Player Problem, need advice

[DragonLancer]

You want total control over the game?

But the Player's PC is chaotic, so his actions are hard to predict...

And his PC can deal out serious damage, so he has many more options than a character who is afraid of dying...

This sounds like a BIG problem. You want total control over the story, and this conflicts mightily with a combat-oriented, chaotic PC who, by his very nature, is resistant to DM-control.

Tony

You didn't understand what I was saying in that original post.

For the better part of 16 years (or there abouts) I've been DM/GM/ST, and all I was saying was that when I get tthe opportunity to play it feels a little alien due to the lost of control. I'm not a control freak type of DM.

I have no problem with chaotic characters, in fact there is two others beside him currently. Alignment is not a problem.

 

[tonym]

I'm not a control freak type of DM.

Just what a control freak type of DM would say.

Haha, kidding. Sorry for misunderstanding your post and implying that you were a control freak.

Have you considered giving the guy's PC a -3 cursed weapon that he can't get rid of?


Tony

 

[DragonLancer]

No worries, I've not taken offence to anyone's posts, they have all been helpful.

Heh. If I gave him such a weapon then he would be right to say I was trying to screw his character. Tempting idea though...

 

[billd91]

Maybe you should reexamine your attitude. I'm not the only person who got this impression.

As DM, you have ultimate control over your game and how it plays. By blaming one player for messing up the game, you're admitting that you can't handle running a game. Unless there are serious personality problems making a player disruptive (we had to ask one player to leave because he kept showing up high on crank), there's absolutely no reason, other than bad DMing, that a player's character--which was already approved--can screw up your game. So far, every "reason" you've given just boils down to a lack of capability behind the screen.

I think this is way off base. DragonLancer hasn't blamed this player for messing up the game. He's blamed the player for being a bit obstinate when he and other players have tried to explain their styles of play and how this one player isn't really fitting in with that style.
It doesn't matter how good a DM is or is not. If a player is being an outlier and won't budge, he's a problem player. It might be because he's being thick and hasn't really understood the other position, or it might be because he's overly stubborn. But no DM should have to cater to a single outlier player when he and the rest of the players prefer a different style. It's the outlier's responsibility to lighten up for the good of the game and the rest of the players' resonsibilities to facilitate that. According to DragonLancer's posts, it sounds like they've done that. likuidice's post was quite contrary to that and that's why I'd like to hear the perspective of another player in the campaign.

 

[derverdammte]

I respectfully disagree. My reasons are above. This is a stylistic choice for the group. I can certainly juggle a variety of different character types in my games. But, there are some character types that will not fit in well with the group style. In the interest of group harmony, I will prohibit characters that do not stylistically fit. It has nothing to do with my ability to handle it. I do not think that Dragonlancer would have any problem handling the PC, it is just stylistically not what he enjoys doing.

But, as I said above, if you have not experienced idiosyncracies stemming from a collective decision on what their fantasy experience is going to be, you probably will not understand why it is important.

As I have said, the problem here stems from stylistic differences, not an inability to cope with the PC.

In my games, I have two goals: to run the type of game I want to run, and to make sure that all the players get what they want out of the game. To that end, I adapt to ALL my players. If there are personality conflicts, that's one thing, but if you're complaining that a player is running roughshod over your campaign, that's no one's fault but your own. The DM is the one with the ability to create a balanced game, and while the players contribute to the "having fun" part of it, the DM needs to be sure his players can have fun, too. These are primary responsibilities of being a DM. If you want to house rule a bunch of legitimate D&D rules, that's your option, but if you've already approved a character, you can't blame the player for using what YOU gave him to have fun.

Also, if you like a low-powered game, it's probably less hassle to choose a different set of rules. One of the most basic tasks any GM has upon deciding to run a campaign is choosing the rules that best fit his gaming style. It doesn't sound like D&D does the trick.

