of it. Matter of fact, I would rather he say if he felt that way. I'm a fair DM. I don't try to screw characters over.
If thats the case I understand it. 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.

I currently play in a game once a week and run a seperate game, with a completely different group, 3 times a month. I have actually enjoyed just playing and trying to build up a character based zone of influence. It is a fun game. With the group I run, I think most of them trust me pretty much. In the last couple of years, I have had two players get mad at game events, but they weren't really mad at me, just the results of the situation. I have made calls that some could construe as questionable, but never with an intent to penalize a PC or a player. I do try to talk with my players often to gauge how they think the game is going and to give them a chance to discuss concerns, and I think that helps. In the end, I am generally rooting for the PC's to win, but I will play the opposition realistically. I think it also helps that I try to find ways to reward PC's with "odd" or "sub-optimal" development choices.

Right now, I have a PC in a my group that has a ton of points devoted to craft skills. He keeps getting asked by one of the party's patrons to make stuff for him. Since I use Rel's alternate experience system, the PC is gaining experience for using his craft skills. Also, the patron will generally start off a request by asking the PC to craft an item to prove his skill. If the item comes out well, the patron tells the PC that he does excellent work, keep the item, here is what he really wants. So, the PC is slowly building up some masterwork items that he created for himself. I know that a lot of players would think "craft skill, why take that", but my player trusted that he would be given opportunities to make that skill choice pay off.

I'm sure you are a fair DM. Obviously, your other players have a lot of trust in you. Either this player has a lack of trust, or a problem with a loss of control. If that is the case, then not only should he feel comfortable leaving, he should leave so that the situation doesn't deteriorate.

It could be that, but it was never intended that way. The encounter was not a major way, and it was designed around what I knew the characters were and were not capable of. They actually did really well with it, for which I was quite pleased. I made that call because I wanted the encounter to be a little more challenging, but it was still well within their ability to detect.

I design my encounters much the same way. I know what the PC's can do. Sometimes an encounter is a little more difficult than they anticipated. Sometimes they have to fight a little harder, or be a little more clever to overcome a challenge. This is the way it should be. This isn't a static game, it is dynamic with parameters that can change. Players should expect the unexpected. My players have fun with the stuff that they can deal with normally. But, they seem to really enjoy overcoming those situations that are just a little harder than they expected.

It is unfortunate that the PC missed the spot check by the difference of the situational modifier. But, those are the breaks. It doesn't mean you are out to get the PC's. Instead, it drives home the fact that these draconians were a little different. Maybe a little smarter or whatever. I will go against the grain here and also confess that I have chosen situational modifiers that are not a +2. +2 is a good number and I use it a lot, but I have been known to use a +3, or even a +5. Heck, this last Friday I was putting all sorts of situational modifiers on spot checks in dense undergrowth of a dense forest in driving rain. Ridiculously high DC's to spot the Trolls charging through the forest. My players didn't even bat an eye, especially when some of the Trolls overshot where they were going as well. It's all about trust. My players knew I wasn't going to arbitrarily screw them. The players need to trust the DM, and to a certain degree, the DM needs to trust the players as well. Otherwise, you end up with bickering instead of gaming.

 

[William Ronald]

DragonLancer: I think the player needs to realize that other playing styles are valid, and that a DM has to interprept the rules. Perhaps it might be good to show him examples of play styles where role-playing and action co-exist in good balance. (Possibly you might want to refer the player to the Story Hour forum. Piratecat's and Sepulchrave's story hours are very good.)

I find it best to try to work with problem players. However, sometimes playing styles can strongly conflict with each other. A possible solution is to have parts of some adventures oriented to different styles. Perhaps you can set up an adventure where the role playing has an important impact in the part of the adventure which he is interested in. He may have to win over a potential ally, or prove his worth to someone. You might also give him a few situations where his character needs to use his wits or talk his way out of a situation.

