Telling others how to roleplay

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Not really. As a Cleric trained in healing (even if he's decided not to make it his forte), he (the character) should be able to look at the other character and make an educated assumption of the character's condition. Asking about Hit Points is simply the Player-to-Player way that this assessment is made.

As an aside, the way I handle this at my table is by degrees: 90% or higher is "Good", 75% is "Fine", 50% is "Sore", 25% is "Low", and less than 25% is "Hurt". Stating the actual value is not allowed.

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.

The problem here isn't his hypocracy (although he is being a hypocrite to a degree... Was the spellcaster(s) in that party "healers"?), it's his failure to remain impartial and allow the Players to make their own choices. Kinda ironic, eh?

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?

No. What they've done is look at his class (Cleric) and thus delegated him to a pre-determined role in the group based on their own ideas of what a Cleric should be within a party. These desires may not at all coincide with the desires of the Player and it is entirely unfair of the others to push this on him.

I must ask, though, how this Player has been previously with other characters? Are they all like this, or does this one just happen to be this way and no one is liking it?

 

[Kichwas]

You can usually tell if it's a player issue or a character issue in how the player portrays the conflict.

If for example, a cleric was not willing to heal people who did not perform the proper sacred rites, rituals, and other forms of devotion to the divine then you've got a case of 'getting into it' to an uncomfortable degree, but probably valid.

If you've got a cleric not willing to heal unless the numbers are right, or not wanting to heal because there's 'more interesting things to do', then it might be a problem.

Or it might not.

It's all a matter of using your real life 'Sense Motive' skill. None of us being there, it's really not possible for us to get a 'feel' for what's making this person tick the way he is. Look at his demeanor - is he acting in a way that feels antagonistic towards the other players over the issue, or does he seem to be friendly and personable out of character, and just problematic in character?

Honestly, if he was just a thorn in your sides in character you would know it - you wouldn't feel so uncomfortable with the issue that you had to come here to us unless you yourself had a real failing in human perception (which I doubt). So I imagine there is a problem out of character, and he is not 'playing along' in how he portrays it.

It is quite possible to play the antagonistic 'I'm not going to help anybody' cleric and have it not be an out of character issue because it's all done in game without any harsh feelings, comments, or sidelong glances. In fact, it's quite hard to honestly have something which is only in character slip over to out of character unless somebody involved -intended- for it to do so on some level.

Over the last two decades I've seen many character conflicts that were quite harsh and hostile that, because they were only in character, never spread beyond that and everyone knew it from the get go. By contrast I've seen out of character conflicts brought to in character that even though the people denied it and tried to hide it everyone knew instantly what was really going on - even if only on an emotional level, and even if the conflict seemed subdued and minor in game.

Trust your feelings, if you felt a need to come here then that feeling was probably justified.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

In my experience, interparty tensions only work when both halves of the interaction are enjoying it. Also, the rest of the party can't be made uncomfortable by it (I've seen a case where two heavy roleplayers had characters with a hatred of each other. They both loved it, but it made everyone else so uncomfortable that they all left the game.) Much of the time it happens it's just single player who enjoys that sort of thing and the rest of the party is driven up a wall.

Talk to the player. Find out what he's trying to accomplish by his actions. Point out why it isn't working. Point out that no one else is having fun because of his actions. Try to point out a way he can accomplish what he's trying to accomplish (assuming it isn't just to tick off the other players/characters) without hurting the game for everyone else.

Sometime the right solution is just to cut the player loose (although this doesn't seem like it's necessarily a case for this). That player's play style doesn't mesh with the rest of the group's play style and no one will be having fun if he stays.

 

[JoeGKushner]

After thinking it over and reading some of the wisdom here, I think that I will allow his next characer to be 'full level.' He hasn't played with us much and may still be getting used to our style so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt this one time.

Now to get the hose ready to shut up the other players... "But why.." Hose on. "Because I say so..."

 

[Buttercup]

As a DM, my philosophy is to treat my players like adults unless and until they prove that they aren't.

Were this guy my player, I would have a private talk with him, in which I would remind him that 1) It's a game. 2.) It's supposed to be fun for everyone. 3.) I didn't think I needed to tell people to create a character that was a team player. 4) Since I was obviously mistaken on point three, I will do so now. If said player wants to keep his present character, then he will have to have an epiphany that changes his personality and behavior toward the rest of the party. If he doesn't want to come up with an in-character transformation, then he will have to roll up a new character that works and plays well with others. 5) I would ask him for a detailed description of his character before next session, and tell him that henceforth, I have veto power over his PCs.

I actually did have a player that created an irritating halfling rogue that had serious Kender tendencies. The character pissed off all the other party members, and the players too. One of the party's dwarves caught the kender-analog with his hands where they didn't belong and threatened to cut them off next time. He was not kidding. His thieving behavior at inappropriate times made the party unwelcome in several places that were important sources of information, and in one case, healing potions (the party had no cleric). Interestingly, before I had a chance to have the above talk with him, his girlfriend did it. The character had a vision and switched to cleric. Of course, he had a wisdom score too low to cast spells, so his god (with my permission ) switched some of his stats around. He now has a wisdom of 12. Not so great, and he'll have to find a way to raise it pretty soon, but he worked the behavior change into his character development seamlessly, and has since been a much nicer character to have around.

