PDA

View Full Version : PC clash



The 8th Sin
2007-01-27, 08:30 AM
I don't know if this thread has already been done, but I need advice on how to deal with some unruly PCs. I've only been DMing this campaign for 3 weeks now, and already two of my group members are clashing. One is quite stubborn and more than a little munchkiny. Let refer to him as Bob. The other is highly critical and annoyed by munchkins. Let's call him Job. The problem started because Bob chose Dread Necromancer as his base class and I said that I would prefer less cheap and more basic classes. Job starts insulting Bob and Bob gets pissed and asks if we want him to leave the group. Bob refuses to switch his class because he doesn't like any other classes. The class problem is basically solved, but I still need advice on how to stop them from fighting.

Zincorium
2007-01-27, 08:35 AM
Not going to happen as long as one person cares about the trappings of the game more than actually playing it, and it seems both are at fault.

What gives Job the right to critique Bob's character? Mutual consent? Status as a DM or other rules arbiter? Either of those would be legitimate, but it looks like Job is just trying to stick his nose where it isn't welcome.

Why is playing an optional class so utterly important to Bob? Does he really need those special abilities to play the character he wants? Is the game unable to continue if he plays something else? Bob is more than entitled to anything the DM approves, but if he knew Job wouldn't like it, he's baiting the tiger.

From what I can see, tell them both to grow up and have fun.

J-man
2007-01-27, 08:45 AM
I wonder, what's so munchkinworthy about Bob's poor dread necro. A buddy of mine has played one in a campaing I'm in... no profane brokenness detected, and yes, he had Tomb tainted soul and evil minion of undead. It's so wrong that there's actually a base class that you want to stay in for whole 20 levels *gasp* ... that seven fold cheese wizard must really be emotionally hurt because the other guy did not have to dip into a prestige class.

PinkysBrain
2007-01-27, 08:58 AM
So basically you weren't clear enough about source choice and the type of the game up front, someone came up with a character you didn't like, you told him off in front of the group, he was insulted and dug his heels in, someone else felt emboldened by the fact you told him off and decided to join in.

Don't let them argue out of game during the game, use your authority, and let time heal the wounds ... next time be clearer about allowed sources up front and be a little more diplomatic.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-27, 09:08 AM
I agree that it's not any of Job's business. But knowing in the future that there's a tension there, you may want to go to Bob separately if you have anything to discuss with him. If there's some problem with Bob's character later, you might want to wait until a break or after the game and see Bob by himself to tell him "Look, I'd rather you didn't do this," or "Hey, this is causing a bit of an issue." Job being there and attacking Bob may be making him more hostile; he might be more cooperative if it were just you approaching him.

And, well, if it were me, I'd tell Job to ease up if he keeps trying to jump on Bob during the session. It isn't any of his business and it's not helping anyone. Tell him to stop, calm down, and just play the game.

illyrus
2007-01-27, 09:30 AM
I guess I have 2 answers to this depending upon the answer to the following:

1. Are they actually good friends outside of the game?
2. Are they not good friends outside of the game?

I've seen some good friends have plenty of arguments like this inside the game. In fact the most pissed off I've seen people become in D&D is when they're good friends arguing. If this is the case then I would try to step in and delay the argument by saying something along the lines of "Hey guys guys, you can argue about this point outside of the game, please, let's move on." Give them a chance to retort if needed, and if they don't say "thanks for understanding".

If they're not good friends, I'd try to end it with "Guys, no matter how much you argue, you're not going to get experience from defeating the other person in a verbal debate, let's just play the game and drop it." Then immediately go on with the game. The goal of this approach is that they'll either A) stop arguing or B) team up against you one day, then stop arguing after that.

Of course depending upon their personalities, it may be a bad thing to say. I've found that just listening to people and watching their body language helps you make calls on how to avoid and end arguments with them.