If all else fails, it would be better to ask a player to leave than to have a group fall apart due to infighting. It is important for a players to have faith in their DM -- as well as each other.

 

[likuidice]

*grumbles*

right, finally found this thread.

I'm the player in question.
I have a few things to add:
my choices for my characters focus on whatever the character class is, a rogue gets skill focus move silent etc, a wizard gets spell penetration, and a fighter gets *gasp* combat feats. The problem I have is that the other characters in this group choose feats, classes, skills etc that are not combat oriented, and then complain when my combat characters outshine them in combat. if this was a combat oriented game with little roleplaying, i could see the point, but the other characters have their own niches. I don't complain about the bards massive diplomacy modifier, or the rogues ability to practically vanish with his move silent skill. I do not have a problem with roleplaying. I do however have a problem with being complained about BEHIND MY BACK about the choices that other players have made for their characters. if they want to choose alertness over weapon focus, or bard over fighter, fine, but don't complain at me because I have a fighter who *shock horror* is actually good at fighting. and I sure as hell don't want to hear that my character, who incidentally is behind the other fighter in the group in terms of damage output, is some "twinked out uber-combat-monster" when the other characters in the group totally outstrip me in other situations. in fact, if thats the case, surely I have a legitimate complaint if the other characters diplomacy scores are a few points higher than mine, or the rogue can disarm traps...obviously thats not fair, is it?

 

[Whimsical]

No, it's not. It's obvious that your DM is a jerk and the other players are pathetic losers who are jealous of your superior D&D-fu. They are obviously not good enough for you. Find another group.

Use RPGIndex Player Finder, or RPGA (select your State at the bottom of the page). I have had good luck finding players with AccessDenied.net. Use the net, Luke.

 

[Whimsical]

Ok, seriously, without sarcasm, find another group. You style of play and their style of play do not match. If they changed the way they played to the style you prefer, they would not be having fun. And it seems that if you change the way you play to match their style, you won't be having fun.

What you need to know is that the way you want to play is not the "best" or "only" way to play, just the best way for you. There are many different types of players, each with their own way of gaining satisfaction from a roleplaying game. Obviously rules fidelity is not important to your DM, but other elements are.

You know what is interesting? I would happily let you join my game if I was running one. Why? Because I'm a simulationist and a tactician. I pit the players against interesting scenarios and let the rules and dice decide what happens. I'm also a rules lawyer. I challenge myself to master the D&D rulesset and run the game by the rules as much as I can. This is fun for me. If you suck at roleplay, that's OK. I do also. And I have a very hard time creating a storyline for my players; I rely on running published adventures instead.

But you should know that if your DM is complaining behind your back, it is because talking to you about the problem to your face hasn't worked, and he is looking for another way to deal with the problem while trying to prevent hurting your feelings or dropping you as a player.

Tell me. What should he have done? What should he do?

 

[tonym]

Hey, likuidice, I had a similar situation as the one between you and your DM once. I told some guy who seemed wiser than me about it and he said that the real problem was that the DM did not like me.

Could this be the real issue?

If so, maybe you two guys could show-up for gaming a couple hours early so you can try to clear-the-air, by talking and listening and trying to figure out a way where you both don't bug each other as much.

Tony M

 

[DragonLancer]

Perhaps you can set up an adventure where the role playing has an important impact in the part of the adventure which he is interested in. He may have to win over a potential ally, or prove his worth to someone. You might also give him a few situations where his character needs to use his wits or talk his way out of a situation.

That’s kind of what I do. I see what strengths people have, and try to run scenario’s where they get the opportunity to use them. The bard with his diplomacy, the gnome and his tinkering…etc, they all get the chance to show off their skills. In this case, Likuidice is playing a Dragonslayer… we’re playing in the Dragonlance setting, and there is plenty of opportunity to show off his dragonslaying abilities.

my choices for my characters focus on whatever the character class is, a rogue gets skill focus move silent etc, a wizard gets spell penetration, and a fighter gets *gasp* combat feats. The problem I have is that the other characters in this group choose feats, classes, skills etc that are not combat oriented, and then complain when my combat characters outshine them in combat. if this was a combat oriented game with little roleplaying, i could see the point, but the other characters have their own niches. I don't complain about the bards massive diplomacy modifier, or the rogues ability to practically vanish with his move silent skill. I do not have a problem with roleplaying.

