PDA

View Full Version : [Everyone] Advice needed for a disappointing campaign!



Ormagoden
2010-08-25, 04:00 PM
I've often sought the advice to campaign issues here on the GitP forums and today I need some help again.

I have recently joined a campaign with a group I have gamed with before.

The sessions are disappointing to say the least. <see below>
These sessions are like chiseling teeth out of my own head with a rusty icepick.


The story thus far!
I have played with the group before but had to go on hiatus for a while. When I returned positions were switched and one of the people who was previously a player was now DMing in their own campaign setting.

I went through a torrent of character ideas but finally settled on something and began play last week.

Strike one (Session 1, 15 minutes in)

Short story.
Character plot ruined.
Number of entirely useless characters in combat: Three of six.
Player 1: Downed early in combat... not his fault the DM got haste wrong.
Player 2: Flavor character bard/something. Didn't do anything first two rounds, then finally started acting on round 3. (By giving them the +1 bonus they desperately needed on previous rounds.)
NPC 1: Useless goblin is useless.
Player 2: Complains about everyone else when combat is over.


The first combat almost ended in tragedy as a good portion of the party was either down or at less than 25% hp by round two. The enemy was a group of optimized, buffed, and hasted adventurers trying to steal a griffin the party had captured. A simple mistake in interpreting the haste rules caused the main tanks to drop straight off the bat. The tank ate 4 flat footed attacks 2 with sneak attack damage and one that was a great axe crit.

Sadly I had to completely toss away all the flavor/plot of my character to save the group. (I was playing a dread necromancer pretending the part of a wizard.) If not for a timely and well placed owlbear skeleton next to the enemy wizard and paralyzing one of the enemies with ghoul touch all would have been lost.

The player playing a bard/something was completely useless the entire fight only managing to kill a baddie after I paralyzed it.

This made me very sad as everyone was looking to me to help solve their combat woes, and it ruined almost the entirety of the plot for my character in 3 rounds and in the first 15 minutes of play.

Of course once I summon the skeleton, and use carnal touch the only player who knows what I'm doing, god bless him, shouts out "You're playing a dread necromancer AWESOME!"

So I'm all like :smallfrown:


Strike two (Session 2, 3 hours 32 minutes)

Short story
-Did nothing
-Had to listen to a "in game argument" where player 2 was attempting to Convince (read shout at) player 3 to give the captured griffin back to the parents so player 1's morally inclined character would be happy.
(Player 1's character already made his decision to go along with it from the get go and the argument isn't an issue at all.)
-Had to listen to the same "in game discussion" AGAIN once the rest of the player's character's woke up from their rest. It takes player 1 literally going out of character to tell player 2 that its not an issue and the topic should be changed. Player 2 goes on for a little more but acts like everyone is demonizing her.
-When I finally get to do something player 2 is telling me I have less time to do said things because traveling around in the city we arrived in takes so long. I ignore Player 2, because Player 2 doesn't know the rules, and that profession checks represent a weeks worth of work.


I have to sit and listen to the same argument twice in a row, it takes 2+ hours. I can't even nap because I sit next to player 2 who is shouting in my ear the whole time. Player 3 tries to engage my character in actual plot related interactions but Player 2 keeps having asides with the DM so the DM has no Idea what is going on.

During one scene when Player 2 was doing investigation for Player 3 and getting important facts from the DM Player 2 rudely says "Write this down, I'm not writing all this $%!& down, its for you anyway!"

3 hours and 32 minutes into the session, I finally get asked what I'm doing. All my character is doing is spending time earning some gold with profession checks and playing at an upscale inn on Friday and the weekend nights for 2 weeks in a row. I just roll the profession checks and write them down, and inform the DM I make 9 gold over 2 weeks. I roll 6 perform checks and inform the DM I make 6d10 copper and 4d10 silver (or something). In inform the DM of what I made and write it on my sheet.

Player 2 leans over looks at my currency total and says "You know the city is huge so it takes time for you to travel from job to job so you probably don't make that many rolls." Yes, because my 10g 6s 8c is so gamebreakingly important... Meanwhile Player 2 has dominated the plot all evening with nothing terribly important or has had asides with the DM while everyone else is trying to roleplay.

That's all I do, all night. Besides try and nap trough the yelling.

So I'm all like :smallannoyed:


After last nights session outside by the car Player 1 and Player 3 and myself have a good long conversation involving the DM and Player 2. Player 3 wants to start a new game sometime in the far future and player 1 was pretty upset about player 2's steamrolling or everything.

Player 4 left early so I didn't get a chance to hear what player 4 had to say.




I firmly believe that Player 2 is rather set in their ways and will not budge if spoken to. As this has happened before with Player 2 and Player 2 tends to cause issues all the time even in other games with other DMs. (Player 2 has been spoken to before and ousted from other games before.)

So here is my problem, I find myself immediately wanting to do one of two things and I cannot decide which.


Make a new character because I feel the plot for my current character is completely ruined. (The character I build will probably be a warweaver or a white raven tactics user. To boost the party.)
Leave. (Despite the fact that this is my only currently active game AND I miss most of the people there very much.)


What do you suggest playground?
(also thanks for reading all that if you did.)

WarKitty
2010-08-25, 04:04 PM
Depends. Do you think you can make a point to anyone in the group, that you're not getting game time because one player is dominating? Do you think anyone would be willing to change? If not, do you think you will enjoy the game more than it aggravates you?

Ormagoden
2010-08-25, 04:12 PM
Depends. Do you think you can make a point to anyone in the group, that you're not getting game time because one player is dominating? Do you think anyone would be willing to change? If not, do you think you will enjoy the game more than it aggravates you?

Players 1, 3,4,5 (five being me)

All agree that Player 2 steamrolls everything and sucks up a large portion of game time. (I'm sorry if I wasn't clear P 1, 3, and 4 are also getting incredibly limited time.)

Other facts:

Player 2 has been spoken to before at other tables about this very subject. Player 2 was asked to leave after blowing up on everyone at that table.
Player 2 is only still friends with two of the people from that table. The DM and Player 1.
Player 2 more than likely told the DM its all Player 1's fault the session didn't go anywhere.
Player 2 and DM are in some capacity romantically involved.
Player 1 just didn't want to argue about it at all
Player 2 was trying to "defend" player 1's lawful good outlook by taking the griffin back.
Player 1 already made the decision last session and didn't need to be "defended" at all.

I do not think I will enjoy this game more than it aggravates me, no.
I do enjoy the company of the DM, Player 1,3,and 4 though.
I don't enjoy the company of Player 2 all that much anymore to be brutally honest.

WarKitty
2010-08-25, 04:14 PM
Ask players 1, 3, and 4 if any of them are willing to DM (or offer to do it yourself)? Or can the four of you as a group say that player 2's disruption needs to change or they don't want to play anymore? Those are the only two solutions I see.

valadil
2010-08-25, 04:16 PM
Can you think of a character that would be okay with that party? I'm thinking something like a drill sergeant who can lecture the other PCs (in character of course) about combat effectiveness. Don't bother with secret plots here, they just won't work.

Ormagoden
2010-08-25, 04:18 PM
Can you think of a character that would be okay with that party? I'm thinking something like a drill sergeant who can lecture the other PCs (in character of course) about combat effectiveness. Don't bother with secret plots here, they just won't work.

The white raven tactics user was basically a mercenary captain in my mind so I could do that. I don't think it will seep in however...

jiriku
2010-08-25, 04:27 PM
Troublesome player who needs booting is both troublesome and in need of a boot. But you knew that.

Many people commonly assume that being a doormat and being nice are equivalent. They are not. If you permit someone to harangue for two hours and you do nothing, you are essentially writing the word "welcome" on your forehead and inviting people to use you for removing mud from their boots.

I suggest you try some civilized form of brutality. For example, decide if everyone in your group is OK with booting player 2 if her shenanigans continue. Then at the next session say something like "what you did during the last session was very disruptive and we're all extremely unhappy about it. Please be respectful and polite to all of us at all times or we'll ask you to leave. No exceptions. No excuses. We've discussed this as a group and we're all in agreement that complying with this rule is the only way you'll be permitted to stay." If she blows through that rule, kick her ass to the curb.

If you encounter DM reluctance because these two are each others Allocated Mating Resources, you can similarly strong-arm the DM with that most terrible poison: truth. Tell the DM "We love your game but player 2 is ruining it all to hell. Your game is doomed to die in horrible horrible ways if she doesn't immediately either behave or leave."

