PDA

View Full Version : How to deal with a difficult player



ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-01, 10:01 PM
Ok so I'm in a game that I am enjoying very very much. It's a great game. there is however one problem.

one of the players tends to. . . metagame, power play, and in general do things that make life hard for the rest of us.

The metagaming is what metagaming always is, annoying, frustrating, and it takes away from the RP experience.

It's not a power game (i'm playng a freakin healer). So the power playing is mildly annoying, don't get me wrong I understand the desire to optimize but this guy feels the need to show off his optimization at every turn. Often glory hounding in the hopes for more XP.

then theres the arguments, stemming either from the glory hounding or often from doing things that should be against his alignment. Example: for the most part we are all good aligned so you can see why shooting the half starved bandits, who just wanted to feed their kids, in the back as they run away might bother some of us.

Now here's what REALLY gets me. The DM has been doing his job of punishing this guy for his behavior. The guys been Cursed. He's been dominated and lost control of his character, He's had experience penalties. He's DIED . . .TWICE and had to reroll . and he STILL does it. Finnaly he's been spoken to about it and he'll get better for a while "cause he shuts up and pouts" then he'll go right back to it.

Is there anything the oh wise forums can think of that might help teach this guy a lesson,(excluding kicking him from the game). I'm looking for somthing devious I can do in game that would put him in his place as I am a player in this game not the GM.

Katana_Geldar
2009-09-01, 10:05 PM
This guys seems like a meta-gaming munchkin, and it looks as if he won't reform. You could either get him out of the game or the DM uses him to play one of the villains.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-01, 10:05 PM
Geas

Dominate Person.

Mindrape.

Rubo233
2009-09-01, 10:05 PM
Sadly it sounds like this player may need to be let go.
Talk to him and let him know that his play style is getting on everyone's nerves and it making the game less fun for you. Also talk to your DM and let him know how you feel and if other players feel the same way.

Or you could just talk to him in character if he continues acting evilly and let him know you cannot continue to travel with a person like him.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-01, 10:09 PM
To everyone who reads this and thinks the player is a munchkin:Can it. You need more context to make such accusations. As far as we know, the player could just be playing a basic Chain Tripper and even holding back on the Power Attack.

That's out of the way, onto the real post:


one of the players tends to. . . metagame, power play, and in general do things that make life hard for the rest of us.

How? How does he metagame? How is his Power Gaming disrupting game play? What actions does he take to make things difficult? Without that information, there's nothing we can suggest short of kicking him out that will actually solve this problem. You need to provide several scenarios to put things into context for us, seeing as we aren't playing in your group.'


Basically, we need specific information before we can help you.


then theres the arguments, stemming either from the glory hounding or often from doing things that should be against his alignment. Example: for the most part we are all good aligned so you can see why shooting the half starved bandits, who just wanted to feed their kids, in the back as they run away might bother some of us.

This may just be Lawful Stupid mentality, and can be corrected by talking the player IC, not OOC. If the character is made aware that his actions are crossing the line, the player may have that character reform (if he's really good at RPing, he could even pull a Heel-Face-Turn IC).

Rhiannon87
2009-09-01, 10:13 PM
Is there anything the oh wise forums can think of that might help teach this guy a lesson,(excluding kicking him from the game). I'm looking for somthing devious I can do in game that would put him in his place as I am a player in this game not the GM.

I'm sure there's a reason for it, but I'd just like to clarify: why can't this player be removed? I mean, it sounds like exactly no one is enjoying his presence in the game.

As a player... well, you're the healer. You could just deny him healing, but that might present some in-character issues, depending on your alignment, and some major out of character whining.

Skorj
2009-09-01, 10:17 PM
Sadly it sounds like this player may need to be let go.
Talk to him and let him know that his play style is getting on everyone's nerves and it making the game less fun for you. Also talk to your DM and let him know how you feel and if other players feel the same way.

Or you could just talk to him in character if he continues acting evilly and let him know you cannot continue to travel with a person like him.

It really really helps to actually say "this is making the game less fun for us" to the guy. If you don't explain it to him, he won't understand why you want him to stop. Few people are deliberately jerks to those around them, but many are unable to understand the effects of their actions on others. Usually gamers who take power-gaming to immersion-breaking levels just don't see that it makes it less fun for fellow players, since they're playing the way they see as fun.

Keep it in terms of human-to-human around a table. The problem isn't that his character is powerful, the problem is that his character's actions are disruptive.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-01, 10:43 PM
To everyone: I really appreciate the input, thank you


How? How does he metagame? How is his Power Gaming disrupting game play? What actions does he take to make things difficult? Without that information, there's nothing we can suggest short of kicking him out that will actually solve this problem. You need to provide several scenarios to put things into context for us, seeing as we aren't playing in your group.

He tries to tell other players what their characters need to do and he rule-lawyers constantly. (we have a house rule that for dramatic purposes, DM's word is law) He'll spend 20 minutes explaining why he should be allowed to do somthing the DM has already ruled against, often pulling out the rule books. . . in the middle of combat . . . and insisting that an action or somthing he's wants to do is do-able. .

Another Example: We were in a fight with a creature who's armor class we had trouble hitting. He tried to say out of character that we all needed to start using aid another to help him hit the monster. When we called him on it, He had his character demand that the bard "aid" him the next round. When the bard used bardic music(he had been casting a few spells), rather than use the "aid another" action. It devolved into an argument between the two.

Another Example: Our character's dont know a particular fact about a monster. undead in this case and the limited effects of piercing weapons. suddenly he's trying to add fire to his arrows (cool but his normal arrows had been fine until he encounterd a monster that took less damage from said arrows) his character had no idea his arrows werent doing as much damage, he however did and tried to justify spending several rounds attatching burning rags to his arrows so he could do fire damage while his party members were fighting for their lives.


This may just be Lawful Stupid mentality, and can be corrected by talking the player IC, not OOC. If the character is made aware that his actions are crossing the line, the player may have that character reform (if he's really good at RPing, he could even pull a Heel-Face-Turn IC).

he tried to justify it with "they attacked us first"

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 10:57 PM
he tried to justify it with "they attacked us first"

guess what? That isn't lawful or good by any means. that's true, maybe chaotic neutral. It's evil if the other side clearly is trying to surrender unless they've done something else that makes them deserve death.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-01, 10:59 PM
He tries to tell other players what their characters need to do and he rule-lawyers constantly. (we have a house rule that for dramatic purposes, DM's word is law) He'll spend 20 minutes explaining why he should be allowed to do somthing the DM has already ruled against, often pulling out the rule books. . . in the middle of combat . . . and insisting that an action or somthing he's wants to do is do-able. .

I can provide sympathies with both sides here. As a DM, it irks me a little every time the PCs use OOC knowledge to their advantage (I don't comment on it as I'm prone to doing the same thing, and even provide info for them without meaning to). However, I've lost characters because of such a ruling (how would you feel if you found out that your character died because a fire was started by a spell that gives off no heat or sparks, and the DM refused to rewind to that point because of that ruling? Or that the DM was actually sorely mistaken and his ruling is actually worse than what the RAW would be, such as by misconstruing damage reduction to apply to all damage and not just specific types?)


Another Example: We were in a fight with a creature who's armor class we had trouble hitting. He tried to say out of character that we all needed to start using aid another to help him hit the monster. When we called him on it, He had his character demand that the bard "aid" him the next round. When the bard used bardic music(he had been casting a few spells), rather than use the "aid another" action. It devolved into an argument between the two.

Now this is inexcusable. The end results would actually be better if the Bard uses Inspire Courage (I do hope it was Inspire Courage he used, and not something else) than if the Bard used the Aid Another action. It would be understandable if the Bard started Countersonging mid-battle against a noncaster, but I assume he used Inspire Courage.

Now, if the Bard actively excluded the metagamer from the effects, then he has legitimate grounds to argue on.


Another Example: Our character's dont know a particular fact about a monster. undead in this case and the limited effects of piercing weapons. suddenly he's trying to add fire to his arrows (cool but his normal arrows had been fine until he encounterd a monster that took less damage from said arrows) his character had no idea his arrows werent doing as much damage, he however did and tried to justify spending several rounds attatching burning rags to his arrows so he could do fire damage while his party members were fighting for their lives.

This is also unacceptable use of metaknowledge. The PLAYER himself should have been reprimanded for doing so, not the character. The PCs should have had a stern talk with the offending character after the encounter and after the player himself was chastised for such blatant metagaming (never mind how poor his choice of actions were).


he tried to justify it with "they attacked us first"

This could be understandable if they used lethal damage. If not, then he should have been arrested IC for excessive force.

You still haven't addressed his Power Gaming in full. I've got the Bardic Music scenario to work with here, and that's it. The fire damage one is a better example of poor metagaming. What about his character is too powerful for your play group? What combinations of abilities has the DM been punishing him for using?

Johanas
2009-09-01, 11:00 PM
And now a comment from the GM. Of this very game in question. Me.

This player is an alright guy. Not amazing, just an alright guy. It may come down to me kicking him, but at the moment I am trying to avoid that. What she is referring to is a blatant lack of playing in character, a complete lack of playing one's alignment, and no. He is not a new player, he is a veteran. As am I. Let's just say I've facepalmed more than once. The serious issue here is that I have tried everything I can, and nothing seems to be sticking. I have put him on "probation" since he is even prone to randomly skipping games, and that is the only thing (relatively) keeping him in line. The thing is, we get more done on the sessions he's gone, than two sessions he's present.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-01, 11:05 PM
And now a comment from the GM. Of this very game in question. Me.

This player is an alright guy. Not amazing, just an alright guy. It may come down to me kicking him, but at the moment I am trying to avoid that. What she is referring to is a blatant lack of playing in character, a complete lack of playing one's alignment, and no. He is not a new player, he is a veteran. As am I. Let's just say I've facepalmed more than once. The serious issue here is that I have tried everything I can, and nothing seems to be sticking. I have put him on "probation" since he is even prone to randomly skipping games, and that is the only thing (relatively) keeping him in line. The thing is, we get more done on the sessions he's gone, than two sessions he's present.

Sounds like he's on the lower-right quadrant of the RP/Min-Max graph. He may be more suited to running/playing in a 4E campaign, or he may not have read enough fluff. Depending on the context, dropping him may be the fastest and most effective option, but it will leave resentment no matter how it is handled.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:07 PM
And now a comment from the GM. Of this very game in question. Me.

This player is an alright guy. Not amazing, just an alright guy. It may come down to me kicking him, but at the moment I am trying to avoid that. What she is referring to is a blatant lack of playing in character, a complete lack of playing one's alignment, and no. He is not a new player, he is a veteran. As am I. Let's just say I've facepalmed more than once. The serious issue here is that I have tried everything I can, and nothing seems to be sticking. I have put him on "probation" since he is even prone to randomly skipping games, and that is the only thing (relatively) keeping him in line. The thing is, we get more done on the sessions he's gone, than two sessions he's present.

you know, I'm not going to pretend that I know a ton about being a dungeon master but I know this. you should simply DROP this guy. If he was a newb I'd allow him for a little while longer so he could learn. However since it's clear he should be more than capable of following your rules and that he should be able to play without so much metagaming. If the players liked himm I could STILL understand keeping him but it's clear nobody likes him and he's a plain bad player. I repeat. you should just drop this guy.

Johanas
2009-09-01, 11:11 PM
Running a six player game, I tend to not see everything. This is just what I've noticed.

1. He's tried Rapid Shotting (as per his feat Rapid Shot) as a Standard Action. While using And saying that he can, because he has a class feature that allows it. He's a fourth level fighter. Obviously, he didn't produce said class feature when asked. And therefore does not have the minimum BAB for Manyshot.

2. Players have supposedly seen him reroll damage dice. And attack rolls. But this I haven't seen.

3. He (as a character) thought to attack these little creatures he saw. Because the player knew they were imps. How did the fourth level fighter know they were imps? You got me...

Mostly I am just sick of the rules lawyering. It's detrimental, but he has gotten better. A very little.

Johanas
2009-09-01, 11:13 PM
Sounds like he's on the lower-right quadrant of the RP/Min-Max graph. He may be more suited to running/playing in a 4E campaign, or he may not have read enough fluff. Depending on the context, dropping him may be the fastest and most effective option, but it will leave resentment no matter how it is handled.

Pretty much exactly my sentiment. Trying to avoid hard feelings, but at this point, I think it is inevitable.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-01, 11:14 PM
Note: yes the bard used inspire courage



You still haven't addressed his Power Gaming in full. I've got the Bardic Music scenario to work with here, and that's it. The fire damage one is a better example of poor metagaming. What about his character is too powerful for your play group? What combinations of abilities has the DM been punishing him for using?

it's not that the build itself is too powerfull, his latest character is an archery based fighter character. The problem is that he insists on facing every problem with actions that will get him the most attention. . . even diplomacy which he cant do and feels that he should get extra experience for role playing when all he does is destroy other characters attempts at role playing by inciting fights. perhaps its less powerplaying and more Spolight stealing.

Example: our bard was brilliantly talking us out of a sticky situation. The player in question sneaks out the back of the wagon and breaks a flask of oil over the head of a gnoll bodyguard with an obviously quick temper. . . disregarding the fact that the bard was succesfully difusing the situation. . . and had he just let the bard take care of things we could have all gone on our merry way.

similar events have happened multiple times where fights could end or not start if he just stopped trying to show off how terribly clever he thinks he is. its not like he doesnt get plenty of combat either.

Its the out of character/alignment stuff the DM has been punishing him for.

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-01, 11:15 PM
Running a six player game, I tend to not see everything. This is just what I've noticed.

1. He's tried Rapid Shotting (as per his feat Rapid Shot) as a Standard Action. While using And saying that he can, because he has a class feature that allows it. He's a fourth level fighter. Obviously, he didn't produce said class feature when asked. And therefore does not have the minimum BAB for Manyshot.

2. Players have supposedly seen him reroll damage dice. And attack rolls. But this I haven't seen.

3. He (as a character) thought to attack these little creatures he saw. Because the player knew they were imps. How did the fourth level fighter know they were imps? You got me...

Mostly I am just sick of the rules lawyering. It's detrimental, but he has gotten better. A very little.


Ok, axe him. Not literally, but you know. He's cheating, and needs to be dropped hard. Warn the other local DMs about him, if you know any.


Incidentally, he's referring to the Targeteer variant Fighter from Dragon Magazine. But Dragon Magazine was published by and owned by Paizo back then, and thus is 3rd party (so it may not have been allowed by you).


Edit: And he's not a Power Gamer, he's an attention whore cheating little Munchkin. Power Gamers can be very respectable players, and will openly admit their mistakes. You guys are describing a cold-blooded Munchkin.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:15 PM
next time he rules lawyers tell him "this is the way we're playing. Deal with it. If you can't don't play and GTHO." (get the heck out.)

Johanas
2009-09-01, 11:20 PM
next time he rules lawyers tell him "this is the way we're playing. Deal with it. If you can't don't play and GTHO." (get the heck out.)

You're great Kyuubi, really. :smallsmile:



Ok, axe him. Not literally, but you know. He's cheating, and needs to be dropped hard. Warn the other local DMs about him, if you know any.


Incidentally, he's referring to the Targeteer variant Fighter from Dragon Magazine. But Dragon Magazine was published by and owned by Paizo back then, and thus is 3rd party (so it may not have been allowed by you).


Ahh. Thanks. You would have to ask Shadowsgrneyes about anything from Dragon Magazine, she is much more knowledgeable than I. Thanks for the clarification. I really do appreciate that.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-01, 11:24 PM
2. Players have supposedly seen him reroll damage dice. And attack rolls. But this I haven't seen.


I was completely unaware of THIS little tidbit until now.


Incidentally, he's referring to the Targeteer variant Fighter from Dragon Magazine. But Dragon Magazine was published by and owned by Paizo back then, and thus is 3rd party (so it may not have been allowed by you).

i can speak for my Gm on this as there are tons of things I'VE tried to get him to let me use from Dragon magazing, there is absoloutly NO dragon magazine in his campaigns (so far, i'm sure i'll convince him to let a few things in eventually)

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:31 PM
You're great Kyuubi, really. :smallsmile:
.

I just want to be sure here. this isn't meant as an insult right?

If you REALLY want to keep the player kindly ask him to STOP. Tell him about your rules, tell him that he has to go thorugh you to get past those and tell him he isn't playing within his alignment and you will change his alignment if it becomes necessary. also change up resistances next time. the undead normally weak to fire and the player knows this? make the undead weak to ice or any of the others and is actually healed or strengthened by fire. If he claims that "here's the rulebook and it doesn't work that way." tell him you're getting ideas from the MM but these monsters aren't actually what he knows as undead or whatever and are homebrew. This takes away his OOC advantage.

Johanas
2009-09-01, 11:38 PM
I just want to be sure here. this isn't meant as an insult right?

If you REALLY want to keep the player kindly ask him to STOP. Tell him about your rules, tell him that he has to go thorugh you to get past those and tell him he isn't playing within his alignment and you will change his alignment if it becomes necessary. also change up resistances next time. the undead normally weak to fire and the player knows this? make the undead weak to ice or any of the others and is actually healed or strengthened by fire. If he claims that "here's the rulebook and it doesn't work that way." tell him you're getting ideas from the MM but these monsters aren't actually what he knows as undead or whatever and are homebrew. This takes away his OOC advantage.

No insulting. Us Old People (I'm 24 :smallbiggrin:, so not THAT old I suppose, on the outside anyway) tend to think one way. I like the way your brain works is all. Very straight and to the point. It's refreshing. And yes, I have actually told him flat out his alignment is on the verge of changing. Good idea on the resistances though. It's really the little things that can make the difference. Besides, fire and skeletons can go just as well together as your standard cold and undead. I've been looking for an excuse to use my semi-new blazing skeleton mini from the newer mini sets. Don't know why I never thought of that myself.

Edit: Oh wait. I did use it. That was the night 4 of the 6 party members died. Whoops.

P.S. to my Edit: That's what they get for splitting up! "Roh no, Raggy! Red, Raphne and Relma got killed by a Recromancer!" That was Scooby Doo talking about a necromancer, not a mage specializing in armchairs. Just saying.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-01, 11:42 PM
Besides, fire and skeletons can go just as well together as your standard cold and undead. I've been looking for an excuse to use my semi-new blazing skeleton mini from the newer mini sets. Don't know why I never thought of that myself.

yeahhhhhh. . . nobody give him an excuse to use the "angel or retribution" mini. . . oh wait. . .

just thought of a good way to deal with a bad player. . . . oh johannas *wanders off in search of GM*

Johanas
2009-09-01, 11:43 PM
She just wandered off down the hall. She was sitting right next to me. *sigh*

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:49 PM
No insulting. Us Old People (I'm 24 :smallbiggrin:, so not THAT old I suppose, on the outside anyway) tend to think one way. I like the way your brain works is all. Very straight and to the point. It's refreshing. And yes, I have actually told him flat out his alignment is on the verge of changing. Good idea on the resistances though. It's really the little things that can make the difference. Besides, fire and skeletons can go just as well together as your standard cold and undead. I've been looking for an excuse to use my semi-new blazing skeleton mini from the newer mini sets. Don't know why I never thought of that myself.

Edit: Oh wait. I did use it. That was the night 4 of the 6 party members died. Whoops.

P.S. to my Edit: That's what they get for splitting up! "Roh no, Raggy! Red, Raphne and Relma got killed by a Recromancer!" That was Scooby Doo talking about a necromancer, not a mage specializing in armchairs. Just saying.


I must thank you for the compliment.

and yay! scooby survived.:smallsmile:

Mystic Muse
2009-09-01, 11:50 PM
She just wandered off down the hall. She was sitting right next to me. *sigh*

are you like invisible or something? CAN YOU BECOME INVISIBLE:??:smalleek:

Sophismata
2009-09-01, 11:51 PM
You cast Fireball at the skeletons. Now you've made them angry, and on fire. They still advance towards the party.

Kylarra
2009-09-01, 11:53 PM
You cast Fireball at the skeletons. Now you've made them angry, and on fire. They still advance towards the party.Also the fire is on fire.

ShadowFighter15
2009-09-02, 01:03 AM
Make them dwarf skeletons (http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Boatmurdered)! Bonus points if one of the characters shouts out "AND HAVE I MENTIONED THEY ARE ON F***ING FIRE?!"

Quietus
2009-09-02, 01:30 AM
Edit: And he's not a Power Gamer, he's an attention whore cheating little Munchkin. Power Gamers can be very respectable players, and will openly admit their mistakes. You guys are describing a cold-blooded Munchkin.

It's always nice when people know the difference. I myself am a power gamer - at least, the one with the greatest combination of drive and knowledge with that regard in my gaming group. I've also just started running a game with them, and made it clear that anyone who wants my assistance optimizing their characters, to a certain limit, can feel free to ask. The fun everyone had with the party Bard throwing 3d6 Dragonfire Inspiration at level 3 was fantastic. Those barbarian and ranger orcs went down quick, but it was an enjoyable fight. That is power gaming done right. What's been described by Johanas and ShadowsGrnEyes... that's power gaming done wrong. Though I'd be wrong to suggest that I'd never done that myself.

Another_Poet
2009-09-02, 01:44 AM
Do not use an in-game solution.

Your DM has already tried that, and it didn't work. Plus it's kind of immature, or at least passive-aggressive.

The solution here is for the DM to talk to the player out-of-game and tell him to stop. A secondary solution would be for the DM to impose an XP penalty on anyone who engages in this kind of behaviour. The players should be told about this ahead of time so they know that it is a rule.

If neither of these works, the DM should kick out the player.

If the DM is unwilling to take the above steps, you should consider leaving the group.

Jan Mattys
2009-09-02, 03:26 AM
Lure him into the Tomb of Horrors.

Set up a one-shot session at Call of Cthulhu.

If these two experiences fail at teaching him some humility, then just kick him from your group because he's beyond any recovery.

ShadowFighter15
2009-09-02, 03:50 AM
I think an in-game solution would be worth trying to cut down on the metagaming (or at least the MM-reliance he seems to have). Give him a few encounters against homebrewed or non-standard enemies and he may learn to stop looking in the books. It won't address his other problems (which, as Another_Poet said, should be handled OOC), but if the meta-gaming can be reduced by forcing him to stop relying on the books, then it's one less thing to discuss outside the game.

HealthKit
2009-09-02, 10:20 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with Another_Poet.
In-game solutions are not working. I'm willing to bet they won't work in the future.
The most sensible solution is to address the problem player out of game. If he can't be reasoned with, well, I say give him the boot.


The thing is, we get more done on the sessions he's gone, than two sessions he's present.

I think that speaks for itself.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-02, 11:26 AM
Do not use an in-game solution.

