RP / IRL Conflicts?

[rubycona]

I'm hoping for some advice. I'm playing a 1-DM, 2-PC Pathfinder game, and I'm having trouble with the other PC.

My character, Kiara, is an extraordinarily hot-tempered, unwise sorceress, but who is intelligent (when not blinded by passion) and, in the right circumstances, extremely savvy. Now, this is absolutely a character, and not me. I'm waaaay more perceptive than she is, way less trusting, way more cynical. I even occasionally make ooc comments, fussing at the DM for catching Kiara in a fairly obvious... but only to experienced and savvy players... trap.

But this other player seems to think that I, personally, am as foolish and foolhardy as my character. I know the DM better than he does, and I know for a fact that the DM is here for us to have fun... he's not going to decide that a certain character cannot possibly succeed. If you required intelligence, wisdom, and charisma to succeed, that'd exclude a ton of characters.

But, he's trying to, in-game, do stuff like collaborate with NPC allies and leave Kiara out of it, because he thinks she's not savvy enough to handle being questioned if she knows what's going on. (that was both the in-game and out-of-game reason given)

And really, acting to exclude a fellow PC from planning sessions, to have them with NPCs instead, is very anti-D&D. We're supposed to be a team, and while occasionally working separately happens, generally we're supposed to try to always work together. But that's only one of many examples, he's done tons of things as if on the assumption that I, as a player, am incapable of making any sort of intelligent contribution. Most of these don't involve out-and-out exclusion, but are offensive nonetheless.

Our attempted solutions to this problem are in the spoiler...


So, the DM... knowing I can lie REALLY well (a less than admirable trait, but a practiced one), decided to arrange for a solution in-game. He trapped Kiara in a situation where she was captured in a failed infiltration/assassination attempt, had an NPC ally provide a weak excuse for her presence there (one she had to catch and bolster, since she learned of it through the would-be-assassinated-target), and then magically interrogated her with a Zone of Truth and Detect Thoughts combo, theoretically about another crime that had happened which Kiara wasn't involved in, but her enemy (that she'd failed to assassinate) had set up to catch her.

All in all, hell on earth, right? I lied my way through it (by "lied," I mean told very misleading, but absolute truths, and hyperfocused on the elements of truth I wished to share), and even managed to (somehow) wriggle my way out of a question about any assassination plots (that one had a few sweat drops on my part).

Pretty solid proof that Kiara can handle herself, despite being occasionally foolhardy, and that I'm actually quite capable, as a player, of thinking on my feet (literally, it was dropped on my head, I had no clue I was being set up by my enemy. Well, I knew she was up to Something, but I literally had seconds between learning I was about to be interrogated and being asked my first question. DM counted it all in character, I couldn't even hesitate) It didn't resolve the issue at all. PC-2 said that Kiara was still a risk if captured and interrogated... again... when she knew what was going on. Which she did -.-

And, I've discussed this with the DM, and the DM says that I'm actually still playing more wisely than PC-2. The issue that caused the biggest problem was Kiara refusing to obey one of PC-2's orders (when he's not even the leader), because she thought (and I thought) it would be remarkably stupid. He was so angry at me for supposing that he might be wrong... and the DM told me flat out, in our discussion, that he couldn't even imagine how to deus-ex-machina our butts out of that situation had I actually followed those (very stupid) orders. So, it's not like PC-2's all intelligent and he makes all the right calls.

I tried addressing the issue in-game, at first supposing it was that his character had an issue with my character, a common enough issue in RP-intense games. But the aftermath of that disaster makes both me and the DM certain he fundamentally doesn't respect me as a person, and subconsciously translates that into the games.

I tried to talk to the player about it, but he insists he thinks of me as a very intelligent and capable player, an excellent RPer, and he's so glad to be able to play with me, and that he has no issues with me or my character, nor does His character have issues with my character.

Somehow, I doubt that.

