PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Roleplaying-Combat conflict



shadowfox
2009-01-27, 08:55 PM
Well, I don't have much experience at 4e. I still refer to "shifting" as "five-foot steps," I count squares in increments of 5, and I still try making my tiefling appear along the lines as in version 3.5 (I miss my barbed tail and cloven feet...).

But I'm in my first 4e campaign. I've picked things up rather quickly, just like I did with 3 and 3.5, but this really isn't about all of that.

This campaign I'm in... It's complicated. I mean, we don't have the greatest DM in the world, but he's not horrible... Usually. Anyway, I generally have an open mind, and the other three PCs are a bit of a hodgepodge. One is a guy who just wants to play (in the middle-ground between Role Playing and "Roll Playing"), one's a hardcore RPer, and the third is a moderate role player. And that's the problem. For naming purposes, they're Player A, Player B, and Player C, respectively.

The campaign, as it was told to us, was going to be Role Play heavy. He wanted all of us to play a character that we haven't really done before. So, instead of the combat-rogue I usually play, I decided to play a Tefling Warlock (Infernal Pact) who, after getting his powers, is very afraid to use them (and, thus, rarely does). Player A is playing an Elven Swordmage (I believe it is; it's from Forgotten Realms, and I don't have the book, so I can't check it out); I don't know too much about his character. Player B, the major roleplayer, is playing a Human Rogue; he's a ladies' man (in-game), and will talk-the-talk but can't walk-the-walk. Player C is playing a Human Warlord (inspiring), and is Player B's character's grandfather.

Um... Although not exactly required to deal with this situation, if you want to know the details, they're in the spoiler below. For those who are too lazy to read through it, I'll bring up the information important to this topic below the spoiler, as I explain the exact problem.
Well, we recently ran into a very interesting problem. Last week, it was just me, Player B, and Player C there. Well, to make a short story, the Rogue cowered in a corner as my Warlock and the Warlord held strong at the stairwell. Against orcs with upwards of 40- or 50-some HP, with attack bonuses of +9 (it's pretty simple math when the DM rolls a 9, and asks, "Does 18 break your AC?), and... well, there's a bunch of them. The Warlord takes a beating, and, although my Warlock takes a couple hits, he survived due to Temporary HP.

Fast forward a week (to today), Player A is back. Player A is placed outside in the street, and he has his Swordmage charge into the first floor, taking out 3 minion orcs and leaving 2 normal ones left. The Rogue continues to cower in the common lodging room with the "civilian NPCs," though he does say, "If you called for my character, he'd come and help." Well, my character, being LE (yes, it's not a term anymore, but it helps me play my character) and a Tiefling, has yet to see the Rogue be of any use whatsoever, and will continue to look upon him as such until the Rogue proves himself. The Swordmage, who in-game is treated as having gotten to the inn late, doesn't even know where the Rogue is, and the Warlord, in Player C's words, says, "My character is too busy." Which he was; I mean, shouting order to my character (in-game), trying to keep the NPCs calm, etc... He had his hands full.

Well, the Swordmage dropped to negative HP (which allowed the Warlord to use a Daily Power to run adjacent to him or something of that nature), leaving me alone with a bloodied orc (he didn't last too long, and I'm not complaining). The Warlord got close to dying. I escaped with full HP, and only because of Temporary HP and my general position (usually out of the way, but still having LOS to my enemies).

Well, this battle (again, detailed in the spoiler) resulted in a number of interesting things:
the Rogue, despite the fact that he contributed absolutely nothing, got a fair share of the XP from the encounter.
Player C is uber-annoyed at the DM and, in a weird sense, Player B. He's made at the DM because our RP style doesn't fit into the combat. He's not angry at Player B for roleplaying properly, but is ticked that the Rogue still gets XP.
I had to completely break my character concept in order for the party to pull through.
the DM fudged rolls, allowed us to reroll, and even changed some of the orcs to minions in order to allow us to survive.

