Possible Problem Player Character (My Players, Keep Away)

[Alaris]

MY PLAYERS STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD, PLEASE.

I am currently running a 3.5 game in a Homebrewed world, and the party I am DMing for has a weird dynamic. Honestly, it's one that I see will come to a problem sooner, rather than later.

Essentially, most of the party is either Chaotic or Lawful GOOD, sans for the one player that I believe may be a problem.

He is playing a Neutral (Evil Tendencies) Duskblade. Unfortunately, he has the traits (rolled randomly at his discretion) HARSH and COWARDLY.

Both this player, and the "party leader" (NG Bard) have come to arguments several times, where the Duskblade has more or less said that she could kill the leader if she really wanted to (underlying threat).

Several times, the Duskblade player uses his cowardly trait as an excuse to not help the party. Most notably, last session he stayed back a temple while the rest of the party attempted to save an entire city. I gave that player an NPC to play, because otherwise he would have just sat there for several hours.

He's been playing this character for almost 14 sessions (1-2 times per month, long sessions), and I believe things have only gotten worse in that sense. I don't want to deal with the player using the cowardly trait constantly as an excuse to not help the party they're supposed to be part of. Hell, he refuses to "officially join the party," instead opting to help when the player feels like it.

The other players have commented to me that the "problem player's" character is a bitch, but otherwise have not asked me to do anything. I don't want to tell the person how to play their character, but I believe sooner or later, it's going to end with Player Vs. Player, and several characters are going to die. A Duskblade won't have much problem killing most of the party if it tries.

Honestly, I'm asking for recommendations. I don't want to screw over anyone... but I don't foresee this ending well, and I think it will start to grate on the nerves of the players who ARE actually working together.

Thank you in advance.

EDIT: I have to note that this player in particular has made it a point, in the past, to play characters that will literally TRY to not be part of the party. For some reason, he doesn't want to try to work with parties.

[HalfDragonCube]

If they don't want to work in a party, then what the heck are they doing playing D&D?

Stop giving him NPCs to play, just tell them to either use their character or not do anything.

[Alaris]

If they don't want to work in a party, then what the heck are they doing playing D&D?

Stop giving him NPCs to play, just tell them to either use their character or not do anything.

Well, I gave him the NPC to play once. And it was essentially a former character that was near the location enough for me to let him play it.

He's also one of my best friends, so I don't exactly want him to be sitting out doing nothing... but honestly, I'm debating if I should be talking to him in regards to it. However, I feel he'll just pull up the "my character is a coward, this is how s/he would act."

[Hawk7915]

EDIT: I have to note that this player in particular has made it a point, in the past, to play characters that will literally TRY to not be part of the party. For some reason, he doesn't want to try to work with parties.

This seems to be the most incriminating statement here. If this a tendency he has with every character and the random cowardly trait just "turns it up to 11", than it is not your responsibility to give him opportunities to play. He doesn't want to play. I'd run a session with him doing nothing for 4+ hours and afterwards see how he feels about it. Does he want to work on ways for a character to be more involved? Or does he not care? I have a lot of very close friends I'd never invite to a D&D table and that's totally okay.

[Machinekng]

Your player seems to be one of those people who believe that traits/alignment determine actions. It's the other way around.

A few ways to deal with this.

1. Talk to this player out of game. Make him understand that this trait is ruining the party dynamic. Allow him to remove the trait if he wants to. Call it character development.

2. Force his character into a position in which acting like he has would severly impede his character's personal goals. Allow him to act against his trait, and possibly remove it. Call it character development.

3. Have the BBEG send an assassain to attack the character while the rest of the party is away. This should get the player invovled with the plot. If he still has problems with acting against the trait, refer to 1.

4. If all else fails, have the BBEG kill him to show the rest of the party how evil he is. Allow the player to play the duskblades less cowardly brother who happen to stumble upon the party to witness the act.

[HalfDragonCube]

Well, I gave him the NPC to play once. And it was essentially a former character that was near the location enough for me to let him play it.

He's also one of my best friends, so I don't exactly want him to be sitting out doing nothing... but honestly, I'm debating if I should be talking to him in regards to it. However, I feel he'll just pull up the "my character is a coward, this is how s/he would act."