This solution may be outside your comfort zone, but it solves problems delightfully.

Theodoxus
2010-08-25, 04:31 PM
Despite Lord Vader's request not to, sometimes the disruptive need to be disintigrated.

I agree with the need for something more over the top. The WRT merc would be excellent in that role. It's hard to deal with someone who is romantically attached to the GM if they are genuinely abusive, or use that connection to be uncharacteristically so. Either way - your only real choices are step up and make the game fun, or leave.

Hurt feelers suck, but from your one-sided account, it seems player 2 is making their bed, and will need to sleep in it.

Noircat
2010-08-25, 04:32 PM
So, they aren't awesome at combat, which isn't helped by their character concepts being not combat driven?

Maybe you could suggest the DM lean toward heavy roleplaying situations for a while and let the combat be few and far between as they ease into their characters combat capabilities. This will also give player 2 time to grow on other players and perhaps mellow out a bit so everyone can get their teamwork on.

WarKitty
2010-08-25, 04:35 PM
So, they aren't awesome at combat, which isn't helped by their character concepts being not combat driven?

Maybe you could try to stick to heavy roleplaying situations for a while and let the combat be few and far between as they ease into their characters combat capabilities.

Unfortunately it sounds like the problem is that roleplaying is being taken over by a single player whining. IMO, out of game issues like this one are rarely resolved by in game solutions. If one player wants all the attention, another player making a more forward character will just make the first player ramp up their attention-getting efforts. It's sort of like getting someone to stop shouting by shouting louder yourself.

Edit: Since from your post Player 2 has already been made aware that hir actions are being disruptive, I somehow doubt this is going to change via anything short of an ultimatum.

Noircat
2010-08-25, 04:37 PM
Edited post when I realized I had missed a piece of the first post.

You do have a point though. Perhaps an out of game resolution would be best.

potatocubed
2010-08-25, 05:49 PM
My response in a situation like that has always been to run the game myself and show everybody how it should be done. This may not work for everyone.

What you've got is a problem player, compounded by GM's girlfriend syndrome; I think your long-term happiness will be improved by dropping out of that game and hanging out with your friends (players 1, 3 and 5? I forget the numbers...) under other circumstances.

Jornophelanthas
2010-08-25, 06:16 PM
Is talking to the DM an option? (Either on a one-on-one basis, or with all concerned players together, whichever you feel would work best.)

Discussing your worries about the game and about player 2 with the DM without player 2 present could at the very least show that you tried, and at the very best move the DM to action in order to improve everyone's game experience.

Given the relationship between the DM and player 2, the DM will probably be in the best position to talk to player 2 concerning his/her behavior. Provided that the DM acknowledges the problem.

Whether you can actually get the DM to acknowledge the problem depends on what kind of person the DM is. If he/she is professional about it, he/she should be able to separate "business" and personal. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt there.

Also, note that I never actually said to "get the DM on your side", because I do not believe the DM should be forced to choose sides. Player 2 might force the issue that way if things go bad, but the rest of you certainly should not. Getting someone to choose between their friends and their lover often fails for you if you're not the lover.

Ormagoden
2010-08-25, 06:31 PM
Unfortunately it sounds like the problem is that roleplaying is being taken over by a single player whining. IMO, out of game issues like this one are rarely resolved by in game solutions. If one player wants all the attention, another player making a more forward character will just make the first player ramp up their attention-getting efforts. It's sort of like getting someone to stop shouting by shouting louder yourself.

Edit: Since from your post Player 2 has already been made aware that hir actions are being disruptive, I somehow doubt this is going to change via anything short of an ultimatum.

Hit the nail on the head with that one Warkitty.
You're absolutely right. Trying to struggle for attention is also just plain silly.



Is talking to the DM an option?
<snip>
Also, note that I never actually said to "get the DM on your side", because I do not believe the DM should be forced to choose sides. Player 2 might force the issue that way if things go bad, but the rest of you certainly should not. Getting someone to choose between their friends and their lover often fails for you if you're not the lover.

Yeah, its an option, and the best one for a discussion. Because talking to player 2 about it will be impossible.

The fact that there is some sort of relationship involved is what makes me hesitant and the situation rather hairy. It's incredibly stupid to try and get people to choose sides between friends and relationships and that's not my intention at all.

It does compound the issue though, making it more difficult to address appropriately.

Brutal civility may be my only recourse, but we have our sessions at the DM's home...

Any more insight on this matter is very very welcome as I continue to mull it over.

Thank you to all posters so far!

Lord Vampyre
2010-08-25, 06:56 PM
This one is best solved by starting your own game. Convince the DM and players 1,3, and 5 that it will be more conducive to run in your game, then when you start having problems with player 2 (which you will), you can set down the law. Or you could try convincing one of the other players to run a game for awhile.

A DM being involved with one of the players is a lot like the boss being married to a fellow co-worker. Many DMs and employers have a hard time juggling the 2 and keeping them separate. Now, I know its not exactly the same, but it does have a tendency to convolute matters in a similar fashion.

Umael
2010-08-25, 06:57 PM
Forget about making a new character. That would be like an abused wife saying she stays with her husband because she loves him.

In other words - get out. Leave.

Or get everyone to agree that Player 2 has to leave.

Also - strength in numbers. If you say Player 2 has to go, that's one thing. But if Player 1, 3, & 4 all agree with you, that's another.

Morquard
2010-08-25, 07:01 PM
Troublesome player who needs booting is both troublesome and in need of a boot. But you knew that.

Many people commonly assume that being a doormat and being nice are equivalent. They are not. If you permit someone to harangue for two hours and you do nothing, you are essentially writing the word "welcome" on your forehead and inviting people to use you for removing mud from their boots.

I suggest you try some civilized form of brutality. For example, decide if everyone in your group is OK with booting player 2 if her shenanigans continue. Then at the next session say something like "what you did during the last session was very disruptive and we're all extremely unhappy about it. Please be respectful and polite to all of us at all times or we'll ask you to leave. No exceptions. No excuses. We've discussed this as a group and we're all in agreement that complying with this rule is the only way you'll be permitted to stay." If she blows through that rule, kick her ass to the curb.

If you encounter DM reluctance because these two are each others Allocated Mating Resources, you can similarly strong-arm the DM with that most terrible poison: truth. Tell the DM "We love your game but player 2 is ruining it all to hell. Your game is doomed to die in horrible horrible ways if she doesn't immediately either behave or leave."

This solution may be outside your comfort zone, but it solves problems delightfully.

The problem here may be the relationship between DM and player 2.
If you try to force DM's hand at the gaming table, I strongly doubt it will work. Noone likes being embarassed by their boy/girlfriend infront of others, so player 2 will absolutely not appreciate if the DM takes your side. That just screams relationship trouble.
The DM unless he's a moron knows that too, and therefore will most likely not take your side. Either he tries to wiggle his way out or takes player 2's side and then its prett ymuch too late. Then he has chosen a side, and then convincing the DM to abandon the girl/boyfriend is nearly impossible.

If you (maybe together with the other players, minus player 2) can talk to the DM alone, make your worries known to him, give him the chance to think about it in peace and then talk to player 2 alone, it might be way more fruitful. The alone part is important, that way the whole public embarassment issue gets avoided. I'm sure it still won't be a pleasant talk for the DM, but I think the chances are best then.

Of course theres no guarantee that it works. If it doesn't bring it up in the group, and if it doesn't help decide to leave and make your own group. Invite the DM as a player if you like, but not player 2 (DM most likely won't show up, for fear of GF aggro though).

darkpuppy
2010-08-25, 07:18 PM
Yeah, I've had this issue before (not often, but I've had it... from the player perspective), and unfortunately, it rarely comes to a happy resolution that pleases everybody. I'm sadly guessing that, if you take the DM aside for a chat and suggest the private option as suggested previously, he may very well inform you that he too has tried to no avail. It's still worth discussing with him, but, considering the nature of this Player 2, I suspect that this has come up in private discussions...

If it has, then there really isn't much you can do that won't hurt somebody's feelings. To continue with the disruption is a big no-no. Nobody, not even player 2, is having fun under such conditions. Laying down a public ultimatum is going to make the GM look bad and hurt his feelings, publicly discussing it will lead to emotional bruising all round, and quietly forming your own group or leaving will also hurt feelings.