I hate resolving stuff out of game, but I've had to put my foot down about the excluding Kiara from the conspiracy out of game... in-game, her personality would be displeased, but tolerant of it, but as a PC, hell no. I'm here to play, not watch. The fundamental issue of a lack of respect is still a problem, though.



So, I don't know what to do. Despite his issues... he's literally the only other D&D player I've ever met that I've been able to have this level of intensity of RP with (aside from the DM, but it's hard to find someone to DM just us). It's so my kind of game... I'm loving it. Except, the NPCs are proving better allies -.- Since they, you know, actually trust me.

Any suggestions? My best idea is to brute force, out of game, alterations of in-game issues... which I loathe doing... such as saying, as a player, I'll not tolerate being permanently excluded from the rebellion I started -.- But if at all possible, I'd prefer to address the fundamental issues. Maybe I've misunderstood what those issues might be, and any ideas on that would be great.

Thanks.

[Urpriest]

The intense RP could still be the problem, really. If you care about playing a character it's going to be difficult to have that character change their opinions. You want to find ideal moments for it to happen, and if something gets sprung on you then it might not be an ideal moment. It's hard to come up with mannerisms for a character, and as such it's even harder to change them. Perhaps thinking of your character as less useful/competent is one of the elements of shorthand he used to build his character. Changing that is tricky, and it takes more than simply having a logical place for the opinion to change. He needs to rethink his characterization. If he says his character now thinks of yours as competent, give him time to figure out how to translate that into how he makes decisions.

[Undead_Kai]

I feel for you. My Rp problem currently is I can't get one of my fellow players to Rp at all, and the other has to be so railroaded in our campaign, he sucks the joy out of it for me. :/

[mikeejimbo]

When you said
But, he's trying to, in-game, do stuff like collaborate with NPC allies and leave Kiara out of it, because he thinks she's not savvy enough to handle being questioned if she knows what's going on. I thought, "OK, he's just roleplaying his character, the way you are. I mean, maybe it's kind of rude out of character too, but perhaps you should just be the more mature person."

But then you said
I tried addressing the issue in-game, at first supposing it was that his character had an issue with my character, a common enough issue in RP-intense games. which is, incidentally, exactly the solution I was going to give. Further, you said
...nor does His character have issues with my character. which just confuses the abyss out of me. I mean, if he was roleplaying his character couldn't he admit, out of character, that his character had a problem with her character (not necessarily that his character dislikes her, but may patronize her slightly.) This doesn't have to be a reflection on the out of game relationship at all, of course.

Ideally I would say that he should be working to find ways to include your character in the planning sessions (and other things!) that would fit with both characters. But it looks like he's not.

Sorry I can't be any help, but I do feel for you.

[WarKitty]

Any chance of asking him why he is behaving this way in character, and that you don't appreciate it? Sometimes it works better to name specific incidents as examples of things that make the game less fun. Not a guaranteed strategy, but worth a shot.

[Felhammer]

As an experienced gamer in a 2 player environment, I can tell you that if one of the characters isn't rational, then that can quickly devolve into OOC issues. The problem with irrational characters in a small group is that there's not enough people to mitigate the irrational person. In a group of 4, a person can go crazy because he can be stopped or the situation can be defused by one of the other characters fairly easily. However, in a two person group, the job of mitigation can become quite tedious, boring and eventually leads to resentment over a long period of time. People game because they want to escape the real world, not dive into a night of being another player's nanny!

Not only that but, the other player may feel like you are stealing their screen time. If every encounter begins and ends with your character going ballistic, then that leads to the other player feeling as if he's more if a side kick then a leading star. His "theft" of the conspiracy from you may be his way of gaining a bit of that lime light back.

To be honest the best way to resolve this is for you to take a step back and not RP so heavily. I know that doesn't sounds like a good option but, as I said, I am a vet of many 2 player campaigns and I can't tell you how many times stuff like this has come up. If you dial back on your character's oddity just a bit, I'm sure the whole issue will resolve itself quickly.