Still, since they seem to have no problem with sitting out then just let them. If they find that they get bored, then they should have thought of that before going over the top with character flaws. It is perfectly possible to manage Rp-ing it without screwing with everything else.

Alternatively, ask him why he is doing this, because chances are there is an OOC reason.

[Alaris]

Still, since they seem to have no problem with sitting out then just let them. If they find that they get bored, then they should have thought of that before going over the top with character flaws. It is perfectly possible to manage Rp-ing it without screwing with everything else.

Alternatively, ask him why he is doing this, because chances are there is an OOC reason.

Yeah... those are just flaws that don't mix well together.

When she's not being a coward, she's being a total bitch to everyone in the party.

And

When she's not being a total bitch, she's being a coward and not helping the party.


This seems to be the most incriminating statement here. If this a tendency he has with every character and the random cowardly trait just "turns it up to 11", than it is not your responsibility to give him opportunities to play. He doesn't want to play. I'd run a session with him doing nothing for 4+ hours and afterwards see how he feels about it. Does he want to work on ways for a character to be more involved? Or does he not care? I have a lot of very close friends I'd never invite to a D&D table and that's totally okay.

As far as I can tell, he does infact enjoy D&D... he just has made a habit with several of his characters to try to not work with the party. EXAMPLES:

1. A wild elf who did not know the languages of the party, and occasionally helped them from afar, but never actually directly.
2. A scout who was essentially a loner. Rarely listened to the party leader.


Your player seems to be one of those people who believe that traits/alignment determine actions. It's the other way around.

A few ways to deal with this.

1. Talk to this player out of game. Make him understand that this trait is ruining the party dynamic. Allow him to remove the trait if he wants to. Call it character development.

2. Force his character into a position in which acting like he has would severly impede his character's personal goals. Allow him to act against his trait, and possibly remove it. Call it character development.

3. Have the BBEG send an assassain to attack the character while the rest of the party is away. This should get the player invovled with the plot. If he still has problems with acting against the trait, refer to 1.

4. If all else fails, have the BBEG kill him to show the rest of the party how evil he is. Allow the player to play the duskblades less cowardly brother who happen to stumble upon the party to witness the act.

Yeah, I believe I'm going to have to talk to him.

I have done so a little bit already. Currently, he doesn't plan to help the party with their current quest (Helping rebuild the city, finding those responsible, etc) because "This isn't her fight, not her problem."

My next session is coming up on this Saturday... think I'm going to see how it goes... and if the player literally avoids the plot like the plague... then I'm going to have to be more blunt about it, and tell him that he's really hurting the party dynamic by not working with them.

[Everest]

He's also one of my best friends, so I don't exactly want him to be sitting out doing nothing... but honestly, I'm debating if I should be talking to him in regards to it. However, I feel he'll just pull up the "my character is a coward, this is how s/he would act."

Best friend, nothing. I had a best friend in my D&D group once. He was a horrible, horrible player. I didn't have the chutzpah to kick him out nearly as soon as I should have, and in fact he was driven to quit after me and the other players ganged up on his creepy PC in a PvP (which was kinda deliberate, on my part, to be honest).

Best friends can do stuff together besides play roleplaying games. And if he's not suited for it, he should be told to leave. I regret not doing that when I had the chance.

Blah blah anecdotal evidence blah. But the point stands.

[Alaris]

Best friend, nothing. I had a best friend in my D&D group once. He was a horrible, horrible player. I didn't have the chutzpah to kick him out nearly as soon as I should have, and in fact he was driven to quit after me and the other players ganged up on his creepy PC in a PvP (which was kinda deliberate, on my part, to be honest).

Best friends can do stuff together besides play roleplaying games. And if he's not suited for it, he should be told to leave. I regret not doing that when I had the chance.

Blah blah anecdotal evidence blah. But the point stands.

On the opposite end, the player has played characters that work and mesh SO WELL with the party.

1. A Chaotic Good Cleric of Apollo, who was literally the epitome of GOOD within the party, and held the party together.

2. A Monk, party leader, and keeping everyone in line.

3. A Paladin.

It's just... every once in a while, this kind of character creeps up. Last time was last year, with the scout who didn't listen to the party leader, and was a loner.

Like a year or so before that, it was the Wild Elf.