 

[Arkhandus]

I wish you luck in integrating that player into the group somehow. The player is just being stubborn and not seeing things clearly because he's defensive about his playing style or something. Let him make a new character of equal level, but only this once.

Something many of the folks arguing his side have ignored is the fact that this guy was a cleric of TORM, and had chosen to take the HEALING domain. Torm is a lawful good Faerunian deity of paladins and duty. His dogma preaches that his clerics serve all good people of Faerun dutifully. The PC in question was playing a cleric of Torm with Healing as one of his domains... And folks keep seeming to forget all this which JoeGKushner already explained... The player chose the Healing domain and chose Torm as his patron deity.... Thus, he chose for his cleric's faith to be devoted specifically to Torm's benevolent, helpful, serving-society aspects. He specifically chose to play the type of cleric that is devoted to helping, protecting, and healing others. He was not forced into the role. The DM even provided him an NPC healer cleric to help out and mitigate any healing responsibilities.

BUT THE PLAYER HAD SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN TO PLAY A HEALER IN THE FIRST PLACE. He just didn't want to play it that way. He could have easily played something else if he had wanted to. He could have played a cleric of Tempus or something if he didn't want to be a healer. Not all clerics have to be healers, and the group wasn't forcing him into it. But he had chosen to play a cleric devoted to serving and helping others, specifically by healing and protecting others, and he just didn't want to do that once he actually started playing the character. Torm would not have disapproved of him doing exactly what he was sworn to do, which would have been healing his half-wounded allies. It would have been exactly what he swore to do in Torm's service, since he had chosen the Healing domain and its associated aspects of Torm as the object of his faith and reverance.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

Not to change the topic, buf have any of you noticed a tendancy for players to play clerics only for their spell power while failing to really role-play a religious character? I usually see lip-service worship out of clerics and paladins at best.

Well, tell this to the WotC, and its wonderfull Dietes & Demigods, that have nothing, absolutelly nothing worthy to increase the religious background in D&D, giving nothing to the players base their characters beliefs.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, there is a difference between a healer and the healer. And who's to say that he isn't choosing his spells wisely and fruegally? After all, he did ask about the character's condition prior to saying "no", thus he shows an active, at-that-moment justification for not granting the aid.

After all, "all good people" does not in any way single out the party specifically, and the subject of healing, under D&D's abstract HP system, is quite subjective. I very well could have made the same decision and none of my fellows would accuse me of not being a team player.

 

[Myris]

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but here's my spin on this:

I've encountered this problem before with a certain player in a game I was running. He constantly played characters that acted against the group and didn't participate in group activity. He demanded my time as he did pointless solo quests, leaving the rest of the party behind to do the real work of the game.

The players all asked me what to do about him and his characters. While I'm all for playing a character how he's "supposed" to be played, this was way more than excessive and was a complete disruption to the group. In fact, the fact that he consistently played characters like this made me think that he did so intentionally in order to mess up my games (his characters for other games were far more agreeable, though still not complete team players).

My solution: I finally decided to start running realistic games. When a party started, they started as complete strangers (unless they agreed otherwise from the beginning). I made them roleplay meeting, roleplay gaining trust, and roleplay "real-life" reactions to things like the disruptive actions of the player in question. Now, once this happened, the characters inevitably would kick out the useless party member (after all, that's what would really happen in that situation)...after awhile he got the hint and became more agreeable. Especially when I would add into the fact a plot twist that would require him remaining with the group.

While this solution, of course, was extreme and ticked off the player in question, he finally did realize the importance of his actions and of being a team player.

Of course, when he runs a game is another story...he has a habit of changing your character to fit what he wants in his game (such as by giving them tons of super powerful magic items that change stats, personality, etc, or your character finding out that he's a god's son, or various other things...). It doesn't matter what YOU want to play, he will change it. That's why I'm now known as the "human fighter...JUST A HUMAN FIGHTER" in the group (I've been known to go to great lengths to destroy magic items or pick fights with my deific parent in hopes of either killing my character or brining her back to what she's supposed to be...). But I guess that's a different subject altogether....

 

[Lord Pendragon]

In a previous game, I played in a group that had a similar problem player. The character was a cross-dressing gnome druid who liked to dump water (courtesy of Create Water, his favorite cantrip,) over the head of anyone who annoyed him. The PC was zany in the extreme, with no care as to the in-game consequences of his actions.

I spoke with the DM about it, who was reluctant to do anything because the player is a good friend of the entire group, and the DM didn't want to hurt her feelings. Nor did I. On the other hand, my PC in-game, a stoic fighter/mage born in a Spartan city dedicated to demonslaying, was a no-nonsense type of guy, whose character practically screamed to leave the druid behind and find someone more serious and dependable.

Eventually, the party ranger had had enough as well, and had a gentle in-game talk about responsibility and "toning it down when it could get us killed." Out of game, I explained that, much as I thought the druid was a great character and I loved playing with the player, realistically there was no reason my PC would want to adventure with such a loose cannon. The player understood, and the druid remained zany and the flood of Create Water spells did not abate, but he no longer tried to wear his tutu when we were summoned to meet the Duke.

Longwinded example aside, I agree with Buttercup 237%. A combination of in-game roleplaying and a gentle out-of-game explanation, along with a chance to create a new character without penalty, should do the job.