[BeholderSlayer]

Tell him you don't want to have to make your spell components out of his body parts. Maybe he'll take a hint? :smallbiggrin:

[Lev]

Pardon, but I do not see a problem with this situation.

Do you somehow feel hurt because you think he is attacking you emotionally and using the RP experience as a passive aggressive shield?

Because it really sounds like you are just getting worked up about how he is playing his character and that you have discredited your character by roleplaying her in a certain way. Who says character's have to understand each other right away?


Would the solution not be, instead of complaining to your DM and pleadingab for some sort of gimmick plothook for social recovery you could actually bite the bullet, accept how your character is being perceived and to make an apparent growth as a character as you play?


Point is, it takes 2 to tango and you BOTH are mis-stepping.

[BridgeCity]

it seems that you are accidentally the architect of your own misfortune.

You describe your character as an 'extraordinarily hot-tempered, unwise sorceress, but who is intelligent (when not blinded by passion).' Think about this from any other characters point of view, why would they want a person like that involved in the planning and execution of delicate situations?

If there was someone like that in a party I was in I sure wouldn't be all that confident in trusting them with anything, so I can see where his character is comming from.

You have stated that this is an RP heavy game, which is cool, and you clearly come across as a good RPer, but perhaps this has lead you to shoot yourself in the foot? You have so convincingly come across as an unreliable ally that his character simply can not trust you with anything.

You gave the example of showing that your character can actually think quickly and managed to bend the truth while being interrogated, but that is only one time. How many times has your character ruined a plan or got into trouble for being unwise and foolhardy? Would you really expect his character to disregard all of that and suddenly start trusting you based on one occasion where, to him, it would probably appear you just got lucky?

I think you are going about things the right way by having your character, in game, work through situations to show how capable she really is, but I think you need to be patient. Trust takes time to build, and it is reasonable to expect his character to be wary untill you have proved that your character is now more often than not a boon instead of a hindrance.

It really does sound to me that he is just playing his character in a realistic way to the situation he is presented with.

You have said that you love the RP depth you get with this group, and thats great. I'm currently with the best D&D group i've ever been with, it fits me perfectly, so I know how you feel. I'd think really carefully before taking any actions that may sour this for you, especially because (to me at least) it seems like your character design set the problem up in the first place. It would be a real pity to lose what you have found.

I'm not trying to get at you or bring you down and I hope this hasn't come across like that (as it so often does when emotion cannot be displayed).

[elpollo]

When you said I thought, "OK, he's just roleplaying his character, the way you are. I mean, maybe it's kind of rude out of character too, but perhaps you should just be the more mature person."

"I'm just playing my character" is never an excuse for being a tool unless the whole group is alright with it. Never.



Pardon, but I do not see a problem with this situation.

Do you somehow feel hurt because you think he is attacking you emotionally and using the RP experience as a passive aggressive shield?

Because it really sounds like you are just getting worked up about how he is playing his character and that you have discredited your character by roleplaying her in a certain way. Who says character's have to understand each other right away?

As far as we know (and granted, we might not be the entire story) the worst thing that's happened is that rubycona has disobeyed his orders (and for chrissakes, why was he giving orders in the first place? Cooperative game, people!). Nobody's saying that there can't be inter-party conflict, but if it's not working for one player (and it really doesn't seem to be, hence the OP) then it stops.



Would the solution not be, instead of complaining to your DM and pleadingab for some sort of gimmick plothook for social recovery you could actually bite the bullet, accept how your character is being perceived and to make an apparent growth as a character as you play?

That's certainly a solution, and one many people probably would take, but if rubycona's not enjoying the game as much for it then why should s/he put up with it rather than explain that s/he's not enjoying that aspect of the game?



*Snip*

Firstly, if this is indeed an IRL problem then the only way you'll solve it is with an IRL solution. If you don't mind me asking, why do you think he doesn't respect you as a person?

