Telling others how to roleplay

[pogre]

But, Mistwell -

Does not one who has taken the healing domain give at least the impression to fellow PCs that they are a healer. Party healer is a very legitimate and needed role in D&D. Further, it's not like Clerics are ineffectual without their spells - they are pretty durable in melee as well. Now, I think it is perfectly reasonable that a Cleric healing someone make demands upon that person in the name of the church...

 

[JoeGKushner]

Some other quick background.

The player is a priest of Torm.

I too felt that maybe he didn't want to be the walking band-aid.

I used a NPC healer from the Miniatures Handbook to try and help him out so that he could focus on combat or something else.

Now he packs a lot of healing spells, but doesn't use them unless the he feels that the character in question needs them, and so the characters in question go t othe healer, at which point he jumps in and asks if they need healing, after they've already asked to be healed.

Sometimes it doesn't happen that way, other times it does.

I've tried to help the player get some priestly focus by using some conversion rules from the Quintessential Cleric, as well as use of his turning ability and having his church have a hand in the reconstruction of a ruined city.

The player does not seem to be able to tell that the comments and concerns aren't about him, but his character as he takes any criticism personal and retorts to, "Don't tell me how to roleplay my character."

Now in the Ebonring adventure for AU that I was in, I put in the storyhour how one of the other players and I disagreed over something and the other character left the group as the majority of the party backed my actions. He doesn't see the paralell lines there that sometimes a party doesn't get along well.

Now another thing he's upset is that all new characters start at 2 levels lower and feels that he's being penalized for the party complaints as opposed to the party who thinks that they've been penalized by having that character around as long as they did.

I hate it when D&D becomes like Survivor with eveyrone trying to pitch their story.

 

[Mistwell]

Now another thing he's upset is that all new characters start at 2 levels lower and feels that he's being penalized for the party complaints as opposed to the party who thinks that they've been penalized by having that character around as long as they did.

I hate it when D&D becomes like Survivor with eveyrone trying to pitch their story.

First, on choosing the domain of healing - it could be just so he can heal better on himself, or reduce the number of spells he feels he has to cast healing. Choosing healing domain does not come with the baggage of HAVING to heal everyone whenever they need or want it, it just means you are better at healing when you choose to do it.

Okay, let me be very clear on this next one, highlighted by your comments in the quote above. You are totally unfairly punishing the player (not the character, but the player) if you require him to start two levels lower BECAUSE THE OTHER CHARACTERS KICKED HIM OUT.

The whole reason you reduce the level a new character starts at is to prevent them from being foolish and just getting themselves killed for the fun of it. You want them to invest themselves into the game, and care about death, and not just change characters whenever they feel like it.

However, it is totally different if this player wants to continue playing this character, but the other characters kick them out. That isn't an issue of a player seeking careless death, or not investing themselves in the game, or just wanting to change characters on a whim. This is a scenario which you, and the other players, are at least partially culpable in bringing about. He just role played his character the way he felt it should be played. Others did not like it, and so kicked him out. You don't punish him for playing the character that way by not only REQUIRING that he start a new character despite the last one still being quite alive and kicking and wanting to continue playuing, but then reducing that new characters levels in addition to kicking him out. That is just plain silly, and vindictive, unless you think it was this player's intention to drive other people to kicking him out just as an excuse to start a new character (and it certainly doesn't sound like that).

This is starting to sound like a DM issue, in addition to being a player issue.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Those are some good points.

To counter though, all new characters, usually caused by death, in my campaign, start 2 levels lower than other characters. I don't want to encourage players to be stupid and start charging iron golems or anything so if they make a new character, it's two levels lower than the party average.

He feels that he's being punished because his character isn't dead and played the way he wanted to be played. Should every player simply play the way they want knowing that if the whole party doesn't want them there that their next character can just stroll in at the same level and the same power?

Heck, I know I'd be tempted to screw around just so I could try something different.

Now if I was running an evil campaign, I've already had three players tell me they would've killed him. One of the players wanted to change alignments and seek an attonment spell. Two of them after the last game where he stayed behind in the concestcrated room when the party moved ahead. One of them when he was down half his hit points and the cleric wouldn't heal him.

Now if they had killed him and I had him start another character two levels lower, would the follow the same pattern?