For the first encounter my Warlock got into, I was planning on having him go all-out. But then, since he made a pact with a devil (DM keeps saying "demon," despite the fact that it's an Infernal Pact) to stay alive (tied into getting his Warlock powers), he'd become too afraid to use them liberally. In fact, he'd use his powers in emergency. But, because of this, I talked to my DM. I changed his Encounter and Daily powers to Vampiric Embrace and Armor of Agathys, under the logic that he'll stay alive as long as possible, and try to rid himself of the devil's influence (preferably with keeping the powers, but he'd tr to rid himself of them if it was required). In addition, I needed to come up with a fluff-trigger for him to actually be of use in combat. I call it a "Pact Rage," where he's subject to increased Infernal influence, and, thus, will use his powers with absolute ruthlessness (but still being LE), which is more likely to happen as a situation becomes more dangerous. Unfortunately, being a DM myself, I understand that such a concept should not be entirely in the PC's hands, especially if, in theory, it can happen at any time, and the DM seemed too pleased when I said that he could slip me a note saying "Pact Rage." I'm just... afraid...

At any rate, despite making me rework my entire character, Player C is very angry. He's on the verge of walking out. He's mad because the RP aspect doesn't mix with the combat. Well, he's been saying that since he stopped his 4e campaign, because he didn't like the clash between RP and combat (which is ironic, because when 4e came out, he was a zealot about how superior 4e is), but now I have had first-hand experience of it. Although my character only suffered damage to Temporary HP, the Swordmage almost died, and the Warlord was taking quite a beating as well.

The combat encounter with the orcs? The non-minion ones were, as the DM claimed, "level 3." Quite frankly, I'm afraid at what the DM will throw at us next, since the level 3 orcs (and minions) had +9 to attacks (considering that my Warlock only has an AC of 15, that might prove to be a problem). One player's unhappy, has threatened to walk (and was doing so in the middle of the combat), and I think he's only staying in because he knows it'll screw everyone else over. Meanwhile, the Rogue sat around the entire session, bored out of her mind because none of our characters called her for help, and I was the only one having anything remotely close to the genre of "fun." And that's because I got super-focused during my turn in combat (it's a weird thing I do; it makes combat seem that much more action-packed or dramatic).

Um... To finish up, we all know each other. We're friends with each other. Me and Player B take time out of our college schedules (and Player A from his work schedule) to play with our friends back at our old high school. It's still fun. But I'm concerned that things are going to go downhill, really fast. And it's not the first time it would happen to the DM.

Help? Opinions? Suggestions?

Colmarr
2009-01-27, 09:11 PM
I see two issues here:

1. At least 2 of the players chose "gimped" characters.

2. Most of you let your characters dictate to you rather than dictating to your characters.

Gimped characters:

(4e) D&D is first and foremost a game of heroic fantasy. Any player in a D&D game that deliberately creates a character that is not willing to participate in combat (the rogue), or is not willing to do so effectively (your warlock) places the party at a significant disadvantage.

In those circumstances, you have to expect to take a pasting if the DM routinely puts you up against "normal" encounters. Either the campaign needs to change to suit the characters or the characters need to change to suit the campaign.

Who's the boss here?

I hear this refrain a lot: "But my character wouldn't do that!"

At the end of the day, D&D isn't a method acting exercise and no one's going to give you an Oscar for that fabulous piece of rolepaying you did that got their character killed.

Your character does what you tell them to do, not the other way round. There is always a way to justify a decision you want the character to make. You just need to be flexible enough to see it.


Well, my character, being LE (yes, it's not a term anymore, but it helps me play my character) and a Tiefling, has yet to see the Rogue be of any use whatsoever, and will continue to look upon him as such until the Rogue proves himself.

So your LE (yes it's still a game term) tiefling was willing to take all the risk himself even though there was a perfectly suitable patsy nearby to get between him and the orcs.


The Swordmage, who in-game is treated as having gotten to the inn late, doesn't even know where the Rogue is

And doesn't take a second to take in the scene.


the Warlord, in Player C's words, says, "My character is too busy." Which he was; I mean, shouting order to my character (in-game), trying to keep the NPCs calm, etc... He had his hands full.

The player of the character who is most able in-game to "boss others around" chose not to spot the rogue cowering in the corner in his leather armour and daggers and order him to come to your aid.

You're outnumbered and outgunned in a room full of people and no one thought to bellow for some help (which in turn would have given the rogue player an excuse for his character to join the combat).

And of course the rogue player chose not to allow his rogue to have an "I'm afraid, but they're my friends and I WONT let them down" moment.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of FUBARed thing that happens when players design unorthodox heroes and then let their heroes dictate to them rather than the other way around.