One thing that does come to mind, however, is the manner in which this issue has been discussed with player 2. For example, the carrot sometimes works a lot better than the stick... and sometimes, a different stick will suffice. On the carrot front, there are several possible approaches, but it will feel like you are bribing this player to STFU... which, frankly, you probably will be. On the "different stick" front, bringing up the lack of groups to play with if this group dissolves because of certain confrontational behaviour... It's a risky option, but it is an option...

elpollo
2010-08-25, 07:51 PM
What's wrong with sitting around the table and saying "Look Player 2, you're an opinionated person and you tend to interrupt others when they are doing their thing. Can you try and tone this back a bit?"? You say you believe she will not change when spoken to - you haven't tried. If you don't ask you're never going to know, and it might be that she doesn't realise it's a problem for others. Don't go all cloak and dagger and go behind her back to get everyone to gang up on her. Don't get the DM to talk to her for you. Talk as a group, be civil, and more often than not things will work out. Most people are pretty reasonable.

I'm also not entirely sure why a player realising your character is a Dread Necromancer rather than a Wizard ruins the character. Their character still doesn't know, so what's different? How do you pretend to be a different class, anyhow? It's an entirely gamist concept, and has no bearing for the character except from a mechanical standpoint.

WarKitty
2010-08-25, 07:59 PM
What's wrong with sitting around the table and saying "Look Player 2, you're an opinionated person and you tend to interrupt others when they are doing their thing. Can you try and tone this back a bit?"? You say you believe she will not change when spoken to - you haven't tried. If you don't ask you're never going to know, and it might be that she doesn't realise it's a problem for others. Don't go all cloak and dagger and go behind her back to get everyone to gang up on her. Don't get the DM to talk to her for you. Talk as a group, be civil, and more often than not things will work out. Most people are pretty reasonable.

I'm also not entirely sure why a player realising your character is a Dread Necromancer rather than a Wizard ruins the character. Their character still doesn't know, so what's different? How do you pretend to be a different class, anyhow? It's an entirely gamist concept, and has no bearing for the character except from a mechanical standpoint.

From the spoilers it sounds like the player has been told multiple times that their behavior is disruptive.

elpollo
2010-08-25, 08:18 PM
Possibly. Apparantly they have certainly confronted her before, but I'm not sure to what degree, or how civil or reasonable the whole thing was, especially since it involved her being kicked. All I'm suggesting is trying reason before anything drastic because Ormagoden has said that they have not tried themselves, and we don't know how the previous confronations have gone down.

Ormagoden
2010-08-25, 10:24 PM
Possibly. Apparantly they have certainly confronted her before, but I'm not sure to what degree, or how civil or reasonable the whole thing was, especially since it involved her being kicked. All I'm suggesting is trying reason before anything drastic because Ormagoden has said that they have not tried themselves, and we don't know how the previous confronations have gone down.

Actually with the last campaign it was an issue. I was present for that and we gave complaints and such to the old DM (Player 1) He had a talk and things toned down for a short while before picking right back up again.

So we have spoken with Player 2 about this before and have had diminishing results.


As for your earlier comment about the character not being ruined. Story is rather important to me, I had planned on using the large number of scrolls and wands and magic items the character possessed to pose as a wizard for as long as possible. Necromancy is considered evil in the campaign world and out of game everyone assumes the character is some evil alignment. Although metagaming hasn't happened, the back story was rather carefully crafted and shattered by the out of game comments. So all illusion is gone and the other players treat the character differently whether they realize it or not.

So although it may make no mechanical difference I assure you it makes a personal difference to me. Although that's a rather large aside to the main issue at hand, which I'd much rather focus on.

elpollo
2010-08-26, 09:04 AM
Oh, so it's more you don't want to be known as a necromancer rather than a Dread Necromancer. That makes more sense.

Diarmuid
2010-08-26, 09:32 AM
Player 2 and DM are in some capacity romantically involved.


Either suck it up or leave...based on that single sentence alone, you're completely screwed and it has no chance of getting any better.

Reis Tahlen
2010-08-26, 10:44 AM
Ooooh, that reminds me good times.

Same situation, finally had an argument with the equivalent of Player 2. After the session, spoke to every other players and the DM about the situation, who agreed that she pushed too far. Five days later, had a call from GM telling: "Reis, you know the books you borrowed me? Can you give them back to Player 3, so that he can give them to me? Because you don't come next session. And every other sessions. That solves the problem with Player 2".

Cool, eh?

So, sorry to be positive about that, but.... get the hell away with whoever trusty friends you have, and start something else!

Ormagoden
2010-08-26, 11:09 AM
Update

I had a chat with the DM over aim about some of my issues.

After explaining it in great detail my issue and explaining that It was causing me to seriously consider leaving, I got a rather simple response.

"Player 2 says they will be good. I understand, sorry to see you go."


So does anyone in central New jersey have a group I could join? :smallfrown:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 11:34 AM
Update

I had a chat with the DM over aim about some of my issues.

After explaining it in great detail my issue and explaining that It was causing me to seriously consider leaving, I got a rather simple response.

"Player 2 says they will be good. I understand, sorry to see you go."

So does anyone in central New jersey have a group I could join? :smallfrown:
...did you talk to the other players? Would they be willing to join a new game run by you? Or would one of them be willing to DM?

If nobody else is willing to DM, you may have to suck it up and run a game yourself. If nobody has time for a second game then you can either check out local game stores or internet looking-for-games sites to find a new group or take a break from gaming until this campaign ends/collapses.

DM's Girlfriend-style situations are very sensitive; it's almost always better to just say "this game isn't working out for me - seeya around" then to try and convince the DM to reign in his Girlfriend.

Reis Tahlen
2010-08-26, 11:36 AM
And it's worst when GM is married: the power of the Ring compels him!

Ormagoden
2010-08-26, 12:38 PM
...did you talk to the other players? Would they be willing to join a new game run by you? Or would one of them be willing to DM?

If nobody else is willing to DM, you may have to suck it up and run a game yourself. If nobody has time for a second game then you can either check out local game stores or internet looking-for-games sites to find a new group or take a break from gaming until this campaign ends/collapses.

DM's Girlfriend-style situations are very sensitive; it's almost always better to just say "this game isn't working out for me - seeya around" then to try and convince the DM to reign in his Girlfriend.

Sadly I just got off a big hiatus. So this was going to be my new steady group. Maybe if the DMs switch up I'll head back at some point. It won't really resolve Player 2's issues though...

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 12:45 PM
Sadly I just got off a big hiatus. So this was going to be my new steady group. Maybe if the DMs switch up I'll head back at some point. It won't really resolve Player 2's issues though...

The response you posted in the other thread didn't really read like a "go away and don't come back" response. It read like "player 2 is gonna try and do better, but if you feel you have to go, we understand."

At least try to get clarification.

And also consider whether the issues with player 2 are really strong enough to warrant leaving the game. Things change - people split up, campaigns end and new ones (run by other DMs) start. It might be worth hanging in there for a while knowing that things will likely, in some fashion or another, change given time.

The player 2 issues would be much less likely to be issues if it were not for the relationship with the DM.

potatocubed
2010-08-26, 01:02 PM
And it's worst when GM is married: the power of the Ring compels him!

When gamers get married, there needs to be some sort of character-death non-retribution clause in the pre-nup.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 01:05 PM
If all else fails, PBP is waiting for you here. We've got some good ones. :smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 01:15 PM
The player 2 issues would be much less likely to be issues if it were not for the relationship with the DM.
This is the key.

The very moment the OP mentioned to the DM that his Girlfriend was the problem, he was out of the game. You don't diss your buddy's S.O., no matter how justified - love makes fools of us all.

@OP - what about starting a game yourself? With the other players in the group? If they're as unhappy with the situation as you made it sound, they should be happy to play in a different game.

To be clear - don't make the players choose between the two games. Set up one of your own which doesn't conflict with the original. You can do more than one game at a time - and if they can't, then you either need to find a new group or wait it out. If you don't want to run a game, see if any of the other players is willing to do it or set up a system of rotating DMs.

A good way to handle rotating DMs is to pick a day and have someone different run a casual game (ideally a one-shot) on that day. Everyone gets a chance to play and nobody has to DM all the time.