A player can only ruin and disrupt your game if you allow him to. It seems to me that if you were handling things correctly, he'd either settle down and enjoy himself with the rest of the players, or get frustrated at the low power level and wander off to play somewhere else. Under no circumstances, unless you've made some big mistakes, should he be breaking your encounters or hurting your game.

 

[Gothmog]

Sounds to me like the problem's with the DM, not the "problem" player. A little open-mindedness and a little less penis envy would go a long way here.

I've run and played in heavy role-playing games for years, and in every single game, there was a mix of combat-effective and in-other-ways-effective characters. If the DM can't deal with it, that's cool, but he should at least admit that it's his lack of ability to adapt that's the problem, not the so-called "problem" player. Part of a DM's job is 1) setting limits (which has been done) and 2) gearing the game towards the characters. If the DM can't do that, it's clear that he's taken on more than he can handle, and maybe he should take a break, or the player should find a game with a more capable DM.

Actually, I couldn't disagree more. If Dragonlancer and his players are having fun with their more immersive style, and another player comes in and disrupts the group by powergaming, the problem is with the powergamer player, not the rest of the group. While he may be following the rules of the books, he is breaking the rules the group has agreed upon and their implied limits for what they enjoy, which are MORE important than following the exact rules in the books. If likuidice wants to continue to play with this group, it is HIS responsibility to try and mesh more with their style so as not to be disruptive. And before someone screams "powergamer discrimination!", if this situation were reversed and an immersive roleplayer were in a group of powergamers, my advice would be the same- adapt to their style or find a new group.

Dragonlancer's problem with powergaming isn't due to a lack of ability, but seems to be due to the fact its not the playstyle he and his group enjoy. To fit his playstyle, he probably works encounters to cater to the non-optimized characters abilities, but a min-maxed character would come in and thrash through it with no problem. I have been in situations like this too (on both sides actually), and its IMMENSELY frustrating to the other players. What used to be challenging to them is not handled almost single-handedly by one PC. If Dragonlancer bumps up the opponents to be on par and a challenge for Likuidice's character, the other PCs get slaughtered. If the other players enjoy a lower-power style of play, it isn't fair to ask them to change since Likuidice is the only one who likes optimized characters. If a player will not adapt to the playstyle of his group, he is the player who lacks the ability to consider other possibilities.

EDIT: Arguing with the DM for rulings because they "aren't by the books" is a BIG problem though. The DM may have other considerations or conditions in mind when he applied a -3 modifier instead of the recommended +/-2. From what I've heard about the situation where the -3 came up, it was minor point in an adventure, and it seems petty to argue about it. The rules are a set of GUIDELINES, they are not absolute. The DM is the final arbiter of those rules, and he needs to use good judgement when applying them to his group. Most DMs do a pretty good job of this, and only rarely have I met a DM who is spiteful or mean in his rulings. Dragonlancer doesn't strike me as this kind of DM at all. Instead, it seems like there is a trust issue here- players have to trust the DM to be fair, while the DM has to trust the players to not be abusive with the rules. Sure, it might be legal to use a certain race/class/skill/feat/spell combo, but if that combo detracts from the fun of the game for the DM and other players, it needs to be limited. I can almost guarantee if Likuidice tries taking the lower-powered route with this group and shows he is willing to compromise, Dragonlancer and the other players will be more accepting of some of his ideas, and some trust can be re-established.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Currently, his character isn't too bad. He could be given a few levels, but for now I don't have a problem.

See - this really makes you sound like someone who just can't drop it. I've heard you say that he's willingly given over a character who was just too good, that his previous character died (which doesn't sound like the sort of thing that happens to a munchkin powergamer character in a normal level of game without some serious DM cheating) and that his current character is "not too bad".

But you still expect that at any moment he's going to blow all the other characters away, and because of that, he's a munchkin powergamer and you hate his play style.

I'm sorry but I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over on here. I've explained the problem... he's a powergamer, and argues DM rulings, both of which are not being looked upon favourably by the rest of the group. Its disruptive to how the rest of us want to play.

