Problems at the gaming table.

[Bob5th]

As to how the wizard came to know the Bard had the ring. He didn't. The player knew but not his current character. If any other player was the Bard he wouldn't be demanding the ring. The wizard player is twenty something and the Bard's player is 15. The wizard's player feels that any of the bard's characters are of no use to the party and therefore exist the live in summision to him.

 

[Kilmore]

SurgicalSteel...

You say I imply that the wizard is obligated to the fighter and the rogue. I'm sorry, I don't wish to imply that.

I am stating it explicitly. In your typical good aligned cooperative adventuring party, the wizard is obligated to the fighter and the rogue. Furthermore, the fighter and the rogue are obligated to the wizard. This is a team game, folks. The quarterback can't go to the Super Bowl without the defensive linemen. One of the first rules of combat against a typical adventuring party is "Geek the mage!" The head-bashers in the group have to be aware of that and keep their magical backup from getting squashed.

Yes, I forgot about the bard and the cleric. I also forgot the barbarian, the paladin, the sorcerer, and the druid. But if they were there, they'd have jobs to do as well. That goes for the prestige classes as well. I just thought that I was making my point without going that far in depth.

Now, back to the original point... the wizard can make better use of the ring? Maybe he can be allowed to use it without actually transferring ownership. The same goes for the items the wizard makes (with his hard earned feats and XP). Actually, it would be REALLY good if both PC's can use it in the same day. DM's call. I doubt it.

But if the wizard (or more particularly, his player) is asanine enough to see another character dead to get his items, I doubt such an arrangement can be worked out.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Re: Re: Problems at the gaming table.

I find your arguement very weak and hypocritical. The wizard in question is makign magic items for everyone in the party BUT the Bard. In addition he buffs everyone in the party BUT the Bard.

Why?

Because the Bard won't give up a magic item he owns to a person he has no reason to give it to.

Easy solution here.

Give the wizard the Neutral Evil alignment and be done with it. The character is playing as self centered, jealous, and spiteful to the point of risking the death of his "friends". Sounds very Neutral Evil to me.

Does that character (<== NOTE character, not player) have an obligation to make magic items for anyone?

Magic items cost...
1) feats
2) XP
3) money

Heck, you are lucky that he makes magic items for anyone besides himself.
He is PERMANENTLY losing XP for you.




Let me put it this way:

If the bard won't give a magic item to the wizard for nothing, then why should the wizard give a magic item to the bard for nothing?

Thats pretty hypocritical if you ask me.


The truth is, things should never have gotten to this point in the first place.
By now, there is probably so much resentment that unless a significant and genuine effort at reconciliation is made, the situation is essentially unsalvageable.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Are you the parent of a bratty 3 year old? Because that is exactly how you sound.

"Just give him what he wants so he will shut up!"

How pathetic and attitude to take. For the Bard to expect to keep property that belongs to him is NOT in any way shape for form PETTY. To call it petty is an insult to the Bard and the rest of the Party.

It is never petty to refuse to give in to a whining brat for any reason. It is though called being adult and mature.

So to stomp all over the point you made. NO it does not take two to cause this problem any more than it takes two to have a rape. Sure there has to be someone who is the victim but laying as much blame on the Bard and rest of the party (who are the victims here) as on the Mage is a gross mispresentation of the situation and generally a tactic reserved for sleazy TV defense lawyers. You know the ones I mean, they are the sleazy lawyer that says the girl deserved the rape for dressing sexy. Your arguement is little better than his.

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.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Having just read this I have to make a suggestion.

The next time the older player does anything disparaging the younger player for no reason at all call him on it. Look him straight in the eyes in front of everyone at the table and ask him:

"Excuse me, who the "F" do you think you are?"

You might want to warn the other players in advance that you are going to call the jerk playing the wizard out but definately do it. Age related crap like this is just irritating to no end.

As to how the wizard came to know the Bard had the ring. He didn't. The player knew but not his current character. If any other player was the Bard he wouldn't be demanding the ring. The wizard player is twenty something and the Bard's player is 15. The wizard's player feels that any of the bard's characters are of no use to the party and therefore exist the live in summision to him.

 

[Buttercup]

After reading all of Bob5th's comments, the only question I have is this: Why hasn't the DM tossed the idiot playing the wizard out of the game? He's disruptive, he's bullying a younger player, and he's using metagame knowledge to do these things.

Life is too short to waste it spending time with punks like this. Show him the door and be done with it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

All we need now is the DM for this group to post a single line in responce to this discussion.

"As you wish."

After reading all of Bob5th's comments, the only question I have is this: Why hasn't the DM tossed the idiot playing the wizard out of the game? He's disruptive, he's bullying a younger player, and he's using metagame knowledge to do these things.

Life is too short to waste it spending time with punks like this. Show him the door and be done with it.

 

[Tsyr]

As to how the wizard came to know the Bard had the ring. He didn't. The player knew but not his current character. If any other player was the Bard he wouldn't be demanding the ring. The wizard player is twenty something and the Bard's player is 15. The wizard's player feels that any of the bard's characters are of no use to the party and therefore exist the live in summision to him.

Two suggestions as for how you can deal with the wizard based on this information.

1) Talk with the player of the bard. Have the bard deny all existance of the ring. It's quite reasonalbe that, since the wizard cannot know of the ring in question in character, that the character must just be blabbering on about a "Ring of mighty magic!" or something. That or is clearly insane. One way or another, just ignore it.

2) And this is the one I would do. As a party, kill the wizard. Preferably in his sleep so he can't fight back. When he throws a fit and asks why, explain that he was clearly a spy planted there by an arch enemy of the group to sow dissent amongst friends, and he "proved" that he was a spy by "letting slip" that he knew about the magic ring the bard possessed. The delay in killing him was just to decide judgement. Furthermor, explain that, in the future, the party is going to be VERY watchfull of any "new recruits" it hires, since the enemy is clearly willing to sink to any depths to infiltrate the group.

 

[Apok]

2) And this is the one I would do. As a party, kill the wizard. Preferably in his sleep so he can't fight back. When he throws a fit and asks why, explain that he was clearly a spy planted there by an arch enemy of the group to sow dissent amongst friends, and he "proved" that he was a spy by "letting slip" that he knew about the magic ring the bard possessed. The delay in killing him was just to decide judgement. Furthermor, explain that, in the future, the party is going to be VERY watchfull of any "new recruits" it hires, since the enemy is clearly willing to sink to any depths to infiltrate the group.

That, sir, is a stroke of pure genius.

 

[Gizzard]

As a party, kill the wizard.

This is a bit extreme for now I think. ;-)

Still, one thing that bugs me about this setup is that the rest of the party should be up in arms about this situation *in-character*.

The Wizard refuses to help the Bard? OK, aren't we a team here? If your party has a leader, he should be explaining (in-character) why the Wizard has to buff the Bard. If your party decides by consensus, all the PCs should be explaining the same thing. If the Wizard cant handle this (which is a possible in-character reaction) then either he gets booted and becomes and NPC or the group resolves to live with a diva Wizard.

The big point though -- there should be some strong in-character reactions to this situation; at that point it will be clear whether you need to find an out-of-character solution as well.