Your DM has already tried that, and it didn't work. Plus it's kind of immature, or at least passive-aggressive.

The solution here is for the DM to talk to the player out-of-game and tell him to stop. A secondary solution would be for the DM to impose an XP penalty on anyone who engages in this kind of behaviour. The players should be told about this ahead of time so they know that it is a rule.

If neither of these works, the DM should kick out the player.

If the DM is unwilling to take the above steps, you should consider leaving the group.

the Dm HAS spoken to the player out of game. as previously stated.
there has been XP penalties applied as previously stated

we were looking for another option as previously stated because we dont want to deal with the DRAMA booting this person will result in.

I LOATH drama.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-02, 11:39 AM
You might just have to take a few Dramamine* and deal with it, because you have apparently exhausted every possible option in and out of character that doesn't involve kicking him out, or at the very least, suspending him. He won't listen to direct OOC talks, won't react to in-game XP penalties and setbacks, and doesn't have the slightest interest in changing his attitudes towards the game.

Can you just find a new place to host the game and simply stop telling him when you're meeting?







(*C wut I did ther?)

Delwugor
2009-09-02, 11:41 AM
I have a lot of tolerance for other players. I can (and have) dealt with the munchkin, power player, rules layer, cheater, whiner, yeller, bad attitude, bad breath, smelly, no social interaction, even played with a person for several years who I absolutely hated...


He tries to tell other players what their characters need to do

I've had to deal with this twice and it is completely intolerable. No one has the right to tell another player how to play their character!
(Note I am not talking about asking and giving advice).

For this I would give a warning:
"Please do not tell me how to play my character again."
Second time it happens:
"Pack up your stuff and leave right now."

If the group does not support you then pack your stuff and leave immediately.

This sounds harsh (and it is) but you are playing to enjoy your character, enjoy the story, enjoy your group and friends and enjoy yourself. You are not there to follow the dictates of someone else and you do not have to put up with it.

Superglucose
2009-09-02, 12:18 PM
It's always nice when people know the difference. I myself am a power gamer - at least, the one with the greatest combination of drive and knowledge with that regard in my gaming group.
Seconded. Currently in an alternate system we play that's supposedly getting published I've seen a lot of rules that I have been :smallconfused:ing about. At the same time, most of my (extremely effective) characters usually have a unique personality about them.

Umael
2009-09-02, 12:24 PM
II've had to deal with this twice and it is completely intolerable. No one has the right to tell another player how to play their character!
(Note I am not talking about asking and giving advice).

For this I would give a warning:
"Please do not tell me how to play my character again."
Second time it happens:
"Pack up your stuff and leave right now."

If the group does not support you then pack your stuff and leave immediately.

This sounds harsh (and it is) but you are playing to enjoy your character, enjoy the story, enjoy your group and friends and enjoy yourself. You are not there to follow the dictates of someone else and you do not have to put up with it.

The icing on the cake is that this guy apparently takes things a step further and argues with people for not doing as he dictates!

I have a GM who says things like, "I think your character would probably like this... I think your character would probably do that..." and it annoys me (he doesn't do it all the time and he is getting better).

If something that small can be annoying, what this guy does is beyond the pale.

Set your teeth, growl, and tell him EXACTLY what it is that he must not do, IMMEDIATELY tell him when he violates it the first time and that he has exhausted his chances - and then BOOT him if he does it again!

Also... be prepared for him to do it again. Maybe if this happens often enough with enough gaming groups, he'll get the message and shape up. Maybe.

The Neoclassic
2009-09-02, 12:30 PM
It is completely intolerable. No one has the right to tell another player how to play their character!
(Note I am not talking about asking and giving advice).

For this I would give a warning:
"Please do not tell me how to play my character again."
Second time it happens:
"Pack up your stuff and leave right now."

If the group does not support you then pack your stuff and leave immediately.

This sounds harsh (and it is) but you are playing to enjoy your character, enjoy the story, enjoy your group and friends and enjoy yourself. You are not there to follow the dictates of someone else and you do not have to put up with it.

Agreed. Unfortunately, sometimes, there is no easy solution. Some people, frankly, do not have the maturity level to play with others. If you and the DM explain that no one enjoys being told what to do, that it's rude, and that it isn't productive (assuming everyone else makes fairly rational IC decisions), but this person still doesn't get it and insists that the entire game should revolve around what THEY want to do... There's not much that can be done.

Teln
2009-09-02, 12:36 PM
Lure him into the Tomb of Horrors.

Set up a one-shot session at Call of Cthulhu.

If these two experiences fail at teaching him some humility, then just kick him from your group because he's beyond any recovery.

Or better yet: Set up a one-shot of Paranoia, the RPG where rules-lawyering earns your character an automatic death sentence!

Nad
2009-09-02, 01:38 PM
I can understand your lack of ability to drop a player from a game, sometimes they're in the social group or whatever so they're here to stay. So for my reply, we'll consider this guy un-expendable.

Next I'll mention that in my opinion, the player seems to lack respect for the DM and the other players and reminds me of someone interested in "winning" and "beating" the other players. It is my guess that this player wants to be the best member of the group.

I would suggest what others have, that you might want to talk to this player OOC or even attempt to shape the character by in game actions but we can see that hasn't worked.

With all of this, I present to you and your party, an attempt at a solution.

Let him change himself.

How do we do this? It's not easy, we have to set up the player up for an "Ah-ha!" lightbulb momment. Let's ask a couple questions and answer them to show us the path...

1. Why do we play games? To have fun.

2. How do we (normal players) have fun in D&D? Our characters grow and tell a story.

3. Why is this player causing friction and causing others to not have fun? He is interested in his character growing faster than others, being better than others and being the only hero of this story. We'll summarize this by calling it self interested or selfish style play.

4. What does this player need to learn in order to be in line with the rest of the players and DM's goals? The player needs to be shown that D&D is not a contest, it is a group effort where your character is part of the story, not the story.


I'd be curious to know if this person's personality was past just D&D in selfish manners.... possibly they're just a hard core gamer or maybe this stems from something else... an only child or oldest child combined with being spoiled... but let's leave the psychology and talk about what to do in game to fix it.

So what I say we do is dedicate two game sessions to fixing this problem. Sit down and talk with the other players about the lessons we're going to try and teach this player and rehearse the games but don't let the problem player know this is going on... you're already sided against him, re-read your posts. It's possible this player feels ganged up on. It's him versues the other players and the DM. For the game session we're going to run, the PCs need to be a party vs the DM... not the DM and the party vs selfish PC.

So what lessons do we want to teach the selfish PC?

1. D&D is a group game, not a me game.

2. Cheaters never win.

3. Don't rules lawyer all the time.

I may have missed it but I'm trying to boil it down to core issues. So in our game sessions run to fix our player, let's do these things:

1. To take care of the ME ME ME selfish playing and cheating, I would suggest running a game first where we let the player have the stage. Let him run the show... go full Monty Haul and let him have the world. Let him lawyer, let him cheat, let him be the one player at the table. All our PCs are in on it and we're going to let him be king for a day.

Why? So he see's that when you "WIN" D&D it's boring. There is no single player D&D, half of the game is just interacting with the other players and acting in a play, not just a one man show. So how do we do that? Let's set the stage...

Cater to his play style. If he likes hack and slash, put in tons of battles with things easy to kill. Put in a dragon, give him a spot to check to see the "missing scale" and tell him that if he roles a 20, its an instant kill... if he's a cheater like is rumored, that 20 will be there.

If he's into role-playing, let him be the star. NPCs run to him and ask for help, PCs ask him, what should I do now (Careful to not be resentful, this is a one time thing only)... you lead us, you be the hero... let him take the stage and cater non-combats to his skills... throw some impossible skill checks in there to catch the cheating again... if he hides his dice, let him... this one game is his.

Give him the only loot. A bow he always dreamed of, arrows, quiver... throw the other players a bone to not make it suspicious but the key here is to let him have the power and be the bad ass.

Throw more fights, challenges, etc and make sure that he walks right through them... most importantly, let him get bored. Show him that if he gets everything he wants, if everyone does what he wants it gets pretty damn old... there's no depth to the game.

Two things are going to happen.

If he's sharp, it might occur that playing the game where nothing is a challenge is boring this way and change along the way... rare to occur but it *might* happen.

More than likely it'll put him on a pedestal and boost his ego +1,000. He'll talk about how bad ass he was and how amazing he is.

If we've made it to this point, at least we know what we're dealing with and we've identified the problem. The next session we'll attempt the first step at fixing this poor player.

Session #2 Redemption!!!!!!!

Again, coordinate with your PCs on this so you know what roles to play. Establish clear lines again during this game... the PCs are a team, the DM is the antagonist... we work together to be the heroes of his story.

If cheating was a problem, pick on the other players... yes, the OTHER PCs. Ask them to roll it out in front of everyone... ask them to show their rolls first. Then ask him... so you're not picking on him and DO NOT accuse him of cheating, it will just re-initiate the defensive play... just ask everyone to roll it out in front of everyone, easy enough. Selfish PC will start to understand part of the thrill is making those 20s!

Ok game prep is done... on to play time!

Now it sucks to be him. Make him fail in every regard except when he co-operates with the group and plays like a person who wants to be in a D&D group. Put him in situations where he can't make it on his own and needs the group to rescue him. Don't rub it in his face when he falls down as PCs, lend the hand and pick him up. Show him you're a team and you're not his competition. We're bruising his ego, not destroying it...

In combat, use spells like protection from normal missles and tower shields... throw nets on him or use hold person alot... be clever and lure him into positions... like a perfect ledge to snipe from and as he leaves the party, have it crumble and collapse... have a trap trigger to drop him into a pit that he can't get out of and for dramatic effect have it fill with water and let the party save him at the last minute...

Don't be too blatant or too individualistic... make sure to suck another PC into the traps or the spells...

Out of combat, the PCs should work to solve problems as a group. Use each other and ask for selfish PC's input... even if it's not totally needed. For example with the gnoll thing you mentioned earlier... As the bard was talking to the gnolls he says "I get out my flask of oil and break it over the gnolls head." As a PC you could easily let him do what he wants but put a twist on it...

"As he pulls out the flask of oil, I say 'See, even our friend here likes you gnolls, he wants to give you a gift." Then I shake my head slightly indicating that it might be a bad idea and mouth the words "save it for later" to him."

If he does it anyway, then why not have the oil spill all over himself and the glass shards cut him... then for fun get fire in the mix to burn him, the gnoll and for good measure the wagon down too!

Just embarass the hell out of this player and put his ego in check.

If he shows any signs of improvement, reward him instantly!

If he keeps rolling out in the open and barely misses an important role, DM tweak it and give it to him... "Crap a 15, I miss." "Actually, you hit... the gnoll is in bad shape and his armor has partially fallen off. Roll damage."

If tries to work as a team-mate let his plan work or single him out in the plan... give a juicy xp reward to him and the others. If he goes solo, be miserly...

You get the idea.

If after these two sessions the game is still painful with this player involved, then I'd recommend asking him to DM because that's about the only other way to get someone to change their play style!


For the rules lawyering... simple. Write it down. I have a campaign handout that I've printed out which simply states my house rules and says which books my players can and can't use.

We have a rules lawyer and I try to stay flexible with him. He'll call me here and there and I let it go if its small but if it's something big... I ask for the rule. If he keeps stopping combat, google for D&D combat cheat sheets or something like that and have the short version of the rules easily available.

Rules lawyers arent bad things just as a DM know when to call their BS and don't use the "Its that way because I'm DM and I said so" use the "Normally yes, skeletons take damage from fire but these skeletons aren't and you don't know why." Problem solved.

Good luck and I'd love to hear if you use any of these ideas. Sorry for casting WALL OF TEXT everyone :smallamused:

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-02, 01:45 PM
AP, Sinfire, and Neoclassic have it right.

While I hesitate to apply this label to anyone, this guy is beyond hope. He is guilty of ruining everything required for DnD to work at its core.

1) At the most basic level, DnD is a game of chance. You roll dice to determine outcomes. And yet he doesn't play this game of chance by the rules. He cheats and rerolls dice when the outcome is someone other than him being in the spotlight.

2) The layer above that is tactical, team-based problem solving. The group works together to solve whatever issue the DM provides them with, whether it's defeating monsters or convincing a noble to fund your adventure. But he doesn't play on a team, he doesn't work with anyone, and he causes more problems than he solves.

3) The final aspect of DnD is the roleplaying. Your character is a construct - an avatar - created to function in a fantasy world, and should be as much like a person as possible. His avatar is nothing like a person, and he doesn't regard the other characters as people other.

It's time for the DM to cast the dreaded Summon Boot IX. Launch him so far away from your group that he'll ne'er return.


There will be a hissy-fit, the tantrum to end all tantrums, when you explain to him that his actions are intolerable and he's no longer welcome in the group. Just be ready for that. If it gets to be too much, start calling for the "Whaaaambulance."

only1doug
2009-09-02, 01:46 PM
I'd ask the GM (I can see you Johanas) to give a new ruling or two (to the entire group):

Instant penalties for misbehaving.

"Rule One: no arguing with the GM over rules, you have 1 minute to make your point and then the GMs ruling is final. further debate can take place by e-mail between sessions. Arguing further within the session will result in temporary ability damage to the stat most relevant to the ability being argued about or to any stat the gm chooses to penalise if none is appropriate. 1 pt of ability damage will be levied per minute of additional arguement or part thereof."

"Rule Two: no Out of character information, If the GM decides that out of character information is being used he will give an xp penalty of character level squared times 50points. this rule covers both using infomation that your character would not have to provide any sort of in character bonus and using OOC discussion to improve PC tactics during a fight."

One Law for the Rich and Poor alike: No one shall steal bread or sleep under bridges. (of course the rich don't need to steal or sleep rough).

Feel free to adjust the punishments but they should be suited to the occasion, flexible and scaleable (so if he keeps arguing his penalty just increases) non permanent (so with proper behaviour he can recover)

Sipex
2009-09-02, 01:50 PM
Nad sounds like he has a possible solution, I like it.

On rolling in the open, another way could be, make a rolling box...a nice one. We did this, it was simple wood with low walls so you could see in it...bought it from the dollar store then painted it all up. Nobody was cheating but nobody questioned now having to roll in the box...it simply made rolls easier.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-02, 01:53 PM
Another Example: We were in a fight with a creature who's armor class we had trouble hitting. He tried to say out of character that we all needed to start using aid another to help him hit the monster. When we called him on it, He had his character demand that the bard "aid" him the next round. When the bard used bardic music(he had been casting a few spells), rather than use the "aid another" action. It devolved into an argument between the two.

This is annoying. Point out that he only controls his character, not the party. That said, differences of opinions over tactics happen. Even the best party will have some of this. His ideas weren't actually bad(buffing is probably better in that situation than casting), it was the execution.


Another Example: Our character's dont know a particular fact about a monster. undead in this case and the limited effects of piercing weapons. suddenly he's trying to add fire to his arrows (cool but his normal arrows had been fine until he encounterd a monster that took less damage from said arrows) his character had no idea his arrows werent doing as much damage, he however did and tried to justify spending several rounds attatching burning rags to his arrows so he could do fire damage while his party members were fighting for their lives.

Well, if he's shot arrows at them, and done little or no damage...trying a different means is only reasonable for a character. It's reasonable for a character to see that his attacks are not damaging a monster.


he tried to justify it with "they attacked us first"

That is a justification. You may not like it, or consider it sufficient, but ethically, it's not unheard of. Did his character *know* that the bandits were only attacking you to feed their starving children? I can see the argument that violation of the law requires punishment. Not all lawful good creatures are strong in the mercy department.

As a side note, as a player, I have an extreme dislike for DMs arbitrarily overruling the rules. For example, I played in one campaign where the DM couldn't be bothered to examine concentration checks. He was adding all damage together, including ongoing, suffered in the last round AND the current round as the DC for me to pass to cast. Needless to say, this was impossible. This eventually led to my character dying because I simply couldn't cast once I got hit. Arbitrarily redefining rules is incredibly dangerous, especially if it ruins something your character was planned out to do.

That same campaign also ignored the difference between DR and resistance, lumping it all together. Yay...

Anyhoo, back on topic. Yes, out of game and in game knowledge should be seperated...or at least, justified, so it isn't blatant. The imps, for example...you might attack them just because they look/act wierd, and the fighter is freaked out by them.

Actual cheating just isn't ok. Ruins the game. People have rules disagreements, and make mistakes, but if its a theme...yeah, thats a problem. Talk to him and give him a shot at fixing it, but if it doesnt happen, kicking is probably the only way.

Umael
2009-09-02, 02:33 PM
Well, if he's shot arrows at them, and done little or no damage...trying a different means is only reasonable for a character. It's reasonable for a character to see that his attacks are not damaging a monster.

Actually, I think it was mentioned that his character DIDN'T know whether his attacks were being more effective or not. That's a little different than seeing that they are not damaging.



That is a justification. You may not like it, or consider it sufficient, but ethically, it's not unheard of. Did his character *know* that the bandits were only attacking you to feed their starving children?

I believe it was also mentioned that the bandits were running away. Since the other players seemed annoyed with his actions, I would think it is safe to say that the players had good cause for their characters to let them go.

I bet it was more a case of the player deciding to do something for his own benefit/entertainment.



As a side note, as a player, I have an extreme dislike for DMs arbitrarily overruling the rules.

Not as a sidenote, I don't think this was the case.

But yes, bad DM calls can be a pain.

Drevius
2009-09-02, 03:12 PM
This solution worked for us in one of our campaigns, one of my friends was munchkinning out big time (he has reformed himself and is quite a roleplayer and optimizer now) and was meta gaming alot in the Expidition to Castle Ravenloft campaign maxing out turning and dmm cheese when the dm said to keep it simple and no cheese. Anyway the dm figured out what he was doing and while in town after nuking large waves of undead the cleric heard a voice at the tavern speak directly to him "I want to play a game...." and the cleric proceeded to search the tavern looking for the voice only catching brief glimpses of his tormentor eventually running outside at night yelling after the voice "I want to play too!" turning undead and putting on buffs....unfortunately this was about 18 seconds too late and the vampire ninja 5/asn 10 death attacked him and dropped him, we found his corpse in the square the next day with a note attached saying "don't hate the player hate the game". Strahd had a brand new bag in that game. The player freaked out every time someone whispered wanna play a game and he kept it simple, playing a ranger.

Random832
2009-09-02, 03:26 PM
{Scrubbed}

Another_Poet
2009-09-02, 03:29 PM
the Dm HAS spoken to the player out of game. as previously stated.
there has been XP penalties applied as previously stated

we were looking for another option as previously stated because we dont want to deal with the DRAMA booting this person will result in.

I LOATH drama.

Okay, I apologise for having overlooked this info.

That said, sometimes confrontation is unavoidable. I really would suggest you talk with the group about removing said player. If you do it in a mature way, and not at the table (you should talk to him between sessions) there will be very little "drama." There will still be a confrontation, but it will be over quickly with a minimum of mess.

ap

Glass Mouse
2009-09-02, 03:39 PM
Why don't the other characters teach him a lesson? I mean, if another character interfered with MY bard's work, that person would damn well find a bunch of poison in his next meal! (she's CE, though... A good party might first beat him up when he friggin' backstabs hungry fathers!)

Yeah, yeah, PvP is bad and all... but sending a message never hurts.

Ranos
2009-09-02, 03:57 PM
The guy is playing a fighter, he's not powergaming by any definition of the term. I can't see any metagaming either.

On the bard thing, how was the character supposed to know that the guy singing in the corner was actually helping him hit better than he could with standard distraction techniques (aid another) ? Saaaay, wouldn't you have to metagame to know that ?
Kidding here, but seriously, there was no metagame. Instead, it was a lack of player knowledge combined with the player being an ass.

As for the DR thing...Well, what kind of idiot would keep shooting arrows at a skeleton ?


Now, he may well be "difficult", maybe even a cheater, and if I were you, I would probably drop him on account of him being a jerkass. But don't accuse him of being something he's not.


Also, going on a tangent, I find rule-lawyers to be a good thing. Rules exist for a reason, and if I have players to remember them for me, all the better. Rule 0 should be an exception, not something you use all the time for no good reason. Am I the only one to think that ?

cdrcjsn
2009-09-02, 03:59 PM
Ouch. Yeah, this guy's problem isn't that he's a power gamer, but that he's kind of a jerk and doesn't play well with others.

Is he instigating fights though because there's not enough combats to suit him?

Are people playing suboptimal builds or without a lot of thought for tactics (doesn't sound like it, but wanted to make sure)?

Honestly though, I'd give an ultimatum. Shape up or ship out. If the game is no longer fun for everyone else, then something has to change now or pretty soon nobody will be playing anymore.

Alejandro
2009-09-02, 04:30 PM
Here's a suggestion. Have his character encounter a spell or magical item that creates an instant and evil copy of him (maybe a mirror?) and that copy then attacks. For extra fun, do it to the whole group, and each copy attacks their clone.

Make sure the evil copy of him acts exactly as he does, and powergames like he does. And fudge rolls if he has been. :smallamused:

woodenbandman
2009-09-02, 04:38 PM
I think that bad DM calls are a definite pain, and I've been pissed off on many an occasion, however: You should deal with it. You really should. For the most part, a DM does way more work than you and it's his intention to make the game fun, not to piss off the players. What should be done is you go with it, tell the DM that you want to discuss it later, and don't get angry. Try REALLY hard not to get angry because if you bring anger to an argument that weakens your position, opens the door for he said/she said and namecalling, and nobody listens to that.

Now if the DM sees it and is like "oh I didn't know that my bad" then good. That's how it normally should go. Another solution would be "I am houseruling that rule to read X way" which is way worse. If I apply a retroactive houserule (which I admit I do sometimes, but I try really hard not to), I offer the player a chance to change their characters. If I didn't consider a feat they asked me about, and I gimp it, I offer to let them change it (it's the least I could do).

As for the actual subject: This player is very much like a player I dealt with. He didn't play for the game, he played to make himself feel big. You know this guy, he's a pretty okay guy, you seem to have tried to change him. From my experience: he's not gonna change. You will ultimately end up kicking him. Or you'll deal with his crap. Either way, bad deal all around. When you do kick him, make sure to explain that it's not personal, otherwise bad stuff will go down.

Random832
2009-09-02, 04:38 PM
Ouch. Yeah, this guy's problem isn't that he's a power gamer, but that he's kind of a jerk and doesn't play well with others.

Um, from where I'm sitting it's the other people who "called him on" asking for the other players to do some (gasp/zomgshock) teamwork with Aid Another, who "don't play well with others"

Sounds to me like a DM who is utterly unprepared for anything other than "the player whose turn it is hits the monster, then the next player whose turn it is hits the monster or maybe casts a spell at it", and is grasping for any excuse to prevent the PCs from using any actual tactics that involve anything more than them each hitting the monster in turn. Banning the players from talking to each other is just one of such a DM's tools.