Asbestos
2009-01-27, 10:12 PM
*Excellent Points*

Even in 3.x (or any edition) a party half-full of people that refuse to fight/won't fight effectively going up against a party suitable encounter is going to have some serious issues (unless, of course, one of those participating is a build/class that far surpasses the cowards, but that's another issue).

The biggest issue is that the DM gave the XP to the rogue, even though the rogue did nothing. I don't see this as a problem with the system, I see this as a problem with the DM's interpretation of the system. Yes, the system says that you divide up XP evenly, but the system is built around everyone participating! There is no sense in sticking to the system in such a rigid way if you've already violated one of its basic principles. If the rogue didn't do anything, then he shouldn't get anything, the 'real' party didn't include him. For the purposes of that encounter he was basically an NPC. If he lags behind level-wise, this should be easy enough to deal with when building encounters.

Yakk
2009-01-27, 10:54 PM
But it wasn't only the Rogue player's failure.

The Swordmage had the least fault involved -- but even the Swordmage could have called out "damnit people, we need some help over here".

The Warlord could have easily fluffed "I recognize that the leather clad lass is an asset, so I use my Warlordy whiles to get her to engage". That is what Warlords do.

You could easily have played along with the Rogue's idea -- hell, you could have insulted the Rogue in a frustrated attempt to get help. Lots of options.

And the Rogue could have bent her character description.

All of you chose to not work together, as players, to get your characters to work together.

Look: A Roleplaying game is a game with multiple participants, who together craft a fiction. Players who roleplay their characters with no respect for the common crafted fiction -- who never attempt to riff off of keys and ideas provided by the other members of the group -- tend to cause break downs. The odds that a group of X people who independently put together a roleplaying character will pump out people who naturally work together is ridiculously low.

You, as the player, have metagame control. You can take the character you are roleplaying, and inject modifications into it to make things work. You can (with DM's approval) even change some of the world-fiction in order to help generate a good story.

A "standard" level 3 soldier often has a base +7 to hit against AC. Getting another +2 from a leader or a "while bloodied" condition or from a combat advantage or any dozen of other possibilities isn't that tricky.

So no, the +9 to hit isn't a red flag.

shadowfox
2009-01-27, 11:35 PM
Wise words from you three.

... I'm taking your advice (with "your" referring to all three of you), but I'm worried about the results. It's not a matter of whether the three of you are right; it's a matter of how much everyone else has dug in about how it's entirely the DM's fault.

Colmarr
2009-01-28, 12:45 AM
Glad to hear that we've at least swayed you.

Refer the others to this thread. Don't try to convince them verbally. Written arguments are usually better thought out and better presented than oral ones.

And as one last point, there's an old maxim in roleplaying games: “DMs provide the What, the When and the Where. Players provide the Who and the How”.

Everything that went wrong in this situation concerns the Who and the How, so I don’t see that there’s much to blame the DM for here.

Of course, if he continues to throw “normal” encounters at a party that has explicitly gimped its ability to deal with them, then the 5 of you need to sit down round a table and reach an agreement about exactly what sort of campaign you want to play.

Satyr
2009-01-28, 03:03 AM
Respect for the rogue player. It is probably not the most functional decision, but from a roleplaying perspective playing the character straight without metagaming or the infusion of player knowledge requires self-confidence. If you think it is unfair that he gains the XP for the encounter, just declare them to be roleplaying experience and decrease them a bit.


I hear this refrain a lot: "But my character wouldn't do that!"

At the end of the day, D&D isn't a method acting exercise and no one's going to give you an Oscar for that fabulous piece of rolepaying you did that got their character killed.

I could hardly disagree more. A good roleplayer is always also an actor, and the personalisation of the character is the relevant part; the mechanical aspects are only a secondary or tertiary aspect. A player who is not able to convincingly embody his or her character needs training in it.
A character that is mechanically sound but poor in roleplaying, is a complete failure. Roleplaying and the mechanics are two different levels, and obviously, they are not equally important for everyone; they are also mostly unrelated. Still, the neglection of the roleplaying aspects is not a solution at all.


(4e) D&D is first and foremost a game of heroic fantasy. Any player in a D&D game that deliberately creates a character that is not willing to participate in combat (the rogue), or is not willing to do so effectively (your warlock) places the party at a significant disadvantage.

