PDA

View Full Version : Is this Fixable?



BeholderSlayer
2010-12-10, 01:58 PM
Having an issue with one of my players, but I guess a little background will help out. Forewarning: wall of text incoming. TL;DR version at end.

I've been playing with the same group for a few years. Two of them are my close friends, and two of them are friends, but no so close. One of the not-so-close friends is the other DM of the party. He was the first DM we used. He ran a few published Eberron adventurers, and then I took over for a while. I had every intention of taking the campaign from 1 to 20. The other DM spent over $100 for a large published module called Castle Whiterock. Around level 10-12 (I can't remember) the other DM decided to say, without warning "I'm not having fun anymore. I want to play Whiterock and if we don't switch, I'm quitting." Fine, we decided, we'll play Whiterock (even though one of my close friends was adamant about not wanting to switch campaigns yet).

I still wanted to DM (I didn't really get to accomplish what I wanted to, at all). I had a big story all planned, and it never came to fruition. The other DM had said something along the lines of: "it doesn't even feel like there is a story, why are we doing this stuff?" To which, all of the other players told him why the characters were doing the things they were doing. He had started missing sessions (which he didn't do when he was DM) and thus, missing important plot hooks. In one big battle, where the PC's took on an Aspect of Orcus, it was only my two good friends there because the other DM and his close friend weren't there.

So anyway, we start Whiterock. It's a big dungeon, goes 1-15. By the time we hit the 10th level of the dungeon, we were levels 11-12. He decided we would skip from the 10th level to the 13th, and we'd all get 13th level. We acquiesced. We get down to the 15th level, where we were to fight a Red Dragon. We knew it was the last level, and stocked up on expendables such as 9th level scrolls. What we had expected to fight was a Red dragon, well, we fought a Black Dragon AND a Ghost Red Dragon. We had planned for the fight for weeks, and had our tactics all straight. We trounced them both in 3 rounds. He was visibly angry, and ranted about how broken DnD 3.5 is. He decided he was going to try another system, Everquest d20, despite the fact that nobody really wanted to try it. He said if we didn't do it, he'd quit.

Fine, we'll do it.

We started Warcraft, and it only took a tiny amount of critical thought to discern the powerful tactics. I was an Enchanter, and optimized my INT and CHA and had a virtually unbeatable Mesmerization DC. I know he fudged rolls many times to avoid having the monsters succumb to it. He had advised the party BSF to dual-wield, claiming it did more damage. Instead, the party BSF found a better mechanic, two-handed fighting with weapons that offer the least "delay." Using this tactic, he could get up to 12 attacks in a round, two handed fighting, with a >50 strength and a critical threat range of 12-20. He was a machine, chopping through even the largest enemies in 2 rounds. In the end, we fought another dragon, flanked by two Frost Giants, a big warrior and spellcaster. The BSF chopped through each giant in one round, and then knocked off half the dragon's HP in another. He got grappled, and it was a war of attrition between the dragon's grapple damage, and the Shaman's healing. I spammed Mesmerization, and eventually got through the SR and shut down the dragon. BSF chops him down. End of story. DM is, again, visibly angry.

He always seems to blame the system, rather than is inability to challenge the PC's. It's mostly because he uses lots of published stuff, rather than being able to adapt.

The group had agreed I'd DM again after Everquest. This time they wanted to be evil. I helped them pick some strong templates and races (overpowered for most games, but not for mine). I learned how to use Maptool in my free time like the other DM, so we're still using our preferred gaming media. It's been 3 whole sessions, and already the other DM is starting to show the same signs as before. He talks incessantly about Shadowrun. He claims he's having fun, but his body language says otherwise. Last night he left an hour early (which he never does when he's DM). He always plays the skillmonkey, and he's complained to another player that his BSF is too powerful in combat (actually, if he wasn't as powerful as he is, they may be dead). Heck, I shut down the BSF with a scare spell last night, his will save is a whopping 3, so it was up to the remaining 4 characters to take on 5 undead and 3 spellcasters.