Umael
2009-09-02, 06:06 PM
Um, from where I'm sitting it's the other people who "called him on" asking for the other players to do some (gasp/zomgshock) teamwork with Aid Another, who "don't play well with others"

Sounds to me like a DM who is utterly unprepared for anything other than "the player whose turn it is hits the monster, then the next player whose turn it is hits the monster or maybe casts a spell at it", and is grasping for any excuse to prevent the PCs from using any actual tactics that involve anything more than them each hitting the monster in turn. Banning the players from talking to each other is just one of such a DM's tools.

...

I think you might want to put the chip on your shoulder down, go back, and re-read the thread a little more carefully.

Because you missed several germaine points.

Minor things, like the OP is not the DM.

Major things, like the player in question took up most of the game ARGUING with the player of the bard for not following his DEMAND.

Might change things a bit.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-02, 07:05 PM
ok lots of comment's

Nad: Fantastic Idea, we'd been kinda thinking of somthing like that, I will talk to Johannas about trying it.

For all those who felt us "calling him" on his metagaming, was wrong: to be acturate what we called him on was saying "you all need to use the aid another action to help me hit it" the actual suggestion of using aid another would have been fine had he approached it via role playing or god forbid, not sat there trying to order us all around. It could have been easily done. "hey paladin/bard/ healer/ rogue, draw its attention for me could you?" Or if he wanted to be less bossy about it and not order everyone around and get the same effect. "I'm going to attempt to help the paladin by(insert action)".

i dont know what some peoples stance is, and all groups are different, but as far as I'M concerned it's a role playing game. You dont walk up to a someone and ask them out by saying. "hey i have an 18 CHA that means you find me attractive.unless you're very drunk or as big a dork as I am, or both). So characters shouldn't be saying things like that. the bard has to role play his diplomacy, the paladin has to role play his 4 int(which is hysterical) , the rogue has to role play that he's always drunk(including the penalties he takes), the fighter damn well better role play his tactical instructions.

As for those in favor of Rule Lawyering: our DM is completely willing to look at a rule if someone disagrees with a call he has made. But not in the middle of combat. There is a certain dramatic tension our DM is very good at building but when somebody pulls out a book in the middle of combat and spend a 6 second turn doing 5- 20 minutes of arguing that dramatic tension goes out the window and the rest of us sit there staring at the ceiling. if a call he has made in error would by some freak chance result in PC death and he later discovers that the PC would actually have lived, he will retroactively have them live and just be severly injured. Very few people have EVERY Rule memorized an somtimes it is important to look at the book, just not during initiative.

Random832: wasn't actually DR, just half damage from piercing. But he never made the spot check. and he never actually took the action to do the knowledge roll (Though I dont think he has that knowledge skill anyway.). He just started trying to add fire, for no apparent reason. If he'd bothered to give a reason for his character to know that fire would help, it wouldnt have been a problem.

Drevius: Thats awsome. i like that, dont think it will work, (he's already been eaten alive by ghasts for his behavior) but I wanna talk the GM into just cause it would be funny.

Only1doug: i like rule one. . . will also show that to johannas. Might expedite things at least.


I'm sure i didnt respond to everyone i needed too Sorry. Again Thank you everyone for your input, even those of you I disagree with, I still appreciate the perspective.

Random832
2009-09-02, 07:08 PM
Minor things, like the OP is not the DM.

Hardly matters, since the DM has posted here too anyway, and the OP clearly agrees with him.


Major things, like the player in question took up most of the game ARGUING with the player of the bard for not following his DEMAND.

I read over the thread and didn't see that mentioned that clearly. But when the DM forbids discussion of basic tactics, says "You have to ask him in-character" and, most likely, implicitly requires the other player to misinterpret what mechanic to use (since using the right one 'would be metagaming'), I don't think the player owns 100% of the blame here.



Random832: wasn't actually DR, just half damage from piercing. But he never made the spot check. and he never actually took the action to do the knowledge roll (Though I dont think he has that knowledge skill anyway.). He just started trying to add fire, for no apparent reason. If he'd bothered to give a reason for his character to know that fire would help, it wouldnt have been a problem.

Wait, what spot check? Was this after an attack or not? You don't need a spot check to see how much damage your attack did. As for "the action to do the knowledge roll" - First of all, if you mean like a standard action, knowledge skills aren't an action, it simply tells you whether you knew something that, and you can do up to DC 10 untrained. And as for making the roll, it's the DM's job, not the player's, to decide when a knowledge check is necessary for tactical things. The only legitimate way to "opt out" of that job is to allow the player to use whatever they know OOC. If there was an objection to him using fire, the first thing the DM said should have been "Make a knowledge check to see if you know that will work / is necessary". How _exactly_ did the discussion go after he decided to try lighting his arrows on fire?

And how exactly are you supposed to "approached it via role playing" and still have it be clear that you meant aid another rather than some other random 'helping somehow vague' thing? suggesting actions is not metagaming, even when you use rules-related language to make it clear what action you are suggesting, unless there's actually some sort of effect (like silence) making communication between PCs nontrivial.

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-02, 07:31 PM
I read over the thread and didn't see that mentioned that clearly. But when the DM forbids discussion of basic tactics, says "You have to ask him in-character" and, most likely, implicitly requires the other player to misinterpret what mechanic to use (since using the right one 'would be metagaming'), I don't think the player owns 100% of the blame here.

He does, but a text based after-the-fact medium doesn't convey that clearly. People don't come on the boards to ask for advice about dealing with a player who makes sound tactical decisions, works well with the group, and is always polite.

This person didn't make suggestions, nor was he suggesting anything resembling teamwork. Teamwork was the last thing on his mind when he asked everyone to use the aid another action. How can I tell, you ask?

Because, according to the OP, he started harrassing and berating the bard in the middle of combat for using Inspire Courage rather than Aid another. Assuming approximately level 8 characters, it's the same mechanical benefit to him either way... BUT in this case, the Inspire Courage helps everyone in the party, not just him. He wants the group to support him so that he'll be more awesome, and the bard's action means that someone else might get to be awesome, and since his main goal is to be better than everyone, he doesn't want that. Does that sound like a team player to you?


Wait, what spot check? Was this after an attack or not? You don't need a spot check to see how much damage your attack did. As for "the action to do the knowledge roll" - First of all, if you mean like a standard action, knowledge skills aren't an action, it simply tells you whether you knew something that, and you can do up to DC 10 untrained. And as for making the roll, it's the DM's job, not the player's, to decide when a knowledge check is necessary for tactical things. The only legitimate way to "opt out" of that job is to allow the player to use whatever they know OOC. If there was an objection to him using fire, the first thing the DM said should have been "Make a knowledge check to see if you know that will work / is necessary". How _exactly_ did the discussion go after he decided to try lighting his arrows on fire?

And how exactly are you supposed to "approached it via role playing" and still have it be clear that you meant aid another rather than some other random 'helping somehow vague' thing? suggesting actions is not metagaming, even when you use rules-related language to make it clear what action you are suggesting, unless there's actually some sort of effect (like silence) making communication between PCs nontrivial.

I find it possible, even probable, based on the OPs description of this player and what we've learned about him since, that he approached the reduced damage problem from a purely mechanical angle instead of thinking about what his character might know.

And no, your character generally doesn't know everything you do. It is reasonable for a DM to decide that a fighter, upon meeting a vampire for the very first time ever, does not know that magical silver overcomes their DR.

The metagame/in game issue is always tricky, but this appears to be a group that favors roleplaying over mechanical efficacy, and he doesn't. What's more, he cheats, which is always a bad sign because it means that he really is focused on winning a game that doesn't have a win condition. It's as it was described before - he wants to be better than everyone else.

Random832
2009-09-02, 07:47 PM
And no, your character generally doesn't know everything you do.

I didn't say that. I said that allowing metagaming is the only other acceptable DM option (other than fair knowledge checks, which is the first choice).


It is reasonable for a DM to decide that a fighter, upon meeting a vampire for the very first time ever, does not know that magical silver overcomes their DR.

It's not reasonable not to allow a check. Either you play fast and loose (in which case the player just gets to determine their PC's actions however they choose), or you enforce knowledge checks (in which case dice are rolled).


The metagame/in game issue is always tricky, but this appears to be a group that favors roleplaying over mechanical efficacy, and he doesn't. What's more, he cheats

When I read back through the thread, I didn't see where an example of cheating was described. I'll read it again though.

Oh, and as for the "same mechanical benefit" - did he know that? Was it explained to him? Also, aid another doesn't make the bard burn a music/day if he decides to cast a spell or use certain magic items on the next round. Bardic music requires you to commit to it for the rest of the fight.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-02, 08:12 PM
Thank you Jade_Tarem for making points so i dont have to. You're pretty much on the ball there.

It would not be a problem if he was gently sugesting things like hey we could use the aid another action to help us hit this. Provided he then made an in character comment to that effect.

I feel it important to note that these were examples that came to mind and by far not the only things he's done. They represent a type of action that happens frequently.



It's not reasonable not to allow a check.

it's not that he wasn't allowed a check, its that he never even tried to make one. hell our DM's Flexible. he likely would have allowed an INT check or somthing if the guy had so much as tried to justify it.

FlawedParadigm
2009-09-02, 08:24 PM
There's something to be said for simplicity.

Boot to the head.

Skorj
2009-09-02, 08:25 PM
And no, your character generally doesn't know everything you do. It is reasonable for a DM to decide that a fighter, upon meeting a vampire for the very first time ever, does not know that magical silver overcomes their DR.

The metagame/in game issue is always tricky, but this appears to be a group that favors roleplaying over mechanical efficacy, and he doesn't. What's more, he cheats, which is always a bad sign because it means that he really is focused on winning a game that doesn't have a win condition. It's as it was described before - he wants to be better than everyone else.

The vampire example is a pretty good one at illustrating what can constitute "legitimate meta-gaming". Most humans here on Earth know all of a vampires weaknesses (at least, per-culture) and there aren't any real vampires. That sort of knowledge would get around even faster if vampires were a real threat. It's the DM's call what the Knowledge(X) DC is, but any monster that's either a common threat or a good story would be a trivial DC. Flaming arrows vs skellies? Pretty darn obvious, especially after the first one is useless, but I could see asking a 4 INT character to roll for it.

And D&D does have a victory condition: you win D&D by creating a story that gets repeated for years. Better understanding of how to win D&D would be most helpful in cases like this.

Random832
2009-09-02, 08:33 PM
it's not that he wasn't allowed a check, its that he never even tried to make one. hell our DM's Flexible. he likely would have allowed an INT check or somthing if the guy had so much as tried to justify it.

Once again I am asking, how exactly did the discussion actually go? Did he say "I light an arrow on fire" and everyone else was just "WTF YOU CANT DO THAT?" putting him immediately on the defensive?

Why should it be _his_ job to ask for a knowledge check? Since the default case is to let the players decide the PC's actions, it's the DM's job to rule on exceptions to that default.

Ranos
2009-09-02, 08:40 PM
Why should it be _his_ job to ask for a knowledge check? Since the default case is to let the players decide the PC's actions, it's the DM's job to rule on exceptions to that default.

You're right of course, but remember the guy was a fighter. He probably wasn't trained in knowledge skills anyway. Now the rest of the party, the bard for example, they should have been asked to make a check, but that's outside the scope of the thread.

Random832
2009-09-02, 08:42 PM
You're right of course, but remember the guy was a fighter. He probably wasn't trained in knowledge skills anyway.

You can make untrained checks up to DC10.

Ranos
2009-09-02, 08:43 PM
You can make untrained checks up to DC10.

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD."
DC10 is not enough.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-02, 08:47 PM
Once again I am asking, how exactly did the discussion actually go? Did he say "I light an arrow on fire" and everyone else was just "WTF YOU CANT DO THAT?" putting him immediately on the defensive?

Why should it be _his_ job to ask for a knowledge check? Since the default case is to let the players decide the PC's actions, it's the DM's job to rule on exceptions to that default.

well it's mainly that it seems he didn't even TRY to make a knowledge check. he simply spent too many rounds while the other players were dying to put oiled rags on his arrows. He didn't ask for a knowledge check and unless this PC has used fire on skeletons or zombies or whatever before and KNOWS fire will do something the PC has no reason to assume fire is going to do more to the undead.

Johanas
2009-09-02, 09:04 PM
Wow , I need to work on Wednesdays more often. SO Much to read. First off, thank you all for your opinions, they was a lot of great info there. I am gonna make a quick post, because game in question is starting in less than an hour.

I will finish my responses after that, I have a couple things I am gonna try.

But I want to clear a couple things up. First off, the whole fire on the skeletons thing. As a player, he had already declared he'd never seen an undead before. The major enemy race in this game is the Kingdom of Gornashka, to the East. 90% of which are Orcs. Secondly, the skeleton fight was in the dark, in a basement. He didn't make the spot checks. They weren't actually skeletons anyway, they had zombie stats. More like MOSTLY rotted bodies, not fully skeletal yet. For starters, the RAW as I understand it doen't reveal the creature's type/subtype info without a DC 20 roll in the relevant skill. Let alone a specific DR. He had no such skill. Half of the point of the campaign is that the kingdom the good guys are from has been at war with orcs, and has had no undead occurrences in several decades. There was just no way. I even allowed a spot check. He failed. Rolled a 3 or 4, as I recall.
Also, I did NOT REQUIRE the player to misintrept the "command" to use Bardic Music. He was ROLEPLAYING. His character has been established as a chaotic good elf with little to no respect for orders and authority. The fact that they were in combat was the only reason he was willing to help. And for all I know, his character DID know what the archer meant. And was a **** anyway. Very in character for this bard.

And to quote my good friend Kyuubi, he WAS just attacking while the party died. I have had no less than 4 combats this game where he had the choice to try to stop a person from BLEEDING TO DEATH, or attacking the running away enemies. He kept attacking. Needless to say, I have had a few PC deaths. Not pretty. I will be trying a few of the absolutely fantastic posts here this evening, and will finish my commenting after the fact. Thanks to shadowsgrneyes for posting this, and thanks to all of you for your input. Especially Random832. The DM should always be held accountable, but in this particular case, I believe I was in the right. Good to hear a devil's advocate though. I can always improve.

Also, special thanks to Nad. Wall of Text is actually a favorite spell of mine, when I'm in the right mood. Which I always am on a Wednesday. GAME NIGHT!

Mystic Muse
2009-09-02, 09:19 PM
have fun!:smallwink:

Random832
2009-09-02, 09:23 PM
Well, yeah, the RAW knowledge rules are broken. 11 minimum to know anything about anything when "common knowledge" is 10 or less . But that's really a discussion for a different thread.

Sorry; I didn't have the whole story, and I tend to try to give the side that is not present the benefit of the doubt.

I still don't know how the conversations went, after asking multiple times. I [i]still find the claim that he _must_ have been trying to claim the glory for himself, as his only possible motive for preferring aid another to bardic music, a bit dubious. But I'm willing to be done here.

Mathius
2009-09-02, 11:20 PM
You cast Fireball at the skeletons. Now you've made them angry, and on fire. They still advance towards the party.

Ha-hah! Now they do an extra D6 of fire damage on a slam. Way to go!!

Johanas
2009-09-03, 02:42 AM
Quick update. Game just ended. It's 12:46 here. I approached said player and talked with him. A few of my players had had rough days at work, and exploded, saying that it had come down to him or them. I tried mediating, and he ended up leaving of his own accord. Like I said, I had nothing against the guy, and it was rough watching him tear up as he hugged me goodbye. :smallfrown:

I will write a full write-up in the morning. *sigh* I hate when it comes down to nonsense like this.

Mathius
2009-09-03, 02:49 AM
I know exactly how you feel. It feels really stupid that a friendship (if the two of you really were good friends) should end on account of something like this.

I recently had a player that was just about the worst player I had ever dealt with. He was loud, his characters were incredibly stupid (despite having an intelligence of 19!). I told him he had to go and he got pissed.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

rty999
2009-09-03, 04:25 AM
Flaming zombies are great! After the flesh burns off there is a skeleton, and any necromancer worth his salt would of course have laced, or at least covered, the bones with oil thus making them flaming skeletons.
:belkar:

Nad
2009-09-03, 07:02 AM
Well maybe it's not too late if your PCs want to dedicate two sessions to trying to fix his gaming style...

Maybe now that he's gotten the boot he'll be better about it too IF he really wants to come back.

Good luck!

prufock
2009-09-03, 07:42 AM
I'll put in my two cents, I suppose.

You have tried in-game penalties. It didn't work. It won't.
You have tried experience penalties. It didn't work. It won't.
You have tried simply being blunt about it. It didn't work. It won't.
You have tried probation. It worked a little. There's your key.

You've found the red button. Now you need to label it clearly. Send an e-mail or call him or talk in person.

"Look man, your behaviour and play style at the table are interfering in the flow of the game, slowing things down, and making things less fun for everyone else. You regularly metagame, you disrupt play with rules debates, you play your character in a way that interferes with the story, etc etc (whatever other issues you have with him). I would like to keep you as a player, but you have to address these issues. I've tried using in-game and xp penalties, but you don't seem to care. So I have to put my foot down.

1. Do not use your own knowledge of items, monsters, and spells that your character would have no knowledge of to influence your character's actions. If you want to know if your character has a specific piece of information, use Knowledge skill checks. That's why they're there.
2. Do not tell other characters how to act. They play their own characters.
3. If you can't explain to me why a particular ruling should be made in 10 words or less, my decision stands. No arguing.
4. Do not attempt to use feats, skills, abilities, or anything else your character doesn't have. You're an experienced player, you should know better, and this will be considered cheating.
5. Whatever other rules you want to enforce.

You are still invited to game with us next time, but if you ignore these rules at the next session, we're going to have to cease inviting you. You're a good guy, and I'd love to keep you involved, but as far as these issues go, it just isn't working as far as the game is concerned."

This will A) make it clear what the problems are, B) make it clear what has to be done, C) give him incentive to change his behaviour, and D) show him that he's still wanted if he can maintain control of himself.

And you have to follow up. If he steps out of line at the next session, and is making the game unenjoyable for others, let him know (after the game, take him aside or send an e-mail) he isn't invited back next time and be specific as to why - tell him what he did that was intrusive. Ask him to consider the problem more seriously, and let him know that he'll be invited back when he decides he can stick to the rules.

If he responds to say that he will change, give him one more chance. No more. The next time, tell him you're sorry, but that's two chances and he is no longer invited to game with you. Be as nice as you can.

That was lengthy, but it's how I would handle the situation. I am loath to reject players unless they are simply jerks, I think things have to be clear and explicit, and I believe everyone deserves a second chance.

EDIT: Obviously, I missed your recent update. I still say, with your players permission, that you can make things explicit and ask him to think about it and let you know if he truly believes he can keep himself in check. Of course, that would be his very last chance.

Also, since he seems like a good enough guy outside the game, there's no reason you can't do other things with him. Sports, movies, etc. It isn't hard to say "Hey man, sorry things didn't work out with the game, that's just the way things go sometime. Listen, I'm doing X this weekend if you still want to hang out."

Frerezar
2009-09-03, 09:35 AM
My two cents.
For what I´ve read he hasn´t broken any rule (exepto for dice fudging of course which can be fixed with a ¨roll in the open¨ rule). The actions that his character took in game are quite reazonable, and the DM or other players trying to disallow it seems unfair. As someone said before, the DM seems to dislike any combat actions other than i roll to hit and deal damage. Does the dm dislike trip bull rush and such also?

Now on the other side the guy does act like a spotlight hugging jerk, and it is OBVIOUS that all you just DON´T LIKE THE GUY. It can be read between lines that his personality (and not only his jerky attitude) is the problem and not what the character does, as well of course as his gaming style.

The best thing is just to let him go, he will be more confortable with a group that doesn´t frawn upon combat focused characters, and you all will be happier without him getting in the way of yours and the DM´s story being told.

One last thing, the DM refusing to accept that he is wrong in an specific rule during combat is ridiculous as it is the one time when rules are the most important. And after allHE IS THE DM, with the power to do what he wants comes the responsabilty to study the rules as deeply as possible, he should do his homework. And if he doesn´t do it because he is focuses his entyre time on the story then don´t play D&D, play world of darkness or another system that doesn´t have so many rules.

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-03, 10:36 AM
My two cents.
For what I´ve read he hasn´t broken any rule (exepto for dice fudging of course which can be fixed with a ¨roll in the open¨ rule). The actions that his character took in game are quite reazonable...

Bossing other players around is not reasonable. It's not his tactics, it's his playstyle that bothers people.


The best thing is just to let him go, he will be more confortable with a group that doesn´t frawn upon combat focused characters, and you all will be happier without him getting in the way of yours and the DM´s story being told.

Turn down the patronizing dial there a bit. Once again, his attitude is the problem. He's disrupting the game - and he would be disrupting it even if they focused on mechanics and tactics.


One last thing, the DM refusing to accept that he is wrong

The DM is NEVER wrong. It's the first rule of DnD, and supersedes all others. I would recommend getting accustomed to that, rather than complaining about one of the fundamental premises of the game.


in an specific rule during combat is ridiculous as it is the one time when rules are the most important. And after allHE IS THE DM, with the power to do what he wants comes the responsabilty to study the rules as deeply as possible, he should do his homework. And if he doesn´t do it because he is focuses his entyre time on the story then don´t play D&D, play world of darkness or another system that doesn´t have so many rules.

I can only conclude that you've had more than your share of spats with an uncooperative DM. This DM, as far as I and most everyone on the thread can determine, acted responsibly, and the player SHOULD NOT spend half an hour per turn arguing with him regardless of whether the DM is right or wrong - and as already mentioned, the DM isn't wrong. That's just how it works.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 10:49 AM
he also should not use knowledge of the enemies his character clearly doesn't have while his fellow players are DYING. That's not good gaming.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-03, 11:01 AM
As for those in favor of Rule Lawyering: our DM is completely willing to look at a rule if someone disagrees with a call he has made. But not in the middle of combat. There is a certain dramatic tension our DM is very good at building but when somebody pulls out a book in the middle of combat and spend a 6 second turn doing 5- 20 minutes of arguing that dramatic tension goes out the window and the rest of us sit there staring at the ceiling. if a call he has made in error would by some freak chance result in PC death and he later discovers that the PC would actually have lived, he will retroactively have them live and just be severly injured. Very few people have EVERY Rule memorized an somtimes it is important to look at the book, just not during initiative.

This is a problem. If something comes up during combat, looking up the rule on the spot will be the quickest way of resolving it. Most rules checks should not take 5-20 minutes.