[Everest]

So what I would suggest is that you tell him to make more of those good characters and refrain from making ones that aren't conducive to teamwork. If he knows how D&D is supposed to be, and can make team players, I can't grasp why he would make a character who is the opposite of that.

[Alaris]

So what I would suggest is that you tell him to make more of those good characters and refrain from making ones that aren't conducive to teamwork. If he knows how D&D is supposed to be, and can make team players, I can't grasp why he would make a character who is the opposite of that.

That's what I'm trying to grasp. I mean, when we talked about this character, he mentioned he wanted to play "The neutral character. The one who can do what the goodies can do, but what needs to be done."

Honestly, you can do that without playing a total bitch that doesn't work with the party.

[big teej]

I am currently running a 3.5 game in a Homebrewed world, and the party I am DMing for has a weird dynamic. Honestly, it's one that I see will come to a problem sooner, rather than later.

Essentially, most of the party is either Chaotic or Lawful GOOD, sans for the one player that I believe may be a problem.

He is playing a Neutral (Evil Tendencies) Duskblade. Unfortunately, he has the traits (rolled randomly at his discretion) HARSH and COWARDLY.

Both this player, and the "party leader" (NG Bard) have come to arguments several times, where the Duskblade has more or less said that she could kill the leader if she really wanted to (underlying threat).

Several times, the Duskblade player uses his cowardly trait as an excuse to not help the party. Most notably, last session he stayed back a temple while the rest of the party attempted to save an entire city. I gave that player an NPC to play, because otherwise he would have just sat there for several hours.

He's been playing this character for almost 14 sessions (1-2 times per month, long sessions), and I believe things have only gotten worse in that sense. I don't want to deal with the player using the cowardly trait constantly as an excuse to not help the party they're supposed to be part of. Hell, he refuses to "officially join the party," instead opting to help when the player feels like it.

The other players have commented to me that the "problem player's" character is a bitch, but otherwise have not asked me to do anything. I don't want to tell the person how to play their character, but I believe sooner or later, it's going to end with Player Vs. Player, and several characters are going to die. A Duskblade won't have much problem killing most of the party if it tries.

Honestly, I'm asking for recommendations. I don't want to screw over anyone... but I don't foresee this ending well, and I think it will start to grate on the nerves of the players who ARE actually working together.

Thank you in advance.

EDIT: I have to note that this player in particular has made it a point, in the past, to play characters that will literally TRY to not be part of the party. For some reason, he doesn't want to try to work with parties.

I'd say call him on it.

"dude, team game, play on it."

if I ever encounter this sort of player, I already know how I'm going to react.

every 15 minutes, half hour, or every round of combat, I'll look at the absent character's player and ask "do you leave location x and come to party location y?"

or something to that effect.

the burden of being a part of the group falls on the player.

[Honest Tiefling]

Talk to him about it, and ask why he doesn't enjoy playing with others. Try not to phrase it in a hostile manner, but do make it clear that he does need to work with the group as it is a social game. I wouldn't necessarily do it in front of others.

I am somewhat guessing that he's not fond of obeying orders, as he seems to rebel against the party leader.

[Heatwizard]

Tell him that he can play what he wants, but rule 1 when formulating a character is that there's a minimum degree of party-friendliness(or, at the very least, party-tolerance) you, as DM and the guy what makes the plot, need out of it; and the lone wolf, not-my-problem song and dance doesn't meet this minimum. It just doesn't have a place in your campaign.
You don't have to tell anyone how to enjoy the roller coaster, but you are allowed to put up a "You must be this tall to ride" sign, if you understand my 2 AM metaphorical meaning.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Honestly? He's roleplaying to his character. But, if the rest of the party isn't having fun, he needs to roleplay... I don't want to say less. I want to say differently. Have him consider character development. Ever seen the animes Gurren Lagann, or Eyeshield 21 perhaps? When a coward stops being a coward, it's cool. I am convinced that deep down, everyone wants to be really cool.

What I mean is, suggest it to your problem player. Suggest that they stop being afraid, and become the hero they were destined to be.

