Problems at the gaming table.

[Aaron L]

If I were the bard I would start composing unfavorable songs about the wizard and sing them in the taverns and inns I frequent.

 

[SurgicalSteel]

Actually, your argument is extremely weak, and irrelevant. You're misrepresenting what the previous poster said.

No, it is you who are misrepresenting what the previous poster stated.
Here is the original quote:

Okay then, why does the Fighter ...*snip*...Certainly those are more dangerous jobs in general than standing in the back and throwing spells.

Note: "Certainly those are more dangerous jobs"

There is a clear implication that since the fighter's and rogue's jobs are *more* dangerous, the mage is obligated to them.

The previous poster clearly implies that the mage is OBLIGATED to sacrifice XP and feats (in the form of magic items) for the rest of the party, consequent to the rest of the party doing the "more dangerous jobs".


Furthurmore, this is all ENTIRELY relevant since this perceived obligation (which is, in fact, so much rubbish) to furnish magical items for others at a permanent cost to himself is the prime source of this conflict in the first place.

In fact, the other two should be GRATEFUL that they are receiving magic items at all, and should certainly not expect any.

Likewise, the bard should not expect anything of the sort either.
He is quite capable of enchanting his own items, should he desire them.



This kind of pedagogical argument is not how I like to spend my time, but when someone asserts that I misrepresented a statement, I take it personally.

 

[SurgicalSteel]

There are definitely some issues within the gaming group that need to be addressed, one way or the other.
*snip*
The goal is to have fun, and that goal no longer appears to be being served.

These are all good points (especially the last) or reasonable conjectures, but everyone seems to be overlooking a very important point.

The pettiness of the player running the wizard is widely agreed upon, yet no-one seems to acknowledge the pettiness of the rest.

If the ring is so damn important to him then why not just give it to him?
Would it really be such a ball-breaker?

This is a fictional ring used by a fictional person.

While this displays the pettiness of the player of the wizard, it also displays the pettiness of the rest of the group.
It takes 2, and the rest of the group is as guilty as the player of the mage.

 

[Ashrum the Black]

Begin rambling dailog:

SurgicalSteel: Now I do agree that the ring is a fictional ring in a game and thus has no real value, but I simply fail to see how the rest of the group is being petty by not giving the mage the ring. The wizard, or his player, or both, is acting in a petty and juvenil manner. Should they reinforce that behavior by rewarding it? If the ring is that unimportant then yes, give it too him, but then talk to him. Let him know how his antics have been hurting the group, and the fun they've been having.

Now this being said (and more to the original posters point), I really would want to know is this the player acting petty (as has been insinuated) or is this his character? If it's the player then the group as a whole needs to sit down and talk about this as grown ups should. If it's the character, then the rest of the party needs to sit the wizard down and explain the facts to him. That he is not entitled to a magic item from somebody just because he wants it. If he continues to treat the bard badly then the rest of the party will have to leave him behind because he is putting all their lives at risk, and then ask the player to make a new character. The big thing here is to actually open up a dialog with the person, either the player or his character, whichever is to blame. Also let the player know that his antics are ruining the fun for others in the group.

I will tell you from experience the most important thing here is to talk to everybody as a group and get things out on the table. I lost a really good friend because he wouldn't talk about things until he was ready to burst. When he finally did, he ended up breaking up a gaming group that had been together for the last decade. THAT my friend was a real shame.

Ashrum

End rambling dialog

 

[Eben]

I cannot possibly imagine how a situation like this could develop to become a problem.
You're ROLE-playing! Sometimes I play characters that generously spreads the wealth around, sometimes those characters will consider investing in other player's characters, sometimes those characters will expect the same in return, but sometimes they will be just greedy. Sometimes my chracter will like others, sometimes not.

The problem isn't a wizard refusing to invest in another or refusing to let him benefit of his work. That's how a player chooses to run a character.

The problem seems to be on a meta-level. Do you consider D&D to be a game in which you develop the most efficient team to achieve set objectives or are you role-playing?

It seems to me you are not really sure. You agree that the wizard's player is being petty in deciding he could put the ring to better use (meta-gaming), but on the other hand you are worried that the way he plays his wizard (role-playing) is jeopardizing (is this spelled correctly?) the long-term objectives of your group (meta-game).

1. Is the wizards player really an arse, then you should tell him so and ask him to leave the group.
2. Is the player running the wizard as an arse, then resolve this in-game by confronting him and telling him (the wizard, not the player) to better his ways or find a carreer somewhere else.
3. Is the wizards player meta-gaming and the rest of you are not, resolve it in game as per point 2 and if the guy doesn't get it, go to point 1.
4. Are the rest of you considering this a problem for meta-game reasons (coöperartion seems to be important to you), then you're not being fair because for meta-gaming purposes it would be wiser to give the wizard the ring.

On a personal note, I don't believe a character can claim something from another. Important factor is: do you get along outside the game? If so, then there is no problem to hate each others guts during the game.
As to your concerns on efficiëncy and coöperation, I believe these are misplaced. Some of the campaigns I remember most fondly are campaigns that didn't really end all that well, because of a lack of trust/coöperation/efficiency between the characters. After all these sessions we would also go out with the whole bunch and have a laugh about all of it over a beer.

 

[Tsyr]

Surgical, try to remember that this is a roleplaying game. Not a metagame tacticle simulation, at least not as I see it. Things shouldn't happen simply because its the most expedeient way to do something. Put yourself in the possition of the bard and the group.