Jolly
2010-08-26, 01:51 PM
If I'm reading this right, players 1, 3, and 4 don't have much fun at this game either, right? So if every single player in the game save the DM's GF tells him "Player 2 is making the games miserable by being a horrid person, she needs to either shut up and be nice or we all quit" I think that'd solve the issue. Mostly from a "That game is over, now go start a new one" perspective. If Player 2 is as unpleasent as she sounds one can only hope they break up soon.

Ormagoden
2010-08-26, 01:59 PM
<snip>
The player 2 issues would be much less likely to be issues if it were not for the relationship with the DM.

That's not the case at all sadly, they were issues before, they're issues now.
They'll be issues forever is my feeling.





@OP - what about starting a game yourself? With the other players in the group? If they're as unhappy with the situation as you made it sound, they should be happy to play in a different game.

To be clear - don't make the players choose between the two games. Set up one of your own which doesn't conflict with the original. You can do more than one game at a time - and if they can't, then you either need to find a new group or wait it out. If you don't want to run a game, see if any of the other players is willing to do it or set up a system of rotating DMs.

A good way to handle rotating DMs is to pick a day and have someone different run a casual game (ideally a one-shot) on that day. Everyone gets a chance to play and nobody has to DM all the time.

I always DM, always. I'm really tired of it at the moment and just wanted to sit down and have a good time and tell a good story...

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 02:13 PM
I always DM, always. I'm really tired of it at the moment and just wanted to sit down and have a good time and tell a good story...
Well then, it looks like it's time to train a padwan.

It is neither wise nor effective to get between a DM and his Girlfriend: it's hard enough to get a DM to change his ways, but add in the risk of alienating his love interest and a difficult task becomes impossible.

As a designated DM myself, I can only recommend that you pick up a collaborative storytelling system like Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) and get some players to try it. Even if you don't awaken any latent DMing urges, the burden on you to DM will be greatly lessened.

Ormagoden
2010-08-26, 02:56 PM
Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage)

I want those 43 minutes back!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 02:59 PM
I want those 43 minutes back!
Bwahahahahaha! :xykon:

Ormagoden
2010-08-26, 03:10 PM
UPDATE:

After my last update Player 4 informed me that Player 1, 3, and 4 want to get together and talk with Player 2 and the DM. at some point.

Player 3 wants to run a campaign now, and it seems like Player 1 and 4 are already aboard that option.

I think the fact that they all now know I will not be attending anymore made them consider the matter a little more.

I just don't know if I care enough to waste my time with a discussion at this point...

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 03:20 PM
Player 3 wants to run a campaign now, and it seems like Player 1 and 4 are already aboard that option.
There, that was easy :smallsmile:

IMHO, don't bother with the "discussion," and discourage your fellow players from staging one. Unless you want to break up the DM & Player 2, there is no reason to have such an intervention. It's not going to change Player 2's behavior and it'll only make Player 2, the DM, or both angry at everyone else.

Have fun with the new campaign!

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 03:37 PM
This problem, like all problems, can be solved with fire.

People keep telling me to use things like words instead, but I still have yet to figure out how to burn things with words. I eagerly await the day this changes.

I would advise skipping the intervention, but not discouraging or encouraging it. Let them do their thing. It almost certainly won't help, but it will probably result in fellow embittered people starting a new game with you. They might even have good stories from it. Hopefully involving fire.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 03:43 PM
I would advise skipping the intervention, but not discouraging or encouraging it. Let them do their thing. It almost certainly won't help, but it will probably result in fellow embittered people starting a new game with you. They might even have good stories from it. Hopefully involving fire.
...yeah, not if the players want to remain friends with the DM.

Nothing strains a friendship faster than insulting a S.O.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-26, 03:50 PM
Nothing strains a friendship faster than insulting a S.O.

Fire does.

Once again, we find another impossible feat that can be performed by fire!

kyoryu
2010-08-26, 03:54 PM
There, that was easy :smallsmile:

IMHO, don't bother with the "discussion," and discourage your fellow players from staging one. Unless you want to break up the DM & Player 2, there is no reason to have such an intervention. It's not going to change Player 2's behavior and it'll only make Player 2, the DM, or both angry at everyone else.

Have fun with the new campaign!

Yeah, I've gotta second this. The intervention won't accomplish much, if anything. Just start a second game, and invite everyone. Since the DM won't be the DM, there will be someone who will have the ability to tell player 2 to get into line if necessary.

Let them be the problem, instead of turning yourself into the problem.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 04:11 PM
Yeah, I've gotta second this. The intervention won't accomplish much, if anything. Just start a second game, and invite everyone. Since the DM won't be the DM, there will be someone who will have the ability to tell player 2 to get into line if necessary.

Let them be the problem, instead of turning yourself into the problem.
Or don't bother inviting the DM and Player 2. Inviting one without the other is a disaster - even a dodge like "we're out of room" will probably build resentment, knowing as they do about your feelings on the matter. Inviting both in means that the first time you chastise Player 2, the DM will jump to defend her and you either have to deal with a blowup or you lose two players.

Start the game and don't rub it in the DM's face. If he asks why he wasn't invited say "well, you know I don't like the way your Girlfriend acts at the table, and I thought it'd be rude to invite just you. You're more than welcome to come without her if you'd like." If he agrees, then problem solved - he's decided to take the initiative. If not, then you have sent him a message in about as polite a fashion as you can - if he takes offense, there was literally nothing you could do.

Jornophelanthas
2010-08-26, 04:16 PM
I'm sorry that my advice about talking to the DM did not turn out to be very effective. Still, it seems hopeful that the other players are considering starting another group without the offending player.

Given the DM's (quoted) response, he/she appears to have concluded that you no longer wish to play in his/her group, and regrets that. However, as Kyoryu already pointed out, the DM did not shut the door on you. The quote even suggested to me that the DM is aware that Player 2 has an abrasive roleplaying style, but that he/she does not feel that he/she is in a position to address that with Player 2 (other than asking to "please be nice"). I could be misreading that, though.

The question is whether you want to shut any doors here. There is still the option of returning to the campaign, although there is bound to be some strain now (also depending on the other players). If you do this, you should probably avoid any further discussion on the topic while at the table. Instead, just play. And don't sit next to Player 2, so you can nap if required.

If you choose to walk away from this group, but still want to stay in reasonably good standing with the DM, then make sure that if the other players confront the DM and/or Player 2, they do not do so in your name. If they say they are sticking up for you, and such a meeting subsequently results in more players walking away, the DM might blame you for undermining his campaign, even if you did not mean to. Instead, either discourage the other players from forcing a confrontation, or make it clear to them that they should only do so to address their own discontent, and not yours. And somehow, the DM should be made aware of that.

Feel free to ignore my advice if you feel it is not applicable/useful in your situation.

I hope things will work out for you in the end.

jiriku
2010-08-26, 04:20 PM
If not, then you have sent him a message in about as polite a fashion as you can - if he takes offense, there was literally nothing you could do.

I'm going to go with Tyndmyr on this one -- I think fire can solve this problem as well.

Ormagoden
2010-08-26, 04:30 PM
...yeah, not if the players want to remain friends with the DM.

Nothing strains a friendship faster than insulting a S.O.

I don't think Player 2 is a S.O. per say...

But that is the exact stance I'm taking Tyndmyr.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-26, 04:36 PM
I don't think Player 2 is a S.O. per say...
Well... you sure made it sound like there was at least UST (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnresolvedSexualTension?from=Main.UST) involved, in which case my previous comments apply doubly.

Even though I know the fire-related quips are in jest, you certainly are playing with fire if you follow your stated course of action :smallcool:

chaotoroboto
2010-08-27, 12:13 AM
Whether you can actually get the DM to acknowledge the problem depends on what kind of person the DM is. If he/she is professional about it, he/she should be able to separate "business" and personal. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt there.

Also, note that I never actually said to "get the DM on your side", because I do not believe the DM should be forced to choose sides. Player 2 might force the issue that way if things go bad, but the rest of you certainly should not. Getting someone to choose between their friends and their lover often fails for you if you're not the lover.

Should a DM really be like "On the issue of Problem Player v. Everyone else in the group and also myself I choose to remain neutral in my capacity as arbiter?" I don't think so. At some point, the DM's job is to run the game. If one person's game is to ruin the game for everyone else, then that person should go play with him or herself. If that person and the DM are romantically involved, then someone else should take over DMing for a while, so that the problem player can be dealt with.