A lot of people join roleplaying groups for the freedom. The freedom to be quirky and make strange decisions and not be judged for their actions because in the end it's just a game. But it's not just a game sometimes, weird as that sounds. I remember playing a thief in 2nd edition, my first time ever roleplaying, and trying to make a distraction by setting a couch on fire. This was a dumb idea. But when people told me it was a stupid idea, I got rather defensive about it. I did it anyway. Why? I put a lot of my heart into my character(s). I feel about my characters the same way I feel when I write music. A lot of people here fancy themselves writers, so perhaps you know what I mean when someone writes negatively about something you worked hard on. It feels terrible sometimes, even though feedback is good and really it's nothing personal.

Perhaps your player is this way. If the other players are calling his character a bitch, and he really cares about the way he made his character, he's not going to change his character. He'll be stubborn about it. And remind everyone that his character could eat their characters. I'm not saying this is the problem. It could easily be that he just doesn't really want to be cooperative ever. But it's worth looking into.

[only1doug]

I saw a Link in the Newbie thread to a Players code of conduct (http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/pctips.html).

Print it out and give it to him, e-mail it whatever.


Create a party and game friendly character

Never create a character likely to sit on the sidelines.
<snip>
Define your character character by what they do, not what they don't do. Definately avoid defining your character by failure to act. Other players and the GM can't see your character's deep internal struggle to make a decision; they see your character's actions. Robin Laws has some thoughts on the matter.
<snip>
Avoid "Will not do" lists of things the party will likely do. A pacifist who refuses to let anyone fight is a fascinating character idea, but probably a bad character idea for most D&D games.
Avoid "Will not work with" lists of things the party will likely include. Refusing to speak to wizards is a bad idea in a most D&D games. Refusing to work with vampires is a mistake in Vampire game.
Loners, extreme introverts, isolationists, and general people haters are terrible PCs. They're the extreme of "Will not work with", they "Will not work with anyone." Such characters leave the other players with two options: 1) concoct a bogus in-game reason to include your character, or 2) leave your character behind while they go do stuff.
Avoid heading off on your own. This is a specialization of avoiding being a loner. GM time is at a premium, heading off on your own demands personal GM time, an expensive commidity. When in doubt, stick with the party. Depending on your game, something as simple as "I pop back to our base camp three rooms back" might prove to be problematic if the GM previously decided a hideous monster is waiting at base camp. Suddenly your quick individual trip becomes a serious time sink.

[Alaris]

Okay, well I've worked out something for this coming session to eliminate the cowardly thing almost entirely. It's not going to be forced on the character, but I will tell the player when it happens, that this is their chance to help their character be more party-cohesive, and that they should take it.

While eliminating the cowardly thing won't entirely fix it, it will help the character work WITH the party more often, instead of hiding in fear like she currently does. Seriously... a cheesy Duskblade... hiding in fear. Who's ever heard of that? It can't possibly be fun to play.

Currently, I don't want to enforce a Player Code of Conduct, as it seems a little excessive for this. Now, if it continues to go down this road, and he refuses to change at all, I think it might be something that needs to happen.

@HeatWizard: I do agree that there needs to be a minimum level of, AT THE VERY LEAST, party tolerance... and it's wearing very thin here. The loner bull**** is going to get very old.

Thank you everyone for your advice so far. Session in 3 days. If you have anymore tips, feel free to post them. I think this can be useful for many people with problem players.

[Everest]

Ever seen the animes Gurren Lagann, or Eyeshield 21 perhaps? When a coward stops being a coward, it's cool. I am convinced that deep down, everyone wants to be really cool.

To go even the next step further, characters can still be cool while being cowardly. They don't even necessarily have to stop being a coward.

For an anime example of that, there's Usopp, from One Piece. A lot of the stuff that the Straw Hat crew faces scares him out of his pants (quite understandably), but he can usually ignore that fear long enough to commit deeds just as heroic as those of anyone else in the crew.

[LaughingRogue]

It is possible to play the neutral character, who is a shady person --- who may not get along with every party member and occasionally does an action that the party members don't agree with and still have a good session and be part of the team

Being a member of the team does not mean you always agree with them or get along with them --- as long as people aren't coming to fists about this or it's bothering people to the point of ruining the game , then i don't see why a person cannot play a character who doesn't agree with the rest of the party...

maybe it's just me but I've never been in a game of d&d where everyone agreed on every action that everyone made...

I also don't want to play in a game where everyone gets along and hugs and tells everyone how much they love each other's characters ... here I go being a cynic again...