I had a planned plot for the evening. They obtained a cursed book from an elven tomb, which had tainted it, at the behest of their thieves guild employer. On the way back to town, they were ambushed by elves that wanted the book, and who believed they had been responsible for desecrating the tomb. Two of the elves were high level wizards, which ensured the PC's capture. They were taken to a camp, and were nearly able to kill all their guards including 2 high level wizards (level 2 characters vs. 2 level 10 wizards....they had surprise). I had to resort to paranoid wizard tactics to lock them down, which I'm okay with, but I think the other DM got angry about it. I had planned for them to be taken to an elven village, where they'd have to find the book and their gear and escape.

The other DM and his friend left before getting to the village. My two close friends played his PC. The whole elven village had been where I had planned for the other DM's character to shine. He single handedly has so far killed 4 guards, and obtained their gear, all utilizing his high stealth skills and racial death attack. The guy totally missed out on his character shining, all because he isn't motivated to actually play a PC.

I don't really know what to do. I bring in stories that everyone gets involved in but him. He just sits there, not listening, and waiting for combat. He doesn't understand that a skill monkey is incredibly useful outside combat, and that's his place to shine. He always runs kick-in-the-door type campaigns, with no story, where skill monkeys do traps and backstab only. I gave great situations for him to show off his character, but he doesn't seem to "get it."

I have a feeling he has a control obsession. He only wants to DM, and doesn't want to get involved playing a PC. He's lately been obsessing over Shadowrun, and I and my friends know that sooner, rather than later, he's going to say he wants to run it and if we don't agree he's going to quit. My friends have already expressed that if he does that, they'll tell him to quit.

Is there any way I can motivate this guy? He just doesn't seem to want to even try to get into playing a PC.

TL;DR: Two DMs, me and another. Other DM refuses to get motivated by playing and always threatens that if we don't do what he wants, he's gonna quit. HELP!

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 02:07 PM
Different gaming styles, simply put. You are optimizing with a DM that doesn't. You either don't optimize so much when he is the DM or you don't play with him when he is the DM.

Also, there is no problem with a DM fudging rolls evey now and then to make the game more fun or not knowing enought about the rules to uber-optimized. It's just not his style.

Vladislav
2010-12-10, 02:15 PM
TL;DR: Two DMs, me and another. Other DM refuses to get motivated by playing and always threatens that if we don't do what he wants, he's gonna quit. HELP!Why shouldn't he? He tried it once, it worked, tried it twice, it worked again. He is now conditioned to not enjoy your game - he learned he gets what he wants by not enjoying.

Just make it clear you won't be allowed to be bossed like that. Make it clear the only way for him to enjoy is to play the damn game. He will either figure out what's best for him and get on with the program, or leave. 50% chance of each.

pffh
2010-12-10, 02:17 PM
Well stick to your guns. Worst case scenario he leaves and from what you've told us the only thing you'll be losing is a problem player and the rest of you can keep having fun.

Fun is mandatory!

valadil
2010-12-10, 02:18 PM
Maybe. My group runs two games at a time, alternating which GM runs each week. We did it that way because nobody had time to GM a weekly game anymore, but it should work for your use case too. This way the other guy is always running. If a biweekly game isn't enough for him and he won't compromise then let him quit.

As far as getting him to play goes, don't sweat it too much. Whenever I focus in too much on that one miserable cretin of a player, I end up letting down the other PCs and the cretin still isn't entertained. You can't please everyone all of the time. And if all but one of your PCs is happy, you're still doing an awesome job. Keep running it the way you've been running it, but take notice whenever the other guy has a good time. If he indicates that he's actually happy, throw him more of what he likes.

BeholderSlayer
2010-12-10, 02:24 PM
Different gaming styles, simply put. You are optimizing with a DM that doesn't. You either don't optimize so much when he is the DM or you don't play with him when he is the DM.

Also, there is no problem with a DM fudging rolls evey now and then to make the game more fun or not knowing enought about the rules to uber-optimized. It's just not his style.