It is completely irrelevant how the system is supposed to work or with which intentions. The relevant question is how it works for the specific group, and nothing else. The mechanical rules should never be considered as important as the interests and ideas of the players.


Help? Opinions? Suggestions?

Sit down together with cake and coffee. Talk about what do ou expect from the game, what are the important aspects for you, what kind of stories, plot elements etc. you want to experience, ehat things would displease you, and so on. Try to find a gaming style everyone is happy - or at least content with. If no such compromise can be found, the group will have

Colmarr
2009-01-28, 04:30 AM
Respect for the rogue player. It is probably not the most functional decision, but from a roleplaying perspective playing the character straight without metagaming or the infusion of player knowledge requires self-confidence.

It also shows a complete disregard for the wishes of his fellow players and the DM, and either ignorance of or nonchalance about how his personal preferences are impacting on others' "fun". No kudos for that. The only reason he's less to blame for this situation is that he offered a solution. None of the others did.


It is completely irrelevant how the system is supposed to work or with which intentions. The relevant question is how it works for the specific group, and nothing else. The mechanical rules should never be considered as important as the interests and ideas of the players.

I assume you missed my last post. My point exactly in the long term.

But in the short term, and with a group of average gamers, your "roleplaying is all" approach will lead to nothing but strife.

Jerthanis
2009-01-28, 04:58 AM
I hear this refrain a lot: "But my character wouldn't do that!"

At the end of the day, D&D isn't a method acting exercise and no one's going to give you an Oscar for that fabulous piece of rolepaying you did that got their character killed.

I agree with the sentiment of your initial statement, but not with your elaboration.

YOU made the character, and if the choices you made in how the character acts cause negative repercussions, be prepared to deal with them, or be prepared to switch characters. If you're a coward and hide under a table, don't be surprised when the rest of the party doesn't let you come along with them to the evil Baron's manor or the Dragon's den. If you choose not to use the full extent of your abilities, don't be upset when you get killed because of it. However, it's not shameful to have to switch characters because IC decisions made you unplayable or anything. (eg. The innkeeper who stays at his inn instead of going off to seek revenge with the other PCs as well as the Coward who gets left behind by fellow PCs for being a liability, as well as the demon summoner afraid of his own powers killed before his time.) In fact, losing a character to IC reasons could be a badge of honor.

Reluctance
2009-01-28, 05:08 AM
It is completely irrelevant how the system is supposed to work or with which intentions. The relevant question is how it works for the specific group, and nothing else. The mechanical rules should never be considered as important as the interests and ideas of the players.

At its most basic level, true. On any deeper level, that's not so. Systems will tend to be good at certain tasks and bad at others. Taking a system with so much focus on tactical combat and options, only to attempt to use it as improv theater, is like using a screwdriver to drive in a nail when there are perfectly functional hammers handy.


I could hardly disagree more. A good roleplayer is always also an actor...

Not just an actor. Players are also part authors of the shared story.

And any good author will tell you that there are certain times when leaving a character in would hold the story back. I could maybe see "you're an actor, live your role" if character creation were all random and you played what the dice gave you. When you have full control over what sort of character you're creating, why did you chose to add a poor team player?

And to the OP, the XP is the least of everybody's issues. Change your character around a bit so his basic powers are ones he can call upon without risk, and his scary potential power is some unstatted "the DM gets to chose the effects, plus he gets to screw me in the process" thing. Add a commanding personality so you can be the one keeping everybody on the ball when the dice hit the table, and people should have more fun. Not only wasn't the rogue participating, but I don't hear you mentioning the defender or the leader operating to their fullest either. A tactical combat decidedly light on tactics does sound frustrating. Be the guy who helps everybody else contribute to their fullest, and things should start smoothing out.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-28, 05:19 AM
Change your character around a bit so his basic powers are ones he can call upon without risk, and his scary potential power is some unstatted "the DM gets to chose the effects, plus he gets to screw me in the process" thing.

This is entirely correct. If you don't want to use warlock powers except in the most dire of straits, don't play a warlock. Seriously, using warlock powers is what the warlock is for.

I love your concept, but playing a full warlock who refuses to draw on his pact is roughly equivalent to playing a full wizard who refuses to use magic, or a full barbarian who tries never to hit his enemies with weapons. Yes, that's a great character concept. If you don't want to actually contribute to fights.

