Player Problem, need advice

[billd91]

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?

OK, I think that we're seeing a very different perception of what the whole debate is about. There clearly seems to have been a breakdown in communications and by that I mean listening to and understanding each other as well as speaking your peace.
likuidice, did your DM or any other players approach you about clashing playing styles and being unbending on rule interpretations? He says up and down that he did. Any other players from that campaign want to pitch in their perceptions of the ongoing debate?
I find that very different perceptions of what is going on in a discussion really affects the level of communication. You may not even be having the same conversation, from your own points of view. Currently, the two of you seem to be mentioning completely different situations. Though I have to say, as a DM who does a lot of things in a very loose way when it comes to setting DCs and all that and prefers middle ground between high-optimized power gaming and immersive role-playing, I currently sympathize with DragonLancer. If there's too much tension in the group and it's one unbending player against the rest, it's not hard to see who has to either change, mellow out, or leave for the good of the rest.

 

[BSF]

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.
<snip for brevity>

Actually, that does not sound like the problem. Calling other PC's "crap" is a problem. It is one that is assured of getting a speaking to from me if you are in my group. If you cannot behave in a respectful manner of your friends, then you will be invited to play elsewhere. I invite my friends to play at my house. I expect a civil environment and I will go a long way out of my way to be a peacemaker. But, I will also cut you loose if you abuse my hospitality. I have been overlooking that alleged comment because Dragonlancer mentioned it once, but has not commented on it again. Perhaps it was a comment heard out of context, but if that is really your opinion on the builds of the other PC's, then it does establish an adversarial "I am better than they are" mindset.

I trust Dragonlancer's assessment of the situation, from his perspective. But, I am willing to hear yours as well. It is always better to hear both (if not more) perspectives on a possible problem.

likuidice, what is it that seems to be the problem from your perspective? As it is, right now I am inclined to suggest that you might be happier running a game yourself. You seem to have a clash on gaming styles, but neither style is "wrong". However, the styles may not be very compatible. But, what is the problem as you perceive it?

 

[DragonLancer]

But, I am willing to hear yours as well. It is always better to hear both (if not more) perspectives on a possible problem.

I shall see if I can get the other players to post on here to give their POV.

We have tried to explain during game (a bad idea at the best of times), after the game, and away from the gaming table.

 

[reapersaurus]

likuidice, you have my sympathy.

The way I read it, you're in a group of players and DM that don't care about the gaming side of D&D.
They don't enjoy cranking thru rulebooks and selecting the best alternatives, and making an effective combat character.

They seem to get all they need out of simple exchanges and roleplaying scenes.

I've been close to where you are, and I may have a perspective that can help you.
I'm an unapologetic power-gamer - I strongly believe that these hundreds of pages of rules that are published should be there for a reason. If the group didn't want to follow the rules, they needen't have bought the books, right?
I believe that a strong component of the game is making effective combinations of feats, skills, weapons, etc that helps a character to be strong in combat. I prefer to play a hero character that is known for being good in combat. Tales wouldn't be told of a character that 'wasted' feats, most likely.

While I think my style of play is just fine for me, it is not the style that some of my group prefer. They are similar to your group - roleplayers who don't like to read up on rules.
What I found out is that there is no good way to get your gaming fix in that kind of group - it will simply be unwelcomed and inappropriate in that kind of game. You need to find a way to modify your style of play, stepping back from the adherence to rules, and just concentrate on the roleplaying aspects of your character.
Let the combat kind of slide on by - do your part, but let the DM worry about getting the combats resolved without killing a PC.

It's not easy to modify your style so drastically, and you may not get as much satisfaction out of playing that way. Which is why I STRONGLY recommend to get your gaming outlet from another source: find a Gladiator Tournament kind of game on the internet. Immerse yourself in some game that uses rules excusively. You'll get satisfied. It just won;t be from your group. Which is fine - different strokes for different folks. Realize you can't change the way a GROUP prefers to play. All you can do is affect your approach.

Good luck. Hope this helps you to stay with a group that seems to want to stay together.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From reading the latest, it really seems as if Dragonlancer and Likudice aren't really listening to each other. There's a fundamental communication breakdown.

Dragonlancer- step back a second and analyze your DM style for a minute.

I had a GM in another system who, in the process of running a combat, did not let a pair of trained sharpshooter NPCs (allies of the party) climb a tree and fire even one round during a combat. Part of it was that he wanted the PCs to achieve the combat objective, but he DID let us have these guys on our team. It seemed completely arbitrary to keep the NPCs out of the combat, it disrupted the party's plans, and annoyed the hell out of some of the players.

If you make too many rulings that seemingly go against a combat-oriented PC, even unintentionally, the player can, understandibly, feel put out.

If you make a ruling for dramatic reasons (like the invisible opponents encounter, and you make a snap judgement on the DC)-DON'T TELL ANYONE. Fudging is only going to PO people who want to play by the rules as written-especially if you tell them about it. That's part of the reason we use screens.

Likudice isn't out to wreck your campaign. Remember, you let him design a combat monster for your campaign. If he has to keep it muzzled because every encounter is solved by diplomacy, its like he wasted his time designing that PC.