If he doesn't think he's leaving you out, you could make a note of a couple of times when he does leave you out, then quietly approach him after the session when it's just you two and say "I'm feeling a bit left out some of the time, and would like to be more involved in the rebellion." Then offer an example or two and suggest why it would be a good thing to bring/involve your character.

Also, just in case it is just an IC thing, you could try the ham-handed attempt of having the DM have a member of the rebellion watching the interrogation but unable to help in fear of losing their position/life, who then comes up to you when the other PC is around and is all "Wow, you were amazing under interrogation, you really saved such-and-such a person's skin, blah blah blah". Then you look all introspective and character-growthy. Then point out this is a reason for his character to start trusting yours. Then send him on the boards so we can get his side of the story/ tell him to stop being an idiot.


edit - damn swordsages.


You gave the example of showing that your character can actually think quickly and managed to bend the truth while being interrogated, but that is only one time. How many times has your character ruined a plan or got into trouble for being unwise and foolhardy? Would you really expect his character to disregard all of that and suddenly start trusting you based on one occasion where, to him, it would probably appear you just got lucky?

Yes. Several reasons:
1) It's a cooperative game.
2) He has no reason to believe it was luck. There were two spells making it very difficult to lie.
3) It's the "unreliable" character's CMoA. The person seen as a bit of a free cannon suddenly shows that they can cope under extreme pressure, and becomes a worthwhile member of a team. It happens all the time in fantasy literature/films, and there's no reason why it shouldn't happen in game.

[BridgeCity]

Yes. Several reasons:
1) It's a cooperative game.
2) He has no reason to believe it was luck. There were two spells making it very difficult to lie.
1) It's a cooperative game.
3) It's the "unreliable" character's CMoA. The person seen as a bit of a free cannon suddenly shows that they can cope under extreme pressure, and becomes a worthwhile member of a team. It happens all the time in fantasy literature/films, and there's no reason why it shouldn't happen in game.
1) It's a cooperative game (seriously - important point).[/i]


If it is a co-operative game then is it not rather silly to make characters that it is difficult to co-operate with? Someone who is hot tempered, unwise and has difficulty keeping their emotion in check does not say "Im easy to co-operate with" to me.

I feel that is it absolutly acceptable to believe that a one off show of ability could have been luck, untill it is proven otherwsie through repeated occurances. Invoking a trope does not make this any less viable, and as you say it does happen in literature/films often, but it also often doesn't happen that way and it shouldn't be forced to.

Basically, you are saying that this guy has to go back on all the character set up he has created for no reason other than one instance that he may not feel proves anything. You are saying that the OPs character should be able to forcibly change his mind, and that is horrible D&D. Changing a character's point of view needs to be earned, and it is up to the other character to decide when this has happened, not the person attempting to do the changing.

Yes, it is a co-operative game, so you should make characters that work well in co-operative situations or be ready and willing to deal with the in-game consequences.

As for the repeated "its a co-operative game." Serisouly, I get it and I made my post well aware of the fact. There is no need to treat me like I'm an idiot who cannot grasp this unless it is said again and again. Once is enough to point out a particular point of view, anything else is just getting insulting and you know it.

[elpollo]

If it is a co-operative game then is it not rather silly to make characters that it is difficult to co-operate with? Someone who is hot tempered, unwise and has difficulty keeping their emotion in check does not say "Im easy to co-operate with" to me.

Except that could describe any number of D&D characters, most of whom have no problem getting along for the sake of the game. We have no idea how difficult she is to cooperate with, and until there's any further evidence I'm going to take her at face value. If information is being withheld then it's no surprise that we can't offer appropriate advice.



I feel that is it absolutly acceptable to believe that a one off show of ability could have been luck, untill it is proven otherwsie through repeated occurances. Invoking a trope does not make this any less viable, and as you say it does happen in literature/films often, but it also often doesn't happen that way and it shouldn't be forced to.

