Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6804633" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Yeah.  "Problem Child" treated it as a race for personal survival.  In one encounter, when a very angry queen wanted to know who had magically interfered in a ritual combat, Problem Child's character, who understood her language, prompted another character to stand up, thus taking the blame.  The other character died as a result.His rationale?  "His character had more hit points than mine.  He had a better chance to survive."Towards the end of his tenure in the game it got very ugly.  He'd stacked the party hip deep in loot, during an abortively short run as DM, so his own character could power up on gear.  His powered up character then died and he went semi ballistic when he learned that we were actually going to enforce the rules on new characters.  He'd wanted to give his new character all the wealth and gear of the old one, rather than base it off the Character Wealth Per Level table in the book.  That and the fact that he couldn't make a legal character in five tries.  Kept assigning more ability points, skill points, feats and languages than he had, and kept trying to include magic items from disallowed books.  (Many of which his character couldn't have used anyway.)But while his antics made the table contentious, we'd survived him in the prior, highly successful campaign.  Some people took a dark delight in shooting down his "perfect" character (in one case the "Shoot down" was literal and epic.)He went semi-ballistic in that campaign when he found out that his stealth-monster could be neutralized with a Glitterdust spell.  "You mean a first level spell shuts me down??!?!?!?""Not at all.  Glitterdust is 2nd level."We had another "problem player" in that game as well.  He wanted to play a "Golden One", a Cleric type from a 3rd party source that was supposed to have a Paladin-like code of honor and conduct.  He kept doing things like, "I'll go take a walk while you guys torture the prisoner."  Then he couldn't understand why the DM had a problem with that.  He left early in the failed campaign when somebody else was running the Paladin, and refused to look the other way while his character did the dirty deeds.  Really didn't get what Lawful Good was supposed to mean.Neither of these killed the campaign.  They detracted somewhat from the DM's ability to give his full attention to the story, which probably contributed to the decay, but that wasn't the source of the decay.I think the key is personal engagement, challenging situations with appropriate rewards, and when applicable some good words and the occasional bonus for players who add to the story.</blockquote>

Verification