===
Likuidice- does it seem as if you are outnumbered in your own game group or are you overreacting?

I once neglected to immediately tell a guy running a combat monster PC that his PC had been immobilized by a particular attack. I didn't do this on purpose, but it ticked him off so much he never returned to our group.

Dragonlancer isn't out to screw you, but it may seem that way at times. Luck and circumstance can do that.
===
As we all know, this game we play has both dramatic and adventure aspects. Unless you're skewing your campaign all the way towards one or another of the poles, there's room for both.

Dragonlancer- how are you at reading your players body language better? You may need to alter the balance of your campaign to incorporate a little more combat. If Likudice has been stewing while everyone is "acting," it may be time for a random encounter.

Likudice, you may need to take a stress toy to the gaming sessions. Your PC is a master of combat in a party of diplomats. Classic role, man. Embrace it.

I have a friend who is new to RPGs and he has ADD. Due to his attention span, he doesn't play with us often, but when we play RIFTS, he plays a Juicer (chemically enhanced super-soldier/assassin with an abundance of powers and a 4 year life span). In many ways his alter ego, a classic line by this PC is "TICK-TOCK, M*****F*****! You're still here?" If that player and PC don't get into a scrap that night, its a wasted night as far as this player is concerned.

But it isn't a problem for us. The combat need not be epic-it just has to happen.

Compromise, y'all!

 

[res]

Actually, that does not sound like the problem. Calling other PC's "crap" is a problem.

To be fair, none of us (other than DragonLance and likuidice) were there so we have no way to guess at what the context was. I'm in a game with my friends where I'm playing a Barbarian/Ranger who is a tank on combat. Especially when he is going against Favored Enemies. One of the other party members consist of a Sorcerer with a bit of a pacefist trait (not 100% opposed to combat, but she tries to not kill people if she can prevent it, no direct damage spells.) We are good friends, me and her (out of game, in game, the characters are almost as polar opposite as you can get for 2 good characters) After a brutal round of combat my character could have delt out around 100 points of damage to something. Its pretty sick, but my guys a fighter, hes designed to excell in combat, much like likuidice seemed to design his character to be. If someone in my group started to complain about my character, I'd get pretty upset at them if it came from the character who has a diplomacy skill of 30 or so. Maybe we should get to see what some of these other characters are like. They could have really gross skills that help in their role-playing encounters. They might not be in a position to complain because someone took the role of the "muscle" or "enforcer" of the group.

Our group understands that my character will be better in combat then other PCs. I understand that they can research things or negotiate better than me. We know who to send if we have to talk things out and we know who to send if we have to crack some skulls.

I'd be curious to see what the other characters in the group are like. It looks like likuidice has no problems with the non-combat stuff other people do. Maybe its an act that hes put on here to come across better, maybe its the truth.

Fighting about it here will solve nothing, but from what likuidice has said so far, he should be able to fit in with this group ok if everyone else eases up a bit. As long as each character has their chance to shine, I don't see what the problem is? DragonLancer doesn't seem to have a problem with this. likuidice doesn't seem to have a problem letting the others have their spotlight. I think DragonLancer and likuidice should sit down away from the game and talk things out face to face. If you are friends, then you should be able to work something out that will prevent someone from being kicked out of the group.

Good luck guys

 

[DragonLancer]

likuidice, you have my sympathy.

The way I read it, you're in a group of players and DM that don't care about the gaming side of D&D.
They don't enjoy cranking thru rulebooks and selecting the best alternatives, and making an effective combat character.

They seem to get all they need out of simple exchanges and roleplaying scenes.

Um… where has that come from? We do care about the gaming side of it. We wouldn’t be playing if we didn’t. We play to a level that we like. Its not all RP, we do have a fair bit of combat which we enjoy but we don’t like characters that are built to deal out 100 plus points of damage. That in our minds is just excessive. Really excessive.

I've been close to where you are, and I may have a perspective that can help you.
I'm an unapologetic power-gamer - I strongly believe that these hundreds of pages of rules that are published should be there for a reason. If the group didn't want to follow the rules, they needen't have bought the books, right?
I believe that a strong component of the game is making effective combinations of feats, skills, weapons, etc that helps a character to be strong in combat. I prefer to play a hero character that is known for being good in combat. Tales wouldn't be told of a character that 'wasted' feats, most likely.

While I think my style of play is just fine for me, it is not the style that some of my group prefer. They are similar to your group - roleplayers who don't like to read up on rules.

That’s pretty much Likuidice’s view as well. The rules are in the book so they get used 100%. The rules are just guidelines, and that’s another point of contention. In our group, Likuidice is the only one who sees it that way.
The feats and whatnot are there to add flavour to a character, not to overshadow the game. You say that you are power-gamer, and that’s great for your game. Its not for ours. We do not like that style of game. Its as simple as that.

Let the combat kind of slide on by - do your part, but let the DM worry about getting the combats resolved without killing a PC.

And where has this come from as well? Where do you get the idea that I run combats where characters don’t get killed?
This current campaign has had 2 character deaths, one of them being Likuidice’s first character. I have no problem with character death, it’s a part of the game, and it happens. I think you are confusing what I’ve said.