I'm not sure you caught the actual problem, so I'll try to reiterate (no offense, it's pretty easy to lose it in my wall of text).

Actually, he kinda does optimize. I stress the word "kinda," because he really, really tries to. He really WANTS to optimize. He just doesn't want to LISTEN when suggestions are made, even when he asks for suggestions.

I know for a fact it's not so much the optimization level. The guy has a strong control obsession, where he feels that he NEEDS to be the DM. If he's not, his attention span is that of a gnat. Because he doesn't pay attention or get involved, he actually misses out on the parts where his character gets to show off.

During his campaigns, I don't really "optimize" so much as utilize common sense. In Whiterock, I did play a DMM cleric, but I used DMM to act as a party booster. In Everquest, it was really just common sense. When you can add two stat mods to a certain kind of spell, of course you're going to optimize those two stats and stick to that spell line. In the case of the BSF, when enemies have DR 15-20/-, of course you're going to maximize swing rate and power attack damage. It's just simple logic.

As far the optimization thing, it's not so much that he doesn't optimize. It's that he's not good at it, and he doesn't want to listen to anybody's input.

Really the big deal is his attention span issues. It's notable not based on optimization level, but rather can be exactly correlated to whether or not he's acting as DM.

With the fudged rolls thing, once in a while is no big deal. But when my character is completely useless for an entire encounter because he's fudging rolls....that's a bit too much.


Why shouldn't he? He tried it once, it worked, tried it twice, it worked again. He is now conditioned to not enjoy your game - he learned he gets what he wants by not enjoying.

Just make it clear you won't be allowed to be bossed like that. Make it clear the only way for him to enjoy is to play the damn game. He will either figure out what's best for him and get on with the program, or leave. 50% chance of each.
I concur. I really would like to head it off at the pass, as it were, before it happens again. He will get butthurt that everybody else in the party would rather him leave than bend to his will.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 02:31 PM
I'm not sure you caught the actual problem, so I'll try to reiterate (no offense, it's pretty easy to lose it in my wall of text).
None taken. :smallcool:



Actually, he kinda does optimize. I stress the word "kinda," because he really, really tries to. He really WANTS to optimize. He just doesn't want to LISTEN when suggestions are made, even when he asks for suggestions.
(...)
Really the big deal is his attention span issues. It's notable not based on optimization level, but rather can be exactly correlated to whether or not he's acting as DM.

With the fudged rolls thing, once in a while is no big deal. But when my character is completely useless for an entire encounter because he's fudging rolls....that's a bit too much.

It looks like this guy really is a problem player. Kindly say your style's don't mesh and that he should look for another group, I believe.
Or simply don't care when he doesn't enjoy your perfectly good adventure. Looks like it's not your fault.

Vladislav
2010-12-10, 02:34 PM
By the way, the reason I said it's 50% chance of each, is because I actually did this twice, with two different players. One left (and to be honest, wasn't missed much), while the other got on with the program and became a good roleplayer and a valuable contributor.

molten_dragon
2010-12-10, 02:58 PM
Just let him go.you guys don't have similar interests it sounds like.

Jornophelanthas
2010-12-10, 03:16 PM
So far, this player has used emotional blackmail successfully twice. ("Let me DM this, or I'll quit.") If he resorts to it again, he will likely expect to get his way again, and get angry if it doesn't work.

The best way to head off such a nasty confrontation is have a talk with him away from the other players. Tell him you are concerned about whether he is enjoying the current game. Tell him the things you have attempted so far to make his experience more enjoyable. Ask him what you could do to improve his experience.

Do not accuse him from showing a lack of commitment, because this will set the tone for the rest of the talk. It's better to talk about "enjoyment", because enjoyment and commitment are the same thing as far as this situation is concerned.

See what he tells you. Perhaps some things he'll say will make you look differently at your campaign. Use those to your advantage. Some other things may be lashing out at your efforts. Do not get defensive about his criticisms, whether they are well-argued or spiteful.