Im not a big fan of retroactively changing stuff...I find it far more disrupting to the story than doing things right the first time.

Looking up a rule when you don't know what to do, or have differing opinions about what to do is not rules lawyering.

Random832
2009-09-03, 12:09 PM
Bossing other players around is not reasonable. It's not his tactics, it's his playstyle that bothers people.

It still hasn't been explained exactly what was said, and I've asked multiple times. When the incident was first described, it wasn't clear that he was bossing people around rather than just offering suggestions, and the claim seemed to be that he was "called on it" because talking in terms of specific action types like aid another was supposedly metagaming, not because the suggestion was offered in a "bossy" way.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 12:12 PM
Looking up a rule when you don't know what to do, or have differing opinions about what to do is not rules lawyering.

unless the person already has a houserule about it which I think the player was also said to have been arguing against.

Tiktakkat
2009-09-03, 12:42 PM
unless the person already has a houserule about it which I think the player was also said to have been arguing against.

That has its own set of problems, and relates to the inherent absurdity of condemning "Rules Lawyers".
Really, what exactly is the problem with knowing the rules of the game? Would you condemn someone for insisting that after three strikes you are indeed out in a baseball game?
Yes, people wind up with various house rules. Depending on the system, if you ever sat down and wrote them all out, many people would wind up with a manuscript bigger than the final 3.5 FAQ. Who wants to review something like that when joining a new group?

Always remember that many Rules Lawyer vs. House Rules arguments have as their other side someone saying "I made my character under the assumption that we were using these rules as written here. Telling me those rules do not apply completely destroys my character concept, that you had approved, and makes me not want to play the character at all." And that means you have situations where a DM is telling a player to get out for the "crime" of knowing the rules better than the DM.

What people should distinguish is the Rules Weasel. (Which seems to be the case mentioned by the OP.)
A Rules Lawyer is a flavor of Power Gamer who dominates by remembering a particularly obscure rule that lets him get over.
A Rules Weasel is a flavor of Cheater who dominates by forgetting a particularly common exception so he can get over.
As it goes, a Rules Lawyer is the best way to defeat a Rules Weasel, as the Rules Lawyer knows just what exception the Rules Weasel is "conveniently" forgetting to empower his current bit of abuse.

FoE
2009-09-03, 12:46 PM
That has its own set of problems, and relates to the inherent absurdity of condemning "Rules Lawyers".
Really, what exactly is the problem with knowing the rules of the game? Would you condemn someone for insisting that after three strikes you are indeed out in a baseball game?

I would condemn someone for insisting that the batter be allowed four strikes based on a one-time only exception instituted during a slow-pitch game in a small town in New Mexico back in 1963.

And that's pretty much the definition of your average Rules Lawyer.

kc0bbq
2009-09-03, 12:54 PM
It still hasn't been explained exactly what was said, and I've asked multiple times. When the incident was first described, it wasn't clear that he was bossing people around rather than just offering suggestions, and the claim seemed to be that he was "called on it" because talking in terms of specific action types like aid another was supposedly metagaming, not because the suggestion was offered in a "bossy" way.Well, since he's no longer part of the game and the rest of the party is, he was definitely a problem for that group. Not yours, not anyone else's. But enough for all of the rest of that group to get to the point of "him or us". Defensive much?

The Glyphstone
2009-09-03, 12:54 PM
I would condemn someone for insisting that the batter be allowed four strikes based on a one-time only exception instituted during a slow-pitch game in a small town in New Mexico back in 1963.

And that's pretty much the definition of your average Rules Lawyer.

No, that's the exact opposite of an 'average Rules Lawyer'. The Rules Lawyer in your example would be the guy in the bleachers at that 1963 game adamantly arguing with the umpire for 20min that the batter is not allowed 4 strikes no matter what anyone says, because it's written in the rulebook.

Johanas
2009-09-03, 02:05 PM
It still hasn't been explained exactly what was said, and I've asked multiple times. When the incident was first described, it wasn't clear that he was bossing people around rather than just offering suggestions, and the claim seemed to be that he was "called on it" because talking in terms of specific action types like aid another was supposedly metagaming, not because the suggestion was offered in a "bossy" way.

Ok, quick clarification, then I will begin my write-up of what happened, so everyone who has been kind enough to visit this thread can have some resolution. The short version: the party was fighting against an imp that this player in question had provoked. It was attacking him relentlessly, and the party was rolling absolute crap. An average of 4s and 5s across the board. He was an imp straight outta the MM, and as such had fast healing and DR. The party are all level 4, and as such a single CR 2 imp shouldn't have been much trouble. The party continually missed, and after one such miss, the bard gave up on attacking, and spent his move action to run to the corner of the room, a little ways away from the fighting. The archer (player in question) was attacking the imp. 5-foot step back, full attack. He missed with both attacks. He was Rapid Shotting (as an FYI). Frustrated, he turned to the bard player, who was sitting next to him, and said, "Use the Aid Another action on the Imp!" I told him, "Hey, that's meta-gaming, role-play it please." He then says in character, "Aid me!" On his next initiative, the bard begins using inspire courage. The party has an ambient bonus to hit now, this may make the difference. I even allowed the Int 4 Paladin an Int check to see if he knew to stop Power Attacking to better hit. He rolled a 20. And then missed on his action anyway, by rolling a natural 3. Which was still like an AC 15. Play rotates around, and comes back to the archer. He tries to attack, twice, again using Rapid Shot. 2 Misses. He turns to the bard and says" I TOLD YOU, use the AID ANOTHER action!" The bard calmly responds, "You asked me to aid you. I am." A side note here. The party IS fully aware of the effects of the Bard's music. He rolls really well on perform checks (but usually nothing else) and has an average perform check result of 30. He's a great fiddle player. Yes, the fiddle. Moving on.

Bard's Turn: "I continue my bardic music"
Archer: "Everyone, use the aid another action!"
Me: *sigh* "In character please."
Archer: (in character) "Wave your hands in its face so I can shoot it!"
Nobody volunteers. Probably something to so with the fact the to be waving one's hands in it's face, they would be between the flying arrows and the pissed off devil. It devolves into an argument between the bard and the archer. For about 15 minutes. That was the incident to which she was referring, and yes, it killed the dramatic tension. It upset a lot of people, we ended up needed a break as a group, to cool rising tension. Which cost another 15 or so minutes. All in all, over a 30 minute detractor from the game.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 02:27 PM
stuffs that's too long to quote

to be fair they should be allowed to ask for help out of game. I don't think that was bad but him going nutso was. Also I agree. I wouldn't want to wave my hands in his face when I could easily be hit by the arrows even when I'm the party meat shield

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-03, 02:28 PM
Really, what exactly is the problem with knowing the rules of the game?


Nothing is wrong with knowing the rules. Everything is wrong with arguing with the DM (and sometimes other players) about them. That is what a Rules Lawyer does.

Someone who just knows the rules may point out when something is not RAW, but if the DM says that isn't the case at this particular moment, then they would drop it.

The Rules Lawyer will continue to argue.

This is bad because:

It disrupts gameplay, ruining the experience for other players.
It slows down gameplay, ruining the experience for everyone.

Dave Arnsen (yes, THAT Dave Arnsen) once told me how he dealt with Rules Lawyers:

The game never stops. While the Rules Lawyer was looking up rules, he would still be running the game. If that meant the Rules Lawyer missed their turn in combat or that the rule he was looking up is no longer relevant because the narrative has progressed? Too bad. It meant that the longer the Rules Lawyer took to find a rule, the more they were hurting themselves, but without too much disruption to the game at hand.

Secondly, if the Rules Lawyer managed to actually find a rule, Dave would say, "Great! I'm changing it. It is now your job to keep track of all rules changes." This forces the Rules Laywer to waste their time with pointless busywork. Most people will get the hint soon after and just enjoy the game. And if they don't? Well, that's good too! As he now had an encyclopedia of house rules right there and didn't have to keep track of it himself.

Random832
2009-09-03, 02:35 PM
Frustrated, he turned to the bard player, who was sitting next to him, and said, "Use the Aid Another action on the Imp!" I told him, "Hey, that's meta-gaming, role-play it please."

That's what I was saying; I think this was a bad call on your part. It is not metagaming to say what he said. And once again you are making the issue metagaming now, but whenever I say this someone always decides to say that it's really about him being "bossy". Make up your mind, which is it?


Archer: (in character) "Wave your hands in its face so I can shoot it!"
Nobody volunteers. Probably something to so with the fact the to be waving one's hands in it's face, they would be between the flying arrows and the pissed off devil.

So in other words people were using convoluted interpretations of things that aren't actually mechanically true (e.g. the idea that there was a risk of them getting hit with the arrows) in order to [one could not unreasonably assume deliberately] frustrate this player's tactical ideas.


Secondly, if the Rules Lawyer managed to actually find a rule, Dave would say, "Great! I'm changing it. It is now your job to keep track of all rules changes." This forces the Rules Laywer to waste their time with pointless busywork. Most people will get the hint soon after and just enjoy the game.

Yeah well it's hard to enjoy a game when the DM is acting as the players' enemy. And that's what it is when you arbitrarily change things to hurt the players.

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 02:41 PM
Secondly, if the Rules Lawyer managed to actually find a rule, Dave would say, "Great! I'm changing it. It is now your job to keep track of all rules changes." This forces the Rules Laywer to waste their time with pointless busywork. Most people will get the hint soon after and just enjoy the game. And if they don't? Well, that's good too! As he now had an encyclopedia of house rules right there and didn't have to keep track of it himself.

My DM follows this, and I happily oblige. I started taking a tape recorder to sessions to help me keep up with all his arbitrary, middle of battle rule changes, and took notes off of them. Then, whenever he'd break his own house rule, I'd point that out to him, which invariably is harder to retroactively change when it's your own damn rule (and on tape). I work with actual lawyers, so finding a detailed, obscure rule at a moments notice doesn't take me enough time to disrupt the flow of the game.

Random832
2009-09-03, 03:00 PM
Really it's a question of whether you view D&D as "the DM is the director and the players are actors", or "everyone gets together to build a story together".

Even in the former case - in that case you really have to view the rules as being something like a contract - in which case trying to change them in the middle of a battle constitutes an offer to renegotiate their character sheet (in the middle of the battle, no less).

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-03, 03:30 PM
That's what I was saying; I think this was a bad call on your part. It is not metagaming to say what he said. And once again you are making the issue metagaming now, but whenever I say this someone always decides to say that it's really about him being "bossy". Make up your mind, which is it?



So in other words people were using convoluted interpretations of things that aren't actually mechanically true (e.g. the idea that there was a risk of them getting hit with the arrows) in order to [one could not unreasonably assume deliberately] frustrate this player's tactical ideas.



Yeah well it's hard to enjoy a game when the DM is acting as the players' enemy. And that's what it is when you arbitrarily change things to hurt the players.


Random832, first of, why are you being so hostile. We came to the forums looking for advice on how to deal with a player who conflicted with our gaming style, not to forcibly impose our gaming style (which you clearly disagree with) on you. It is a style we have, as a group used for years and it is a style that he, as a player, has had OVER A YEAR to get used to.

In our particular style of play:
Saying something like "use the aid another action" is considered metagaming and asking players to do somthing like that needs to be done in character via reasonable requests the Pc's would be able to make. From our perspective he was being both, unreasonably rude/bossy AND metagaming. It doesnt need to be one or the other. Our DM was not acting out of line, he never instructed the players what to do. ALL HE DID was ask that the player abide to the AGREED UPON RULES by roleplaying his request.

It was the bard who chose to continue to use bardic music to try and help the whole party, and it was the archer who chose to KEEP USING RAPID SHOT rather than just shooting it without penalties.

As for house rules and/or changing rules on the fly. We have a long list of house rules most of which the majority of which, the players are so familiar with we somtimes dont even realize they are houserules. The player in question is one of those people who has been playing with us long enough to know all those house rules inside and out. There are other players in that game who are newer to our group who don't know those rules by heart. . . THEY dont argue with the GM when he makes a ruling against them. They just say "oh, ok, i'll try to remember that".

EVERY house rule we have, is either to make somthing more realistic, or to make somthing more fun FOR THE GROUP AS A WHOLE. Somtimes that means individual players dont get to do somthing super awesome but in the long run everyone has more fun if the story is allowed to progress unhindered. by rules lawyering.

I ask this question of those in support of rule lawyering.

You are reading a really good exciting book and your nearly to the climax when you come across a word you dont recognize, is it more fun to keep reading and just construe the word on context (possibly being wrong) in order to enjoy the story, or would you rather stop reading the exciting portion of the story to go find a dictionary and look up every possible meaning and use of that one word?

The general consensus in our gaming group is to continue with the story.

Yukitsu
2009-09-03, 03:35 PM
I tend to look up words on the internet. A story that I don't fully understand, no matter how interesting it is otherwise, isn't fun for me to read.

For the record, most of my rules lawyering is pointed towards stopping the DM from killing off a fellow player with an illegal or stupid rules break. That is far more disruptive to a game's flow than arguing about a rule that could save a potentially plot important character.

Random832
2009-09-03, 03:47 PM
Random832, first of, why are you being so hostile.

Because we haven't heard the other player's side of the story. Because he's not here to defend himself. I'm being (as you call it) "hostile" because no-one else is.


Our DM was not acting out of line, he never instructed the players what to do.

I'd bet anything that if the bard had used Aid Another, it would have been disallowed for "using metagame knowledge i.e. your knowledge of the fact that this was the tactic he said out-of-character". It doesn't have to be 'instructed'.

On the rules lawyering stuff, that's really a side tangent about stuff a lot more extreme than your group, and not really related to your story anyway, so you don't need to feel like you're being attacked on that.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-03, 03:53 PM
That's what I was saying; I think this was a bad call on your part. It is not metagaming to say what he said. And once again you are making the issue metagaming now, but whenever I say this someone always decides to say that it's really about him being "bossy". Make up your mind, which is it?

We've skipped between "unconfirmed cheating", "metagaming", "bossy", etc. Given that we're not hearing the players side of the story, and only have one example to draw from, about all we can know for sure is that the players have strong personality conflicts, because we have a clear us vs him division going on.


So in other words people were using convoluted interpretations of things that aren't actually mechanically true (e.g. the idea that there was a risk of them getting hit with the arrows) in order to [one could not unreasonably assume deliberately] frustrate this player's tactical ideas.

Yeah, that's a bit wierd. I could see that being frustrating for a player. This is one of those cases where describing an action in OOC terms is good for clarity. Aid another is a valid and legal strategy for hitting a tough mob, but happens to have a name that isn't terribly distinctive. Describing it as "waving hands", etc is in keeping with what it is.

This is a clear case of the party having differing ideas regarding strategy, but it's not at all clear that the blame lies with this one player. I would suggest that players need to communicate and come to agreement regarding tactics on at least some level. In this case, it seems like this is being hindered by the definition of metagaming they chose to use.

And, btw...metagaming refers to using OOC knowledge IC. Describing an action by name is not metagaming. At most, it's talking OOC.


Yeah well it's hard to enjoy a game when the DM is acting as the players' enemy. And that's what it is when you arbitrarily change things to hurt the players.

True. Now, house rules are fine. However, refusing to even let a rule be looked up "because it's in combat" is troubling. Looking up a rule and getting clarification is not rules-lawyering. Rules lawyering generally consists of trying to cobble together rules to do something clearly unintended, and making a big deal about it.

The fact that you have a lot of house rules is fine, but a trade off with doing that is that you will have more rules clarification to do. The more you get, the more possible conflicts, confusion, and plain ol' forgetting can happen.

Random832
2009-09-03, 04:10 PM
We've skipped between "unconfirmed cheating", "metagaming", "bossy", etc. Given that we're not hearing the players side of the story, and only have one example to draw from, about all we can know for sure is that the players have strong personality conflicts, because we have a clear us vs him division going on.

Well, two examples. But on that other one I have to wonder why setting an arrow on fire with oil, though not described in RAW and thus technically the DM's call, can be anything more than two full-round actions at the absolute most. It's almost like it was being purposefully dragged out in order to penalize him for thinking of it. In which case he doesn't really earn the blame for the time-waste factor even if it is metagaming.

There's also a distinct lack of answers from the people who were there that are present. I think I asked three times if anyone made clear to him that the bard song was giving him the same mechanical benefit as Aid Another would, which, remember, they're using as definitive proof that his motive was to claim all the glory for himself by taking away everyone else's bard-song bonus.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-03, 04:26 PM
Good point. Two examples, but niether is definitely metagaming, cheating, etc.

Lighting arrows on fire...yeah, 12 seconds would be reasonable to set an arrow or two on fire. If you have a flask of oil and a tindertwig, you could set a great deal of arrows on fire in two rounds. Some people might point out that he's not being efficient by doing this instead of just shooting, for an encounter of a given length...but cmon, you can't berate him for playing his character inefficiently and also criticize him for talking strategy with his party. It looks like he's trying to be effective, and at least trying to communicate with the party about this.

Also, from the story, I think he was asking someone, anyone to aid another him, given that the DM mentioned that nobody volunteered. If nobody is hitting...it's not a bad idea. At this point, the party probably should talk tactics a little bit(keeping in mind that reasonable talking is a free action), and figure out what the best options are. If he's not aware of the exact bard spell effect(and I'll admit, I dont memorize bard spells, since I dont play them), discussion is the only way you're gonna solve this. The rest of the party seems equally guilty on the communication aspect, since there was no particular reason why they couldn't inform him of WHY they disagreed with his ideas.

Discussion solves problems, arguing and blame does not.

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-03, 04:54 PM
There's also a distinct lack of answers from the people who were there that are present. I think I asked three times if anyone made clear to him that the bard song was giving him the same mechanical benefit as Aid Another would, which, remember, they're using as definitive proof that his motive was to claim all the glory for himself by taking away everyone else's bard-song bonus.

If he's digging through rulebooks in the middle of combat and has played for more than a year, he should know what Inspire Courage does. It's pretty much the Bard's basic booster ability.


We've skipped between "unconfirmed cheating", "metagaming", "bossy", etc. Given that we're not hearing the players side of the story, and only have one example to draw from, about all we can know for sure is that the players have strong personality conflicts, because we have a clear us vs him division going on.

It's never gonna be confirmed on the cheating thing. They (the DM and at least one player) claim to have witnessed him rerolling damage dice. I'm inclined to believe the group on it because that's not the kind of thing you just make up for the lulz, and demanding hard physical evidence over the medium of the forum is just grasping at straws on your part.

Metagaming is trickier, because everyone has their own opinion of how much is too much. Asking for aid anothers out of character probably isn't seen as metagaming by most groups. Neither is just assuming that you should start using fire on foe X. That said, this group does consider it metagaming and bad, and therefore the player in question shouldn't do it, regardless of whether *you* think it's fair or not.

Calling for the bard to aid another is not being bossy. Starting a twenty minute argument with him when he does something more effective is. That's really all there is to it. Arguing with the DM constantly is even worse - he really can't be more right than the DM, so at that point he's trying to browbeat the party into accepting *his* interpretation of the rules. While I can see double checking stuff in the books, this player frequently (according, once again, to the DM, who you seem strongly inclined not to trust :smallconfused:) looks things up and then spends upwards of fifteen minutes trying to make the DM do things the way they're printed. Not good.


Because we haven't heard the other player's side of the story. Because he's not here to defend himself. I'm being (as you call it) "hostile" because no-one else is.

Trying to play devil's advocate isn't so bad. Keeping in mind that this player probably has his own side of the story is very mature and reasonable. That said, your posts come off as hostile because a group came here looking for advice on how to deal with him without kicking him - they made it very clear that they don't want to boot him - and you have since informed them that they are a) Wrong, and b) actually the bad guys here. While he isn't here to defend his actions, try to remember that you weren't there to witness those actions in the first place.

Drevius
2009-09-03, 05:11 PM
seriously, vampire ninja bounty hunters keep people in line.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-03, 05:18 PM
Because we haven't heard the other player's side of the story. Because he's not here to defend himself. I'm being (as you call it) "hostile" because no-one else is.

You have absolutely no need to be hostile to play devils advocate. The purpose of a devil's advocate is to try and get people to see things from the other persons perspective, {Scrubbed}


I'd bet anything that if the bard had used Aid Another, it would have been disallowed for "using metagame knowledge i.e. your knowledge of the fact that this was the tactic he said out-of-character". It doesn't have to be 'instructed'.

I have no idea why you keep assuming our DM is some evil titan against the players. What have we said that gave you this impression? Our DM asked him to do something in character rather than out of game. That's pretty much the only knowledge you have on that particular situation yet you keep making assumptions about the DM's behavior. I can only assume that this refers to a personal experience of YOURS therefore i'll just disregard comments to that effect as they have no bearing on this situation.

Believe it or not our DM is FRIENDS with the player in question and most certainly NOT out to get him. The purpose of this thread was to find a way to HELP our friend realize he's making the game unenjoyable for others and possibly aid him in changing the disruptive and bothersome behavior so everyone could keep having fun. If he was NOT our friend we wouldn't care and would have kicked him a long time ago.


Well, two examples. But on that other one I have to wonder why setting an arrow on fire with oil, though not described in RAW and thus technically the DM's call, can be anything more than two full-round actions at the absolute most. It's almost like it was being purposefully dragged out in order to penalize him for thinking of it. In which case he doesn't really earn the blame for the time-waste factor even if it is metagaming..

He was tearing strips of fabric off his clothes, then using oil, then tieing them to arrows, then lighting them on fire. . . you do that in 12 seconds(while walking 10 feet{2 five foot steps he took}) and tell me how it goes.


There's also a distinct lack of answers from the people who were there that are present. I think I asked three times if anyone made clear to him that the bard song was giving him the same mechanical benefit as Aid Another would, which, remember, they're using as definitive proof that his motive was to claim all the glory for himself by taking away everyone else's bard-song bonus.

By all means what questions haven't we answered that you would like adressed. Provided you drop the hostility I'm more than willing to answer them. I'm sorry if I missed them, this has become quite a long thread.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 05:20 PM
this has become quite a long thread.

no offense meant at all but not by these boards standards. 3 pages is average. I think one thread got up to like 360 pages before the mods were notified.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-03, 05:23 PM
no offense meant at all but not by these boards standards. 3 pages is average. I think one thread got up to like 360 pages before the mods were notified.

i stand corrected. . .lol

Random832
2009-09-03, 05:29 PM
That said, your posts come off as hostile because a group came here looking for advice on how to deal with him without kicking him - they made it very clear that they don't want to boot him

And yet the end result is that he is no longer part of the group. I would wonder if he ever truly was, actually... if there is a conflict between his preferred playstyle and those of the rest of the players, and the preferred resolution of the conflict is "force him to change" instead of "everyone compromises", to me that spells "he's being treated as an outsider".