Good to see you here, so you can have your say.
It’s not the case of a having a niche. I have no problem with players playing their part of the party.
The complaints are not because you outshine them but because your characters often get very (sometimes overly so) powerful, your cleric from the end of the last season, who was regularly pulling off over 100 points of damage with each hit, for example.
You might say we play a simplistic game compared to the way the game is written or how the folks on here play, but it’s a level of game that the majority of the group prefers and enjoys. You don’t play that level of the game. You play the game as written, and see the rules as written in stone, which any DM will tell you, is not how it works.

I do however have a problem with being complained about BEHIND MY BACK about the choices that other players have made for their characters. if they want to choose alertness over weapon focus, or bard over fighter, fine, but don't complain at me because I have a fighter who *shock horror* is actually good at fighting. and I sure as hell don't want to hear that my character, who incidentally is behind the other fighter in the group in terms of damage output, is some "twinked out uber-combat-monster" when the other characters in the group totally outstrip me in other situations. in fact, if thats the case, surely I have a legitimate complaint if the other characters diplomacy scores are a few points higher than mine, or the rogue can disarm traps...obviously thats not fair, is it?

It wasn’t behind your back. I have tried on several occasions over the past year and a half to explain to you how the rest of us play. Some of the other players have tried to do so as well, but you refuse to see our point of view. There’s being good at fighting/spellcasting/whatever, but when you overshadow everyone else due to different styles then there is a problem. True, I shouldn’t force you to play down to our style but if it continues to cause friction within the group, then its not fair that the rest of us have to put up with it. I’m not being offensive there, but it simply comes down to the fact that we have a massive difference between our styles, and that you do not listen when we try to explain things or our side to you.

The reason your current character is behind on damage dealing is because you have taken 3 classes and a PrC, but that doesn’t stop you pulling off some nice damage. Both K’aros (Minotaur Fighter/Barbarian) and Servos (Gnome Barbarian/Rogue) are only dual class. As the game goes along I fully expect your character to leap well ahead of them.

But you should know that if your DM is complaining behind your back, it is because talking to you about the problem to your face hasn't worked, and he is looking for another way to deal with the problem while trying to prevent hurting your feelings or dropping you as a player.

Tell me. What should he have done? What should he do?

Likuidice: How can it be talking behind your back when I have said exactly the same things to you as have been said to and by others in the group. Nothing has been kept from you. Even the posting of this thread was not kept from you.

I am looking to find a way to fix the situation, without spoiling our friendship.

If because of this, you do decide to leave the group I will gladly help you find another and/or start your own group. I would rather see you try and fit in, but I don't think that will happen.

 

[DragonLancer]

Hey, likuidice, I had a similar situation as the one between you and your DM once. I told some guy who seemed wiser than me about it and he said that the real problem was that the DM did not like me.

Could this be the real issue?

I can honestly say that this isn't the case. I've know Likuidice for a good few years (must be about 6 or 7 years now?), and he's a good bloke. No complaints outside of this situation.

 

[Minicol]

He is a rules-lawyer as well...

about how the rules are different from previous editions... (1)
So What ?

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.(2)

(1) So What ?

(2) Rule 0 : circumstance modifier. You were right, he was not. kick him out.

I have the same kind of problem currently with a player. The problem one is not invited anymore. I have sympathy for him, but that's it. We offered him several times to change his ways but he refuses to compromise, and antagonizes the others. Too bad for him. He will be invited again if he chooses to forget about personal disputes and do anything worthwhile for the group and not his egoistical lazy butt.

just my opinion anyways