Well, I'm not going to hold that against you, but it's certainly a reason to have the characters start to click, no? I'm also really not saying the guy can be forced into anything, but if he's reasonable then asking him to start to trust the sorceress due to this is completely fair.



Basically, you are saying that this guy has to go back on all the character set up he has created for no reason other than one instance that he may not feel proves anything. You are saying that the OPs character should be able to forcibly change his mind, and that is horrible D&D. Changing a character's point of view needs to be earned, and it is up to the other character to decide when this has happened, not the person attempting to do the changing.

I... what? Is his main character trait that he doesn't trust the sorceress? I'm saying the guy should involve her. I'm not saying he has to suddenly change every other viewpoint, only a completely reasonable "Involve the players". I'm going off the information that the only problem the guy has with the OP is that she disobeyed his "order".



As for the repeated "its a co-operative game." Serisouly, I get it and I made my post well aware of the fact. There is no need to treat me like I'm an idiot who cannot grasp this unless it is said again and again. Once is enough to point out a particular point of view, anything else is just getting insulting and you know it.

You are, of course, right, and I apologise. I will edit it out of my post.

[Lev]

Yes. Several reasons:
1) It's a cooperative game.
2) He has no reason to believe it was luck. There were two spells making it very difficult to lie.
3) It's the "unreliable" character's CMoA. The person seen as a bit of a free cannon suddenly shows that they can cope under extreme pressure, and becomes a worthwhile member of a team. It happens all the time in fantasy literature/films, and there's no reason why it shouldn't happen in game.[/i]


I... what? Is his main character trait that he doesn't trust the sorceress?

The RP involved is that one character has made herself out to be incredibly foolish, the character is being played by an apparently "quite intelligent" girl ((but perhaps not humble :smallbiggrin:)), the other players character seems to be less foolish in how he seems himself, played by a mystery person.

Lettuce name these factors.
Player 1: Ruby
Character 1: Kiara

Player 2: Joe
Character 2: Joan

Now, we can assume that Joe knows that Kiara is foolish and being controlled by Ruby this is probably a novel act, but knowing that Ruby is not foolish and that Kiara is puts a few factors into the social dynamic.

1) Joe has to factor in Joan's perception of Kiara while Joe's perception of Ruby filters out the Ruby from Kiara, as in, if Kiara acts like Ruby then it MIGHT be an OOC slip
2) Seeing as Kiara has built herself up as a fool, Joe must refine Joan's character perception filter to include that very wise decisions might be made by Ruby but NOT Kiara, so wise actions might just be a slip and an understandable error in roleplay
3) Because of that filter, Joan might have a bias, this does not mean they can't be friends and go on adventures together, but it is a very strong social dynamic and as we've covered it might take time to resolve


Also, just in case it is just an IC thing, you could try the ham-handed attempt of having the DM have a member of the rebellion watching the interrogation but unable to help in fear of losing their position/life, who then comes up to you when the other PC is around and is all "Wow, you were amazing under interrogation, you really saved such-and-such a person's skin, blah blah blah". Then you look all introspective and character-growthy. Then point out this is a reason for his character to start trusting yours. Then send him on the boards so we can get his side of the story/ tell him to stop being an idiot.
Oh god, can you imagine how patronizing that would be?

Ruby is hurt most of all because apparently she is under the impression that Joe somehow takes Kiara as a sign of Ruby's foolishness, to have the DM hand her something like that instead of having the insight to solve it herself?

I mean, I see how that could be a good idea but DnD really isn't a social circlejerk, it's a cooperative story, and by that I mean everyone is free to write their own thing in, and sometimes you have to concentrate more on changing how you play more than trying to change other even more, trying to change what cards the world is throwing you because you don't like them.

[BridgeCity]

You are, of course, right, and I apologise. I will edit it out of my post

Thanks, and no hard feelings.


Well, I'm not going to hold that against you, but it's certainly a reason to have the characters start to click, no? I'm also really not saying the guy can be forced into anything, but if he's reasonable then asking him to start to trust the sorceress due to this is completely fair.