As a side note, i've run entire games as a DM dedicated to trying to drive the PCs against each other and tempt them into secretly betraying the group --- and in each of these games i've had a member of the party go for it and i've ran with it and had very successful games that everyone enjoyed and asked me to make more games in the future

D&D doesn't always need to be about teamwork teamwork teamwork --- at least i don't believe so.


Though there does, I admit need to be some tolerance --- you can't disagree with every decision and act like a moron each time you're overruled of course.

[Acanous]

Alternatively, since this player is demonstratably capable of playing party-friendly, give the cowardly, harsh PC a reason to work with the party. Have her brother kidnapped by the BBEG. Maybe her romantic intrest stood up to the evil empire and was imprisoned. Parents were accused of heresey and taken by the church.
Something to align her goals to the goals of the rest of the PCs, in a personal way. Then the PC will need the party, not the other way around. That's how you get self-entitled Neutral or Evil characters to play ball.

[Alaris]

It is possible to play the neutral character, who is a shady person --- who may not get along with every party member and occasionally does an action that the party members don't agree with and still have a good session and be part of the team

Being a member of the team does not mean you always agree with them or get along with them --- as long as people aren't coming to fists about this or it's bothering people to the point of ruining the game , then i don't see why a person cannot play a character who doesn't agree with the rest of the party...

maybe it's just me but I've never been in a game of d&d where everyone agreed on every action that everyone made...

I also don't want to play in a game where everyone gets along and hugs and tells everyone how much they love each other's characters ... here I go being a cynic again...


As a side note, i've run entire games as a DM dedicated to trying to drive the PCs against each other and tempt them into secretly betraying the group --- and in each of these games i've had a member of the party go for it and i've ran with it and had very successful games that everyone enjoyed and asked me to make more games in the future

D&D doesn't always need to be about teamwork teamwork teamwork --- at least i don't believe so.


Though there does, I admit need to be some tolerance --- you can't disagree with every decision and act like a moron each time you're overruled of course.

By no means do I want the party to be all hugs & care bears. That wouldn't be fun.

However, it would be nice if the player in question would actually participate sometimes, instead of using cowardly as an excuse, or "it's not my problem" as an excuse. Yes, she's neutral. I get it. That doesn't mean she can't work with the party.

@Acanous: I actually HAVE managed to link her to the main plot, in regards to the BBEG, and she has infact stated that she will help the party. Several sessions ago. But in regards to ANYTHING that is not directly related to that BBEG, she generally doesn't care. (Dragon stole the child of another PC, the rest of them want to go deal with it, this PC wants nothing to do with it).

I feel like I can't throw any side-quests at the party, for fear of the one PC just sitting out, and I'd feel like crap in regards to it.

---Though... I have been debating trying to give that PC a sidequest in regards to her plot... but I have a feeling she would go off and try to do it on her own, and get killed.

[Everest]

It is possible to play the neutral character, who is a shady person --- who may not get along with every party member and occasionally does an action that the party members don't agree with and still have a good session and be part of the team

Being a member of the team does not mean you always agree with them or get along with them --- as long as people aren't coming to fists about this or it's bothering people to the point of ruining the game , then i don't see why a person cannot play a character who doesn't agree with the rest of the party...


This is most agreeable. Ultimately, it's the difference between the party member who conflicts with the group because they have a different idea than him about what's best for the party, and the one who conflicts with the group because he doesn't want to be in a team. The former should be encouraged by every DM, while the latter can be problematic.

If teamwork is important to the party as a whole, as is normal in D&D (though certainly not mandatory), every player in the team needs to respect that.

[Honest Tiefling]

On the one hand, if a PC chases after their own plot after alienating themselves from allies and dies horribly for it, well, those two things might be connected. I would not do it, for two reasons.

First, the player might be encouraged to make more loners and continue to send them on solo meat grinder missions rather then work with the party. People can be stubborn.

Secondly, I do not advocate doing anything such as ignoring the PC if they choose not to play the game, (Also known as, work with the other players and pay attention to the plot) or killing them if they go out on their own when it is a bad idea. I think it is best to resolve this issue OoCly, as root of the problem is not the lack of roleplaying, but the lack of roleplaying with other players. You know your friend the best, so you should consider what tactics would be best for this situation, of course.