Sure, they say they don't want to kick him... I even believe they believe that... but the distinction between kicking him out and making him quit is a thin one. And what's them having had a bad day at work have to do with it?


He was tearing strips of fabric off his clothes, then using oil, then tieing them to arrows, then lighting them on fire. . . you do that in 12 seconds(while walking 10 feet{2 five foot steps he took}) and tell me how it goes.

Standard action tearing fabric, Full round for the oil plus tying to the arrows (by analogy with preparing a flask with a fuse), Full round for lighting (by analogy with lighting a torch). Okay, two and a half. [Now, if I were DM, I'd also only give 25% chance for 1d4 of fire damage, and only double zeros to light _on_ fire, so it's not really worth it :smallamused:. But I'm guessing that's not how the discussion went, since the reaction _here_ is mostly focused on the metagaming and the time-wasting based on an ad-hoc duration, rather than it being realistically probably ineffective tactics]

Asking someone with no combat skills to do something while you hold a stopwatch on him isn't a fair comparison. It's almost like his character's a seasoned warrior and we're glorified commoners :smallsmile:. Or maybe more as if the combat timing rules aren't all that thought out, so determinations about how many actions something takes should be made by comparison with similar ones already defined in the books rather than by using a stopwatch.

After all, I couldn't hit someone four times with a sword in six seconds, either.

Or cast a spell and run sixty feet :smallcool:.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-03, 05:30 PM
Yeah, we've had some real monsters in our time. The official limit is 50 pages before lock...there's threads in the Webcomic section on their fifth or sixth iteration because they keep hitting the limit.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-03, 05:31 PM
how far did that one avatar page get again? I think it was more than 360

Mathius
2009-09-03, 06:21 PM
Okay this has been bugging the **** out of me.

Lets take a look at the player's in game behavior:

Lighting arrows on fire to fight zombies is not metagaming in any way shape or form. It is common knowledge to everyone around (commoner and adventurer alike) that things that are on fire cause more damage. It does not take a tactical genious to figure this out. Even the half-witted Paladin with an Int of 4 can come to this conclusion. "Ow! Pointy thing hot! Hurt Hulk!" This is just tactical aptitude. Not metagaming.

Asking the Bard to use "Aid Another" out of game is pretty standard in all games. Asking him to do it in game is also a standard practice. Now, if the guy has been playing D&D and does not know what Bardic Music does, that only means he does not play bards. No one took the time to explain that the advantages are similar, so that is a no count as it could be chalked up to lack of communication. Everyone is to blame here.

Starting fights when they could be talked out. I don't know it anyone else realizes this, but a fighter is a character that fights. Having the Bard talk to the gnolls while the fighter sneaks up and brains him is actually good strategy because you get XP by killing monsters. Regardless of motives, this gives you XP and treasure. Isn't that kind of the point? There is nothing here to suggest glory hogging or hot dogging.

Now, let's take a look at his out of game behavior:

He argues with the DM, disrupting game play. This is common. There is nothing wrong with knowing the rules. If he has been privvy to the houserules and has chosen to ignore them, then yes, he is doing it to be a douche. The conflict comes when he knows them and still argues. If this is happening, then there is nothing to do but cut him.

He cheats on damage and attack rolls. If he does this then make him roll on the table in front of the DM. If the DM does not see it, reroll. Period. End of discussion. This ends cheating completely.

Now, if he is familiar with all of the house rules and has actually been cheating, then he is simply a bad player and should be gotten rid of. But there must be no mistake on this. Anything else seems to be a conflict of personality and gameplay and forcing someone to change how they choose to play their character is tantamount to creating the character and playing it as an NPC and having him jot down notes and nothing else.

Just don't crucify the guy for being agressive and tactically sound.

Tiktakkat
2009-09-03, 06:31 PM
The archer (player in question) was attacking the imp. 5-foot step back, full attack. He missed with both attacks. He was Rapid Shotting (as an FYI). Frustrated, he turned to the bard player, who was sitting next to him, and said, "Use the Aid Another action on the Imp!"

And thus we see the difference between a Rules Lawyer and a Rules Weasel in action.
A Rules Laywer is fully aware that to Aid Another, the PC doing the aiding must be able to make a melee attack on the opponent he is aiding against, and the opponent must be in melee combat with the PC being aided.
That makes it extremely difficult to use the Aid Another action to help an archer.
That we have a tiny opponent (an imp) involved, makes it functionally impossible, as neither the imp nor the archer can threaten the other, making it "really hard" for the two of them to ever be in said melee combat that is required to allow the Aid Another action to be used.

A Rules Lawyer knows this, and would not try to invoke the Aid Another action, properly role-played or otherwise.
The Rules Weasel selectively forgets this because he wants the advantage.

[QUOTE=ScreamingDoom;6855771]Nothing is wrong with knowing the rules. Everything is wrong with arguing with the DM (and sometimes other players) about them. That is what a Rules Lawyer does.

Someone who just knows the rules may point out when something is not RAW, but if the DM says that isn't the case at this particular moment, then they would drop it.

The Rules Lawyer will continue to argue.

No, that is a player being annoying.

A Rules Lawyer is fully capable of understanding that there may be some additional circumstance in action that triggers some other exception.
In fact many times just knowing that the primary case or secondary exception he has cited and being told there is an additional effect will make it clear to the Rules just what that additional effect is. I have had this happen to me multiple times as both player and DM.


This is bad because:

It disrupts gameplay, ruining the experience for other players.
It slows down gameplay, ruining the experience for everyone.

Dave Arnsen (yes, THAT Dave Arnsen) once told me how he dealt with Rules Lawyers:

If you want something that disrupts gameplay and ruins the experience for everyone, you will find very little that does a better job of achieving it than that suggestion, no matter if it is from Dave Arneson.

The DM does not like the player citing a rule so he changes the rule on a whim?
Wonderful.
Where exactly does that stop?
"Oh, I do not want you killing this monster right now, so your natural 20 simply does not hit."
"Oh, I do not want you killing this monster right now, so that natural 1 for a save is not an automatic failure."
"Oh, I do not want you gaining experience and a new level right now, so you gain none for that random encounter, no matter that I told you 'let the dice fall where they may' before I rolled it."
Do the players get the same privileges?
"Yeah, I had those feats, but I do not want my character killed right now so I changed them."
"Yeah, that was enough damage to kill my character, but I do not want him to die just yet so I retroactively gave him twice maximum hit points per level."
"Oh yeah, I know it says roll 3d6 and 18 is the maximum for an ability score, but I wanted my character to be tougher, so I used 30d6 with no maximum."

Calvinball works great for Calvin and Hobbes; it works less well for an RPG. A DM that tries running his game like that is just asking for the same lack of respect in return.

Way back when in AD&D (1st and 2nd ed) days, I knew well over 90% of the rules by instinct. Not word for word, but what they were, and where to find them to confirm the precise text. Putting down someone trying to weasel me was simple.
Then 3E came along, and a whole new set of rules was out there. After a few mistakes with the new system I calmly accepted that it was going to take another 10-15 years of constant play to achieve the same level of rules mastery, and I made it clear to anyone playing at a table I ran that if they thought I was doing something wrong to just find it for me and I would retcon any issues away as needed. No big deal, and the few times we had to look things up and go back were just that - few.
In a game with as many rules and exceptions as 3E/3.5, there is nothing wrong with someone else knowing a particular set of exemptions better than you. The maturity to accept it runs both ways, and obligates both players and DMs to accept being corrected, especially mid-combat where a PC's life is on the line.


All that said, it is clear this was a problem player.
He would not cooperate with role-playing/in-character requests.
He crossed the line from asking/suggesting to ordering/harassing other people about their character actions.
He did not understand the rules as well as he thought he did, with a strong hint of actively and repeatedly cheating.
Ultimately, such people select themselves out of being welcome, as it would seem happened here.

Kylarra
2009-09-03, 06:41 PM
And thus we see the difference between a Rules Lawyer and a Rules Weasel in action.
A Rules Laywer is fully aware that to Aid Another, the PC doing the aiding must be able to make a melee attack on the opponent he is aiding against, and the opponent must be in melee combat with the PC being aided.
That makes it extremely difficult to use the Aid Another action to help an archer.
That we have a tiny opponent (an imp) involved, makes it functionally impossible, as neither the imp nor the archer can threaten the other, making it "really hard" for the two of them to ever be in said melee combat that is required to allow the Aid Another action to be used.

A Rules Lawyer knows this, and would not try to invoke the Aid Another action, properly role-played or otherwise.
The Rules Weasel selectively forgets this because he wants the advantage.
Eh, I'm gonna invoke Hanlon's razor on this one. Also, technically it doesn't specify that the archer has to be engaged in melee combat at the time, simply that the imp is attacking in melee. So RAW, imp attacks archer, you use aid another, archer 5' steps and attacks with their +2 on primary attack.


In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.



. I even allowed the Int 4 Paladin an Int check to see if he knew to stop Power Attacking to better hit.
This is ridiculous. Even low int characters should know what their own feats do.

edit: leaving this in because it is a part of the post, but I am satisfied with the response of this being an already established part of the game.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-03, 07:00 PM
Int 4? Really? What kind of Holy Order gives heavy armour and huge deadly weaponry to a guy who needs help tying his own shoelaces and who is both confused and terrified by the arcane significance of his alphabeti spahhetti?

Kylarra
2009-09-03, 07:03 PM
Int 4? Really? What kind of Holy Order gives heavy armour and huge deadly weaponry to a guy who needs help tying his own shoelaces and who is both confused and terrified by the arcane significance of his alphabeti spahhetti?
Thog no wear boots with string. Thog use velcro.

Johanas
2009-09-03, 07:08 PM
This is ridiculous. Even low int characters should know what their own feats do.

No. It isn't. The player himself rolls a d20 all the time to see if his character knows something. He asked me to do the same with regards to both strategy and social interaction. I was doing like the player asked. He actually thanked me for allowing him the Int check to realize that. The player himself knew to do that very thing, but the character didn't. Keep in mind, a 4 Int is less intelligent than Forrest Gump. He had a 5-7. Or so. I know I read somewhere it breaks down to an I.Q. equal to your Int score X 10. So people with 18 Ints are at the Super-genius level, with I.Q.s of 180. That means the paladin has a 40 I.Q. May not work that way exactly, but it gets the point across. Forrest Gump had like a 70, if memory serves.

Next. You are all forgetting that all I did was ASK THE PLAYER TO ROLEPLAY. Roleplay his character asking someone to aid him. I never once forbade it. Jesus Christ, read what I wrote before you get all flamey.

Also, I mentioned that the bard moved away, and the Archer kept asking him to aid him. Why would the bard who is Inspiring some perfectly good Courage walk up to a hell-spawned terror, and poke it with a stick? He wouldn't. I already mention said bard has problems with Authority. The Archer in question is ex-military, which has been some good roleplaying. They never got along (as characters) much before anyway. Besides, you can't aid another from way the hell across the dungeon. THAT is RAW. Let's be honest here. I'm no archer. But I can safely assume that if you are busy backing up, firing arrows, and shouting orders over loud fiddle playing, all while being chased and attacked by a freaking DEVIL, it isn't that out of line for a DM to rule that the archer character was in a tight spot. But just because no players actually DID use the Aid Another action, doesn't mean I forbade it. Nothing of the sort. Remember back to the dreaded Int check for the Paladin? I was trying to give them HINTS to work together.

Side note: My wife's 4 regional championship medals, and 1st place archery trophies make her an expert in MY mind, and she agrees with me.

Lastly, we were never AGAINST the guy. I can completely understand it came off that way. I, for one, am sorry for the miss-communication. We are just frustrated. He IS a friend of mine, has been in this game for months, and gamed with me for years. I never wanted it to come to this, I don't like seeing my friends visibly upset. Or any KIND of upset. It came down to that, and I am truly sorry that it did.

I would like to state for the record one last thing. I never had a problem with people having books out before, it was this same player's behavior which prompted that rule. No exaggeration whatsoever, we would lose an average of forty minutes every game night looking up rules in the book. In the middle of combat. It's just frustrating, because EVERY OTHER PLAYER was willing to let things go, and look the rules up after the fact. He just couldn't listen to the GM, let alone the rest of the table.

Johanas
2009-09-03, 07:10 PM
Int 4? Really? What kind of Holy Order gives heavy armour and huge deadly weaponry to a guy who needs help tying his own shoelaces and who is both confused and terrified by the arcane significance of his alphabeti spahhetti?

He was raised by his older (druid) sister to revere Ehlonna. His Goddess has granted him the boons of being a champion of hers, as he is a true innocent. He never had a Holy Order, just the drive to protect the weak, and combat evil. I homebrewed a male Beloved of Valerian prestige class for him, as a Beloved of Elhonna.

Kylarra
2009-09-03, 07:19 PM
No. It isn't. The player himself rolls a d20 all the time to see if his character knows something. He asked me to do the same with regards to both strategy and social interaction. I was doing like the player asked. He actually thanked me for allowing him the Int check to realize that. The player himself knew to do that very thing, but the character didn't. Keep in mind, a 4 Int is less intelligent than Forrest Gump. He had a 5-7. Or so. I know I read somewhere it breaks down to an I.Q. equal to your Int score X 10. So people with 18 Ints are at the Super-genius level, with I.Q.s of 180. That means the paladin has a 40 I.Q. May not work that way exactly, but it gets the point across. Forrest Gump had like a 70, if memory serves. See, this would be a good example of how context changes things. If you've been doing it all along, and the player is fine with it, then sure, it's fine and dandy. In a vacuum, it strikes as being overly controlling for the player to need to roll a dice to figure out "hey, I could hit things better if I didn't take attack penalties".

Johanas
2009-09-03, 07:22 PM
And I wholeheartedly agree. That would be a horrible thing to do, but it was previously established. And believe me, there have been times when as a PLAYER he figures something out, but his character (again, of his own volition) fails his Int check...and the player just sits there squirming. He is really good about not mentioning anything to other players, but usually I just look tell him to look at the bard or wizard (both with 17 Int) and say: Tell them your idea. They figured it out. Usually that gets things resolved, while allowing him to play in character. And not undermine the potential of the player party as a whole.

Edit: One fact to add. The whole Int check thing? His idea.

Kylarra
2009-09-03, 07:29 PM
And I wholeheartedly agree. That would be a horrible thing to do, but it was previously established. And believe me, there have been times when as a PLAYER he figures something out, but his character (again, of his own volition) fails his Int check...and the player just sits there squirming. He is really good about not mentioning anything to other players, but usually I just look tell him to look at the bard or wizard (both with 17 Int) and say: Tell them your idea. They figured it out. Usually that gets things resolved, while allowing him to play in character. And not undermine the potential of the player party as a whole.

Edit: One fact to add. The whole Int check thing? His idea.Well the edit is kind of just gravy, as I would've been fine with it so long as the player is fine with it. I'll go ahead and edit so no one else tries to soapbox off my post. :smalltongue:

Milskidasith
2009-09-03, 07:30 PM
No. It isn't. The player himself rolls a d20 all the time to see if his character knows something. He asked me to do the same with regards to both strategy and social interaction. I was doing like the player asked. He actually thanked me for allowing him the Int check to realize that. The player himself knew to do that very thing, but the character didn't. Keep in mind, a 4 Int is less intelligent than Forrest Gump. He had a 5-7. Or so. I know I read somewhere it breaks down to an I.Q. equal to your Int score X 10. So people with 18 Ints are at the Super-genius level, with I.Q.s of 180. That means the paladin has a 40 I.Q. May not work that way exactly, but it gets the point across. Forrest Gump had like a 70, if memory serves.

Next. You are all forgetting that all I did was ASK THE PLAYER TO ROLEPLAY. Roleplay his character asking someone to aid him. I never once forbade it. Jesus Christ, read what I wrote before you get all flamey.

Also, I mentioned that the bard moved away, and the Archer kept asking him to aid him. Why would the bard who is Inspiring some perfectly good Courage walk up to a hell-spawned terror, and poke it with a stick? He wouldn't. I already mention said bard has problems with Authority. The Archer in question is ex-military, which has been some good roleplaying. They never got along (as characters) much before anyway. Besides, you can't aid another from way the hell across the dungeon. THAT is RAW. Let's be honest here. I'm no archer. But I can safely assume that if you are busy backing up, firing arrows, and shouting orders over loud fiddle playing, all while being chased and attacked by a freaking DEVIL, it isn't that out of line for a DM to rule that the archer character was in a tight spot. But just because no players actually DID use the Aid Another action, doesn't mean I forbade it. Nothing of the sort. Remember back to the dreaded Int check for the Paladin? I was trying to give them HINTS to work together.

Side note: My wife's 4 regional championship medals, and 1st place archery trophies make her an expert in MY mind, and she agrees with me.

Lastly, we were never AGAINST the guy. I can completely understand it came off that way. I, for one, am sorry for the miss-communication. We are just frustrated. He IS a friend of mine, has been in this game for months, and gamed with me for years. I never wanted it to come to this, I don't like seeing my friends visibly upset. Or any KIND of upset. It came down to that, and I am truly sorry that it did.

I would like to state for the record one last thing. I never had a problem with people having books out before, it was this same player's behavior which prompted that rule. No exaggeration whatsoever, we would lose an average of forty minutes every game night looking up rules in the book. In the middle of combat. It's just frustrating, because EVERY OTHER PLAYER was willing to let things go, and look the rules up after the fact. He just couldn't listen to the GM, let alone the rest of the table.

You really don't need to be so hostile. First of all, IQ = int x 40 is a bit... absurd, especially considering wisdom can be a major part of IQ, if only due to intuition... intelligence is better defined as your ability to learn things, not IQ (which isn't even that good of a test; besides, a 40 is too retarded to live, and yet it's only a -5 compared to 140, which is genius level. IQ = 50+5xInt makes more sense, although strictly defining intelligence as IQ isn't a good idea.) and not knowing "swinging harderer hurtz 'dem more but me no hit much" is something that shouldn't require an int check... do you make your characters roll dex checks for walking and charisma checks to recognize themselves in the mirror?

The thing is, you are assuming your houserules are normal, and they aren't. Your player was, in all honesty, seeming to play by RAW besides the cheating, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, you seemed to actively try to make it hell for him; not allowing him to say "Aid Another" is just ridiculous. Trying to use your wife's credibility in an argument is... I don't even know what it is, but it certainly doesn't add to your argument.

Finally, from what I can tell, you seem to be a very aggressive DM with a lot of very strict houserules and require even the simplest of actions to be roleplayed out IC and have ability related checks to work. Most players aren't going to assume this style, because not many people enjoy taking feats only to learn that they can't remember what they do, or roleplaying your shopping trip at level 3 for all of two sessions worth of diplomancing*.

*Note: I know you didn't say that, but when you make players roleplay everything, even asking something as simple as "Aid Another," and call "lighting stuff on fire because fire hurts" metagaming, and require ability checks for everything that isn't roleplayed out, then making your players roleplay their items bought seems to be the next step.

Johanas
2009-09-03, 07:47 PM
You really don't need to be so hostile. First of all, IQ = int x 40 is a bit... absurd, especially considering wisdom can be a major part of IQ, if only due to intuition... intelligence is better defined as your ability to learn things, not IQ (which isn't even that good of a test; besides, a 40 is too retarded to live, and yet it's only a -5 compared to 140, which is genius level. IQ = 50+5xInt makes more sense, although strictly defining intelligence as IQ isn't a good idea.) and not knowing "swinging harderer hurtz 'dem more but me no hit much" is something that shouldn't require an int check... do you make your characters roll dex checks for walking and charisma checks to recognize themselves in the mirror?

The thing is, you are assuming your houserules are normal, and they aren't. Your player was, in all honesty, seeming to play by RAW besides the cheating, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, you seemed to actively try to make it hell for him; not allowing him to say "Aid Another" is just ridiculous. Trying to use your wife's credibility in an argument is... I don't even know what it is, but it certainly doesn't add to your argument.

Finally, from what I can tell, you seem to be a very aggressive DM with a lot of very strict houserules and require even the simplest of actions to be roleplayed out IC and have ability related checks to work. Most players aren't going to assume this style, because not many people enjoy taking feats only to learn that they can't remember what they do, or roleplaying your shopping trip at level 3 for all of two sessions worth of diplomancing*.

*Note: I know you didn't say that, but when you make players roleplay everything, even asking something as simple as "Aid Another," and call "lighting stuff on fire because fire hurts" metagaming, and require ability checks for everything that isn't roleplayed out, then making your players roleplay their items bought seems to be the next step.

*sigh* I don't make them roleplay EVERYTHING. Just when I have a player use verbiage straight out of the player's handbook, I make sure to have them say it such a way as to actually sound like the character said it.

I was just using the Int X 10 as an example. I don't actually work things that way. Again, of his OWN ACCORD, the PC chose to play his character as more mentally deficient than Forrest Gump. Not my idea either. His.

Next, I stated I am not an archer. I can barely tell which end to notch the arrow. If I as a person don't know something, I will ask the table/my wife/friends whoever. In this case, my wife is the resident expert on the subject. So I defaulted to her. I do the same when it comes to Pysch related questions to my friend who is taking Psych classes, or more likely, the party rogue. He actually HAS his degree in psych. Funny thing. Both of them agree that I handled the whole situation well. As did the Paladin, the healer, and even the bard. Hell, the archer said he understands that sometimes we need to throw the rules out the window and just go to expedite things. He rarely does so, but he understands the concept.

I apologize if I am coming off hostile, that isn't my intention. I am legitimately upset by all this, and I'm blaming myself. Seeing a friend cry because he feels no longer welcome in his social circle hurts. And I feel like I could have done something to prevent this from happening. I've been GM for like 16 years, and this is only the second time something like this has happened at my table, and I feel responsible. The part that upsets me the most was that the wizard was a complete stone-cold **** about the whole situation after my archer friend left. The whole situation blows. Which is the original idea behind the thread, to toss around ideas to find a way to prevent this very thing from happening.

Tiktakkat
2009-09-03, 07:48 PM
And I wholeheartedly agree. That would be a horrible thing to do, but it was previously established. And believe me, there have been times when as a PLAYER he figures something out, but his character (again, of his own volition) fails his Int check...and the player just sits there squirming. He is really good about not mentioning anything to other players, but usually I just look tell him to look at the bard or wizard (both with 17 Int) and say: Tell them your idea. They figured it out. Usually that gets things resolved, while allowing him to play in character. And not undermine the potential of the player party as a whole.

Edit: One fact to add. The whole Int check thing? His idea.

