Problems at the gaming table.

[Creamsteak]

I'd recommend a full out "the wizard doesn't help one of us, none of us help the wizard" mentality. If that doesn't get noticed, then the Player probably needs a talking. If that doesn't work, get rid of him.

 

[Terraism]

Okay then, why does the Fighter HAVE to bash the goblins, or the Rogue HAVE to pick the locks and find the traps without the other characters paying them directly for it? Certainly those are more dangerous jobs in general than standing in the back and throwing spells.

A wizard makes items and casts spells because that's what a wizard does.

---"The wizard would go as far as to watch the Bard get killed
and then take then ring from his dead body."---

Okay... THAT's the part I have a big problem with. If he was in my group, and I could see this for myself, I would consider the wizard completely untrustworthy, especially if I was the Bard. He'd be dead to me. Just think of going to work with someone who wouldn't mind seeing you dead so he can take your car.

Brrrr...

Pretty much - I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I can see the wizard not making magic items for the bard - though, doing it for everyone else seems extremely petty - but refusing to cast buffing spells? Yeah, if the wizard wasn't in the party they'd have to pay for those spells. Has the bard ever done anything to help the wizard? Maybe killed something that could have hurt him otherwise? Seriously, considering that casting a buffing spell doesn't really cost the wizard anything, and they do - being in a party, and all - have at least some of the same goals, I'm assuming, that again seems rather petty.

But really, there's two things that it boils down too... "Gaming was better without him," and "The wizard would go as far as to watch the Bard get killed and then take then ring from his dead body." I mean, in-party conflict is one thing, but this seems to be a personal thing; unless the wizard is playing at the very least a borderline evil character, that's probably (not always, of course - please don't jump to point out 1:100000 exceptions) way out of line for the character. Really - it just seems that the new guy is power hungry, and not in the least cooperative. Doesn't sound the best guy for party OR player demographics to me...

 

[Poltergeist]

Can't we all just get along?

I can certainly see where this could cause derision! The difficult thing is just like the wizard is not "entitled" to the bard's ring, the bard is not "entitled" to the wizard's item creation (which do cost the wizard experience) or his buff spells.

My suggestion would be to see if the wizard would be willing to make some items for the bard in exchange for the ring of wizardry. This might satisfy both of them and honestly, a ring of wizardry 1 probably does not make that huge an impact on the bard's life at this point.

 

[Oni]

Yes I would kindly suggest to the wizards player that his character make something for the bard, something that would be specifically useful to a bard and then offer (very kindly) to trade. You might also explain something I've learned playing wizards, with a wizards tiny HP and lack of combat ability it is a good thing to be in the good graces of your party, the entire party,l because you never know who you might need to bail you out of a sticky situation.

 

[Fenes 2]

I think most important is to separate player conflict and character conflict. Character conflict can be very funny and rewarding. Some tension and ribbing can really spice up a game. It is also best resolved in-character, as long as every player has fun.

Player conflict, otoh, is much more serious, and, imho, should never be resolved in-game. If a player makes the game less fun for you, talk to the player - do not try to kill off his PC in-game.

In the case at hand I'd talk to the wizard player. Going from what we know on this board, IMHO, he is at fault. His PC came in later, and frankly, does not deserve a ring for free. Explain to him that it does not work like that, or else the fighter will lose his magic longsword to the weapon master, who can use it better, the rogue has to give up his mighty whip to the exotic weapon specialist etc.

 

[SurgicalSteel]

Okay then, why does the Fighter HAVE to bash the goblins, or the Rogue HAVE to pick the locks and find the traps without the other characters paying them directly for it? Certainly those are more dangerous jobs in general than standing in the back and throwing spells.

The basic argument you make is extremely weak.
If the mage could wear armor, had tons of hit points, and had good attack rolls, I doubt he would hesitate to engage in melee.

You attribute to selfishness and cowardice what is actually caused by extremely rigid class penalties.
Mages on the front line are suicide, and people would scream were it otherwise.

A mage is already doing his part with fireballs, and when one considers that mages are specifically targeted because they can fireball, your already weak argument becomes weaker still.

---"The wizard would go as far as to watch the Bard get killed
and then take then ring from his dead body."---

Okay... THAT's the part I have a big problem with.

This is speculation on the part of the originator of the thread, so far as I can tell.
If the player actually said this, then that is a different story, obviously.



Frankly, I don't really care for the tone of much of this thread, which rather than be objective, understanding, or thoughful, simply reeks of "the three of us" bullying "the one of him".

Given the dominant tendency of posters to favor themselves in their depictions or narratives, I think objective appraisal of both positions would be the best tack to take in dealing with what is clearly such a personal issue.
Which is something I have seen little of here.

 

[mmu1]

The basic argument you make is extremely weak.
If the mage could wear armor, had tons of hit points, and had good attack rolls, I doubt he would hesitate to engage in melee.

You attribute to selfishness and cowardice what is actually caused by extremely rigid class penalties.
Mages on the front line are suicide, and people would scream were it otherwise.

A mage is already doing his part with fireballs, and when one considers that mages are specifically targeted because they can fireball, your already weak argument becomes weaker still.

Actually, your argument is extremely weak, and irrelevant. You're misrepresenting what the previous poster said. I don't recall anyone asking the mage to fight in melee, or pick locks - he just said that a mage refusing to cast spells is the same as a fighter refusing to go into melee or a rogue refusing to look for traps. "Oh, but if the mage wasn't there, they'd have to pay for spells." Well, if the rogue wasn't there, and someone else did the checking for traps, or if the fighter wasn't there to soak up melee damage, they'd probably have to pay quite a bit for healing and ressurections, no?