He doesn't sound like he's much of a powergamer if he can't out-do all you non-powergamers, and he willingly gives over characters that are too good. It sounds like he's changing his ways and you're rewarding him by totally ignoring that fact and throwing it back in his face.

So far I've heard a total of ONE incident where the player has argued against you, and the only reason that happened is because you made the mistake of gloating. And don't tell me you didn't - why else would you say "you know - you missed that spot check by 1 point! Because I added a situational modifier!".

Maybe not in so many words, but it certainly sounds like that's the information you gave him. There was simply no reason to tell him why he failed his check, or how much he failed it by unless you were trying to provoke some form of response. Did it make you feel good to annoy him?

Further - if you're discussing the mechanics, then why shouldn't he? You already held up the game to gloat - why shouldn't he be allowed to complain about your methods?

Sorry DragonLancer, but if you genuinely are innocent of the above charges, then you're doing a really bad job of presenting yourself.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If the other players enjoy a lower-power style of play, it isn't fair to ask them to change since Likuidice is the only one who likes optimized characters. If a player will not adapt to the playstyle of his group, he is the player who lacks the ability to consider other possibilities.

You mean like he already has. He gave up one character because it was too good, one character has died (and no further information has been given on it's capabilities), and the most recent character is (in the words of DL) "Not too bad". The idea that liquidice is trashing every encounter is false, and previous history has basically been used to assault his character and build up bias.

EDIT: Arguing with the DM for rulings because they "aren't by the books" is a BIG problem though. The DM may have other considerations or conditions in mind when he applied a -3 modifier instead of the recommended +/-2. From what I've heard about the situation where the -3 came up, it was minor point in an adventure, and it seems petty to argue about it.

Then why did DL bring it up at all? It's almost like he was trying to provoke an arguement.

I can almost guarantee if Likuidice tries taking the lower-powered route with this group and shows he is willing to compromise, Dragonlancer and the other players will be more accepting of some of his ideas, and some trust can be re-established.

I can almost guarantee that DragonLancer won't be able to drop the issue.

 

[Graf]

delete

 

[BSF]

Saeviomagy,
You seem a bit too eager to ascribe motivations to Dragonlancer.

First of all, Dragonlancer has not indicated that likuidice is "trashing every encounter". Nor has he said he hates his play style. He has indicated that there is a difference in play style, and that it is causing problems within the group.

Second of all, I have no idea how you extrapolate that Dragonlancer was gloating about a missed spot check due to a situational modifier. I sit around every week with any of my players that wants to chat and discuss the game. Sometimes they will bring up combat misses, or failed skill checks, or whatever. If it won't have a future affect on encounters, I will point out reasons why the situation was different. I will point out situational modifiers, feats the players are not familiar with, and sometimes I will reveal exactly how the challenge was constructed. Am I gloating? If you are simply reading this, then perhaps it sounds that way. Yet, my players seem to appreciate learning how an encounter was structured to challenge them. Though, sometimes they will ask me a question and I can only sit back and tell them that it is something they have to figure out. I talk with my players so I know how the game is going for them. I share with them because one day one of them might want to run a game and I would be thrilled to take the player seat. Perhaps I ascribe different motivations to Dragonlancer because of my perspective? Or, maybe I am just gloating and I can't tell you any different.

Dragonlancer and likuidice have 2 years of gaming experience together. They have a common history to base their projections on how the current character is going to develop and be perceived by the rest of the group. Dragonlancer indicates that there have been discussions dealing with stylistic differences for the past 1 1/2 years, and these discussions have been met with resistance. What I am seeing is a DM that is looking to head off a problem before it arises again. Could Dragonlancer wait and hope it does not become a problem? Sure he could. But, the fact that he feels the need to ask for advice tells me that if the problem does crop up within the group again, it will be beyond repair at that time.

This is a difficult topic because there is a lot of potential for bad feelings. But, I think Dragonlancer is looking to stem a potential collision aomgst the group and that is his primary motivation for posting this topic at all.