I like the suggestion of focusing on roleplaying for a while, as that forces the issue - being bad at combat and being a problem player are different things, and removing any doubt about that will make the game better.

Finally, I'd make sure that "Player 2" isn't just having a bad couple of weeks or something.

FelixG
2010-08-27, 05:11 AM
If the character is being a problem IC that's a simple solution, kill the character. Unless the GM shys away from inter party conflict if no one comes to her aid when you curb stomp her she may get the idea that no ones really likes her.

When she rerolls a character if that one is being an annoying git, stomp it into the ground too, just make sure you have an IC reason. Then again i play in PVP open games, i know many on these boards shy away from such things but it works and it keeps things in character.

On the topic of player 3 wanting to run a game, as long as the two (DM and Player 2 are not S.O.s then i would just invite the DM and leave Player 2 in the rain, perhaps invite her on probation but if she acts up, first sign boot her to the curb for the next few sessions to show her you mean business.

Ormagoden
2010-08-27, 09:01 AM
BIG UPDATE

I had a 4 hour discussion with Player 1 last night mostly it involved Player 2 but also Player 1's plans to run a game. Player 1 desperately wants to play or run a game where the drama is at the table and in character, and not out of character.

I returned to my computer this morning to find a message from Player 2.

I'll let you read it and see what you all have to say... (player 5 is me Bold is stuff I replaced)



Subject: i'm sorry u had a lousy time Player 5 :(
The DM told me what u said n I do wanna apologize if I caused you to feel isolated in any way. I know how you feel and I feel awful if I was apart of you feeling that way. I only want people to have fun and be happy, myself included. Please dun be afraid to lemme know when I overstep, Player 5. I might not like to hear it sometimes but I'd rather hear in the moment so I can be more vigilant of my actions.

I'm sorry that, in my efforts to try to push my character's actions to the back burner as much as I could so you guys could play out, I monopolized it somehow. The game originally began as a vehicle to play out my character's quest and along the way, much sooner then later, characters decided they'd rather torment, belittle, and insult my character and her intelligence, and/or draw up characters in complete opposition to the wacky, morally questionable, and fun nature of her game. So if my character acted out in a way that put a damper on your good time, please believe me that it was something that had been stewing for several sessions now and it more or less came to a head.

It won't happen with my character again, that I can promise you Player 5.

I'll be removing my character (and by association The useless goblin and his Worg) from the group and putting in someone that I hope can mesh a little better. I've only told this to The DM and I'd like for you to keep it under your hat. Its nothing that you did, I promise you. But I made sure the character is geared to be an excellent play for Your character so there is a little more interaction and fun for you, as well as everyone.

He's a Race, Description, Template/class with a weakness for pretty women named Insert name. So the party won't loose a rogue, tho they will lose a bard and a magical device user.

Please reconsider exiting the group. you're a refreshing presence and I was enjoying not getting tormented by at least one member of the group in game... Please allow me to make it right. Please give the game one more chance.

Please please please?

Player 2...


My opinion, read this after you read the letter above.



The DM told me what u said n I do wanna apologize if I caused you to feel isolated in any way. I know how you feel and I feel awful if I was apart of you feeling that way. I only want people to have fun and be happy, myself included. Please dun be afraid to lemme know when I overstep, Player 5. I might not like to hear it sometimes but I'd rather hear in the moment so I can be more vigilant of my actions.

At initial glance this letter seems to be honest and asking for forgiveness and another chance. Player 2 makes it seem like they are entirely approachable on this matter, they are not. When you move past the first paragraph it becomes clear Player 2 doesn't actually understand what the problem is.

"I'm sorry that, in my efforts to try to push my character's actions to the back burner as much as I could so you guys could play out, I monopolized it somehow."

The above wasn't happening at all, there was no effort to stop hogging game time and let us play out. There was no effort to put the character on the back burner.

"The game originally began as a vehicle to play out my character's quest and along the way, much sooner then later, characters decided they'd rather torment, belittle, and insult my character and her intelligence, and/or draw up characters in complete opposition to the wacky, morally questionable, and fun nature of her game. "

What this says to me is "I'm selfish, this campaign is about my character. The other player's character are ruining my fun with their presence."
None of this is true either, "torment, belittle, and insult" means "The players aren't doing what I want them to with their characters." Player 2's character is neutral selfish much like player 2. So everyone is "in complete opposition" Player 1's character is lawful good, the character is also a monk, and not a paladin. The only opposition that occurred was player 1's character felt bad about stealing a baby griffin and said that they wouldn't do it again. The last section of the paragraph reveals more about Player 2's selfish nature. "..and fun nature of her game."

It's not player 2's game is the character's game so its not player 2's fault at all. Which leads to the next section of the letter...

"I'll be removing my character (and by association The useless goblin and his Worg) from the group and putting in someone that I hope can mesh a little better. I've only told this to The DM and I'd like for you to keep it under your hat. Its nothing that you did, I promise you. But I made sure the character is geared to be an excellent play for Your character so there is a little more interaction and fun for you, as well as everyone."

I read this as "Since my character is such a HUGE problem for YOU I'm changing characters even though I don't want to! It's not YOUR fault I'm changing characters to play better with YOUR character."

No, I'm sorry, its not your character, its you Player 2. Your character doesn't make you act without regard to your friends at the table... Changing characters won't magically change you.

"He's a Race, Description, Template/class with a weakness for pretty women named Insert name. So the party won't loose a rogue, tho they will lose a bard and a magical device user."

This new character will solve all your problems but wait... "you wont lose a rogue but you will regret not having the old character around anymore." No, no I wont.

"Please reconsider exiting the group. you're a refreshing presence and I was enjoying not getting tormented by at least one member of the group in game... Please allow me to make it right. Please give the game one more chance."


So in summary

the letter reads

"I'm sorry.
It's everyone else's fault.
It's my character's fault.
I'm making a new character.
I'm sorry."

Right...


Thoughts?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 09:09 AM
Thoughts?
My advice remains the same.

Particularly because your reaction to Player 2's letter shows a level of animosity that's going to be hard to keep out of a game.

So, in summary:

(1) Quit DM's Game

(2) Join Player 1's game, and encourage Player 1 to invite neither DM nor Player 2

(3) Encourage the other Players to keep playing DM's game until they no longer find it fun and discourage them from confronting either DM or Player 2 about their problem with Player 2.

(4) If DM asks about Player 1's game, make it clear he is welcome to join, but Player 2 is not - everyone finds her play-style too disruptive.

Good luck!

Ormagoden
2010-08-27, 09:31 AM
My advice remains the same.

Particularly because your reaction to Player 2's letter shows a level of animosity that's going to be hard to keep out of a game.

So, in summary:

(1) Quit DM's Game

(2) Join Player 1's game, and encourage Player 1 to invite neither DM nor Player 2

(3) Encourage the other Players to keep playing DM's game until they no longer find it fun and discourage them from confronting either DM or Player 2 about their problem with Player 2.

(4) If DM asks about Player 1's game, make it clear he is welcome to join, but Player 2 is not - everyone finds her play-style too disruptive.

Good luck!

Step 1 complete

all other steps pending...

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 09:39 AM
My advice remains the same.

My advice also remains the same, because fire is still awesome.

FelixG
2010-08-27, 10:00 AM
BIG UPDATE

-snip-

Thoughts?

-Head explodes from Player 2s annoying net speak-

I can see why you are annoyed, she cant even seem to use proper language when writing an apology >.<

Really shows how much sincerity she put into it doesnt it? Cant even be bothered to type "you" out...

I would go with Oracles idea BUT add a bit to step three:

(3) Encourage the other Players to keep playing DM's game until they no longer find it fun and discourage them from confronting either DM or Player 2 about their problem with Player 2. Let them know not to just stop showing up, have them let the DM know they are quiting the game.

I bolded my addition. The reason for the addition is so that the GM knows quite well they are leaving the game and not just failing to show up, it also leaves the question in their mind "I wonder if they found something better without..." tada! DM figures out on their own Player 2 is driving their friends away.

Umael
2010-08-27, 11:43 AM
"Dear Player 2,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and explain how you feel. It is good to know your take on things and that I will be missed.

After due consideration however, my decision to leave stands. I do not believe that I will be comfortable continuing to play in DM's game. There are some personal reasons that I do not wish to mention at this time. I will say that the best way for me to move forward is to put some time and distance between the game and myself.

I am sorry that I cannot explain more at this time. Hopefully you will understand one day.