As for the whole "Mage on the front lines = suicide" argument, it's complete nonsense in any remotely normal party. Most mages, provided they're played with a minimum of intelligence, are at considerably less risk in the thick of things than at least two other classes - rogue and bards - who are expected to engage in melee on a regular basis at much greater risk. It's about little things like being able to make CON your second most important stat, Mage Armor, Shield, Mirror Image, Stoneskin...

Personally, I think that in this edition, mages have it very soft, and refusing to cast spells to help any of the people taking the hits so you can safely waggle your fingers is not acceptable... Making items is, of course, a different case altogether, but refusing to cast spells on someone is bad enough in and of itself.

 

[Agback]

edit I wrote this message under the misapprehension that I was addressing the GM, but I'll let it stand. With the exception of correcting an error that reversed the intended meaning of an important sentence.

I feel that this will be the downfall of our party because of the lack of cooperation on his part.

You are right.

Take the player of the wizard aside and tell him that only people who are insane try tactics like that to make people give over their property. Tell him that you don't want to run a campaign about the exploits of a psychopath, so if his action are in character then his character is out of line.

And if he doesn't shape up, sack him. The way he's going he'll only spoil the others' enjoyment of the game.

Regards,


Agback

 

[WizarDru]

There are definitely some issues within the gaming group that need to be addressed, one way or the other. The original poster's description of the situation certainly paints the wizard's player as the less mature, but we have little information to be certain, and neither of the involved parties are here, so we're forced to speculate.

Here are the facts as I think I understand them:

• The Bard has been in the game since 1st level at the Sunless Citadel.
• The Wizard's player has changed characters (possibly more than once) for metagaming reasons.
• The Bard, during the course of adventuring, found a Ring of Wizardry I, which at that point in time, was an item of use mostly to him (as the sorceror had changed to a FTR/MNK, and only later became a wizard)
• The second player created a new character, a wizard, after deciding he'd made some mistakes making his FTR/MNK, by making him a FTR/MNK/PAL and incurring an xp penalty.
• The wizard's player demanded that the bard's player give his character the ring of wizardry, since he felt he could use it better (presumably because of his larger spell list).
• The bard's player refused to release his magic item, without at least an offer of trade or purchase, which the wizard outright refused.
• The wizard's player took this as a slight, and henceforth refused to offer any of his spells or abilities to the bard, while continuing to offer such services to the rest of the party.
• The author of this thread is concerned that this lack of party cooperation will surely result the party's doom
• Judging by the spells mentioned on the wizard's list, the players are at least 7th level, presumably 8th-10th

All right, then. First off, let's identify the issues at hand.

The wizard's motivation seems to be of a min/maxing nature. His player feels that his character is entitled to the ring, as he feels he could use it better, perhaps even feeling that it is wasted on the bard. Originally, he demanded the ring, was denied, and then spitefully decided to act as if the bard wasn't a member of the party. Such a dramatic rift will cause the party to fail, sooner or later, especially if the bard's player reciprocates.

No one is entitled to a magic item from anyone. This works both ways. The wizard is sacrificing xp to make items, and the bard is no more entitled to such benefits than the wizard is to the ring. The bard could have taken item creation feats, if he desired. If the wizard truly wanted the ring, he should have offered renumeration for it. Let's remember, we're talking about a 20,000 g.p. item, here. One question is this: are the other players just getting this items for free? I suspect they're at least paying with their share of the gold, and then the wizard has volunteered to suck up the xp. Of course, depending on the items in question, this may not be a huge sacrifice at the levels in question. Giving up 160 xp for a Gauntlet of Ogre Power of Gloves of Dexterity +2 is not a huge sacrifice at 8th level. The wizard, a newcomer to the adventuring party, appears to have walked up and demanded an item from another group members inventory (an item which would require him to be 13th level and cost 800 xp to manufacture himself). That's a pretty significant itme to just hand over.

Regardless, the wizard's short sightedness will result in problems. Since it sounds like the wizard is the chief spellcaster of the group, his buffs are essential to the party's survival. Denying them to one of the party members seems petty and vindictive, and not really in the party's best interest. It comes across like the wizard's player is complaining that the bard's player isn't maximizing the party, and then cripples the party in a fit of pique to prove it. This may not be the case, but that's how it appears on the surface.

As to the ring itself, it's value to the party depends on the group and the challenge it faces. Four extra magic missles may be more effective, or three extra Cure Light Wounds might be better. Depending on the characters and situations, either might be good.

If everyone agrees, than the bard could offer the item up, but he deserves reimbursement of some form. The wizard supposedly refuses to do so, which perplexes me. If a sorceror or wizard with a higher INT arrived on the scene, with an additional slot, would he willingly give the ring up to him? I tend to doubt it.

The DM should be taking steps to address this issue. The DM and party should discuss, either in whole or in parts, if this is percieved as a serious problem or not. If the Dm and other players feel this player is being intentionally disruptive, and robbing the game of it's enjoyment, then they need to approach the other player (again, in group or parts) and tactfully put forth the issues and some solutions. The goal is to have fun, and that goal no longer appears to be being served.

 

[Bob5th]

As far as the XP loss issue the wizard is more than willing to give some up if it will help the rest of the party but not the bard. If worse comes to worse the bard would stay by your side till the end. The wizard would run away at the first sign of major trouble. So who would you rather have watching your back?