Indeed, I agree. But I think you and I have different views on 'starting to trust.' I would see going from being so wary of your companion so as to not want them involved in your plans for fear they will screw them up, to totally including them in everything as unrealistic. I agree that she should be included, but given how much attention is payed to the RP side of their game, she should be prepared for a realistic time frame to repair the damage to the character's relationship


I... what? Is his main character trait that he doesn't trust the sorceress? I'm saying the guy should involve her. I'm not saying he has to suddenly change every other viewpoint, only a completely reasonable "Involve the players". I'm going off the information that the only problem the guy has with the OP is that she disobeyed his "order".

But including her involves trusting her, and it seems that he has built up a hefty amount of distrust for her character. As I said, I agree that he should include her, but expecting him to suddenly drop all the fears he has based on her being unreliable would not be very realistic or true to his own character, and it would be forcing him to change a fundamental viewpoint of his character. It sucks, but she needs to take responsibility for creating the unrealiable character in the first place, and allow the trust to realisitcally develop over time.

From the way I read it, the disobying of the order is not the only thing that has happened to create this difficulty. I just can't see there only being one incident given that she actively plays her character as emotional, hot headed, angry and unwise. In the spoilered part of the OP she mentions that the disobying of the order is the major incident causing problems, so that implies that there have been others as well.

I'm not saying the other guy is completely blameless, without further information and his side of the story we can never really tell who is more at fault. However, I feel that if she wants to keep this group that she loves it would be in her best intrest to accept her share of the blame and start making amends, and hope that the other player reacts to this positively.

[Engine]

So.
You're saying that your unwise character is pretty wise. Meh...
...anyway:

- Take notes;
- Show him the notes;
- Say: "You change or I leave";

I know it's a bit drastic as a solution. In my last group a fellow player had serious issues with me, leaving tables, saying to the DM how bad I am as a person and so on. Of course all of that influenced the game.
So I confronted her, she said I was right. Next day, same as above. So I left.
I had a great time with that group, it was really fun. But personal issues ruined it. It seems to me the same it's happening in your game. Do not allow it. I know the "You change or I leave" could seems a OOC solution to a IC problem, but if the other player don't respect you as a person you couldn't resolve that with a clever IC solution. It's a OOC problem.

[elpollo]

Oh god, can you imagine how patronizing that would be?

Ruby is hurt most of all because apparently she is under the impression that Joe somehow takes Kiara as a sign of Ruby's foolishness, to have the DM hand her something like that instead of having the insight to solve it herself?

Not really, but then I'm a subscriber to "No Man is an island weekly". As I've said, I don't know the full story, and if that's what it would take to fix an IC problem then I would be all for it. If there's definately an OOC problem then this isn't going to solve anything, so it would only be a solution if the guy has no problem with Ruby, thus meaning no problem.



I mean, I see how that could be a good idea but DnD really isn't a social circlejerk, it's a cooperative story, and by that I mean everyone is free to write their own thing in, and sometimes you have to concentrate more on changing how you play more than trying to change other even more, trying to change what cards the world is throwing you because you don't like them.

Yeah, I certainly get where you're coming from. I'm not meaning to sound like "The sorceress goes on being foolish and burning down taverns and such whilst the other guy accepts her blindly", which I might have come off as a bit. I just mean that the guy letting her in could then go on to her growing as a character and meeting the responsibilities that she takes.



Indeed, I agree. But I think you and I have different views on 'starting to trust.' I would see going from being so wary of your companion so as to not want them involved in your plans for fear they will screw them up, to totally including them in everything as unrealistic. I agree that she should be included, but given how much attention is payed to the RP side of their game, she should be prepared for a realistic time frame to repair the damage to the character's relationship.

Again, yeah, I get you, but it just seems that if it's enough to ask people for help for then it's probably enough to have an unrealistic trust montage for to solve the issue. As always people are free to completely ignore me, of course.