I see three possible outcomes to such a conversation:

1. The player and you will come to some kind of agreement where you will use your better knowledge of his expectations to improve his enjoyment, while he will show greater commitment to the game. The other players need not be aware that the talk took place, but may notice the improvement.

2. The player and you will jointly reach the conclusion that the campaign is not suited to his playstyle. Either he will leave the campaign, or the campaign will end (if you decide to do so yourself), whichever will be the best solution for all involved. (This is the time to break the issue to the other players.)

3. The player sets another unreasonable ultimatum. ("Either we do Shadowrun, or I quit.") In this case, tell him you are unwilling to give up your campaign over this. (After all, you said this is your current opinion.) Break the issue to the other players. Decide as a group what the best course of action will be. At least you tried to prevent such a nasty confrontation.

Good luck.

Godskook
2010-12-10, 04:12 PM
Also, there is no problem with a DM fudging rolls evey now and then to make the game more fun or not knowing enought about the rules to uber-optimized. It's just not his style.

I have a problem with this, actually. Fudging a die roll "to make a game fun" isn't a clearly defined concept, and what's fun for one person isn't necessarily fun for another. Thus, imho, a die rolled fairly is more fun than a die fudged for any one person's goals.

That's not to say that fudging doesn't happen in my games, but I refuse to fudge my rolls as DM in order to make an encounter more challenging. If you aren't willing to let your PCs kill it, even easily, than *don't* let your PCs touch it. This is why I'm remodeling the Tarrasque before I let my PCs near him. If they're *still* able to drop him, Imma gonna spend a few hours describing just how epic they were, but that's not happening for qutie a few levels(for their sakes, hopefully not for a good 15 or 16 levels).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-10, 04:16 PM
Really the big deal is his attention span issues. It's notable not based on optimization level, but rather can be exactly correlated to whether or not he's acting as DM.
Is that really the big deal? :smallconfused:

Listen, this guy is a Problem Player. Provided your "feel" of the group is accurate, he is the only person who is not with the program. Which means it's time for...

Oracle Hunter's 3 Step Guide to Problem Player Resolution!

(1) Identify the Problem
It's easy to tell when there is a problem in game but it is much harder to identify exactly what the problem is. Before doing anything else, step back and try to figure out specifically what is going wrong. The best way to do this is to poll your players - ask them if there's anything they'd like to change about the campaign or if they have any problems. This doesn't always work, but sometimes your players will be candid enough to tell you what's bothering them.

(2) Talk to the Problem Player
If you figure out that a particular player either has a problem with the game or is the problem with the game (sometimes both!) you need to talk to the Player to see if you can work something out. Most Player problems can be fixed with simple tweaks to the setting: more of a particular style of gameplay, less of a different kind of gameplay, or something similar.

(3) If you Can't Fix the Problem, Ask Them to Leave
Sometimes, you can't fix the problem with a Player. You can ask them to suck it up but, to be honest, if they could do that they would have done it already instead of becoming a Problem Player. In these situations it's best to get the Problem Player out of the game ASAP: they're not having fun in your game and soon you won't be having fun either. The following statement is a good template for breaking the news to them

"I hear your concerns with the game but I'm afraid I won't be able to accomodate your requests. If this isn't really a big deal for you I hope you can adapt your play-style to be less disruptive to the game. Still, I fully understand if you'd prefer to drop out - the game isn't fun for you, and there's no reason for you to keep playing a game you don't enjoy."

You can also offer to invite them to a game in the future in which their play-style would be appropriate - but this is strictly optional.
Now, the application:

(1) The problem here isn't a matter of "lack of attention" - it's that he doesn't like playing the sorts of games you're running. Specifically, he doesn't really want to play games; he wants to run them.

(2) Hopefully when you talk to him, he'll be able to enunciate some sort of game he'd like to play. Maybe a Cooperative Storytelling Game might make him happy. Or, if you're really lucky, it turns out he has some other sort of problem which is manifesting itself in this fashion. If it turns out to be a Control Addiction there's not much you can do.