Perhaps you could try a different class (a martial class, perhaps?), maybe multiclassing into warlock later, and leave the consequences of your infernal pact--like they are now--to be worked out with your DM when they come up.

Halaster
2009-01-28, 06:09 AM
Hi.

I agree with the general opinion that "method acting" can be a bad thing if done the way it's done in your group.

Whatever you think of the merits of good acting in an RPG, remember this: acting is a lonely profession, you always do it by yourself. Roleplaying on the other hand is cooperative, you must consider your fellow players. So storytelling is probably the better approach, since it is inherently an interactive activity - between the teller and the audience. When your audience are fellow storytellers, it's the only option. Take this line out of the Fading Suns rulebook as a warning: "If a player decides to play a pyromaniac with Tourette's Syndrome and then proceeds to set things on fire and make inappropriate noises all the time, he's not a good roleplayer, he's a disruptive jerk." Sure, it's consequent acting, but why make such a character in the first place?

In a game like D&D, that defaults to everyone giving their best, not doing so is inherently dangerous. Even if your DM wants to tone down encounters, he's pretty much on his own, since the challenge ratings (or whatever 4e calls that) are arranged for a maximum effect party. So he must always guess and take chances with lower CRs. So you're making his life difficult, if no one else's.

Instead you should try to think of ways to enable your character to work at 100% without giving up his basic shtick. For example, your warlock may be afraid of his powers, but after all this is an infernal pact, so it's seductive. What if he feels attracted to the power his abilities give him, and, like a junkie, who knows that drugs are destroying his life, but still goes for another fix at every opportunity, uses them when it helps him, angsting about it afterwards? Maybe it even has some bad effects in-game, but still, he can't stop. How about that?

CU,
Halaster

Cubey
2009-01-28, 06:23 AM
Regardless of whether making a character with limited willingness to fight is good RPing or not, in this case it was still the player's fault. I'm talking about the rogue here - first he has decided his character won't fight, and then he gets angry at the DM because of HIS own decision? That's major hypocrisy.

I don't think the DM is to blame. He created a standard encounter, which would be much easier to beat if your party had a character who actually participates in the fight (rogue), and another who would be willing to use their powers (your warlock). That didn't happen so the encounter was so difficult that apparently it wasn't fun.

The solution is obvious - the players, including you, should make sure their characters contribute more in the fight. It's okay if they don't, but ONLY if they also don't mind it. Apparently they do in this case though.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-28, 06:43 AM
No version of D&D really supports a character who won't use their abilities. Some games do: in a game like GURPS or M&M, you could construct your warlock to actually suffer somehow for using those abilities (losing points of health, or points of some spiritual attribute or purely dramatic attribute), which would usually let you make the character better in other things, to make up for that.

But really, aside from all that, isn't the whole point of building these conflicts into your character - cowardice, reluctance about your powers - to actually enter and solve those conflicts? The rogue overcomes his cowardice after a round or two of hiding, and desperate stabs an orc in the back! The warlock curses fate or his ill luck and blasts the enemy with hell-fire! Sure, if you have a dozen encounters per adventure (completely a matter of DM and group preference; you can play any version of D&D with just one fight per session or adventure, or fewer), it's going to get trite - and, again, D&D just may not be the game for characters like this - but if you construct a character who is specifically bad at the sort of challenges the game throws at you, that's your own fault, and it's bad teamwork, out-of-game, on your part as a player. Every single player has a part responsibility in making sure the team works (especially important in 4E, with its clear-cut team roles) and the game is fun.

Like Inyssius Tor says, the warlock, in 4E, would have been better modelled as something else - maybe a rogue (still a striker) ? - multiclassing into warlock for a few powers (the "best" daily attacks maybe, used only in the most dire straits).

The main thing to take away from this is this: sit down with your group and talk about the game. Find out what everyone expects, wants, and is ready to compromise to. Everyone should be as happy as possible, and there usually is a way. Maybe you and the rogue's player need to create different kinds of characters. Maybe the DM will be happy to focus less on combat and more on decisions and roleplay. Heck, maybe you and the rogue can agree to take turns being useless, and the DM can tailor encounters to one fewer PCs.

Yakk
2009-01-28, 11:52 AM
Exactly.

As a player in an RPG adventure game, you wear multiple hats. You identify with a character. You act out that character's motivations. You craft a story with the DM and the other Players. You play a tactical game against challenges the DM presents the character or party.