[Keld Denar]

A "character" can not be a jerk without the player himself being a jerk. He doesn't HAVE to RP her that way. Sounds like a problem with a player, not the character.

"My character is a jerk" is no reason to detract from your own or other people's fun. You aren't a slave to your character, your character is your creation.

[LaughingRogue]

A "character" can not be a jerk without the player himself being a jerk. He doesn't HAVE to RP her that way. Sounds like a problem with a player, not the character.

"My character is a jerk" is no reason to detract from your own or other people's fun. You aren't a slave to your character, your character is your creation.


This is saying that this does indeed detract from people's fun --- Disagreements will happen and people will have different views and actions will be made accordingly --- I don't agree that characters having opposing views and disagreeing with others actions and making other actions that the group may disagree with necessarily makes you a jerk or detracts from the fun of the group or of the players own fun

Also as the OP said the players only said that the player can be a handful (not the word he used) --- but they did not ask him to say anything or hint that they wanted him to say anything to the player...leading me to the conclusion that the player is not THAT big of a problem or a problem at all

whenever I play with a lawful stupid paladin, I don't say the the player is detracting from the fun of the group or should change the way he plays because I don't agree with him.

[Keld Denar]

Disagreeing with other characters doesn't make you a jerk. Being a jerk makes you a jerk. From what the OP has stated, the character has gone beyond just being antisocial or opinionated, and has crossed solidly into jerk territory.

Being opinionated as a character is not, in and of itself, bad. Expressing those opinions in a way that knowingly causes the character to detract from the other players fun is.

You can be difficult without being a jerk. The player in question seems to have crossed the line.

[Groverfield]

What's happening is he's actually a good RP'er from the sounds of it: but half of the time he's playing what should be an NPC, a sixth-ranger antihero type. What you should try to do before solving it the other way (I think Machinekng had the best way to say it) is try to craft a plan where the character will have to overcome their outsider tendencies, and struggle to become part of the group.

Before I read the part about him playing well meshing characters I had this:
::This is what you tell your players; that they should politely ask, in character that the character leave, then actively try to recruit a replacement character (for the player to play) giving the fellow players a bit of control over not having to have someone disagreeable that threatens them in their party, then explain to the player that purposefully conflicting with the rest of the party creates out-of-game tension, and this is was one method to resolve the situation. Explain that, in character, the duskblade (and the rest of the party) wouldn't be hanging around each other due to their differences. You could also do a side campaign with the duskblade and other evil PCs as to not be neck and neck on idealogical terms, and so the character wouldn't be wasted.::
While that still stands, there might be a greater problem as it stands, I think your friend might prefer playing the leader type or a lone wolf, and if someone else plays the leader type, he doesn't want to listen to others. He might just need a bit of a "Give everyone their moment to shine" kind of lecture.

[Almaseti]

Character doesn't contribute = character gets no xp. Seems like an obvious consequence.

[Honest Tiefling]

While logical, I worry that the next step will be: character gets no EXP = Lots of whining and drama.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Obviously you meant to call this thread "Possible Problem Player Persona". :smallwink:

[Crow]

Character doesn't take part in the adventure, character doesn't get experience for the adventure. Here's your 100 roleplaying xp, have a nice day.

[Groverfield]

While accurate to what the DMG suggests, Crow, this means that you can literally become more proficient at arms and magics by brooding in the corner all day. I'd say he'd need to be both Roleplaying and Participating to earn RP exp.

[Alaris]

Well, he'll get Roleplay XP if he, you know, actually roleplays. And not just broods in a corner doing nothing for the session. It's called character development... she needs to get some...

As the DM, it's my job to make sure everyone has fun. That includes him, and that includes me. Out of all the games he plays in (2 other RL games), he claims he has a lot of fun in mine. I have no clue HOW he's having fun, practically being completely opposed to the group.

I agree with withholding XP if he doesn't participate. It makes sense, but I don't think he'll notice as much.

@Groverfield: I wish I could set up such a scenario. The player is stubborn. He's not going to want to become part of the group, as you would think it. He wants this character to maintain outsider status... and I just have a headache over all of this.

What I call this particular type of character is a "Neutral Stupid" character. They generally just don't care about the going ons around them, and look out for themselves, not bothering to lift a finger to do anything if they can help it.