Sincerely,

Player 5"

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 11:56 AM
Why lie and dissemble to make nice to the person that caused the problem, and with whom you will no longer be associating?

There's no point in petty venegance(venegance needs to be done with style), but there's no point in trying to smooth over the issue either. Not your problem any more. If they want to know what the problem is, or why you won't be returning, tell them why.

kyoryu
2010-08-27, 12:02 PM
BIG UPDATE


So in summary

the letter reads

"I'm sorry.
It's everyone else's fault.
It's my character's fault.
I'm making a new character.
I'm sorry."

Right...


Thoughts?

I basically agree with your assessment of the letter. However, at least the effort was made to approach you, however clueless or even potentially insincere it might be.

I do basically agree with O_H, though, leaving the game is probably the best thing based on your responses here - as YOUR hostility seems to be an issue now as well. If this is just internet venting, you can consider rejoining the group.

BUT, take a look at your behavior here as well, I think there's a few lessons that you can learn from. Something happened at a game that you were unhappy with. That's understandable, and happens. It irritated others, too, which is also understandable. But you have helped create and escalate the drama.

The DM and the problem player have both reached out to you, and basically asked you to stay. Admittedly, Player 2's message was... odd. But people are at different developmental stages, and that's just the way it is. If you don't think it can be made better, fine. But there's no reason, at this point, for any anger on your part. If you want to leave the group because you don't think it will improve, great, that's your call. But do so in a pleasant way, as these people have done their part at compromising (even if one of them apparently isn't really familiar with what the word means).

Please don't take this as blame. I'm just pointing out what I see as a neutral third party. I'm assuming you don't like this scenario as it exists, and would rather avoid things like this in the future. And we can only control ourselves and our own actions.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 12:03 PM
Why lie and dissemble to make nice to the person that caused the problem, and with whom you will no longer be associating?
Because there is no reason to be rude to your friend's S.O. no matter how much you hate her.

I agree with Umael's letter, save for the last paragraph. "I am sorry that I cannot explain more at this time. Hopefully you will understand one day" is both unnecessary and borders on the passive-aggressive; there is no call to act as though Player 2 is unworthy of your secret knowledge, much less to act as though you have foreknowledge as to how events will turn out.

Politely thank Player 2 for her effort and affirm that you will not be back. That is the proper thing to do, and, if you're lucky, it'll remove you from Player 2's radar which will allow the healing between the OP and DM to begin.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:16 PM
Because there is no reason to be rude to your friend's S.O. no matter how much you hate her.

Not rude, honest. On the topic of honesty, it's perfectly ok to have a friend, but not like his SO. It happens. It's also perfectly ok to tell them that if it comes up.

I am probably slightly biased by my belief that anyone who types like the SO did is probably not worth associating with anyway.


I agree with Umael's letter, save for the last paragraph. "I am sorry that I cannot explain more at this time. Hopefully you will understand one day" is both unnecessary and borders on the passive-aggressive; there is no call to act as though Player 2 is unworthy of your secret knowledge, much less to act as though you have foreknowledge as to how events will turn out.

Yeah, I didn't really like that bit either. It gets into the whole "well, I can fake an apology too" bit, which is really just pointless. It fixes nothing, and probably leads to further quibbling.


Politely thank Player 2 for her effort and affirm that you will not be back. That is the proper thing to do, and, if you're lucky, it'll remove you from Player 2's radar which will allow the healing between the OP and DM to begin.

Unlikely. She's already basically said "not my fault". So, in her mind, any blame attaches to other people, as shown by her description of others "tormenting, belittling and assaulting" her "fun" character and scenario.

A more likely scenario would be that down the road, they break up due to this being a more persistant character flaw. While I can't be certain of her personality due to a single instance, I'm not really seeing a ton of maturity there.

WarKitty
2010-08-27, 12:22 PM
If I may ask - about how old is everyone involved?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 12:30 PM
Unlikely. She's already basically said "not my fault". So, in her mind, any blame attaches to other people, as shown by her description of others "tormenting, belittling and assaulting" her "fun" character and scenario.

A more likely scenario would be that down the road, they break up due to this being a more persistant character flaw. While I can't be certain of her personality due to a single instance, I'm not really seeing a ton of maturity there.
Oh no, you don't drop beneath her radar because she is mature - you drop below it because you are no longer a threat.
Politeness is, in essence, ritualized submission behavior. This is helpful in society because you can show that you do not wish further conflict without actually licking boot. Not to do too much armchair psychology, but it looks like she has some sort of control issues; defying her "apology" with either "the truth" or passive-aggressive insinuation just makes you another threat to her - one that she'll strike through the OP's friend, the DM. Backing down now means that she'll shift her attention to another "threat" and spend less time tearing down the OP in the eyes of the DM.
It doesn't matter for the OP's purposes where this relationship goes in the end - all he wants is to play in a game and hang out with his friends (including the DM). My suggestion lets him play in a game and leaves the door open for him to hang out with the DM in a non-gaming context.

There is no virtue in being "honest" when it is uncalled for; politeness should be the default unless rudeness is necessary to achieve a particular end.

kyoryu
2010-08-27, 12:36 PM
Hey, I was wondering if I can get everyone's advice on something.

So, I'm playing in this group. It's been a fun campaign so far, for the most part. The DM's kind of cute, and we're kind of using my character as a central plot hook.

Anyway, at the last session, things were kind of dragging, so I tried to liven things up with some roleplaying. Most of the people got into it and I think they had a good time, except for this one player. He just sat in the corner and huffed at me a lot, and refused to interact unless things were completely focused on his character.

I kind of blew it off, figuring he'd get over it and we'd be back to playing as normal next session.

Yeah, right.

First I find out he's been talking to the DM and complaining about me. Now, we're kind of seeing each other - it's complicated - but I told the DM that I'd try to directly include this player more. But that's hard when all he does is sit in the corner and glare at me!

But it gets worse. Then I find out that this player is basically going to all of the other players, and trying to create a new gaming group without either me or the DM in it!

I mean, I can kind of see why he'd be so angry at me - I was pretty active last game, but that was only because everyone else was sitting like lumps on logs. If he'd have just been willing to not have the spotlight shine solely on him (I dunno, maybe he wanted to recite a soliloquy from Hamlet or something) he could have had a lot of fun, too, but I guess things just have to be *his* way.

So, anyway, I decide to approach him, and make some changes so that he can shine a little bit more in the game. So I sent him a nice long email, apologizing for my actions and telling him pretty exactly what I intended to do, and how it would impact the party (I didn't want him to think I was going to make the party ineffective just as a way of getting back at him, after all - he seems to be interpreting everything I do as a personal attack on him).

And the guy is just basically rude to me back. He started this drama. He talked behind everyone's back. He didn't explicitly say anything rude, but was just very curt and dismissive in his response.

I really don't know what to do. I mean, I know I'm not perfect, but this guy just seems determined to hate me.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-27, 12:44 PM
maybe he wanted to recite a soliloquy from Hamlet or something


Please dun be afraid to lemme know when I overstep

I'd have difficulty believing that the same person would type both of those. I call shenanigans on your straw man.


Oracle, while what you say is true...it's something she'll remember the next time she has any conflict with you. So, unless you consider it worthwhile to be completely passive in order to hang out with your friend, it's merely a temporary fix.

And honesty need not be considered rude.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 12:50 PM
Hey, I was wondering if I can get everyone's advice on something.
This post seems ...suspiciously parallel to the facts of the OP's situation. There are rules against trolling in this forum but, as a show of Good Faith, I'm going to assume you are asking a genuine question:

I'd advise that you keep on in your game and pay this guy no heed. It looks like the two of you have issues and he's taken the initiative to remove himself from the equation. I don't think you'd have much fun playing with him anyways - and if this guy's a troublemaker, then nobody will join his game and things will get back to normal after he's left.

Problem solved.

@Tyndmyr
While honesty need not be rude, it is often used as cover for someone who wishes to say some rude things. As a result, whenever someone claims that they're not being rude, but are instead being "honest," I have to question why they're offering this particular honesty. If it is because they care about the individual and believe that an honest assessment is critical to assist them, then so be it; but if it is for any other reason - particularly "for the sake of being honest" - then it is simple rudeness dressed up as virtue.

