Player Problem, need advice

[Saeviomagy]

Hi all,
1 - Every character is the same. Same old high powered hack and slash....we have been playing for a few years and it get's tireing.

But the last two are below the power level of the rest of the party, aren't they? Hasn't that been stated by liquidice and agreed to by dragonlancer?

2 - Everything is black and white. There are no possibles with him......he will argue the ruling to he is blue in the face.

If the rules say X, then what's the problem with playing it that way? I'm still waiting for an example of him arguing something that's genuinely disruptive.

3 - No concept of the word roleplaying.

What does this mean? Does it mean he's silent during non-combat sections? Does it mean that he's disruptive in his roleplaying (ie - attacks and steals from party members, kills random NPC's etc), or does it mean that he's not a method actor?

This is not the first DM/GM the player concerned has pee'd off and my guess is it won't be the last.

Details? Or is this just an unsupported attack on character?

At the end of the day DragonLancer was asking for advice on a problematic player.....which in my view has nowbegun spiraling out of control from the replys. There are references to showing evidence etc and some cutting remarks. This is a messageboard and not the The Spanish Inquisition.

Well, DragonLancer wants one of two things
a) Genuine impartial recommendations. These require the facts of the case
b) Confirmation of his own views without regard to the facts, and with no intention to do anything other than a pre-defined course of action, which can happily rely on heavily biased information, or no information at all.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hi all,
1 - Every character is the same. Same old high powered hack and slash....we have been playing for a few years and it get's tireing.

But the last two are below the power level of the rest of the party, aren't they? Hasn't that been stated by liquidice and agreed to by dragonlancer?

2 - Everything is black and white. There are no possibles with him......he will argue the ruling to he is blue in the face.

If the rules say X, then what's the problem with playing it that way? I'm still waiting for an example of him arguing something that's genuinely disruptive.

3 - No concept of the word roleplaying.

What does this mean? Does it mean he's silent during non-combat sections? Does it mean that he's disruptive in his roleplaying (ie - attacks and steals from party members, kills random NPC's etc), or does it mean that he's not a method actor?

This is not the first DM/GM the player concerned has pee'd off and my guess is it won't be the last.

Details? Or is this just an unsupported attack on character?

At the end of the day DragonLancer was asking for advice on a problematic player.....which in my view has nowbegun spiraling out of control from the replys. There are references to showing evidence etc and some cutting remarks. This is a messageboard and not the The Spanish Inquisition.

Well, DragonLancer wants one of two things
a) Genuine impartial recommendations. These require the facts of the case
b) Confirmation of his own views without regard to the facts, and with no intention to do anything other than a pre-defined course of action, which can happily rely on heavily biased information, or no information at all.

If he comes here seeking A), and gives incomplete or biased information, then he'll never get what he's here for. If he comes here seeking B), then I have no sympathy for him.

 

[res]

But the last two are below the power level of the rest of the party, aren't they? Hasn't that been stated by liquidice and agreed to by dragonlancer?

I think they mean that his last two characters have been below his usual level. I'm taking this from what DragonLancer has said.

Of course its late here, and I'm tired, so I could be way off.

 

[Fenes]

I say, drop all that "you are the DM, you need to do that or this" rubbish. Point is, the player disturbs the group. Point is, the other players don't want to have to deal with a combat character that overshadows the rest by that margin.
Remember, people - we play this game for fun, and to have a good time. If something makes it not a good time, one has to deal with it. This is not about declaring someone guilty or innocent, just about making sure all have fun.
Someone said one cannot expect the player to play his character less than optimally. Again, this misses the point. A gaming group has every right to expect its members to adhere to standards not defined in the PHB.
Take, for example, a DM trying to play a serious campaign, full of drama, angst, gritty combat and such. Everyone goes along with, but one player play a gnome prankster doing his best to make light of any dark plot. Should the rest of the group have to let that player continue even if it ruins their game?
I had the opposite happen to my group once, I was running a campaign with a group of rather less than optimized characters, and the way their weaknesses and hang ups foiled the NPC party leader plans, and made for additional twists and scnees, was the focus of the game. One player joined later in the campaign (he had been playing with us before, in a more serious campaign, and he did not really fit in - trying to "play smart", and getting angry when good plans were ruined due to PC actions like killing the last witness. He finally left, since it was clear the game was not to his taste.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone said one cannot expect the player to play his character less than optimally. Again, this misses the point.
Take, for example, a DM trying to play a serious campaign, full of drama, angst, gritty combat and such. Everyone goes along with, but one player play a gnome prankster doing his best to make light of any dark plot. Should the rest of the group have to let that player continue even if it ruins their game?