Heh.
I had an in-character issue like that come up once. Not Intelligence score, but background related. I told the GM privately so he knew that I knew, but kept it quiet at the table. I enjoyed "solving" it, even if it was just on the side, so it was easy to let it go at the table and stay in character. Even better was the GM being so surprised I knew what he thought was an utterly obscure reference (it involved a hand of glory).

I personally do not favor die rolls for tactics and such, but I do understand the issues related to role-playing a character when key plot or tactical elements rear their heads, and I agree with your statement of the proper balance of playing in character without undermining the party as a whole.


Eh, I'm gonna invoke Hanlon's razor on this one. Also, technically it doesn't specify that the archer has to be engaged in melee combat at the time, simply that the imp is attacking in melee. So RAW, imp attacks archer, you use aid another, archer 5' steps and attacks with their +2 on primary attack.

Right. And if the archer steps away first, you cannot aid.
As such, the Rules Lawyer would definitely go elsewhere. Like say, going for the lower touch AC and just grappling the tiny git into oblivion. Remember, no AoO because it does not have reach and you do, and you do still get flanking bonuses. Much better than worrying about Aid Another. :smallcool:

FerhagoRosewood
2009-09-04, 01:52 AM
Maybe I'm reading through some invisible goggles that make certain people's "hostility" non-existant... But when in Johanas' posts did he start the negativity?

'Cause it's under my impression that other posts started the negativity, if anything, and he was just responding to it.

Just my two cents anyway, carry on.

>.>;

HealthKit
2009-09-04, 02:04 AM
Maybe I'm reading through some invisible goggles that make certain people's "hostility" non-existant... But when in Johanas' posts did he start the negativity?

'Cause it's under my impression that other posts started the negativity, if anything, and he was just responding to it.


I agree, if there's any "hostility", it's originally coming from other posts, not the GMs (or the player's for that matter).
I think some people forgot (or never realized) that the purpose of this thread was an honest plea for help in dealing with a real life, socially awkward situation.

Unwitting Pawn
2009-09-04, 04:32 AM
Agreed. It does seem reading from the beginning that any so-called "hostility" from the GM or OP was a reaction to the rather over-aggressive style of cross-examination or devil's advocacy displayed by some posters.

If someone asking for help is spoken to aggressively, don't be surprised when their responses start to get more defensive as a result. :smallwink:

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-04, 04:47 AM
*sigh* I don't make them roleplay EVERYTHING. Just when I have a player use verbiage straight out of the player's handbook, I make sure to have them say it such a way as to actually sound like the character said it.

I was just using the Int X 10 as an example. I don't actually work things that way. Again, of his OWN ACCORD, the PC chose to play his character as more mentally deficient than Forrest Gump. Not my idea either. His.

Next, I stated I am not an archer. I can barely tell which end to notch the arrow. If I as a person don't know something, I will ask the table/my wife/friends whoever. In this case, my wife is the resident expert on the subject. So I defaulted to her. I do the same when it comes to Pysch related questions to my friend who is taking Psych classes, or more likely, the party rogue. He actually HAS his degree in psych. Funny thing. Both of them agree that I handled the whole situation well. As did the Paladin, the healer, and even the bard. Hell, the archer said he understands that sometimes we need to throw the rules out the window and just go to expedite things. He rarely does so, but he understands the concept.

I apologize if I am coming off hostile, that isn't my intention. I am legitimately upset by all this, and I'm blaming myself. Seeing a friend cry because he feels no longer welcome in his social circle hurts. And I feel like I could have done something to prevent this from happening. I've been GM for like 16 years, and this is only the second time something like this has happened at my table, and I feel responsible. The part that upsets me the most was that the wizard was a complete stone-cold **** about the whole situation after my archer friend left. The whole situation blows. Which is the original idea behind the thread, to toss around ideas to find a way to prevent this very thing from happening.

You did what you could. Unfortunately, there were other people involved, who, far as I can follow, had less intention of going to the lengths needed to resolve this bloodlessly.

Sad, awkward. Make some time to hang out with him, perhaps? Make it clear, there were problems but you're still willing to be friends? All that jazz.

sofawall
2009-09-04, 05:43 AM
no offense meant at all but not by these boards standards. 3 pages is average. I think one thread got up to like 360 pages before the mods were notified.

Shh, but there are at least a couple over 100 pages.

Fitz
2009-09-04, 08:01 AM
ok slight devils advocate situation

most of the times i have unleashed my inner power gamer have been in games where the DM has "favorites" and "punchbags" : the former get a lot of glory and free bonus' (vampire template aquired in an underdark campaign for no level penalty as an example) the latter have to get a new character created every 3 sessions or so as they get unfeasibly targeted. I tend to play very powerful healer/enhancer characters that can boost those without the favoured eye of the DM , but others will pull out all the stops to try and compete.

This individual however , needs to make 3 advances to interact better, 1) fudging dice rolls needs to stop, 2) not argue with the DM, discuss after the game fine, during the game no and 3) remember that the team captain still needs a team

That said it sounds like your group is pretty harsh on the roleplaying aspect and not very flexible, perhaps a less confrontational , comprimise might have helped more. encouragement towards your style works much better than demands

Fitz

Mathius
2009-09-04, 08:21 AM
My real questions are these two:

1) Was he ACTUALLY cheating? Some players say yes, but the DM states that he saw nothing to indicate this.

2) Does he honestly know ALL of the house rules? Was it explained to him what the house rules were at the beginning of the game and did he have the opportunity to make his arguments at that point against whatever he did not find reasonable?

A side note:
During the fiasco with the Bard, and this is directed toward you, Johanas, was it explained to him - at length - that the "Aid Another" action and the Inspire Courage ability give him the same benefit? You made the statement that he was aware of what Bardic Music does, but was he aware of the mechanics? And, if he was aware, did he make any statement along the lines of "I wanted to be the one to get the bonus, not everyone else"?

I just want some clarification.

Frerezar
2009-09-04, 08:57 AM
I am surprised that there is someone with a psych degree at that table, because anyone with an understanding of human behavior could have seen and deduced that that player´s actions were driven by anxiety (like most out of control power gamers) and that a welcoming and relaxing approach was the right thing to do. Also that person should have noticed that this was a matter of personal like or dislike towards a person and not so much his style of play, as well as assuming to know without asking what his ¨REAL¨ intentions were whenever he did something in game.
At any rate, that group does seem very harsh on roll playig factor (which is great), but that shuld have been explained to the player before he even joined the game. Because I have to admit I would be pretty pissed and dissoriented if the DM favored relativism depending on what he feels is better for the story instead of the written rules of the game, because the problem with this is that if a player is not elocuent or a good storyteller he will find the game less entretaining and rewarding, AND THE RULES OF THE SYSTEM ARE THERE TO PUT EVERYONE AT THE SAME LEVEL AT A GAMING TABLE regardless of what the actual player is good at.
At any rate, excuse the wall of text, this whole thing is just a shame.

Random832
2009-09-04, 09:12 AM
1) fudging dice rolls needs to stop

For supposed fudging of dice rolls, the only solution is everyone rolls at the center of the table. Singling out one player does not work, and will just generate more bad feelings especially if it turns out to have been misinterpreted.

(Yes, no matter what you think you saw, it could be a misinterpretation. I roll dice on my laptop keyboard. Sometimes it lands in the gutter between the keys and the wrist rest area. If it's stuck between e.g. 19 and a 1, I could just say 19, or I could reroll and end up getting 11. Rerolling is the more honest solution, but anyone looking from across the room would just see me pick up the die and roll again.)


2) not argue with the DM, discuss after the game fine, during the game no

I got the impression that at least some portion of the argument was coming from the other players, not the DM, arguing against what he wanted to do. Certainly the description of the group's "play style" as some sacred thing that, despite not being in any sense imposed by the DM, cannot be adjusted to fit this player - seems to support that interpretation.

And let's not forget that this thread was started by a player and not the DM. One player coming in here and saying that another player is A) cheating B) stealing all the "glory"... We've also got the DM saying that the other players had a bad day at work and took it out on this player. The premise that this is a matter of a single "problem player" is pretty much gone at this point.

"I'm looking for somthing devious I can do in game that would put him in his place as I am a player in this game not the GM." Yeah. So this is a thread where someone posted asking for PVP advice; of course anyone who doesn't go along with that premise is accused of hostility.
____

Oh, and... I just realized something. On the bardic music having the same mechanical benefit as Aid Another would...


Assuming approximately level 8 characters, it's the same mechanical benefit to him either way... BUT in this case, the Inspire Courage helps [I]everyone in the party, not just him. He wants the group to support him so that he'll be more awesome, and the bard's action means that someone else might get to be awesome, and since his main goal is to be better than everyone, he doesn't want that. Does that sound like a team player to you?

When I originally read this post, I assumed the person posting was one of the players who was present, because the OP hadn't stated what level the characters were. Were they in fact 8th-level characters?
____


The DM has been doing his job of punishing this guy for his behavior. The guys been Cursed. He's been dominated and lost control of his character, He's had experience penalties. He's DIED . . .TWICE and had to reroll .

Is it possible that - just maybe - the player feels like he's being treated unfairly? See also what Fitz said above about DM punching bags. It's possible that even a legitimate penalty will be taken as this if it's not made absolutely clear to the player what the reason is.

Frerezar
2009-09-04, 09:19 AM
It is normal human behavior to feel a D&D world as hostyle and unforgiving when a DM keeps torturing him (even if reazons are fair), and the normal reaction is to adapt to such enviroment and try to become increasingly powerfull to avoid being treated that way by the world. Everyone should just realize that this is as much a problem of the DM and his clearly biased gaming group as it is of the ¨problem player¨.

FerhagoRosewood
2009-09-04, 11:34 AM
ok slight devils advocate situation

most of the times i have unleashed my inner power gamer have been in games where the DM has "favorites" and "punchbags" : the former get a lot of glory and free bonus' (vampire template aquired in an underdark campaign for no level penalty as an example) the latter have to get a new character created every 3 sessions or so as they get unfeasibly targeted. I tend to play very powerful healer/enhancer characters that can boost those without the favoured eye of the DM , but others will pull out all the stops to try and compete.

This individual however , needs to make 3 advances to interact better, 1) fudging dice rolls needs to stop, 2) not argue with the DM, discuss after the game fine, during the game no and 3) remember that the team captain still needs a team

That said it sounds like your group is pretty harsh on the roleplaying aspect and not very flexible, perhaps a less confrontational , comprimise might have helped more. encouragement towards your style works much better than demands

Fitz

How is it harsh on roleplaying? The character, not the player, is the one that needs aid. He (the character) would need to ask in game for help, since it's different tactics than what the other characters would do.

Guys & Girls... I think you've picked the wrong DM & player to take your frustrations out on.

Random832
2009-09-04, 11:44 AM
Well, on the same token, it's the player who is mad at this player, not the character, so taking in-game action against him (which was what the OP was asking for ideas on at first) would be inappropriate

FerhagoRosewood
2009-09-04, 12:32 PM
So that justifies the ill-fitting negative comments and unfounded criticism then? Then by all means, stay the course.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-04, 12:34 PM
If he's digging through rulebooks in the middle of combat and has played for more than a year, he should know what Inspire Courage does. It's pretty much the Bard's basic booster ability.

Should and does are not the same. In my last gaming session, I had a DM ask me for the rules on magic missile. I happen to know from personal experience that he's played for at least a couple years, I presume he just had a brain fart. That...or it's a side effect of always playing barbarian.



It's never gonna be confirmed on the cheating thing. They (the DM and at least one player) claim to have witnessed him rerolling damage dice. I'm inclined to believe the group on it because that's not the kind of thing you just make up for the lulz, and demanding hard physical evidence over the medium of the forum is just grasping at straws on your part.

The DM already stated that he never saw that. So, you have one player alleging cheating. Concerning, sure...but passing judgement on this is basically picking one guys word over the other. Enforcing rolling in the middle of the table for everyone is fine, and a constructive solution. Accusing him of cheating is not.


Metagaming is trickier, because everyone has their own opinion of how much is too much. Asking for aid anothers out of character probably isn't seen as metagaming by most groups. Neither is just assuming that you should start using fire on foe X. That said, this group does consider it metagaming and bad, and therefore the player in question shouldn't do it, regardless of whether *you* think it's fair or not.

If you have an extremely different set of rules of play, in addition to a lot of house rules, conflict is gonna come up. Especially if you lay all the blame on the other guy. People play a lil differently from each other...thats just a fact of life. Sometimes you need to compromise.

Yeah...it's their game, but obviously, it's not working out so well for them. Something has to change. If the problem isn't just this player, then it's going to recurr in the future.

For example, the bard that has "problems with authority", resulting in not communicating with the player either IC or OOC, just ignoring him. This sounds like using the character as an excuse to be confrontational.

Also, the fact that him lighting arrows on fire is metagaming while the paladin being too stupid to figure out something the player know...and then having one of the smarter characters tell it to his isn't metagaming? Seriously?


Calling for the bard to aid another is not being bossy. Starting a twenty minute argument with him when he does something more effective is. That's really all there is to it. Arguing with the DM constantly is even worse - he really can't be more right than the DM, so at that point he's trying to browbeat the party into accepting *his* interpretation of the rules. While I can see double checking stuff in the books, this player frequently (according, once again, to the DM, who you seem strongly inclined not to trust :smallconfused:) looks things up and then spends upwards of fifteen minutes trying to make the DM do things the way they're printed. Not good.

They specifically said they did not allow checking rules in combat. I disagree with the implication that a player cannot be more right than the DM. Yes, the DM needs to organize things, but they are human, and they screw rules up too. Just keep the rule checks reasonably timed.

Checking a rule does not *have* to take long, or degenerate into a huge argument, or be enforced by DM fiat. If you think it does, I hope you have the good fortune to find better games in the future.

Random832
2009-09-04, 01:00 PM
So that justifies the ill-fitting negative comments and unfounded criticism then?

So you're saying that the OP wasn't trying to get advice on how best to get revenge on someone's character for OOC reasons?

It's all right there in black and white. That sets the entire tone for the discussion. And of course when someone doesn't go along with that plan for how the thread's supposed to go, they're immediately going to be accused of attacking them.

Or maybe the DM didn't say the other players were taking out the fact that they had a bad day at work on the player. Again, right there in black and white. This isn't a problem player, this is a problem group, and there's nothing wrong with taking anything someone says when they come online to badmouth a fellow player who's not here to defend himself with a grain of salt.


That said, this group does consider it metagaming and bad, and therefore the player in question shouldn't do it, regardless of whether *you* think it's fair or not.

You say that like the "player in question" isn't part of "this group". Of course, in one sense you're right, he's not... not anymore. But that doesn't change the fact that the key problem here is that he's being treated as an outsider who has to conform to the rest of the group's playstyle, rather than the playstyle being something for all of the players to figure out together as equals.

And anyway, the definition of the term "metagaming" isn't negotiable. They can consider it bad, but it's something other than metagaming, just like looking up a rule that applies to the situation may or may not ruin the moment in a heated battle, but is still not "rules lawyering". That's part of what caused my initial reaction - a failure to communicate. In one of my early responses (the one I got warned for, actually) I'd thought they were saying that he wasn't allowed to know his piercing attacks would do less damage after having already made one. Without that, I'm fine agreeing to call the flaming arrow incident metagaming - it is practically a textbook example of metagaming (though it's still the kind that people put up with in casual play all the time, and I didn't know at the time that enforcing OOC knowledge vs IC had been agreed upon in advance)

____

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that, speculation on what he "should have" known aside, the question of whether the player actually knew the bard song gave him the same mechanical benefit as Aid Another would have (or even the question of whether they were at least level 8 for that to even actually be true) is still unanswered.

And given that knowledge rules were central to the discussion, I think the whole "INT 4" thing could have been mentioned a bit earlier than it was. It is hard to meaningfully discuss a situation when so much information isn't being disclosed.

Mathius
2009-09-04, 01:17 PM
the question of whether they were at least level 8 for that to even actually be true) is still unanswered.

Actually this question has been answered. The characters were level 4. The imp was a challenge rating of two. The party was just rolling crap. The funny thing is, this player wanted to use the Aid Another action, yet his RANGED combat of the Imp negated this ability actually being used. So, in effect he was arguing about nothing.

Random832
2009-09-04, 01:20 PM
Thanks, I didn't see that. Hopefully this puts to rest the claim that the bard song was a +2 bonus.


The funny thing is, this player wanted to use the Aid Another action, yet his RANGED combat of the Imp negated this ability actually being used. So, in effect he was arguing about nothing. And to think we could have avoided all this if someone had bothered to look up the rules in combat. :smallcool:

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-04, 01:39 PM
It is normal human behavior to feel a D&D world as hostyle and unforgiving when a DM keeps torturing him (even if reazons are fair), and the normal reaction is to adapt to such enviroment and try to become increasingly powerfull to avoid being treated that way by the world. Everyone should just realize that this is as much a problem of the DM and his clearly biased gaming group as it is of the ¨problem player¨.

People keep forgetting that the DM tried a lot of things before the punishments began - trying both in character and out of character to get him to work with them. It didn't work.

But let's assume that this exremely thin rationalization for his actions is valid, and that the group really is a bunch of vicious, vindictive farts led by their DM, the Wicked Witch of the West, all ganging up on poor 'widdle player X, whose only recourse is to act this way. In that case, the best outcome is still what occured - a split between the player and the group, so that they can continue gaming in their wretched hive of scum and villainy and he can move on to greener pastures.


Should and does are not the same. In my last gaming session, I had a DM ask me for the rules on magic missile. I happen to know from personal experience that he's played for at least a couple years, I presume he just had a brain fart. That...or it's a side effect of always playing barbarian.

I'm having a very hard time picturing a twenty minute argument where the words "Inspire Courage gives a better bonus than Aid Another, since it's a blanket effect" didn't come up.



The DM already stated that he never saw that. So, you have one player alleging cheating. Concerning, sure...but passing judgement on this is basically picking one guys word over the other. Enforcing rolling in the middle of the table for everyone is fine, and a constructive solution. Accusing him of cheating is not.

I'll grant that this is true, but it shouldn't be necessary in the first place. One way or another, this guy necessitated that change in the rules - something is wrong here.


If you have an extremely different set of rules of play, in addition to a lot of house rules, conflict is gonna come up. Especially if you lay all the blame on the other guy. People play a lil differently from each other...thats just a fact of life. Sometimes you need to compromise.

Once again, I'm left agape with wonder at how easily one can post "We don't know enough about what went on to blame player X" and then turn around and post that a little compromise on the part of the DM could have magically fixed everything, just as though we know enough to be assured of that outcome!

That last sentence was a bit confusing, so let me clarify: how do you know? It sounds to me like the DM did try to compromise several times. Furthermore, what *is* a compromise in this situation? That he should start fights during dimplomacy challenges sometimes? That he should only modify his damage dice rolls every third throw? What?


Yeah...it's their game, but obviously, it's not working out so well for them. Something has to change. If the problem isn't just this player, then it's going to recurr in the future.

But... it is just this player. I don't remember reading about any other players giving the DM headaches.


For example, the bard that has "problems with authority", resulting in not communicating with the player either IC or OOC, just ignoring him. This sounds like using the character as an excuse to be confrontational.

Or... maybe he didn't want to get any closer to the hell-spawned monster than he had to. Once again, we don't know enough about the problem player to know that he's an attention grubbing twit, but we do know enough about the bard to know he's being deliberately confrontational?

LOGIC ERROR


Also, the fact that him lighting arrows on fire is metagaming while the paladin being too stupid to figure out something the player know...and then having one of the smarter characters tell it to his isn't metagaming? Seriously?

That's... not my understanding of how it went down. This player was guilty of the same thing the paladin was - using a special attack at the expense of attack bonus. The difference is that the paladin didn't start yelling at the bard for fulfilling his request in a way different from the way he dictated.



I disagree with the implication that a player cannot be more right than the DM.

Too bad.


Checking a rule does not *have* to take long, or degenerate into a huge argument, or be enforced by DM fiat. If you think it does, I hope you have the good fortune to find better games in the future.

Don't put words in my mouth... or... in my post. You get the idea. I didn't say a rule check had to take a huge argument, but the strong vibe I got from the DM and player who posted here was that it always seems to when this guy plays with them.


So you're saying that the OP wasn't trying to get advice on how best to get revenge on someone's character for OOC reasons?

It's all right there in black and white.

Quote it. Quote it, please. Show me where the OP actually said "Hey guys, there's this player with us and I really don't like him, and I haven't tried any sort of constructive advice nor have I tried reasoning with him, and I'd like to drive him out of my group because I'm a horrible person."

They asked him IC to not do things like provoke fights when diplomacy would do. They asked him nicley OOC to roleplay a bit more, since this is an RP heavy group. The DM tossed out subtle hints, then obvious hints, then subtle punishments, then obvious punishments to get him in line with the rest of the group, and the best argument anyone can say in support of this rather obtuse glory seeker is "maybe everyone else should conform to him." They really did try everything. It is, as you say, all there in black and white. You're just ignoring the parts you don't like.


That sets the entire tone for the discussion. And of course when someone doesn't go along with that plan for how the thread's supposed to go, they're immediately going to be accused of attacking them.

Woe unto thee! Thou must suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous forum threads, or take arms against a sea of reasonable posts, and by opposing, end them. To post: perchance to suffer.

Really, you're not the victim here. You took a rather aggressive opposing stance to an already partially emotionallly charged thread and some people disliked your implications that the DM was an arrogant tyrant crushing the free will of a player who doesn't want to play by his group's rules.


Or maybe the DM didn't say the other players were taking out the fact that they had a bad day at work on the player. Again, right there in black and white.

And of course, this event happened in a vacuum, making the players a bunch of overreacting bozos and the problem player the holy messiah.

Oh wait.

It reminds me more of the saying about the straw that broke the camel's back. This day, they just weren't up to taking his ****.


This isn't a problem player, this is a problem group,

Not that this is hostile or anything. "NO GROUP. YOU *ARE* THE DEMONS!"


and there's nothing wrong with taking anything someone says when they come online to badmouth a fellow player who's not here to defend himself with a grain of salt.

True. But there's nothing wrong with offering advice at face value either. By stating, constantly, that you don't believe that this is a problem player, you're essentially implying that the DM and the OP are liars. And then you wonder why they get upset.


You say that like the "player in question" isn't part of "this group". (Of course, in one sense you're right, he's not... not anymore).

Which, as I mentioned at the beginning, is for the best.


Thanks, I didn't see that. Hopefully this puts to rest the claim that the bard song was a +2 bonus.

Fun fact: even if the bard song only gives +1, it's still the more sound tactical choice. And you know what would give the problem player an even higher bonus? Not using rapid shot. Which he was. So he's asking the bard to pull a dangerous maneuver and snarking him out when he did something more reasonable, while at the same time sabotaging his own efforts.