Most of us like him, except the one guy who wasn't healed the first day he meet the character. Bad first impressions and all that but we worry that he's got to prove his point, even if it's at the expense of the party. Now I've told him he can keep playing his character and told the group that they should elect a party leader. I figure that way, if he does something like trying to stay behind when the rest are moving on, the party leader can put the kobosh on that. With that, he didn't want to play the cleric anymore because we would be controlling his "role playing" and telling him what to do so a new character he wants to make.

Heck, in the past when I've had people come over for short stays, I've had them make characters that were more powerful than the party average as I knew that long term game balance wouldn't be too effected. I know I'm not perfect but I feel that if I bend here, when a character dies, it's going to be the finger pointed at this guy and ,"If he can make a character the same level as us, then so can I!"

 

[BSF]

Joe,
I too am curious about your statement: "Now another thing he's upset is that all new characters start at 2 levels lower and feels that he's being penalized for the party complaints as opposed to the party who thinks that they've been penalized by having that character around as long as they did."

Are you saying that because he hasn't healed characters, they have died and now they are coming back with replacement characters two levels lower?

Or are you saying that if he chooses to bring in a new character that would mesh with the group better it would be two levels lower?

Increasingly, this sounds like the player has chosen to portray the character in a way that does not mesh with the group. It does not sound like the player is feeling overwhelmed by being the party healer. Not when the DM has introduced an NPC to take that role so that the PC Cleric can choose to unleash with different spells.

It does sound like there are a few communication issues.
Why does the cleric refuse to heal an injured party member?
What constitutes "injured enough" to be healed?
Why would the cleric consecrate an area that the rest of the party did not plan to stay at for an extended period of time?

Have the other characters ever asked these questions? Has the cleric ever offered any insight into why he chooses to act as he does? This is just another variant of the secretive character type. He very well may have valid in-character reasons for his behavior. It would help if the other players tried to draw those reasons out, but ultimately the person responsible for conveying the character personality is the player, not the rest of the group.

To me, it sounds like the entire group would do well to have a sit down session where you point out why the character's behavior seems unfathomable and uncooperative. Unfortunately, it also sounds like this won't help since the player doesn't distinguish between a dislike for the character and a dislike for the player.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

To me, this is a problem with the players (meaning the ones not playing the Cleric). Why do I say that? Simple...

1. Just because WotC gives every Cleric healing (and Good Clerics spontaneous healing) doesn't mean that anyone playing a Cleric is at all obligated to act as a walking First Aid kit.

2. Anyone wanting a Cleric in their party better be prepared for the Cleric to do clerical things (which is much more than crunch-bad-guy-and-heal-buddies).

My suggestion is not to introduce an NPC to do the task. Instead, one of the folks whining about the need for healing can multiclass into Cleric for a few levels and take up the Holy Mantle of Band Aid themselves.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The first time, the player was metagming with player hit points and decided that since the character wasn't below 50% of his max, that he wasn't going to heal him.

The second time, he didn't want to be bossed around.

The cleric didn't tell anyone what the benefits were for the room and the party didn't want to wait there. He felt that they should listen to him and lure monsters back there. They felt that they were going to explore the ghoul dug caverns and that if he wanted to wait by himself in the room, more power to him. The party were upset at me because for the encounter, I gave him listen chances and awarded him a share of experience points. I figured that in truth, part of it was the party's fault for leaving the cleric behind. I mean why complain about it if you originally left him there in the first place?

For characters who die, they can be raised with no problem, just standard experience point loss.

For new characters, they start off at two levels lower. If it's due to someone else's fault, I might do something like bonus experience, (75% to next level instead of 50%), nifty little magic item or something else.

If he has to bring in a new character that meshes well with the party, I'm not going to allow him to come in at the same level as the other party members. Maybe that's wrong but it doesn't give other people any incentive to 'be good' if you will if they know that they can just bring in a new player at the same level. The net effect is that he's bringing in a new character. He does have the option of keeping his current character but to the the 'bitching' of the party members and the fact that some of them want to kill this character, he's already told me that he's making a new character.

The healing wasn't as much an issue after I introduced the Healer to the party to free up the cleric. Still, the cleric then felt his home ground was being threatened and started making scrolls and other items to heal.

