Player Problem, need advice

[Alhazred]

- 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.

I've encountered similar problems as DM. IMO (and my regular players agree), the rules are a framework and not a straightjacket, wherein flavour and style - and fun - trump strict adherence. The rules may say an action is improper (or impossible, or are silent on the issue...), but if said action suits the PC/NPC, the setting, the adventure, etc., well, that's what's important.

That being said, I have played with those (either as a DM or a player) who are obsessed with strict interpretation of the books (except when Rule Zero works in their favour). Only once have I had to terminate a campaign (since I was prepping for grad school, I wasn't too upset). I've found that being blunt, though never easy, is the best mechanism for resolving inter-player conflicts. Present an ultimatum (gently, of course) in which you explain the problem incompatibility. Perhaps help him find a group more suitable to his style of play.

 

[Chimera]

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.

Good point. I can offer the other side. I lost a game group and some long-time friends because I as GM decided that I didn't want to play a beer-and-pretzels (nobody pay attention) game anymore and tried to get my ever-so-resistant players to actually role-play and become involved in the game world. Over several months (once a month game), tempers flared and the game (and friendships) came to a bitter end.

In retrospect, I should simply have resigned as GM once I realized that they had no interest in playing my game and that I had no interest in running the kind of game that they wanted to play.

 

[hobbes]

We have done a couple of things in our group to help promote well-rounded play. Maybe one of them will help you.

First of all, the PC's need to realize that their character is part of a world. In this case, the player in question is fixated on the combat side of the game. Well, someone who is that proficient and willing to fight would probably be viewed much like an athlete would today, right? Maybe attract a certain amount of fame amongst the locals? Maybe also attract rivals who wish to challenge the character to duels as test of bravado (even though they will likely get carved up)? If you can integrate the combat aspect of the character with the role-playing aspect, those lines blur, and you may have an easier time sliding the player into non-combat situations (that are *related* to his combat proficiency but don't actually revolve around fighting) that don't totally bore him. Local celebrity is almost always a good plot twist to add, as it tends to coddle the ego of the munchkin.

Another idea we use is "color skills". Every time a character levels up, he is given his usual advancements (feat, sklils, etc). In addition, he is also given "role playing" skill points (usually 2 to 4) to be assigned to knowledge or performance-based skills that don't directly impact the character's combat or abilities. For example, things like Knowledge: Wine, Perform: Dance, etc. The idea is that they add color and distinctiveness to the character without requiring the player to intentionally divert points away from things that are tactically good.

Approaching the additional skills as a 'bonus' rather than something that is diverting points away from 'useful' (as the min-maxer might see it) skills forces the player to start thinking about other aspects of the character (besides combat) without him feeling like he's being forced to give something up to embrace the role-playing side of things.

Also, my group frequently will give out small experience bonuses for good role-playing. So if nothing else works, this may make him realize that effort spent on roleplaying gives him rewards. Bribery could be viewed as a little cheap, but if it enriches the role-playing experience for everyone involved, then I'd consider it worth it.

Hope this helps,
hobbes

 

[random user]

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.

Wow you had a +3 modifier? That's stupid. The DMG clearly states that if you need to make an adjustment that it should be in +2 increments (The DM's Best Friend, pg 30, DMG3.5). So it should have been a +2 (height bonus) or a +4 modifier (height + sand as a hard terrain to spot anything). Clearly you are a bad DM.


Has anyone seen my tongue?


Oh wait, here it is, in my cheek. How did that get there?

Anyways, depending on how long their invisibility lasts and how far away they were they could have moved at half speed and added their hide modifier too. Or at 75% movement at a -5 to their hide check, or something like that.

Oh, and if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, I was kidding about the bad DM part

 

[BSF]

Dragonlancer,
reading more posts, I am honestly beginning to think this is deeper issue than differing play styles. The player in question seems to have difficulty with the "unknown", and to some degree a loss of control. Quite frankly, he would go batty in my games.

I make up skill check DC's all over the place. I even allow differing skills to have a possibility of success. I might allow different characters to roll a Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) or a Knowledge (Arcana) or a Knowledge (History) with different DC's if they have found a reference to a long dead Wizard King. What's wacky is that if a PC had all of these skills, I would probably allow them to roll their highest with situational synergy bonuses. That's not in the book and it would probably frustrate the bejeezus out of your player because he never anticipated that.

But, back to your game. The player might be exhibiting a lack of trust. He doesn't trust you, as the DM, to provide a fair and fun experience around the table. He is falling back on the rules because they are in writing and "unquestionable". He was upset because you used used a situational modifier for spotting invisible opponents that were in the air. Why was he upset? Is it because he is convinced that you are just trying to screw the PC's over? Is it that he thinks you bent the rules to be sure nobody would see the invisible people, no matter what the PC's did? I suppose the alternative is that the player maxed out spot to the point where he could see invisible opponents and then stopped because he would never need to sink another point into spot again. Or is planning to, once the PC is high enough level.

Either way is a problem with a loss of control. The player wants to keep everything in the sandbox of the rules with no deviation. That way, he can build his character so that he can "win". When you deviate from the "rules", he feels like you are trying to keep him from "winning". The rest of your players understand that you are trying to tell a story and provide appropriate challenges that they can find ways to overcome. The stylistic differences that are cropping up are a symptom, not the problem. The reason your styles don't mesh is because it sounds like he needs to win.

Admittedly, I am pulling this out of a few comments that you have made and I don't have the full context of the game. But, the problems you have pointed out could be indicative of these issues. If it does come down to a loss of control issue on the player's end, I am not sure how you can fix this problem. It sounds like you have already tried communication, so what else remains?