And to think we could have avoided all this if someone had bothered to look up the rules in combat. :smallcool:

And then he did. And he still got it wrong. Ironically, not arguing about or looking it up would have produced the same result in less than 1% of the time.

Random832
2009-09-04, 02:04 PM
I'm having a very hard time picturing a twenty minute argument where the words "Inspire Courage gives a bigger bonus than Aid Another" didn't come up.

Well, I can, because it doesn't. :smallbiggrin:

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood. I do see your point, and you're probably also right about "even if the bard song only gives +1, it's still the more sound tactical choice."

However, what the DM has said is kind of consistent with the bard deciding "I'll do something else just to tweak him" rather than it being a decision made for tactical reasons.


I'll grant that this is true, but it shouldn't be necessary in the first place. One way or another, this guy necessitated that change in the rules - something is wrong here.

Huh? That's like saying "one way or another, the player who accused this guy of cheating necessitated a change in the rules." And either way, it's not like it's a big deal to have everyone roll in the center of the table, if you phrase it diplomatically. Singling out one player (even if it is "okay, you have to roll your dice where we can see them from now on") is always going to cause drama.

Maybe even "Hey guys, I made this cool dice tower out of legos, let's all use it from now on!"


Once again, I'm left agape with wonder at how easily one can post "We don't know enough about what went on to blame player X" and then turn around and post that a little compromise on the part of the DM could have magically fixed everything, just as though we know enough to be assured of that outcome! That last sentence was a bit confusing, so let me clarify: how do you know?

It's not the DM. I thought it was the DM at first because that's often the case, but I was talking about the other players long before I talked about compromise. And we do know that the other players are completely unwilling to compromise - that much can be seen from what's been written here. Maybe it wouldn't have fixed everything. I don't know that, and I don't see where I said that I did.

But making someone feel, you know, like an equal, can go a long way. And we do know enough to know it hasn't been tried.


That's... not my understanding of how it went down. This player was guilty of the same thing the paladin was - using a special attack at the expense of attack bonus. The difference is that the paladin didn't start yelling at the bard for fulfilling his request in a way different from the way he dictated.

Um, the paladin story I thought we were talking about was "Paladin fails a knowledge check, so the player gets another player whose character has no reason to be thinking about this to make the check for him and tell his character". That's metagaming if either of the incidents with this player are. Something tells me that the other players wouldn't have been lining up to give him IC justification to try using fire against undead, so we've got additional interpersonal problems in the fact that the other players are willing to help out the paladin but not this guy.


By stating, constantly, that you don't believe that this is a problem player, you're essentially implying that the DM and the OP are liars.

So wait. Since when is it not possible for someone to be wrong about something without being a liar?

Yukitsu
2009-09-04, 02:08 PM
Fun fact: even if the bard song only gives +1, it's still the more sound tactical choice. And you know what would give the problem player an even higher bonus? Not using rapid shot. Which he was. So he's asking the bard to pull a dangerous maneuver and snarking him out when he did something more reasonable, while at the same time sabotaging his own efforts.

Two shots at -10% are more accurate than 1 shot at baseline, unless he has an 85% chance of hitting with one, which should not be the case.

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-04, 02:15 PM
Well, I can, because it doesn't. :smallbiggrin:

Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood. I do see your point, and you're probably also right about "even if the bard song only gives +1, it's still the more sound tactical choice."

However, what the DM has said is kind of consistent with the bard deciding "I'll do something else just to tweak him" rather than it being a decision made for tactical reasons.

This is possible, but it still ascribes a bunch of motives to the bard that no one can prove or disprove.


Huh? That's like saying "one way or another, the player who accused this guy of cheating necessitated a change in the rules." And either way, it's not like it's a big deal to have everyone roll in the center of the table, if you phrase it diplomatically. Singling out one player (even if it is "okay, you have to roll your dice where we can see them from now on") is always going to cause drama.

Of course it is. I wasn't suggesting someone walk in and scream "J'Accuse!" I was just pointing out that when you have to, even dimplomatically, make everyone roll in the open, someone is doing it wrong. As far as we can tell, that someone is the problem player.


It's not the DM. I thought it was the DM at first because that's often the case, but I was talking about the other players long before I talked about compromise. And we do know that the other players are completely unwilling to compromise - that much can be seen from what's been written here. Maybe it wouldn't have fixed everything. I don't know that, and I don't see where I said that I did.

I read through the entire thread, and didn't see where the players are completely unwilling to compromise. That said, maybe you're seeing something I'm not. Could you quote them on that, please?


Um, the paladin story I thought we were talking about was "Paladin fails a knowledge check, so the player gets another player whose character has no reason to be thinking about this to make the check for him and tell his character". That's metagaming if either of the incidents with this player are. Something tells me that the other players wouldn't have been lining up to give him IC justification to try using fire against undead, so we've got additional interpersonal problems in the fact that the other players are willing to help out the paladin but not this guy.

At this point, I think we need the DM or the OP to videotape their next session, because everyone is bringing their own interpretation to the same events, and nothing will be resolved if we can't see how these people behave. You see it as a fundamental problem with the group dynamic leading to problems with the player. I see it the other way around. I suppose I've known more players like the problem player than I have groups like the one you say exists here, so it seems much more likely to me that the player is the source of the problems - this kind of gang-spank drama is just alien to me, but if you've been in groups like that a bunch then I can sort of see where you're coming from. I just don't agree with it.


So wait. Since when is it not possible for someone to be wrong about something without being a liar?

It becomes increasingly less likely that they're that wrong as the thread goes on. As I said, it's all implication and perception.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-04, 02:16 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that the player who left is innocent of all wrongdoing...we don't know him well enough to say that that's even the case. It'd be interesting if he posted here, but I really don't expect the gaming group to stir that sorta thing up, likely being more trouble than it's worth. In any case, Jade, you seem to be attacking greatly exaggerated statements, not what me and Random have actually been saying.


As for which tactical choice was better...that really doesn't matter. People are going to differ over which choice is superior. We're doing it here. That's not the important part. The important part is that the players come to an agreement about what tactic to use, and the only way that's going to happen is through communication. Communication as equals, hopefully on friendly terms. It doesn't sound like that's been happening.

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-04, 02:23 PM
I don't think anyone is saying that the player who left is innocent of all wrongdoing...we don't know him well enough to say that that's even the case. It'd be interesting if he posted here, but I really don't expect the gaming group to stir that sorta thing up, likely being more trouble than it's worth. In any case, Jade, you seem to be attacking greatly exaggerated statements, not what me and Random have actually been saying.

I wax a bit theatric in my posts, true, but I don't think what I posted was unsound. I would like to add that I don't "attack" statements. This isn't a freaking arena, it's a thread on a gaming forum, and I can't assualt an abstract concept like a statement anyway. :smalltongue:


As for which tactical choice was better...that really doesn't matter. People are going to differ over which choice is superior.

Speaking of which...


Two shots at -10% are more accurate than 1 shot at baseline, unless he has an 85% chance of hitting with one, which should not be the case.

But the bard giving everyone +5% to attack rolls, some saves, and damage rolls is better than the bard running up and being eaten by the demon while he gives the archer +10%. Better still, he can bardic music one round and then, if he must, run up and aid another the next for a total +3 bonus to the tank and the +1 bonus to the party. And if the archer has two rounds to burn strapping oilcloths to his arrows, then the bard has two turns free to do this.

Anyway...


We're doing it here. That's not the important part. The important part is that the players come to an agreement about what tactic to use, and the only way that's going to happen is through communication. Communication as equals, hopefully on friendly terms. It doesn't sound like that's been happening.

In twenty minutes of debate in the middle of combat, this didn't come up? :smallconfused:

Yukitsu
2009-09-04, 02:25 PM
But the bard giving everyone +5% to attack rolls, some saves, and damage rolls is better than the bard running up and being eaten by the demon while he gives the archer +10%.


This has nothing to do with the fact that your repeated statement that rapid shot was hampering his chances was completely false, except in a small percent of the time, as I mentioned neither aid another nor bardic music.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-04, 02:26 PM
speaking of twenty minutes of debate in the middle of combat how did you guys not die when you weren't doing anything for 200 rounds?:smallbiggrin:

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-04, 02:32 PM
This has nothing to do with the fact that your repeated statement that rapid shot was hampering his chances was completely false, except in a small percent of the time, as I mentioned neither aid another nor bardic music.

Normally, yes, but their problem was rolling high enough to hit the thing, and they just weren't doing it. That suggests to me that they were operating in the 85+% failure range - but assuming that they were just consistently rolling low, it still makes more sense to stop using rapid shot for a moment and see if they can get over the AC hump. Even so, this aspect of the combat can't be removed from the context of what the bard was up to.

Also, "completely false except when it isn't" is probably one of the most hilarious ways to put it.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-04, 02:34 PM
But the bard giving everyone +5% to attack rolls, some saves, and damage rolls is better than the bard running up and being eaten by the demon while he gives the archer +10%. Better still, he can bardic music one round and then, if he must, run up and aid another the next for a total +3 bonus to the tank and the +1 bonus to the party. And if the archer has two rounds to burn strapping oilcloths to his arrows, then the bard has two turns free to do this.


Different fights, there.

However, yes, if the party cares about efficiency, they could probably improve a bit. IMO, though, it's a bit ridiculous to attack the player for his efficiency, and also attack his attempts to improve the party efficiency. Feels a bit like just bashing him for everything he does, rather than trying to actually solve a problem.




In twenty minutes of debate in the middle of combat, this didn't come up? :smallconfused:

I have no idea if it did or not. I believe it's been asked several times, but not answered.

Yukitsu
2009-09-04, 02:42 PM
Normally, yes, but their problem was rolling high enough to hit the thing, and they just weren't doing it. That suggests to me that they were operating in the 85+% failure range - but assuming that they were just consistently rolling low, it still makes more sense to stop using rapid shot for a moment and see if they can get over the AC hump. Even so, this aspect of the combat can't be removed from the context of what the bard was up to.

Also, "completely false except when it isn't" is probably one of the most hilarious ways to put it.

The only relevant question is whether or not you'll keep harping on his use of rapid shot when it's superior to single shots. Given that they had achieved some hits, knowing its AC range should not have been an issue.

Fitz
2009-09-04, 02:52 PM
at the end of the day, (and not one of the better ones by the sound of it) it appears to me (from the evidence i have read, which is not conclusive) that neither "side" is without any blame. especially as there should not really have been sides.
to clarify my eariler point, about being harsh levels of roleplay, i intended to mean the whole "in character " the whole time vibe was not one i would enjoy plaing long term (i say this as a larper and story driven character, who games for fun, so i still consider it a social activity, now if i can spend the whole day in costume as my character, i'm not going to complain at people dropping out of character at quiet times , so the impression of the group that has formed is that they would not accept this, hence not for me, but whatever the group as a whole enjoys)

now when all is said and done, roleplaying is a social activity, and society involves comprimise, and that was the point i was trying to make, more than this i cannot really say as there is not enough information

Fitz

Random832
2009-09-04, 03:03 PM
This is possible, but it still ascribes a bunch of motives to the bard that no one can prove or disprove.

Funny how that works. But, taking the motives out of the equation, it was an action that it was reasonably forseeable that it would irritate the other player.


Of course it is. I wasn't suggesting someone walk in and scream "J'Accuse!" I was just pointing out that when you have to, even dimplomatically, make everyone roll in the open, someone is doing it wrong. As far as we can tell, that someone is the problem player.

Remember, all we have is one player accusing another player of cheating. So there's really no basis for saying one way or the other who is in the wrong, other than "I don't like the other stuff I've heard about him so I'm not going to think too hard about it when someone accuses him of being a cheat too".


I read through the entire thread, and didn't see where the players are completely unwilling to compromise. That said, maybe you're seeing something I'm not. Could you quote them on that, please?

I'll go back and find some examples. But it's really less a specific "we're not willing to" and more that they never mentioned having tried to compromise, and it always seemed to get shot down (though at this point I can't tell who on this thread other than the OP and the DM are part of this group - for a while I thought _you_ were) when it was brought up by anyone else.


It becomes increasingly less likely that they're that wrong as the thread goes on. As I said, it's all implication and perception.

You've never committed to a bad idea and then your pride stopped you from backing down? That doesn't make someone a liar, it just makes them human.


I don't think anyone is saying that the player who left is innocent of all wrongdoing...we don't know him well enough to say that that's even the case. It'd be interesting if he posted here, but I really don't expect the gaming group to stir that sorta thing up, likely being more trouble than it's worth.

You know, that's funny, because I was actually just now thinking about saying it kind of reflects poorly on them if* no-one said "Hey, [ShadowsGrnEyes] is saying bad stuff about you on the Order of the Stick forums, maybe you should go and tell your side of things"

*I say "if" because we don't really know maybe they did and he just decided not to.

only1doug
2009-09-04, 03:10 PM
The situation has now been resolved, unfortunately not in the manner desired by either the OP or the GM.

I really don't understand why some people feel the need to criticise the GM and OP for asking for help in avoiding having to boot the player.

I very much dislike the antagonistic attitude taken by some posters, why do you feel that those asking for assistance have to justify their playing style to you for you to judge them as "bad players"?

Tyndmyr
2009-09-04, 03:13 PM
I get the feeling that nobody did...and seeing as how he's left at this point, and there seems to be a bit of animosity, probably won't.

It'd definitely be interesting to hear the other side though.

Only, we're not criticizing them for asking for help, we're pointing out that the problem may be slightly different than they see it.

Random832
2009-09-04, 03:19 PM
I very much dislike the antagonistic attitude taken by some posters, why do you feel that those asking for assistance have to justify their playing style to you for you to judge them as "bad players"

When the "assistance" they are asking for (the OP, anyway) is specifically to find a way to force the other player to conform to their playing style*, why don't you feel they have to justify it?

*Unless you have some other interpretation of "put him in his place".

And the alignment-violating stuff - which he's actually taken XP penalties for, is dubious too. "Oh, the bandits were just trying to feed their families" (There aren't plenty of legitimate ways to make a living?) is only missing a ", you fall!" to be exactly like the stories we sometimes hear of bad DMs who doesn't want to let anyone play a paladin.

only1doug
2009-09-04, 03:51 PM
When the "assistance" they are asking for (the OP, anyway) is specifically to find a way to force the other player to conform to their playing style*, why don't you feel they have to justify it?

*Unless you have some other interpretation of "put him in his place".


Because I don't choose to be judge and jury on people asking for assistance, I try to help them instead of trying to prove them to be at fault as I find the blame game to be counterproductive (note: most people don't respond well to being told they are in the wrong - He who is convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still). so I'm really wasting this statement most likely.


And the alignment-violating stuff - which he's actually taken XP penalties for, is dubious too. "Oh, the bandits were just trying to feed their families" (There aren't plenty of legitimate ways to make a living?) is only missing a ", you fall!" to be exactly like the stories we sometimes hear of bad DMs who doesn't want to let anyone play a paladin.

Hmm, the "your friends bleed to death while you shoot at the terrified fleeing mooks.... you fall..." arguement... OK, clearly it is more important to stop the threat than to provide first aid to your allies...

Random832
2009-09-04, 03:58 PM
Hmm, the "your friends bleed to death while you shoot at the terrified fleeing mooks.... you fall..." arguement... OK, clearly it is more important to stop the threat than to provide first aid to your allies...

He's not the healer - nonmagical healing is pretty useless, and that's not the same fight as the one they were described as bleeding to death in IIRC - that was the one where he was messing around with trying to light arrows on fire.

Johanas
2009-09-04, 04:10 PM
at the end of the day, (and not one of the better ones by the sound of it) it appears to me (from the evidence i have read, which is not conclusive) that neither "side" is without any blame. especially as there should not really have been sides.
to clarify my eariler point, about being harsh levels of roleplay, i intended to mean the whole "in character " the whole time vibe was not one i would enjoy plaing long term (i say this as a larper and story driven character, who games for fun, so i still consider it a social activity, now if i can spend the whole day in costume as my character, i'm not going to complain at people dropping out of character at quiet times , so the impression of the group that has formed is that they would not accept this, hence not for me, but whatever the group as a whole enjoys)

now when all is said and done, roleplaying is a social activity, and society involves comprimise, and that was the point i was trying to make, more than this i cannot really say as there is not enough information

Fitz

Ok. I am just gonna address a few questions, then do a complete write up of the session so we can all be on the same playing field.

We ARE a roleplaying heavy group. Very much so. Ask any of my players, we drop of of character, myself included all the time, however. Jokes, innuendos, side conversations ( >.< ) and we are all here to have fun. The only reason I made a point to ask my archer to ask to have the bard use the Aid Another action in character, was that he looked at the bard and said something very rules-y at him. Only reason I wanted it roleplayed. Again, another standing rule, which I didn't think would be an issue: I am willing to allow bending of rules, I allow things to be much easier than they could be...if they are roleplayed. Night before last's session involved a discussion about if the party knew much about fulcrums and pulleys. I initially said "No, it's a medieval setting, and no one has Profession: Siege Engineer." But I relented, let them talk me into it....if they would role-play telling the Paladin (who has the highest Use Rope) how to do it. It made for some wonderful role-playing, and the party got their horses onto their boat. Which was the problem at hand.

Next, yes the Player in Question (referred to hear-out as the PiQ) was looking up rules as he was arguing with the bard.

The party is level 4. As such, Bardic Music is a +1 bonus, not a +2.
The Party makeup is as follows:

Paladin: Farm boy turned Paladin of Elhonna. 4 Int, 18 Str, 17 Wis and Cha. One of the best role-players I've ever had the pleasure of gaming with. Straight class for a couple more levels, then into a homebrewed Male version of Beloved of Valerian, making him a Beloved of Elhonna.

Bard: Roaming Elvish Sorta-Nobleman. Chaotic Good. Music-Focused, VERY Social. Party Mouth. Wants to go into the spellcaster variant of Mountebank.

Wizard: Poor Elf from a kingdom to west. WAY West. Broke, dirty, max ranks in Profession: Beggar. Yes. He is a homeless guy with spells. Also Chaotic Good.

Healer: The OP of this thread. All healing feats, so a RIDICULOUS healer. Human female. And yes, healer as the CLASS. Vow of Poverty. Worshiper of Valerian.

Rogue: Just over middle-aged Halfling male. Started as a rogue, he actually has more wizard levels now. Rogue 1/Wizard 3. Next level is in Rogue. Going for Arcane Trickster. A complete support character. Skill monkey who only prepares battlefield control and out of combat spells. Pro with skipping rocks.

Archer: The PiQ. Human male, straight fighter. All archery feats, and has a decent spot check. For a fighter, anyway. Cross-classing skills for that every level.

We are all friends. The healer is my roommate, hence the us having similar posting times. Her computer is next to mine. The rogue is a coworker I am friends with, the bard an ex-coworker, and a good friend. I met the PiQ, Wizard, and Paladin all through mutual gaming groups. All people I call friend, and wouldn't have invited to this game otherwise.



Edit: The Wizard took his first level of Master Specialist. He's an Evoker. :smallsmile:

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-04, 04:33 PM
So you're saying that the OP wasn't trying to get advice on how best to get revenge on someone's character for OOC reasons?

I wasn't trying to get revenge, I was trying to get advice on an in game way of showing him how not-fun he was making the game for the rest of us. I am actually deeply against PVP and would not have used that as a tactic.
As I stated, nothing else was working, I had hoped I'd get a some good advice on showing him how he made the other players feel, in an effort to show him why it bothered us that he did certain things.
Revenge is something you do to be mean. I was most certainly NOT trying to be mean.



You know, that's funny, because I was actually just now thinking about saying it kind of reflects poorly on them if* no-one said "Hey, [ShadowsGrnEyes] is saying bad stuff about you on the Order of the Stick forums, maybe you should go and tell your side of things"

*I say "if" because we don't really know maybe they did and he just decided not to.

I never said anything "bad" about him. I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that he is a good guy and our friend, but that his playstyle conflicts with ours.
I never accused him of cheating either. Based on where we sit at the table it would be hard for me to tell if he was cheating. the DM commented that Another player had accused him of cheating and that it was another concern of ours.


When the "assistance" they are asking for (the OP, anyway) is specifically to find a way to force the other player to conform to their playing style*, why don't you feel they have to justify it?

The problems were problems that centered on this player. The other players were not having these problems. The needs of the group as a WHOLE needed to come first. Why should 5 people change to accomadate 1? What kind of a DM would our's be if he said. "Well you five are all fine and not having any problems. This one guy wants everyone to do things this way though. So thats what we're gonna do, rather than stick with what everyone else has been enjoying."?

Milskidasith
2009-09-04, 04:34 PM
I wasn't trying to get revenge, I was trying to get advice on an in game way of showing him how not-fun he was making the game for the rest of us. I am actually deeply against PVP and would not have used that as a tactic.
As I stated, nothing else was working, I had hoped I'd get a some good advice on showing him how he made the other players feel, in an effort to show him why it bothered us that he did certain things.
Revenge is something you do to be mean. I was most certainly NOT trying to be mean.



I never said anything "bad" about him. I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that he is a good guy and our friend, but that his playstyle conflicts with ours.
I never accused him of cheating either. Based on where we sit at the table it would be hard for me to tell if he was cheating. the DM commented that Another player had accused him of cheating and that it was another concern of ours.



The problems were problems that centered on this player. The other players were not having these problems. The needs of the group as a WHOLE needed to come first. Why should 5 people change to accomadate 1? What kind of a DM would our's be if he said. "Well you five are all fine and not having any problems. This one guy wants everyone to do things this way though. So thats what we're gonna do, rather than stick with what everyone else has been enjoying."?

I believe there is a word you should think about. That word is "compromise."

Mystic Muse
2009-09-04, 04:53 PM
I agree. I think you guys should have been willing to compromise unless it wasn't an option.

Random832
2009-09-04, 04:53 PM
I wasn't trying to get revenge, I was trying to get advice on an in game way of showing him how not-fun he was making the game for the rest of us. I am actually deeply against PVP and would not have used that as a tactic.

I'm sorry; that was my interpretation of "I'm looking for somthing devious I can do in game that would put him in his place" - the key word being "in game". This isn't really something that can be dealt with in-game unless you do have the goal of driving him away.


I never said anything "bad" about him. I'm pretty sure I said somewhere that he is a good guy and our friend, but that his playstyle conflicts with ours.
I never accused him of cheating either. Based on where we sit at the table it would be hard for me to tell if he was cheating. the DM commented that Another player had accused him of cheating and that it was another concern of ours.

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping track of who's saying what in this thread. I thought it was you since you're the (i think?) only player who's posting in the thread.