It's kind of the opposite of "Lawful Stupid," who will run into any situation, waving his sword around claiming he's doing the "paladin thing."

Yeah...

[NecroRick]

Looks to me like the _real_ problem here is the role of party leader.

Back when the movie aliens came out there was an RPG based on it where you played as a member of the colonial marines, but while it was (allegedly) a very cool game, very few people wanted to play it. Why? Because basically one person (whoever has the highest rank) gets to order the rest of the party around.

The first clue is the elf he was playing who was basically an NPC - for a moment I thought "maybe he wants to be DM?".

But the second clue is that he works as a brilliant team player when he is the leader.

Have you thought about the way that you interact with the party? For instance does most (or some) of the interaction with NPCs go to the team leader simply because they are the team leader?

Have you thought about the interaction of the players as part of the team? How do they elect the leader? Obviously it moves around a lot. Is it simply the one with the highest charisma? Do they take a vote? Does everyone take turns?

What about the current leadership style of the leader? Are they (essentially) handing out orders to other players? Could the problem player simply be rebelling against a particularly dictatorial leadership style?

[Alaris]

Looks to me like the _real_ problem here is the role of party leader.

Back when the movie aliens came out there was an RPG based on it where you played as a member of the colonial marines, but while it was (allegedly) a very cool game, very few people wanted to play it. Why? Because basically one person (whoever has the highest rank) gets to order the rest of the party around.

The first clue is the elf he was playing who was basically an NPC - for a moment I thought "maybe he wants to be DM?".

But the second clue is that he works as a brilliant team player when he is the leader.

Have you thought about the way that you interact with the party? For instance does most (or some) of the interaction with NPCs go to the team leader simply because they are the team leader?

Have you thought about the interaction of the players as part of the team? How do they elect the leader? Obviously it moves around a lot. Is it simply the one with the highest charisma? Do they take a vote? Does everyone take turns?

What about the current leadership style of the leader? Are they (essentially) handing out orders to other players? Could the problem player simply be rebelling against a particularly dictatorial leadership style?

I love your post. I really do. It will let me go into more detail about their wonderful "Party Leader."

I think I may have made a post about it, but their party leader is an Aasimar Bard, with the trait "Leader (Obsessive)." Oh... now you'd think, "Wow, this should make for a good party leader."

Oh, how I wish it did. I feel bad, because the character SHOULD infact be a capable party leader, but I think the player playing her needs to learn a thing or two.

Regardless, generally, the party is interacted with as a whole. However, the problem player uses his cowardice, or harshness to not deal with the NPCs if possible. She will usually hide behind an NPC (her best friend), or something to that extent.

The players generally (in the past) have decided on their party leader either out of game (based on what PC wants to be party leader, and let me tell you... it's rare that one WANTS to lead), or they take a vote in-game.

What really shocked me was a game I had played in (with this player), where we voted in-game. And we ended up with an NPC party leader. But that is neither here, nor there really.

And yes, the current party leader generally hands out orders. She isn't the most tactical of party leaders, nor the most sympathizing, though honestly, I'm not much of a party leader, so I'm not sure what would work for her.

The two have butt head on more than one occasion in regards to the party leader giving the Elf Duskblade orders. "Go distract the mage." "**** off." Eventually it's going to get them all killed.

And I don't think they deserve that.

[Gnaeus]

Both this player, and the "party leader" (NG Bard) have come to arguments several times, where the Duskblade has more or less said that she could kill the leader if she really wanted to (underlying threat).

The other players have commented to me that the "problem player's" character is a bitch, but otherwise have not asked me to do anything. I don't want to tell the person how to play their character, but I believe sooner or later, it's going to end with Player Vs. Player, and several characters are going to die. A Duskblade won't have much problem killing most of the party if it tries..

I'm sorry, because it isn't exactly on point, but what are the other PCs playing that a duskblade can kill most of them? A bard and a duskblade are pretty close in power, but the bard should be way ahead if he is buffing a party of allies and the duskblade is alone. From what I have seen, a duskblade isn't any more powerful than any other reasonably well built melee. Perhaps a little easier to optimise, perhaps a little more flexible, but nothing that should allow him to own multiple similar level pcs at the same time.