No one has died due to the cleric's actions yet. All of the characters, in addition to protecting the healer with near fantacism, have purchased thousands of gold piece worth of healing potions to insure that they don't have to rely on the character.

We have also tried to help him with some ideas on how to make the character more effective. How to mesh with the group better. I've thrown some cleric specific stuff, mechanically and role playing wise his way. He's okay at role playing, but game play suffers. I don't know if it's because he's trying to save his spells to the last minute or if he just feels he knows better but if I'm being asked by some barbarian covered in wounds and poisoned for healing as he pants over his greatsword, I'm healing the guy, not going, "Nope, not injured enough."

I'm just worried that it's player problems, not character problems. It may not be. I've seen players who couldnt' run a certain class to save their life and then move into another class like it was nothing and took off from there. I hope that's what's going to happen here.

 

[maddman75]

My thoughts.

- If you don't want to heal people, don't play a cleric. It's what they do. Clerics heal, fighters cut, wizards burn, rogues sneak.
- What's this about 'loading up on healing spells'? He should be using spontaneous healing for this when possible.
- Explain to him that being an ass doesn't equal 'how I play my character'.
- Two levels is a little harsh, but I do one level for the same reasons you listed. How do you calculate xp? Does this person have any chance to catch up?
- It sounds like he's a 'lone wolf/do my own thing' kind of player. Cleric is just about the worst class he could be playing if that's the case. Their whole deal is to heal/help/support the rest of the team. For that matter, D&D isn't really a good game for lone wolfing.
- Have the group go in on wands of cure light wounds. End of debate, they aren't his charges, they've everyone's charges. And it's no more wasteful to spend one on a guy missing ten than it is a guy missing 50.

 

[Mistwell]

It's metagaming to notice how injured someone is, and decide to hold off on healing because they are not injured to the point where it is worth burning a finite number of healing spells when someone else might need them more later?

I think you've decided to side with some of the players against the clleric player, if this is how you are approaching the issue now. What your cleric player did is perfectly reasonable, and how most cleric's I've seen handle that exact same issue. In fact - ALL clerics I've seen make a judgment call in when healing is worth doing and when it isn't, in a similar manner to the call your cleric player made.

In my opinion, it's the other players whining that is the issue, not the cleric player. And a DM who won't take back control over his game because he is worried about issues of fairness when that very sense of fairness is what is resulting in an wholing unjust result.

I would tell the other players to shut up already, and if they dont like it just take some cleric levels. And if the cleric player feels like his character has been driven from the game, and you see that as at least possible, let him replace him with an equal level. THAT would be the just thing to do. In fact, that would be the more enjoyable thing for everyone involved. And if other players try and claim they can do it also, tell them no, that this is a special case, and THAT IS THE END OF THE DISCUSSION! You are the DM. Take back control from your players.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Just so I'm clear, it's not some of the players, it's all of the players.

I know I'm not perfect as a GM. For one, I tend to wing it way more than use modules and prewritten adventures. That's one of the reasons I can add in specific stuff to the campaign on the fly and change elements around that haven't been explored yet.

It's metagaming to keep track of the other player's hit points and decide that based on your math that you'r not going to heal them. Yes, that is metagming 101. This is a particular hornet in my own nest because when this player was a GM, he complained about the same thing in a AU campaign where one character was at death's door, made the stabilization check, and the other character didn't heal him because he knew he was stablized.

For the sake of arguement, say that it is the other players nagging that is the problem. If everyone of them states that it's a problem, doesn't it tend to go that it's a problem if they're all having issues with the character?

I enjoy inter party tensions as much as the next person but I haven't had one person tell me that they have any interest in being a foil for him. They just want to stay away from him, get their healing and spells from the NPC, and wait from him to die.

I do like your approach Mistwell, but find that I'm "Taking control" if you will by putting the cleric down, not punishing the rest of the group by making a special exception for someone having trouble fitting into a six man group. I'm more tempted to side with the cleric just to avoid a "us" vs. "him" issue but... he's out for a few sessions due to the holiday and we'll see how it works when he gets back.

As far as XP, I use the variant system which allows lower level characters to eventually catch up to the others. Useful for times when players get shanked and raised or shanked and make new characters.