(3) Before you kick him out of the game, ask yourself why you like having him around. From your posts, it seems like the guy isn't fun to have in a game nor is he a good guy to be running games. If he's just a "friend who games" then it's best for everyone if you get him out of your games ASAP and find some other way to have fun with him.

However, if you are keeping him around for some special reason, consider whether it is worth playing crappy games to keep him around.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-10, 04:40 PM
Just to clarify, if he leaves how likely is the other sorta-friend to leave, and if both do will it kill your gaming group? Usually losing a player or two is fixable, but I know there are sometimes exceptional circumstances.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 04:40 PM
That's not to say that fudging doesn't happen in my games, but I refuse to fudge my rolls as DM in order to make an encounter more challenging. If you aren't willing to let your PCs kill it, even easily, than *don't* let your PCs touch it.
Fine if that's your cup of tea, but not all DMs will know everything a player could try. A climatic final boss ending battle ending in a single round because your BBEG is immune to everything... except lime soaked red socks leads to bad storytelling. That's just how I think, though I also dislike fudging. Story > sticking with the rules, IMHO.
Anecdotal evidence follows. My players hit a ghost wizard, final encounter in a sidequest, with a disjuction weapon... and he fails the save. On the surprise round. I just rolled with it. Then, my player were fighting a vampire overlord and attacked with a disjunction weapon in the surprise rounds again. This time, I roll a natural 1 on the save. But this guy - this was the boss of an entire story arc. His tactics were made so as to make combat fun for everyone - all players would have their chace to shine eventually. I had to think very hard - should I fudge the die roll? Should I not? I then remembered he had concealment and asked the players what they thought was best - to roll the miss chance and to have a chance for an epic battle or to end thinks how they were. After like an hour or arguing, we decided on not doing the battle because it was already pretty late.

BeholderSlayer
2010-12-10, 04:53 PM
Just to clarify, if he leaves how likely is the other sorta-friend to leave, and if both do will it kill your gaming group? Usually losing a player or two is fixable, but I know there are sometimes exceptional circumstances.

I'm not sure how likely it is, to be honest. They ride together often to the games, but really only live a couple blocks away at most.

It really wouldn't kill the group at all. Myself and my two close friends have a ton of fun even when it's just us. They share control of the entire party. Things actually tend to roll along a little quicker, and they are much more emotionally involved in every situation than the others. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's a lot more fun when the players high-five and cheer about success, and feel the fear and pain when they fail.

Godskook
2010-12-10, 05:01 PM
Fine if that's your cup of tea, but not all DMs will know everything a player could try. A climatic final boss ending battle ending in a single round because your BBEG is immune to everything... except lime soaked red socks leads to bad storytelling. That's just how I think, though I also dislike fudging.

Than, imho, its on the DM to learn the system and his players better, so that he can better anticipate their behavior. Also, you're no longer "playing a game" if the DM is writing results that can't be affected by your actions. In such moments, he should do what video games do, and call "cutscene". I had a fellow player do that to me in a oWoD LARP, where he cutscened my "entering the sept" fight, and probably giving me a better reputation for the fight than if I had tried to chop the combat out.


Story > sticking with the rules, IMHO.

See, *who's* story are you talking about? D&D, to me, is about collaborative story-telling, not a DM telling the players a story.


Anecdotal evidence follows.

1.You didn't 'fudge' a roll in that anecdote. Hell, you didn't even make the decision "as a DM". The *group* made that decision, which is a whole different ballpark than what I thought we're talking about.

2.In the end, you followed the dice rolled, but you had a chance to save your BBEG by RAW by claiming the concealment roll he had a right to.

3.I'm not familiar with disjunction weapons, but it sounds similar to if they're spell-storing weapons with disjunction in them. And that sounds incredibly overpowered/high-powered.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-10, 05:01 PM
I'm not sure how likely it is, to be honest. They ride together often to the games, but really only live a couple blocks away at most.

It really wouldn't kill the group at all. Myself and my two close friends have a ton of fun even when it's just us. They share control of the entire party. Things actually tend to roll along a little quicker, and they are much more emotionally involved in every situation than the others. As I'm sure everyone knows, it's a lot more fun when the players high-five and cheer about success, and feel the fear and pain when they fail.