[Alaris]

I'm sorry, because it isn't exactly on point, but what are the other PCs playing that a duskblade can kill most of them? A bard and a duskblade are pretty close in power, but the bard should be way ahead if he is buffing a party of allies and the duskblade is alone. From what I have seen, a duskblade isn't any more powerful than any other reasonably well built melee. Perhaps a little easier to optimise, perhaps a little more flexible, but nothing that should allow him to own multiple similar level pcs at the same time.

Good question, I can help here. I'll discount NPCs in the party, because they aren't guarenteed to help the other PC side. What they have is:

THE PCs:
-Aasimar Bard 7
-Aasimar Monk 2/Favored Soul 5
-Dwarf Rogue 2/Fighter 2/Barbarian 2/Paladin 2 (IT HURTS MY BRAIN!)

And...

THE OTHER PC:
-Wild Elf Duskblade 8 (With a Custom Template, due to heritage... didn't do much, other than that her strength is essentially 18 or 20 most of the time).

Now, to put this into perspective... during almost every encounter this campaign, the Aasimar Bard has dropped... into negatives. Almost every encounter. One swift Blade of Blood + Shocking Grasp + Great Club would amount to 1d10+7+3d6+5d6 (electric) damage. Would likely drop the bard first round.

Now... the other two would have a better chance... but the Monk/Favored Soul build just isn't that effective (Sorry), and the Gish... has been effective in the past, but recently lost access to an artifact that was allowing her to be constantly large.

So yeah...

[only1doug]

I love your post. I really do. It will let me go into more detail about their wonderful "Party Leader."

I think I may have made a post about it, but their party leader is an Aasimar Bard, with the trait "Leader (Obsessive)." Oh... now you'd think, "Wow, this should make for a good party leader."

Oh, how I wish it did. I feel bad, because the character SHOULD infact be a capable party leader, but I think the player playing her needs to learn a thing or two.

Regardless, generally, the party is interacted with as a whole. However, the problem player uses his cowardice, or harshness to not deal with the NPCs if possible. She will usually hide behind an NPC (her best friend), or something to that extent.

The players generally (in the past) have decided on their party leader either out of game (based on what PC wants to be party leader, and let me tell you... it's rare that one WANTS to lead), or they take a vote in-game.

What really shocked me was a game I had played in (with this player), where we voted in-game. And we ended up with an NPC party leader. But that is neither here, nor there really.

And yes, the current party leader generally hands out orders. She isn't the most tactical of party leaders, nor the most sympathizing, though honestly, I'm not much of a party leader, so I'm not sure what would work for her.

The two have butt head on more than one occasion in regards to the party leader giving the Elf Duskblade orders. "Go distract the mage." "**** off." Eventually it's going to get them all killed.

And I don't think they deserve that.

I'm not sure if you've considered this but...

You say that the current Party Leader issues combat instructions but isn't particularly good at tactical thought and that this is the issue that the duskblade take umbridge at....

Perhaps the person you need to discuss things with is the Party Leader's Player.
Suggest that (s)he implements a policy of spreading the decisions by area of competance, in a combat situation the duskblade would be responsible for formulating tactics, when dealing with traps the rogue is in charge, when magic is the issue the wizard takes the lead. The Party leader is still formulating strategy and makes long range plans but when time is short and no discussion is possible then the decisions fall to the party member who is the expert in that particular field.

[Gnaeus]

Good question, I can help here.

THE PCs:...

So yeah...

So, the problem is compounded by the fact that the bard has a glass jaw and the monk is woefully unoptimized (redundant statement is redundant).

Suggestion 1. The 2 weakest characters in the group are limping around with level adjustment. If you haven't already, allow LA buyoff (Unearthed arcana). Then, a few adventures should put them at the same level as the others, which will increase Favored Soul's usefulness, and Bard's survivability.

Suggestion 2. When statting up enemies for the next level or two, give them some magic items which coincidentally fix some of the bard/favored soul's problems. Like a + con or + temporary HP or miss chance item that the bard could use, or a + wisdom or charisma item or bracers of armor for the monk.

Third note. If the bard has low con, I can see how the duskblade could drop him (although probably not kill him) in one shot. Whether he could then win a fight against the dwarf and the monk is highly questionable. Seeing as how he is such a coward, he would open himself up for likely death or dismemberment why?