I find that applying the same assessment to my own actions keeps me from making social gaffes my naturally critical nature would otherwise provoke. And so, to help others avoid similar missteps, I offer this honesty to the forum :smallsmile:

kyoryu
2010-08-27, 12:58 PM
This post seems ...suspiciously parallel to the facts of the OP's situation. There are rules against trolling in this forum but, as a show of Good Faith, I'm going to assume you are asking a genuine question:


They are suspicously parallel. It's deliberately from the point of view of Player 2.

I'm not saying that Player 2's view is *reality*, but rather that different people involved have different perceptions of what is happening. I've posted elsewhere that my opinion of Player 2 is... not good.

The intent is not to troll, but just to shed light on the scenario from a different (even if inaccurate) perspective. Looking at the scenario from the viewpoint of Player 2 may give Ormagoden tools to help resolve the situation more to his advantage, or at least give him an idea of what the *other* players in the group are most likely hearing from Player 2.

Edit: To clarify further, my impression of Player 2 is that s/he's a self-obsessed, narcissistic drama queen. I should know, I've had experience dealing with them. That's why there's the general cluelessness of anybody else having a problem. Sorry I couldn't bring myself to typing in his/her inane style... I just... can't bring myself to that.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 01:05 PM
They are suspicously parallel. It's deliberately from the point of view of Player 2.

I'm not saying that Player 2's view is *reality*, but rather that different people involved have different perceptions of what is happening. I've posted elsewhere that my opinion of Player 2 is... not good.

The intent is not to troll, but just to shed light on the scenario from a different (even if inaccurate) perspective. Looking at the scenario from the viewpoint of Player 2 may give Ormagoden tools to help resolve the situation more to his advantage, or at least give him an idea of what the *other* players in the group are most likely hearing from Player 2.
Fair enough. In the future, it might be a good idea to note that this is the intent of your post from the get-go.

Personally, I'm not certain that such subjective details are relevant - you don't mess with a DM's S.O. (or UST!) and it is always better to leave a game that doesn't work for you than to organize a Player's Revolt. Nobody thinks they're the villain in a situation, so it is always best to give advice as if both parties are in the wrong rather than to assume the one coming to you for advice has the moral highground.

Ihouji
2010-08-27, 01:09 PM
My advice would simply be do not respond at all. Play in player 3's game and do not interact with player 2 unless you have no other option, say hello, and be polite but don't go out of your way to have any form of conversation.

It sounds to me like you and several of your friends have already made clear player 2 does not mesh well with your group with any luck your friend will realize player 2 is causing a rift to form between him and all his friends and that player 2 is immature. He will show up one day having split from player 2 and everything will go back to normal.

The same thing has happened to me on several occasions; a friend will pick up a girl/boy friend that everyone hates. They disappear for a one to six months (because no one wants to hang out with the SO) and then show back up talking about how crazy that girl/boy friend turned out to be. The rest of us then say something to the tune of "took you long enough", proceed to make fun of returning friend's ex love interest for 5 minutes and everything goes back to normal.

kyoryu
2010-08-27, 01:19 PM
Fair enough. In the future, it might be a good idea to note that this is the intent of your post from the get-go.

Fair 'nuff.


Personally, I'm not certain that such subjective details are relevant - you don't mess with a DM's S.O. (or UST!) and it is always better to leave a game that doesn't work for you than to organize a Player's Revolt. Nobody thinks they're the villain in a situation, so it is always best to give advice as if both parties are in the wrong rather than to assume the one coming to you for advice has the moral highground.

This is basically what I was trying to say, in what is probably a less inflammatory way. In scenarios like this, it's also way to easy to go from being a somewhat wronged party to being largely at fault for escalating and continuing drama.

Asking for advice on the internet is basically engaging "Auto-Enabling" mode, as the advice givers only get the facts the asker chooses to give - and we all have a tendency to emphasize the parts of the story that make us look like the good guy. (Not a slight on you, Ormagoden, everyone does it. I certainly do!)

(BTW, Ormagoden, if you decide to run a game you should do one in the Brutal Legend world. That would be, um, brutale. With an e on the end. So you know I'm serious).

Jolly
2010-08-27, 01:20 PM
Because there is no reason to be rude to your friend's S.O. no matter how much you hate her.

If someone is being a jerk, telling them that and asking them to stop can be done politely, and it is always better than being a doormat. Similarly, if your friend is dating a narcissistic harpie who is alienating his friends, telling him that before all of his friends cut the DM out of their lives because of how horrid his girlfriend is.

I find people who insist on lying because it's more "polite" are generally just afraid of confrontation. There's no need to walk up to strangers and tell them your opinions, but when someone is hurting both you and a friend through their selfish behaviour pretending it's all ok is not a virtue.

Umael
2010-08-27, 01:34 PM
I agree with Umael's letter, save for the last paragraph. "I am sorry that I cannot explain more at this time. Hopefully you will understand one day" is both unnecessary and borders on the passive-aggressive; there is no call to act as though Player 2 is unworthy of your secret knowledge, much less to act as though you have foreknowledge as to how events will turn out.

Unnecessary and borders on passive-aggressive, huh?

*ponders*

Yeah, okay, I can see that.

(Although I suppose in my defense, I have seen this kind of thing often enough that I feel comfortable laying wages on the outcome... but to hint to Player 2 that I'm using her as a betting horse would be kind of... tasteless.)

Hallavast
2010-08-27, 01:45 PM
Looks like:

1. A classic case of a poorly structured Group Template. A group template is what holds a party together.

2. The DM needs to be more assertive and manage the flow of the table. These issues need to be addressed openly with everyone. Tact, manners, and friendliness are key here.

3. Lack of alcoholic beverages. These make any game instantly more fun. Players are much less uptight and reserved in their presence.

For more information on Group Templates, Tabletop hierarchies, and booze, visit the Fear the Boot podcast at feartheboot.com They're a gaming podcast with excellent advice on tabletop gaming and a little bit more.

:smallwink:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-27, 01:50 PM
3. Lack of alcoholic beverages. These make any game instantly more fun. Players are much less uptight and reserved in their presence.
Warning : the more DM Fiat is needed to run a game, the less the DM should drink.

When running D&D, I can drink freely and uproariously. When running Bliss Stage or Mountain Witch I become a tippler.

jiriku
2010-08-27, 03:44 PM
BIG UPDATE

I had a 4 hour discussion with Player 1 last night mostly it involved Player 2 but also Player 1's plans to run a game. Player 1 desperately wants to play or run a game where the drama is at the table and in character, and not out of character.

I returned to my computer this morning to find a message from Player 2.

I'll let you read it and see what you all have to say... (player 5 is me Bold is stuff I replaced)



Subject: i'm sorry u had a lousy time Player 5 :(
The DM told me what u said n I do wanna apologize if I caused you to feel isolated in any way. I know how you feel and I feel awful if I was apart of you feeling that way. I only want people to have fun and be happy, myself included. Please dun be afraid to lemme know when I overstep, Player 5. I might not like to hear it sometimes but I'd rather hear in the moment so I can be more vigilant of my actions.

I'm sorry that, in my efforts to try to push my character's actions to the back burner as much as I could so you guys could play out, I monopolized it somehow. The game originally began as a vehicle to play out my character's quest and along the way, much sooner then later, characters decided they'd rather torment, belittle, and insult my character and her intelligence, and/or draw up characters in complete opposition to the wacky, morally questionable, and fun nature of her game. So if my character acted out in a way that put a damper on your good time, please believe me that it was something that had been stewing for several sessions now and it more or less came to a head.

It won't happen with my character again, that I can promise you Player 5.

I'll be removing my character (and by association The useless goblin and his Worg) from the group and putting in someone that I hope can mesh a little better. I've only told this to The DM and I'd like for you to keep it under your hat. Its nothing that you did, I promise you. But I made sure the character is geared to be an excellent play for Your character so there is a little more interaction and fun for you, as well as everyone.

He's a Race, Description, Template/class with a weakness for pretty women named Insert name. So the party won't loose a rogue, tho they will lose a bard and a magical device user.

Please reconsider exiting the group. you're a refreshing presence and I was enjoying not getting tormented by at least one member of the group in game... Please allow me to make it right. Please give the game one more chance.

Please please please?

Player 2...


My opinion, read this after you read the letter above.



The DM told me what u said n I do wanna apologize if I caused you to feel isolated in any way. I know how you feel and I feel awful if I was apart of you feeling that way. I only want people to have fun and be happy, myself included. Please dun be afraid to lemme know when I overstep, Player 5. I might not like to hear it sometimes but I'd rather hear in the moment so I can be more vigilant of my actions.