Dragonlancer- step back a second and analyze your DM style for a minute.

I had a GM in another system who, in the process of running a combat, did not let a pair of trained sharpshooter NPCs (allies of the party) climb a tree and fire even one round during a combat. Part of it was that he wanted the PCs to achieve the combat objective, but he DID let us have these guys on our team. It seemed completely arbitrary to keep the NPCs out of the combat, it disrupted the party's plans, and annoyed the hell out of some of the players.

Dear oh dear. I would never do that. That’s taking away control from the player. It’s a different situation to what we’re facing in our game.

My style as DM is quite simple I guess compared to most. It’s the same way of gaming that the rest of the group and I have played since 1st edition, and back then I think it was probably the way that most people played. With the advent of 3rd edition, and the game becoming dependent on feats, the nature of the game has changed. That may or may not be a bad thing, but that new style of play isn’t for us.
That’s the point that I’m trying to make here. I don’t make choices for the players (such as your above example) but I do expect players to play to the style that the rest of the group plays to, and that’s where we have this problem. Likiduice is playing to the power-gaming nature of the 3.x rules.

Likudice isn't out to wreck your campaign. Remember, you let him design a combat monster for your campaign. If he has to keep it muzzled because every encounter is solved by diplomacy, its like he wasted his time designing that PC.

He’s only using feats from the 3.5 PHB and one or two from the XPH. In that instance I’m not going to stop him using feats that I have said are fine, and isn’t the problem. He can play a combat character but don’t go ridiculous with it. As it is, he may as well be playing his own game.

Dragonlancer- how are you at reading your players body language better? You may need to alter the balance of your campaign to incorporate a little more combat. If Likudice has been stewing while everyone is "acting," it may be time for a random encounter.

To be honest, I don’t usually. If the players are itching for a fight its pretty obvious.
I have run entire sessions where there was no combat, because it wasn’t needed for the story. We’re storytellers at the end of the day, combat although a part of the game is not the be all and end all of the game.

I think DragonLancer and likuidice should sit down away from the game and talk things out face to face. If you are friends, then you should be able to work something out that will prevent someone from being kicked out of the group.

I have tried on more than a few occasions to speak about the situation away from the gaming table, but Likuidice refuses (that’s the word) to see the point of view of the majority.

 

[Janos Audron]

...we don’t like characters that are built to deal out 100 plus points of damage. That in our minds is just excessive. Really excessive.

It sounds more like you guys are jealous of his ability to make powerful characters within the rules to me.

It kinda sounds reaper was right, y'know...

I once made some insane wizard for a PbP who could cast a Finger of Death with a DC 52 fort save. Together with the haste action and a DC 46 Disjunction this meant that any opponent who was not immune to death effects would die 95% of the time.

At first I was really proud of what I had achieved. I mean, look-at-me-killing-everything! However, that had the drawback that things that were challenging to me were too strong for (some of) the others or things that were challenging to them were too easy for me.

The game didn't last long, but it was only after that game that I realised that I made that game impossible. Like your Cleric, likuidice, my character was very hard to disign a cool combat for.

Since then I've changed tactics: I still try to build very effective characters, but with some added difficulty. I am currently playing a Psion who, eventually wants to go Melee (with 1/2 BAB and d4 HP).

For me, this has solved the problem: I can still try to create a powerful character, I am still playing the class I love (well, psion / wizard anyway) and I don't rediculously overshadow the other players...

 

[DragonLancer]

We're not jealous of it, and I honestly don't know where you have got that idea from.

As I keep saying, playing characters that can pull that off isn't what we want to play, and we don't want to play scenarios based around playing like that. Simple enough as I can see.

 

[res]

We're not jealous of it, and I honestly don't know where you have got that idea from.

As I keep saying, playing characters that can pull that off isn't what we want to play, and we don't want to play scenarios based around playing like that. Simple enough as I can see.

Playing a character that can do 100+ points of damage a round isn't what you want to play, or the other players. But it is what this guy wants to play. Is that so bad?

Sure, you'll probably have to give some villians more hit points, or come up with a creative way of distracting likudice's character, but he seems to want to play a character like this. You may not be jelous of this, but you seem angry that he decided to make a character that specilized on fighting and combat, and not diplomacy.

it seems that the real problem is between the characters. DragonLancer has claimed that likeudice has insulted other PCs because they aren't as good in combat. From what likeudice has said, it seems that he doesn't have a problem with other characters, but rather the complaints the other characters have made about his character being good in combat.

Maybe they should sit down and talk things out. I don't think there is a real need to break up the group over this, or even kick one guy out. Likeuidce has built his character to fight, and to do otherwise would make no sense. If I have a character who has Power Attack and Cleave, I'm not going to take Great Cleave because it would make my character more powerful, I'm going to take Great Cleave because it fits my character.

Let the players talk things out, try to be civil about it. It seems like DragonLancer doesn't have a problem running the game and putting in places for both types of players to shine. It seems that Likeuidce doesn't mind the non-combat situations where the other players stand out. Get them to talk it out. But it seems to me that you two don't have problems with each other but the conflict is between the other PCs and Likeudice.