That would be me, and no I didn't. You missed mine.

Yes, the group has a right to expect players to conform to "unwritten rules" of the campaign.

But players have the right to play the PC they designed for that campaign without being subsequently neutered.

The DM is not just the creator of the campaign- he's the gatekeeper of the internal logic of the campaign.

If, in your example, the DM wants to play a serious campaign, he should not allow a player to play "a gnome prankster doing his best to make light of any dark plot." That PC concept is entirely counter to the campaign and will be as abrasive as a sandstone suppository, and should not be permitted into the campaign under any circumstances.

Here, the DM allowed a combat monster into a role-play heavy campaign, and is now (among other things) griping that the PC outshines everyone in combat. Asking the combat monster not to excel at combat is like asking a lion to become a vegan. The PC's design should not have been allowed in the campaign, and now all are suffering. The DM and his buddy are at odds, and the other players are feeling superfluous. This is the DM's fault, and none other- he didn't act as the gatekeeper to his campaign. If he had, this string probably would not exist.

If nothing else, the player, upon being denied his combat monster, might have decided not to play in the campaign.

 

[Fenes]

I think I have to elaborate, based upon my experiences. In my case I did tone down the optimized character, I explained numerous times what the campaign was about, but in the end the player could not change. His character was set up as fitting in, with drawbacks and weaknesses, but the player tended to try to get around them, not revel in them. It was not a question of the character, but of the mindset of the player.
When every encounter ends up in some slight disturbance, and you have an (albeit small) discussion each time when you play something out that goes "against common sense", and you remain with the impression the other player thinks you are acting stupid then the game loses some enjoyment.

 

[DragonLancer]

Here, the DM allowed a combat monster into a role-play heavy campaign, and is now (among other things) griping that the PC outshines everyone in combat.

Well, technically, no I didn't. No where in the players initial design or background has he ever said that he was going to be a combat-monkey. At low levels everyone is pretty much the same. Its later in the game (7-8th+) that he starts to jump ahead away from everyone else.

I'm not griping. You may may read that but I can with all honesty say that you are wrong there. As has been said, he is not fitting with everyone else in the group, nor with the level of game that we want to play. I posted to ENWorld to get third party advice and views from people I consider well versed in D&D, not to moan and gripe.

 

[likuidice]

apparently I'm incapable of roleplaying, great.
I do not need a combat every session, I do not live for combats, I have a combat character who, whoopy do, is good at combat, surprisingly because it's built using fighter classes. For some reason this is a problem.
I do not overshadow the other characters in their niches, is it too much to ask that they don't overshadow me in mine? were they to play combat characters, then there wouldnt be a problem, but for some reason, playing a combat character in a group of non combateers is a big nono. if this was a campaign without any combat, I could see a point to this, but theres been plenty of fights, which have been nicely balanced. quite frankly I don't see a problem with playing a character which is actually useful in a fight.

 

[BSF]

The question is whether we have helped or exacerbated the situation. I hope all of our collective thoughts have been of assistance. But, I have noted that likuidice has not posted again. *shrug* I find the thread interesting because I do not believe it is an easy cut-and-dried answer. Stylistically, not everyone will fit with each group and the only way to fit in is to adopt and rearrange styles.

EDIT: Ah, Likuidice has posted while I typed. I will strike that sentence.

 

[SmokestackJones]

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.

Hey 'Lancer,

Sorry, I got a knot in my gut over that. IMO, if he wants that kind of anal gaming, he should be playing Champions (or Fantasy Hero, if he's not into supers-not to dispariage HERO gamers-I'm one myself). If I was DM, his kiester'd be at the curb so fast it'd take his head a week to catch up. As a gamer who believes in Rule 0 and the trust between DM and players, I gots no tolerance for that kind of stuff.

(deep breath) Okay...rant over...carry on with more productive posts.

-SJ