Anyway, if he were a cheater, I'd think he would have just fudged his attack rolls instead of trying to figure out ways to get a bonus to be able to hit the imp.


The problems were problems that centered on this player. The other players were not having these problems. The needs of the group as a WHOLE needed to come first. Why should 5 people change to accomadate 1?

Because if you can change just a little and have there be six people having fun, instead of just five people having fun and one person having to deal with a style that doesn't fit him until ultimately something has to give and the group breaks apart...

Well, why not do that?

I'm not saying let him do everything his way. But why can't you give him a little room? Or, i don't know, just let him do things his way while you do things your way?

And as for messing around with lighting arrows on fire when the rest of the party is dying? Well maybe the fact that "The DM has been doing his job of punishing this guy for his behavior. ... He's DIED . . .TWICE and had to reroll." makes him think that PC lives aren't such a big deal. To some groups it's not; that's a valid playstyle. And, after all, his PC lives didn't seem to be such a big deal to the group, if that's seen as an appropriate punishment for a little bit of metagaming. Unintended consequences and all.


What kind of a DM would our's be if he said. "Well you five are all fine and not having any problems. This one guy wants everyone to do things this way though. So thats what we're gonna do, rather than stick with what everyone else has been enjoying."?

The kind who is willing to try new things to try to find a way of playing that everyone can enjoy. Clearly the playstyle you had previously settled on isn't adequate to that task.

____


I do want to know more about the thing with the arrows. We've already talked about my opinion of having it take five rounds, but... was it clear to him that it was going to take five rounds before he started? If it wasn't clear it'd be more than maybe two until after he had committed to it, then it really isn't his fault that he took that long doing it. Almost no action takes more than two rounds. Reloading a Ballista takes two rounds.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-04, 05:06 PM
...the 4 int paladin had the best use-rope check?

>_<
The character makes my brain hurt with the sheer unlikelyness of it all. Wouldn't a paladin be a high str, con, wis type? And it's not like he's throwing around many skill points with that int penalty.

I mean, not saying it's not possible, but how bad at use rope must the others be for him to possibly be the best at it?

Sallera
2009-09-04, 05:26 PM
A better question might be, "How many people actually max out Use Rope?" :smalltongue:

It's based off Dex, after all, so if he had max ranks in it and the Rogue didn't bother taking it, then sure, it may be rather incongruous, but far from incomprehensible.

Yukitsu
2009-09-04, 05:29 PM
A better question might be, "How many people actually max out Use Rope?" :smalltongue:

It's based off Dex, after all, so if he had max ranks in it and the Rogue didn't bother taking it, then sure, it may be rather incongruous, but far from incomprehensible.

One non-functional artificer in my group did. Non-functional meaning he didn't actually craft anything, and slept 16 hours in character.

Kylarra
2009-09-04, 05:37 PM
A better question might be, "How many people actually max out Use Rope?" :smalltongue:

It's based off Dex, after all, so if he had max ranks in it and the Rogue didn't bother taking it, then sure, it may be rather incongruous, but far from incomprehensible.I guess one of his two skills could be use rope, though that's honestly kind of weird.

Sallera
2009-09-04, 05:40 PM
It's a 4 int Paladin. His skill selection is probably far from his oddest feature.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-04, 05:41 PM
We did try to find middle grounds. I belive our DM stated that if we can find a way to reasonably role play something that he would normally rule against, it is allowed.

The only issue that we were not bending on for him was the rule books. . . and as that rule only came up as a direct result of his actions disrupting play on multiple occasions, I find it hard to see why we should have bent on that one.

Perhaps there were more places we could have flexed more but I dont currently see them.
Let one player use out of game knowledge when the rest cant? Or let them all do it?
Let one player dictate the actions of the entire party and make everyone else follow his rules? He could have been party leader I guess but he never approached it like that. I'm sure he'd be a great DM too, but in this game that wasnt his job.
Let one player have 80% of the spotlight and make the others share the other 20%? It works in some campaignes when thats what the players are going in for but we all wanted equal footing.
Let one or all the players do whatever they say they can do regardless of their actualy characters background, knowledges, abilities, or the basic premise of pseudo-reality? . . . well. . . that's not roleplaying, that's not even DnD in my mind, but it may have solved the problems. . . it just wouldnt be a game most of us would have wanted to keep playing.

Kylarra
2009-09-04, 05:48 PM
It's a 4 int Paladin. His skill selection is probably far from his oddest feature.

Touche....

Random832
2009-09-04, 06:25 PM
Perhaps there were more places we could have flexed more but I dont currently see them.

Snipping all your straw-man examples, how about not making a big deal about him using the words "Aid another" to describe that specific action? If the bard didn't want to do it, that's fine, but he can just say he doesn't want to do it, no need for "You can't say that - figure out what your character would have said to get that effect". Some people aren't good at, well, writing dialogue for their characters. Probably none of us are good enough to write a Cha 18 character's dialogue. Allowing you to simply describe the gist of what your character is saying without figuring out the words your character would use. Well, that's just as much part of the "basic premise of pseudo-reality"as anything else.

How about undead not being hurt by piercing weapons isn't such a difficult thing to figure out to anyone who knows that a significant part of an arrow's stopping power is the pain it causes and the potential to hit vital organs? And I still don't know if he knew when he started that it was going to take five rounds. When nothing takes five rounds.

How about shooting bandits who have attacked you isn't such an unreasonable thing for a Good character to do. Seriously, XP penalties for that? You never did answer whether he knew that they were just trying to feed their families; and without that it just sounds like yet another "LOL you fall!" story

Jade_Tarem
2009-09-04, 06:29 PM
I'm still curioius, as well, as to what kind of compromise they should have sought. Most suggestions seem to be along the lines of "let him do whatever."

Mathius
2009-09-04, 06:48 PM
{Scrubbed}

Kylarra
2009-09-04, 06:50 PM
I'm still curioius, as well, as to what kind of compromise they should have sought. Most suggestions seem to be along the lines of "let him do whatever."
I suppose in the interests of boredom...

The first instance (running away bandits) - To not be so uptight about shooting them in the back. It really does seem too much like a "you fall!" situation, as for all you know, they could've just been regrouping to sneak attack the party.

Re: Aid another example - A bit of pedantic behavior on explicitly not saying "aid another". Asking for assistance isn't metagaming in the slightest.
(Subnote: devolving into an argument about aid another vs bardic music is not justified behavior.
Subnote b: Ordering the rest of the party around when you have no real authority is also usually doomed to fail.).

Re: Fire to arrows - Uh, getting annoyed with that in general seems odd, since if something isn't appreciably taking damage from your shots, then naturally you'll try different tactics. Is it worth taking several rounds to light them? Probably not, but I have some admiration for the ingenuity of trying it out.

Re: Bard + Gnoll situation -I'm not seeing any real out of character stuff there. Other than possibly a lack of communication in the group. Distracting him while the fighter offs him is a perfectly reasonable, if not honorable tactic.

Re: shooting things while people are dying. Stabilizing a person is a DC 15 heal check, high enough that most untrained characters (especially fighters who aren't known for high mental stats) aren't going to succeed in combat. Also see bandit situation about regrouping.


Now, I concede that most of these have been presented as examples of continued behavior and naturally, we can't see the entire story, but I think that just pointing out reasonable explanations and responses to the situation should point out that it's not really just that player's fault here, though he has definitely also displayed jerk-behavior from what's been told.

Johanas
2009-09-04, 06:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

Ok. So I obviously i missed a couple questions. Why the hostility? Ask them now. God forbid I spend time with my kid. Ask your questions. I will answer all of them. Sorry I only check the forums every few hours.

Mathius
2009-09-04, 07:02 PM
I am sorry for the hostility, it was actually not intended. I just wanted something that would get your attention in this whirlwind of devils advocacy and glib assumption. I have had more than my fair share of extremely difficult players and just want to know the real story.

Again, sorry for being such an a$$.

My real questions are these two:

1) Was he ACTUALLY cheating? Some players say yes, but the DM states that he saw nothing to indicate this.

2) Does he honestly know ALL of the house rules? Was it explained to him what the house rules were at the beginning of the game and did he have the opportunity to make his arguments at that point against whatever he did not find reasonable?

A side note:
During the fiasco with the Bard, and this is directed toward you, Johanas, was it explained to him - at length - that the "Aid Another" action and the Inspire Courage ability give him the same benefit? You made the statement that he was aware of what Bardic Music does, but was he aware of the mechanics? And, if he was aware, did he make any statement along the lines of "I wanted to be the one to get the bonus, not everyone else"?

I just want some clarification.

Random832
2009-09-04, 07:16 PM
During the fiasco with the Bard, and this is directed toward you, Johanas, was it explained to him - at length - that the "Aid Another" action and the Inspire Courage ability give him the same benefit? You made the statement that he was aware of what Bardic Music does, but was he aware of the mechanics? And, if he was aware, did he make any statement along the lines of "I wanted to be the one to get the bonus, not everyone else"?

I can field it this one... first of all you're a bit behind the thread. This was another of those assumptions you mentioned. As it turns out, it's not the same bonus at the levels they were at. That said, since the Bard already had a song going, keeping that going was still a better tactic in the long run.

Oh, and Aid Another maybe wouldn't have applied to his situation since he was using a ranged weapon, which wasn't explained either due to none of the players knowing it.

But anyway, it would have been much simpler for bard to simply say he doesn't want to do it, rather than the group all complaining at him to make him come up with an IC way to ask for something that the bard isn't going to do anyway. I mean, that's got to be frustrating, jumping through that hoop for nothing? If he's not going to do it he should have said so right away.


Re: shooting things while people are dying. Stabilizing a person is a DC 15 heal check, high enough that most untrained characters (especially fighters who aren't known for high mental stats) aren't going to succeed in combat. Also see bandit situation about regrouping.

Also, death is cheap. At least, his characters' deaths were, from what I can tell.

Johanas
2009-09-04, 07:18 PM
I am sorry for the hostility, it was actually not intended. I just wanted something that would get your attention in this whirlwind of devils advocacy and glib assumption. I have had more than my fair share of extremely difficult players and just want to know the real story.

Again, sorry for being such an a$$.

My real questions are these two:

1) Was he ACTUALLY cheating? Some players say yes, but the DM states that he saw nothing to indicate this.

2) Does he honestly know ALL of the house rules? Was it explained to him what the house rules were at the beginning of the game and did he have the opportunity to make his arguments at that point against whatever he did not find reasonable?

A side note:
During the fiasco with the Bard, and this is directed toward you, Johanas, was it explained to him - at length - that the "Aid Another" action and the Inspire Courage ability give him the same benefit? You made the statement that he was aware of what Bardic Music does, but was he aware of the mechanics? And, if he was aware, did he make any statement along the lines of "I wanted to be the one to get the bonus, not everyone else"?

I just want some clarification.

Ok. No hard feelings.

1. I'M the GM. And like I said earlier, I never say him reroll dice. I HAVE, however, had 3 players mention to me they saw this. The bard, wizard, and rogue. So I don't know for sure, but it seems likely, since all 3 came to me separately.

2. To the best of my knowledge, yes. He knew all the house rules. I had explained them all prior, and barring any forgetfulness/clone substitution/alternate universe selves coming to this Earth. Yes, he knew.

Lastly, yes. He knows the mechanic, he specifically wanted the +2 to himself, so he could Rapid Shot without penalty. Rather than give a +1 to himself, the Paladin, the Rogue, and the Evoker. Which the bard saw, and so did. I honestly think he knows bards better than the bard does, this is the first bard for the bard, and our PiQ has played bards on multiple occasions.

Mathius
2009-09-04, 07:20 PM
But anyway, it would have been much simpler for bard to simply say he doesn't want to do it, rather than the group all complaining at him to make him come up with an IC way to ask for something that the bard isn't going to do anyway. I mean, that's got to be frustrating, jumping through that hoop for nothing? If he's not going to do it he should have said so right away.

First off this a rehash post of something I put in about two pages ago. Second, I want to know if the player actually stated that he wanted the bonus alone and did not want anyone else to recieve any bonuses.

All of this crap hinges on him knowing what each ability does and wanting to be the only one getting any kind of advantage to "Steal the spotlight" so to speak.

And thank you Johanas. At this point I can honestly say that, despite the fact that you guys did not want him to go, it is for the best.
I would suggest letting him come back at some later point, but give it a while.

Myou
2009-09-04, 07:22 PM
I've read the thread and just want to express my sympathy for how things worked out, it's very upsetting when friends row like that.

Are you and the player still friends?

And what happened to the game? Did he really leave permanently, or will he come back?

Random832
2009-09-04, 07:26 PM
First off this a rehash post of something I put in about two pages ago. Second, I want to know if the player actually stated that he wanted the bonus alone and did not want anyone else to recieve any bonuses.

All of this crap hinges on him knowing what each ability does and wanting to be the only one getting any kind of advantage to "Steal the spotlight" so to speak.

Well... there's still a leap, there, on the motive. He could have simply thought him getting the +2 was the best chance the group had of anyone being able to hit the Imp. (But... he didn't ask anyone else to use AA? Just the bard?) - I'd have to know more to really see if it's fair to say there was a pattern of wanting to "steal the glory" or whatever.

But maybe with having lost two characters (arbitrarily enough that at least one of your other players thought it was a punishment), and been Dominated, and all... maybe he felt like through those hardships he'd earned a little extra time in the spotlight. Especially if these were done without a clear explanation of what he did, in which case it'd just feel like "I'm the DM's punching bag for no apparent reason" from his perspective

On the cheating thing. If you implement an "everyone rolls in the center of the table" rule, or a dice tower, or anything, now's probably a good time, while he's gone. That way if he comes back, it's just the way you're all doing things now.

Since you've been out, I'll mention again my question as to whether he knew the fire arrow thing was going to take five rounds before he started doing it, and how exactly you decided it would be five rounds. Nothing is five rounds. Reloading a ballista is two rounds.

FerhagoRosewood
2009-09-04, 07:36 PM
Has anyone noticed that the DM and OP are only answering the questions that they want to answer?

I have asked some pretty serious questions and neither of them have bothered to answer.

I am beginning to agree with Random832 here.

Answer the goddamn questions as they are asked or shut the hell up, Johanas.

*Final Fantasy-esque headfloorfall.*

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-09-04, 07:41 PM
The ONLY important factors here.

We are having a problem with a player not abiding by the mutually agreed upon rules with regards to metagaming and roleplaying. As well as Causing disruptive disputes between players and himself or the GM and himself.

We have tried: talking to him out of game, Roleplaying with his character in game.
The DM has tried: talking to him out of game, imposing penalties in game for breaking rules.

Individual circumstances, which various people continue to use to counter my initial request for help, DO NOT MATTER. the fact is none of you were present and you do not know the exact circumstances. without a video camera, as was suggested at one point, you will never know the exact circumstances and thus individual examples of a general problem are not going to give you enough scope to understand the whole problem. I appologize for ever even mentioning them.

If you are only posting here to disect everything we say and try and convince us that we are evil people for not wanting someone to play by rules that he agreed to then you are not helping our problem.


Our Friend the player himself, chose to bow out of the game rather than cause conflict. We tried to find another way, but he said it was the easiest way for everyone. He felt bad, we felt bad, everyone was miserable about it (except the player of the wizard who acted abysmally) but it's OVER. He is still our friend and he may be comeing back at a later date, we hope he does. In-play conflicts aside, he's a good guy.

Random832
2009-09-04, 07:49 PM
mutually agreed upon rules ... wanting someone to play by rules that he agreed to

You're making much of the fact that he agreed to the rules. He is clearly having trouble with them. Is there a reason they are so... sacred ... that you can't even think about renegotiating that "agreement"?

And as for focusing on specific examples. Those were the examples you provided. Logically I would expect that means they are the worst things that he has done. Which tells me that you are refusing to move the few inches it would take to accomodate behavior that gets no worse than the examples you've given.

And you were the one who said that the DM killed his character twice as punishment for breaking some rules. That alone means complaining about him messing around "while his teammates are dying", specifically, is pointless - he's been taught the lesson that PC lives are cheap. Maybe you can unteach it - a good way to start would be to not kill his character for metagame reasons.

Not to mention the disregard for - what was it you called it? - "the basic premise of pseudo-reality" - inherent in making him come up with what words his character would use to ask for something.

Johanas
2009-09-04, 07:50 PM
1. He never explicitly said, "No bonuses for anyone else, I want teh fat lewts!"
He did say that the Aid Another action would help him attack the imp. The paladin, rogue, and wizard were all making attack rolls too. Although they were spell-based attack rolls for the wizard. The bard just made the call for himself, which devolved into an arguement.

2. No. He had starting hanging a lit lantern on his shield spike ( he tried to wear a second buckler on his other arm too....) was putting cloth strips on the arrows. First of all, he never declared he actually lit any, or poured any oil on them. He just expected free fire damage. I told him it was going to take a few actions to prep this. I believe my exact words were "3-5 rounds, depending on the number of arrows done" He has a quiver of Elhonna. He can do all the prep work before, and just keep a separate pouch for oil-covered arrows. He just never got around to it. He said later it was to have fresher oil.

3. I implemented the one-minute to explain your reasoning rule I read somewhere in this thread. Good idea. Also, Random will be glad to hear, everybody rolls in the open now.

4. You can argue tactics all day. The fact is, from a DM perspective, I don't care how the party fights monsters. They are usually very efficient. From a player's perspective, I think the Bard's Music was better in the long run. Four people got +1, instead of the bard risking damage for one person getting a +2. A total of +4, versus a +2.

Our friend was upset, but he is not the type to bear grudges. He knows that we tried to work things out, and may return at some point.

Random832
2009-09-04, 07:55 PM
3. I implemented the one-minute to explain your reasoning rule I read somewhere in this thread. Good idea. Also, Random will be glad to hear, everybody rolls in the open now.

That's good - when there's any suggestion that someone's cheating, that's the only real solution - even if no-one actually is cheating, the suspicion can tear a group apart once the seed is planted.


4. You can argue tactics all day. The fact is, from a DM perspective, I don't care how the party fights monsters. They are usually very efficient. From a player's perspective, I think the Bard's Music was better in the long run. Four people got +1, instead of the bard risking damage for one person getting a +2. A total of +4, versus a +2.

Though needless to say, bonuses affecting different people don't stack. :smallcool:

It hardly matters, since it's dubious to even use AA at all for a ranged fighter. Maybe Flanking.

FerhagoRosewood
2009-09-04, 07:56 PM
God, as a new DM, I hope to never have a problem that I need to vent about on here.

I'd probably walk out of my own thread being called the next coming of Hitler or something.

Arakune
2009-09-04, 08:11 PM
1. He never explicitly said, "No bonuses for anyone else, I want teh fat lewts!"
He did say that the Aid Another action would help him attack the imp. The paladin, rogue, and wizard were all making attack rolls too. Although they were spell-based attack rolls for the wizard. The bard just made the call for himself, which devolved into an arguement.


The wizard was making attack rollsg? Something is clearly wrong in this. Where are all the ref saves blasty attacks? Did he only prepared scorching rays? At low levels burning hands and magic missile deal some nice damage and doesn't require attack rolls.



2. No. He had starting hanging a lit lantern on his shield spike ( he tried to wear a second buckler on his other arm too....) was putting cloth strips on the arrows. First of all, he never declared he actually lit any, or poured any oil on them. He just expected free fire damage. I told him it was going to take a few actions to prep this. I believe my exact words were "3-5 rounds, depending on the number of arrows done" He has a quiver of Elhonna. He can do all the prep work before, and just keep a separate pouch for oil-covered arrows. He just never got around to it. He said later it was to have fresher oil.


I don't see what's so wrong with it. It's not like he was contributing much for the fight at that point either way, so why not let him do that? You can always rub in his face that he did nothing during the fight, or if you really need to give a point to him, make the imp attack the guy who is standing in front of him playing with oil and cloth, that could make him reconsider his decision.



Our friend was upset, but he is not the type to bear grudges. He knows that we tried to work things out, and may return at some point.

Good to know that :smallsmile:

FerhagoRosewood
2009-09-04, 08:14 PM
The wizard was making attack rollsg? Something is clearly wrong in this. Where are all the ref saves blasty attacks? Did he only prepared scorching rays? At low levels burning hands and magic missile deal some nice damage and doesn't require attack rolls.

Sounds like to me less of a gripe and more of a preference issue you have here.

Johanas
2009-09-04, 08:22 PM
Well, the wizard is our newest player. He is playing an elf, and without modifiers, DOES have somewhere around a +4 or 5 to hit. On a touch attack. So that really isn't so bad. Yes, he did prepare mostly rays, but his few magic missiles were fired off early in the fight. He tries to prepare a few spells of each element to be best prepared. Nothing wrong with that.

Knaight
2009-09-04, 08:34 PM
No it isn't. Sounds like a warlock may be more his thing though. They are a lot less powerful, but they are fun to play.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-04, 09:39 PM
A better question might be, "How many people actually max out Use Rope?" :smalltongue:

It's based off Dex, after all, so if he had max ranks in it and the Rogue didn't bother taking it, then sure, it may be rather incongruous, but far from incomprehensible.

I take it frequently. It tends to be a surprisingly handy skill to have in dungeons...seriously, what party would leave home without at least one coil of rope? But hey...its a paladin. My expectations for them are low. Especially if he went with 4 int. =)

I agree that shooting fleeing bandits in the back might be morally questionable. That said, I tend not to leave opponents alive unless there is a very pressing need to do so(and, not being the party healer, healing is not a reason). Opponents left alive have a nasty habit of trying to come back later. This is both an IC and OOC reason. It's pretty well known that killing threats is usually more efficient than healing, even when you are proficient at it.

I can see a wizard with a +4 or +5 touch. High dex is a frequent choice for them, given the general lack of armor. Still, if you're facing a hard to hit opponent, a wizard shouldn't be doing touch attacks. Incapacitating, debuffing, or targeting saves is vastly more effective. Thats a playstyle thing, but if you're going to be a ray wizard, you have to specialize pretty heavily to be any good with them. But anyhow, that's a bit off the main topic.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-04, 10:38 PM
A better question might be, "How many people actually max out Use Rope?" :smalltongue:

It's based off Dex, after all, so if he had max ranks in it and the Rogue didn't bother taking it, then sure, it may be rather incongruous, but far from incomprehensible.

This is what's messing with my head, though. He's getting 1 skill point a level, and Use rope isn't a paladin class skill?

The party apparently includes both a Bard and a Rogue... How does a paladin get a better 'use rope'? O_o I know, I know. It's really unimportant. It just weirds me out.

Crazy, crazy ability score rolls?

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-04, 11:01 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Sounds like the underlying reason for this thread has passed and it's degraded to a pointless and hostile back-and-forth. I'm going to leave it locked.