Then I don't think you've got a major problem. In the long run, giving in to him isn't even good for him. Regardless, the wellbeing of the group is your concern, not the wellbeing of one of its players, and if you did give him his way again, it sounds as if the group as a whole would suffer.

One other question, though--do you think he might enjoy play more with an optimized BSF instead of a skillmonkey?

BeholderSlayer
2010-12-10, 05:05 PM
Then I don't think you've got a major problem. In the long run, giving in to him isn't even good for him. Regardless, the wellbeing of the group is your concern, not the wellbeing of one of its players, and if you did give him his way again, it sounds as if the group as a whole would suffer.

One other question, though--do you think he might enjoy play more with an optimized BSF instead of a skillmonkey?

Yeah, I agree. I'd just really like to hold the group together if I can. I had already made up my mind that we weren't going to cave in if he pulls the threatening game again. I am mostly looking for ideas.

true_shinken
2010-12-10, 05:11 PM
Than, imho, its on the DM to learn the system and his players better, so that he can better anticipate their behavior.
Not everyone has that much time on their hands. Also... maybe you're playing in a convention. Maybe you are sleepy and forgot that your BBEG should have cast that buff. Hey, it's the lich that has Int 30 - the DM is just an average guy. Should the lich suddenly become just as quick thinking as a sleep deprived geek because the DM is low on caffeine? I could go on and on.



See, *who's* story are you talking about? D&D, to me, is about collaborative story-telling, not a DM telling the players a story.
Exactly. The game gives the DM specific powers to do just that - tune the game to everyone's enjoyment. You will find mentions of dice fudging even within D&D books. Mutants & Masterminds even makes DM fiat a specific part of their gaming system. Even if you changed something so that the fight will last longer, the game is still collaborative. Just because you fudged one dice roll... you're suddenly writing the story alone? I disagree completly.



1.You didn't 'fudge' a roll in that anecdote. Hell, you didn't even make the decision "as a DM". The *group* made that decision, which is a whole different ballpark than what I thought we're talking about.
No I didn't, but I could have. On another more fitting anecdote, I once forgot to roll for a villain's HP. So I just gave him full HP for his HD to make it easier for me. When it proved too hard on the players, I just waited for the next attack and said he was dead.


2.In the end, you followed the dice rolled, but you had a chance to save your BBEG by RAW by claiming the concealment roll he had a right to.
That's the thing. A DM doesn't need RAW. A DM can do anything. I could just say 'on, he didn't die' and no one would know a thing. Maybe he had Steadfast Determination. Maybe he had Spell Immunity: Disjunction (wait a second, I don't think that words). Yeah, RAW was on my side. That doesn't matter in the long run.


3.I'm not familiar with disjunction weapons, but it sounds similar to if they're spell-storing weapons with disjunction in them. And that sounds incredibly overpowered/high-powered.
That's just a weapon that someone cast disjunction on, really. Happened in oots even.
...oh wait a second, I said disjunction? It's not that, it's the undead killing thing. Disruption. Yeah, I guess that's it. Damn PHB in Portuguese.:smalltongue:

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-10, 05:21 PM
Probably the best way is to not make a big deal about it. Don't rise to any drama, or bat an eyelid. Don't tell him to get lost, but don't beg him to stay. If people want to play Shadowrun, play shadowrun. If they don't, don't.

If he stays he's welcome, if he goes it's his choice and you'll see him around. :smallsmile:

Jornophelanthas
2010-12-10, 06:40 PM
Probably the best way is to not make a big deal about it. Don't rise to any drama, or bat an eyelid. Don't tell him to get lost, but don't beg him to stay. If people want to play Shadowrun, play shadowrun. If they don't, don't.


That's why I suggested to head him off by talking to him before he decides to move forward with his ultimatum. It means you have the momentum and can try to resolve this without drama. Because if the ultimatum gets issued, you will likely have drama.