 

[takyris]

My perspective is a bit different, since I don't really have a situation where "Cut 'em loose" is viable (gaming with friends and friends of friends, in a house that multiple players share, and so forth) -- so the traditional ENWorld "Talk to him, and if that doesn't work, kick him out" method doesn't always seem realistic to me.

To walk a middle ground, this guy's going to have to give a little. He needs to trust your judgment. If that flap with the draconians is the norm, then he's going to be trouble, and you need to have it out with him -- let him know that you're perfectly within the rules as written, and you're tired of him second-guessing you because of his own insecurities. Now, on the other hand, if you've been playing fast and loose with the rules, then maybe there are situations in which he did have a legitimate cause for concern. (ie, "I don't care what your skill is, that's just not going to work," in a situation where it working would have messed up the adventure; it's fine to do that, but for heaven's sake, lie about it more effectively.) The upshot could be that he was rightly irritated once, and now doesn't trust you.

But tough. He has to trust you, or he has to leave. So he has to do that much.

On your end, you can tweak things to give his character a chance to shine. I don't know if you've ever watched Firefly. Look at Jayne. If Firefly were an RPG, Jayne might well be this guy's character -- a great combatant in a game that doesn't have quite enough combat for Jayne to shine in every episode. He's minmaxed for combat, whereas the other good shooters (Mal, Jasmine (er, forget her Firefly name)) had other skills. Jayne is pretty much a Fighter, or a Strong/Tough, or something like that. He likes hitting stuff, he gets bored if he can't hit stuff, and both Int and Cha were his dump stats. His utterly minmaxed in that regard.

So -- what Jayne needs in a roleplaying game is Something to Fight. He needs something that is geared for him, something that's going to come after him in particular. He needs to appear threatening enough that people try to hit him first, or he needs to be motivated characterwise to protect other people in the party. So if the party is attacked by a wealthy nobleman with several orc warriors, a pixie who casts spells, and a gray render who is fixated on the pixie... the nobleman fences with the bard, the orc warriors fight with the other party combatants, the wizard or sorcerer trades blasts with the pixie, and the gray render takes on Jayne. If the party is attacked by a bunch of rogues, most of them are human rogue3 folks with shortswords, and one of them is a tiefling barbarian/rogue with improved crit:rapier, a human-bane rapier, and some truly nasty poison. Guess which one goes after Jayne?

This isn't an attempt to kill him. This is an attempt to show him a good time. You don't artificially tweak things so that he never beats people by himself, but he should get both a solid combat and a chance to show off his skills, cleaning up the mooks if the gray render falls or ignoring the tiefling's poison.

The one thing to watch out for with Jayne is instakill stuff. Jayne thrives on numbers in little increments. If he gets taken out by a single bad roll, he might complain that you had it in for his character, or that there was some bonus he should have gotten. Also, instakill monsters tend to be pretty weak, otherwise (although exceptions do exist), and what you really want is to give Jayne several good quality attack rounds per session, where he just gets to open up a can of whoopass on stuff and feel good about it. Then he should be a lot cooler with other people roleplaying the journey back to town or the discussion about the big plot.

If kicking him out isn't an option, compromises like this are probably the best way to go. Remember that, in-game, his character is a paragon, the ultimate warrior, even overshadowing his comrades. Bad guys are going to catch on. In real life, they'd either come up with tactics specifically to hinder him (which you should only do in moderation, since this is, while legal and even logical, not something this guy is likely to enjoy) or hire big bruisers to take him on (which is probably better as an option, in conjunction with occasional "Now, what do you do now that you've been disarmed?") stuff.

 

[DragonLancer]

The fact that I had posted about this guy was brought out tonight by one of the other players quite by accident. So I explained that I had posted here to get a neutral third-person view of the situation. He took it well, I guess, just saying that since you guys aren't here to see the situation he doesn't really care for others views.
But strangely enough, he was not quite the same old player tonight, in fact he was a little better. I'll just have to see how he turns out next session.

I think that I will speak to him away from the others and see about helping him find another group or start his own. At the end of the day, I think that that is a better way of ending it.

 

[DragonLancer]

But, back to your game. The player might be exhibiting a lack of trust. He doesn't trust you, as the DM, to provide a fair and fun experience around the table.

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.

He was upset because you used used a situational modifier for spotting invisible opponents that were in the air. Why was he upset? Is it because he is convinced that you are just trying to screw the PC's over? Is it that he thinks you bent the rules to be sure nobody would see the invisible people, no matter what the PC's did?

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.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

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.

Was this the first such instance? Have there been previous instances where he HAS been disadvantaged by a genuinely rules-incorrect decision? Are there previous examples where his own character has been disadvantaged by a particular on-the-spot ruling? (note that this includes giving people breaks on abilities that his character has - if he spent skill points getting diplomacy, and you give people large situational bonuses for good roleplaying, he's getting penalised)

Did the +3 modifier make his roll fail by exactly one point?

In other words - are you building a profile of a GM who seems to be out to get him. It doesn't matter whether you actually are out to get him if that's the profile that you're presenting.

 

[DragonLancer]

Was this the first such instance? Have there been previous instances where he HAS been disadvantaged by a genuinely rules-incorrect decision? Are there previous examples where his own character has been disadvantaged by a particular on-the-spot ruling? (note that this includes giving people breaks on abilities that his character has - if he spent skill points getting diplomacy, and you give people large situational bonuses for good roleplaying, he's getting penalised)

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.

Did the +3 modifier make his roll fail by exactly one point?

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

In other words - are you building a profile of a GM who seems to be out to get him. It doesn't matter whether you actually are out to get him if that's the profile that you're presenting.

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