Bard gets a magical ring early on. Gets rather attached to it. A wizard joins the group much later and simply starts demanding the player part with HIS ring. (Might I ask, quickly, HOW the Wizard knew the bard had said ring? They don't exactly have a neon sign proclaiming Ring of Bobslaying or something on them, to my knowledge) How is it the GROUPS place to give up the BARDS personal possession? The rest of the group isn't involved with this, really. It's not their ring to give or take. It's the bards. And why should the bard part with his own property that has served him for XX levels? To an arogant upstart wizard who demands it for no cost like he has some god given right, none the less? I'd smack the wizard upside the head with the flat of my sword and tell him to go jump in front of a charging tarrasque, myself.

How would you like it if a co-worker that got hired at work just started DEMANDING the corner office you worked for 10 years to get moved to? Should the rest of the office just go in and move your stuff back into a cubical and put the arrogant upstart's stuff in the office, to save on "internal strife"? I would pray you wouldn't say yes.

 

[mmu1]

No, it is you who are misrepresenting what the previous poster stated.
Here is the original quote:

"Okay then, why does the Fighter ...*snip*...Certainly those are more dangerous jobs in general than standing in the back and throwing spells."

First of all, here is the original quote:

"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."

It was posted in response to someone's ridiculous assertion that the party ought to pay the wizard for casting spells. Does it imply that fighters and rogues are generally at more risk than wizards? Why shouldn't it, it's the correct perception... But all it is saying is that, as the fighter is "obligated" to fight the goblins and the rogue to check traps, so is the wizard to cast spells for the benfit of the party.

It's nowhere near the one-sided point of view you're trying to present it as, and to make it seem as if the poor wizard is being unfairly put-upon.

Incidentally, I still don't see anyone asking him to fight in melee, which is what you concentrated on almost exclusively the last time in your attempt to derail the argument by taking details of someone's post out of context.

 

[WizarDru]

The pettiness of the player running the wizard is widely agreed upon, yet no-one seems to acknowledge the pettiness of the rest.

If the ring is so damn important to him then why not just give it to him?
Would it really be such a ball-breaker?

This is a fictional ring used by a fictional person.

While this displays the pettiness of the player of the wizard, it also displays the pettiness of the rest of the group.
It takes 2, and the rest of the group is as guilty as the player of the mage.

This is where we disagree. Giving the ring isn't necessarily a collosal sacrifice, on a metagame level; I agree. However, it is not petty to give in to an unreasonable demand. Giving the ring would merely reinforce the behavior, quite likely setting a pattern in motion, if one is not already there. When my children misbehave, I don't give them what they want merely because they scream or cry...that tells them that such a tactic is effective. This is not pettiness, it's maturity. Give the wizard the ring, and he'll threaten the same childish behavior when another magic item appears that he wants, or any number of possible in-game rewards.

From a metagame stance: The wizard is crippling the party's efficiency, and ultimately it's survivability. The wizard's player is consciously creating a rift amongst the group, purely from a determined slight, according to Bob5th's account. A party that lacks teamwork will not survive long in their double-digits. The bard doesn't expect magic items, he merely expects to be reimbursed in some fair way for the loss of an item that has value to him. We're not talking about his keeping a Pearl of Power from a cleric that he can't use, we're talking about a powerful item that doubles his first level spell slots. It is of equal use to both the wizard and him. Whoever has it, the party's strength is not noticably increased or diminished...it's purely a power-grab by the wizard or his character (and judging by Bob5th's comments, this isn't a roleplaying issue, it's a metagame one).

From a roleplaying stance: A trio of successful heroes have adventured together for months, perhaps years. One day a wizard petitions to join their ranks, and moments after being inducted into their group, demands that the bard relinquish a ring he's had and used for some time...merely because the wizard wants it. One wonders if he calls it 'his precious'. I haven't heard a compelling RP reason for it, any more than a metagame one.

I see no signs of pettiness here. Two players are caught in the middle, trying to figure how to resolve the situation, of which Bob5th is apparently one. The DM appears to be either ignorant of the issue or intentionally ignoring it. That Bob5th and several players indicated that they're hoping the one player leaves the game, as that will improve it (and that the game has suffered for this player's part IN it) indicates this isn't an RPing issue.

My personal advice is that the group needs to address this directly. IME, letting this sort of thing continue, hoping that the problem will resolve itself, doesn't work. Failing to face the problem head on will only result in hurt feelings later, as sooner or later it will explode. Rational and mature players will either find a way to resolve the issue, or agree to separate from the game. Unless people are having fun, it's all a pointless exercise. If this particular person is sucking the fun out of the game, or forcing you to have fun in spite of him, then you need to meet with the group and address it.

My recomendation is to discuss the issue, one-on-one, with other members of your gaming group, including the DM. This includes the wizard's player. Find out how everyone feels, possibly even act as a neutral third-party, who's only interest is in restoring the game. After you've got a feel for everyone's viewpoint (and possibly have provided feedback), everyone should meet together and decide how to address the problem. Ignoring the problem won't solve it...even if the player moves away, he might come back, and then you're at square one.

 

[Agback]

How would you like it if a co-worker that got hired at work just started DEMANDING the corner office you worked for 10 years to get moved to?

It's worse than that. How would you feel if new partner who joined your firm just started DEMANDING your own personal laptop computer that you bought with your own dividend the year before last?

If that partner refused to co-operate with you in the line of business until you gave him your computer, how long would it be before the partners threw him out of the firm?

Basically, the other PCs in this group are taking flak from the petulant wizard just because he has "PC" tattooed on his forehead. If he were an NPC they'd dump him.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Storm Raven]

The most extreme advice possible:

1. Wait until the Wizard is sleeping.
2. Gang up and kill him.
3. Take his stuff and divide it amongst yourselves.
4. Laugh at the whiny player.