*Snip*

I kinda just want to repeat my above replies. If the OP was fine with the distrust then I'd support you, but there is a problem. I suppose an acknowledgement that they'd work towards it in game would be just as good, though, and wouldn't be quite as jarring, so long as both parties held up their end of the agreement.

[Lev]

So.
You're saying that your unwise character is pretty wise. Meh...
I think Ruby's point is that her character might have high int and cha but low wis, and she's not comfortable about how profoundly the wis stat impacts a person in terms of personality and social dynamic.

Personally IRL I think Wis > All


elpollo, whoever you are *wink* I think the main difference is that you are viewing this more like a game where as bridge and I are treating it more like a simulation.

[Rixx]

I think it's just about impossible for us to have enough of the story to propose a solution; not because of any error or lack of clarity on the OP's part, but because this is the kind of situation that's so complex and has to many factors that you can't really distill it into a post on the Internet.

[BridgeCity]

. . . snip . . .

Yeah, I pretty much agree. They need to come to a compromise where they can both trust each other and play well together.

Maybe my time frame is a little harsh as it would take alot of the fun out of the game for the OP while she had to prove herself, so I like your suggestion of a montage sort of thing to gloss over the details and get things back on track. It's not the way I'd like to handle it personally, but then again everyone is different, and that's what makes roleplaying games fun.

[Lev]

I think it's just about impossible for us to have enough of the story to propose a solution; not because of any error or lack of clarity on the OP's part, but because this is the kind of situation that's so complex and has to many factors that you can't really distill it into a post on the Internet.
I agree, so we should offer advice to help Ruby purpose a solution.

[kyoryu]

This shoulds like, primarily, a mismatch in playstyle. Ruby's not looking at her character as a personal avatar, and is at a roleplaying point where playing the character is more important than "winning."

The other PC seems to have less separation between player and character, and is looking to "win". The idea of deliberately doing something unwise probably doesn't occur to him - at all.

One thing you can do to be clear is to make it obvious, with an appropriate ooc comment or two, when your character is doing something that *you* know is foolish. A comment like "oh, man, I can see this coming, but there's no way my character wouldn't do this" can help to point out the difference between character and player.

But, ultimately, the two styles of play have some incompatibilities, and you need to make sure that there is a rough agreement on the expected play style.

[Quietus]

Perhaps, if your DM is willing to manipulate situations to prove to the other player here that your character is capable.. how sneaky is she? For example, could she follow unseen and find out her companion's plan, then let her companion go through with the plan she supposedly doesn't know about? Maybe use information gathered during her interrogation - which allows her to have a better idea of what's going on inside <place> - to know where there's likely to be a difficult point, and happen to show up there to save her companion when he hits that spot?

[Lev]

Mm, for quietus' suggestion to work Kiara would have to be perceptive, and in DnD wise == perceptive, but you can roleplay it otherwise, though an intelligent player might not see all the pieces and instead treat the facts like a sudoku problem and solve it by indirect clues.

So, would you mind if we brought some attribute scores into this to help clarify what we are looking at?

[Fiery Diamond]

This shoulds like, primarily, a mismatch in playstyle. Ruby's not looking at her character as a personal avatar, and is at a roleplaying point where playing the character is more important than "winning."

The other PC seems to have less separation between player and character, and is looking to "win". The idea of deliberately doing something unwise probably doesn't occur to him - at all.

One thing you can do to be clear is to make it obvious, with an appropriate ooc comment or two, when your character is doing something that *you* know is foolish. A comment like "oh, man, I can see this coming, but there's no way my character wouldn't do this" can help to point out the difference between character and player.

But, ultimately, the two styles of play have some incompatibilities, and you need to make sure that there is a rough agreement on the expected play style.

From the limited information we have, I agree that this is what it sounds like, and I think that this sort of "Man my character is being stupid" call-out may help the other player understand.