RPGs are not simple games -- they don't have only one path to enjoyment. But problems tend to erupt if you completely neglect parts of the RPG experience.

You don't have to bonk people over the head about it -- you can lead by example. Your Warlock was 'forced' to use the Warlock powers to survive, right? So now your Warlock has been somewhat corrupted by it. Play along with it...

Your character's personality has been split. He projects a hallucinatory imp as the personification of his second personality. That imp can make the character do things, and can 'use' his powers. Sometimes, his 'core' personality can stop it.

You, the player, get to control which of the Imp or the Core has control. The Core is anguished about using the Imp's powers. But if the Core doesn't let the Imp do things, it builds up and bursts... so the Core seeks to use the Imp in order to advance good.

The Imp, meanwhile, punishes the Core only if the Core completely suppresses the Imp. Otherwise, the Imp is trying to make the Core give the Imp more freedom -- so the Imp plays along, and advances the Core's agenda. . .

So now you have an angsty Core personality, and an Impish Imp personality, in your character. You can justify that the character, as a whole, is useful to have around (as the Imp tries to sell itself to the Core as being something that should be let free more often). The Core has an element of learned helplessness against the Imp.

All of this is actually just happening inside the mind of the character, which you as the player control.

...

Similarly, riff off of what hooks other players produce on their characters. If another player says that their character won't do X unless someone does Y, see if you can justify doing Y, or causing Y to happen in another way, to further the story forward. Instead of looking for ways to say "no, my character wouldn't do Y", look for a way to say "yes, my character would do ",Y in order to make the other player's experience better.

Artanis
2009-01-28, 01:26 PM
The campaign, as it was told to us, was going to be Role Play heavy. He wanted all of us to play a character that we haven't really done before. So, instead of the combat-rogue I usually play, I decided to play a Tefling Warlock (Infernal Pact) who, after getting his powers, is very afraid to use them (and, thus, rarely does).

...

Help? Opinions? Suggestions?

I have an idea. Page 55 of the PHB says that you can reflavor powers however you like. So if you want to play somebody with warlock powers that he doesn't like to use, you can create a character of a different class and reflavor some of the powers to be warlock-y attacks.

Off the top of my head, playing a Rogue and taking Blinding Barrage as your level 1 daily would be an absolutely perfect example. Blinding Barrage is a Close Blast 3 that deals damage and (unsurprisingly) blinds enemies. So you could describe it as:
"I am absolutely terrified to use my infernal powers, but my friends are in danger and I see no choice but to use them in our defense. I charge my blade with unholy eldritch flame and fling it into the middle of <insert targets here>, where it explodes into shards of solid metallic hellfire that tears into their flesh, blinding them as it flays them alive."

It also gives an awesome RP opportunity for after the fight and between fights as the character tries to deal with the fear that he may have just lost part of his soul trying to save his friends. Additionally, the power in this example being a daily means you have a perfect OOC excuse for not using it very often.

MartinHarper
2009-01-28, 03:57 PM
My very first game DMing 4e, I also had an issue with a Rogue running away and hiding, perhaps because the player wanted to make a point about equal xp distribution being silly. So he ran, hid, and discovered that doing nothing during combat is dull, and getting xp to spend on powers that you'll never use doesn't make up for that. Also, the other characters weren't pleased that their companion had bolted at the first sign of trouble. For both those reasons, in every subsequent combat, he got involved, and subtly ret-conned some of his character background to make this believable. It worked fine for me. Of course, this was my first ever time DMing, so it's probable that the players cut me a lot of slack.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-01-28, 04:39 PM
My very first game DMing 4e, I also had an issue with a Rogue running away and hiding, perhaps because the player wanted to make a point about equal xp distribution being silly. So he ran, hid, and discovered that doing nothing during combat is dull, and getting xp to spend on powers that you'll never use doesn't make up for that. Also, the other characters weren't pleased that their companion had bolted at the first sign of trouble. For both those reasons, in every subsequent combat, he got involved, and subtly ret-conned some of his character background to make this believable. It worked fine for me. Of course, this was my first ever time DMing, so it's probable that the players cut me a lot of slack.

Also, the player was a jerk.

Making a "see, I can break/mock your game" character is disrespectful to the DM and to the fellow players. I'm glad your player came around and everything fixed itself.