At initial glance this letter seems to be honest and asking for forgiveness and another chance. Player 2 makes it seem like they are entirely approachable on this matter, they are not. When you move past the first paragraph it becomes clear Player 2 doesn't actually understand what the problem is.

"I'm sorry that, in my efforts to try to push my character's actions to the back burner as much as I could so you guys could play out, I monopolized it somehow."

The above wasn't happening at all, there was no effort to stop hogging game time and let us play out. There was no effort to put the character on the back burner.

"The game originally began as a vehicle to play out my character's quest and along the way, much sooner then later, characters decided they'd rather torment, belittle, and insult my character and her intelligence, and/or draw up characters in complete opposition to the wacky, morally questionable, and fun nature of her game. "

What this says to me is "I'm selfish, this campaign is about my character. The other player's character are ruining my fun with their presence."
None of this is true either, "torment, belittle, and insult" means "The players aren't doing what I want them to with their characters." Player 2's character is neutral selfish much like player 2. So everyone is "in complete opposition" Player 1's character is lawful good, the character is also a monk, and not a paladin. The only opposition that occurred was player 1's character felt bad about stealing a baby griffin and said that they wouldn't do it again. The last section of the paragraph reveals more about Player 2's selfish nature. "..and fun nature of her game."

It's not player 2's game is the character's game so its not player 2's fault at all. Which leads to the next section of the letter...

"I'll be removing my character (and by association The useless goblin and his Worg) from the group and putting in someone that I hope can mesh a little better. I've only told this to The DM and I'd like for you to keep it under your hat. Its nothing that you did, I promise you. But I made sure the character is geared to be an excellent play for Your character so there is a little more interaction and fun for you, as well as everyone."

I read this as "Since my character is such a HUGE problem for YOU I'm changing characters even though I don't want to! It's not YOUR fault I'm changing characters to play better with YOUR character."

No, I'm sorry, its not your character, its you Player 2. Your character doesn't make you act without regard to your friends at the table... Changing characters won't magically change you.

"He's a Race, Description, Template/class with a weakness for pretty women named Insert name. So the party won't loose a rogue, tho they will lose a bard and a magical device user."

This new character will solve all your problems but wait... "you wont lose a rogue but you will regret not having the old character around anymore." No, no I wont.

"Please reconsider exiting the group. you're a refreshing presence and I was enjoying not getting tormented by at least one member of the group in game... Please allow me to make it right. Please give the game one more chance."


So in summary

the letter reads

"I'm sorry.
It's everyone else's fault.
It's my character's fault.
I'm making a new character.
I'm sorry."

Right...


Thoughts?

In my opinion, your opinion is spot on. I was mentally drawing my own conclusions about that message, and when I opened your spoiler and read yours, they were pretty much the same.

I wouldn't bother responding to the email. Really, there is nothing more to say. It looks like the game is afoot with Player 1, so congrats on finding yourself a prospect for a new game and a new venue for hanging out with your friends less than 24 hours after exiting a bad situation. It's neat how when you take a chance by walking away from a bad deal, a better one usually turns up right away. GJ, and have fun in your new campaign!



It sounds to me like you and several of your friends have already made clear player 2 does not mesh well with your group with any luck your friend will realize player 2 is causing a rift to form between him and all his friends and that player 2 is immature. He will show up one day having split from player 2 and everything will go back to normal.

The same thing has happened to me on several occasions; a friend will pick up a girl/boy friend that everyone hates. They disappear for a one to six months (because no one wants to hang out with the SO) and then show back up talking about how crazy that girl/boy friend turned out to be. The rest of us then say something to the tune of "took you long enough", proceed to make fun of returning friend's ex love interest for 5 minutes and everything goes back to normal.

QFT. I just recently welcomed into my group a player who is the former DM of our last group. His Possessive Immature Girlfriend (or P.I.G.) broke the group apart and they both dropped off our radar when I formed another group that disincluded the two of them. That was about six months ago. Just recently he phoned saying his P.I.G. was now an ex-P.I.G. and he was interested in joining the group. These things tend to work themselves out if you just give them space and time. :smallsmile:

Tetrasodium
2010-08-28, 11:54 AM
If the character is being a problem IC that's a simple solution, kill the character. Unless the GM shys away from inter party conflict if no one comes to her aid when you curb stomp her she may get the idea that no ones really likes her.

When she rerolls a character if that one is being an annoying git, stomp it into the ground too, just make sure you have an IC reason. Then again i play in PVP open games, i know many on these boards shy away from such things but it works and it keeps things in character.

On the topic of player 3 wanting to run a game, as long as the two (DM and Player 2 are not S.O.s then i would just invite the DM and leave Player 2 in the rain, perhaps invite her on probation but if she acts up, first sign boot her to the curb for the next few sessions to show her you mean business.

This works well, sometimes just a credible threat is enough too. I was in a group with a disruptive (but different sort of disruptive) character who had some template applied where he would regenerate back to life if not killed in a certain way, he was also a king. The character was arguing with the rest of the group about not getting proper respect and how he could have someone in the group beheaded for arguing back and such shortly after mine discovered the whole back from the dead bit. Draw sword, hold it in front of me like so... activate the teleport on my armor to appear behind him with a sacred+defiled bastard sword pressed to the king's neck. He kept up with the attitude while my character and the rest had a discussion about how he's really not going to die if I beheaded him.... push back of the neck through the sword, thump. Attitude got a little better :).... sure it cost me my alignment, but LN was a better fit than LG for the character :)

Ormagoden
2010-08-30, 08:46 AM
Hey, I was wondering if I can get everyone's advice on something.

So, I'm playing in this group. It's been a fun campaign so far, for the most part. The DM's kind of cute, and we're kind of using my character as a central plot hook.

Anyway, at the last session, things were kind of dragging, so I tried to liven things up with some roleplaying. Most of the people got into it and I think they had a good time, except for this one player. He just sat in the corner and huffed at me a lot, and refused to interact unless things were completely focused on his character.

I kind of blew it off, figuring he'd get over it and we'd be back to playing as normal next session.

Yeah, right.

First I find out he's been talking to the DM and complaining about me. Now, we're kind of seeing each other - it's complicated - but I told the DM that I'd try to directly include this player more. But that's hard when all he does is sit in the corner and glare at me!

But it gets worse. Then I find out that this player is basically going to all of the other players, and trying to create a new gaming group without either me or the DM in it!

I mean, I can kind of see why he'd be so angry at me - I was pretty active last game, but that was only because everyone else was sitting like lumps on logs. If he'd have just been willing to not have the spotlight shine solely on him (I dunno, maybe he wanted to recite a soliloquy from Hamlet or something) he could have had a lot of fun, too, but I guess things just have to be *his* way.

So, anyway, I decide to approach him, and make some changes so that he can shine a little bit more in the game. So I sent him a nice long email, apologizing for my actions and telling him pretty exactly what I intended to do, and how it would impact the party (I didn't want him to think I was going to make the party ineffective just as a way of getting back at him, after all - he seems to be interpreting everything I do as a personal attack on him).

And the guy is just basically rude to me back. He started this drama. He talked behind everyone's back. He didn't explicitly say anything rude, but was just very curt and dismissive in his response.

I really don't know what to do. I mean, I know I'm not perfect, but this guy just seems determined to hate me.

Unfortunately your insight is fairly off on that, it was amusing though!
Your description in a later post is spot on however.

Also I didn't think you were attempting to be inflammatory in any way. I knew exactly what you were doing from line 1 :)




Asking for advice on the internet is basically engaging "Auto-Enabling" mode, as the advice givers only get the facts the asker chooses to give - and we all have a tendency to emphasize the parts of the story that make us look like the good guy. (Not a slight on you, Ormagoden, everyone does it. I certainly do!)


Unless the consequences for not lying is someone's death, I generally and almost always am honest (brutally so at times). I don't have a huge ego, and I really don't see a reason to pump it, especially on the internet. I do do my best to give the story in full, and I do understand that Player 2 really likes their character and wants to have fun. I just don't think it should be at the cost of everyone else's fun. I assuredly don't think I should be a doormat either.


I was completely dead when this happened, I was in such shock that I was emotionally dead until afterward. I literally shut down and tried to nap.



All people involved are 23+ to answer a further question...