Matthew
2007-01-27, 08:38 PM
I would say it definitely comes down to that. I these guys don't get on outside the game, there's no way they will within it. If they are friends outside, then I am sure this can be solved by simply discussing it with them.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-28, 01:09 AM
Point blank: PvP duel to the Death. Loser has to quit complaining. Since Bob's the munchkin, it will likely be Job that loses. Then award roleplaying xp through the campaign. Both will hopefully get the message in the end.

If that doesn't work, have a point blank PvP duel to the death in RL. :smallamused:

TheOOB
2007-01-28, 01:23 AM
Well, I've always had a rule about characters in a D&D game, all the characters must be made so that they can get along as a group, if one person is causing problums, make them change their characters.

Now problums with people are more difficult. If they arn't good friends and can't work it out themselves, don't try to force them, it's not the DMs job to play middleman in a argument. If you must pick one of them, pick the one who a closer friend to you, not the one who has the better char.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-28, 02:00 AM
Illyrus has made some good points, there.


Now problums with people are more difficult. If they arn't good friends and can't work it out themselves, don't try to force them, it's not the DMs job to play middleman in a argument. If you must pick one of them, pick the one who a closer friend to you, not the one who has the better char.

I disagree. As a DM your job is not to stick with your friends, but to create a fair and enjoyable game. Note the word fair. First off, obviously, you should do everything in your power not to turn it into an argument. If there's an issue discuss it individually and out-of-game. While you're playing, I'd go with what illyrus said and just ask them to keep it out of the session time.

But secondly, don't just side with your best friend. If your best friend is causing a problem, it should be him that you take to the side after the game, asking him to stop. If you always side with your better friend, that creates a very hostile situation for those who don't know you as well, who feel like they can't ever express a legitimate concern because you'll just side with the guy you know better.

IMO, it's more important for the DM to be as fair and unbiased as possible, if he's going to hold that position.

clericwithnogod
2007-01-28, 02:52 AM
If you must pick one of them, pick the one who a closer friend to you, not the one who has the better char.

Ugh. If you do this, your other player's are gong to pick up on it and start wondering when your close fiend is going to be able to drop the hammer on their character or idea. As DM, you should do your best to be a neutral arbiter in the game and associated matters. If you're playing with people that you hang out with all the time and DND is just one of the things you do (or you're the only game in town), you might get away with doing something like this - depending on just how popular the player you do it to is. Otherwise, You'll probably end up in a lot of sessions with just you and your close firend.

Bloodred
2007-01-28, 03:17 AM
Just tell them both to grow up!! And if they don't: Hand them each a +5 Binky of Nibbling.:smalltongue:

endersdouble
2007-01-28, 05:32 AM
Well, I've always had a rule about characters in a D&D game, all the characters must be made so that they can get along as a group, if one person is causing problums, make them change their characters.


I hate people who do this. In my experience, some good party strife isn't just not a problem--it's awesome. Plus, it makes no sense. Of course the random four people who came together exactly match up and fit every role and get along perfectly! It's a hell of a lot more fun if you've got no cleric and the Dragon Shaman has to milk everything he can out of Lay on Hands, and the Monk comes *this* close to tackling the Wizard (me) for "recklessly" using magic.

This doesn't mean we have to go at it like ancient enemies, but at the same time, we don't have to be bestest buddies.

Parlik
2007-01-28, 06:49 AM
Sounds more like the players clash rather than the PC's, if it is the players, pull the guy that does the teasin aside and just explain that you are all there to have fun, and to cut the other one some slack.

Not sure if your group is more focused on combat or the RP aspect of the game, both can be enjoyable and fun really, if it is combat it isn't that harder to counter cheesy builds as a GM, since you are in charge of what they run into. Same thing is the case with RP based groups, a class is 'just' a job then, and speaks a little of the interests and personality of said person.

If you want to avoid this kind of thing in the future, just make it clear from the start what sourcebooks you allow the players to pick their class from, and what if any classes you don't allow in your game.

As a sidenote, what exactly can the Dread Necromancer do? Sounds like a wizard specialist variant to me, and you can control those since you are in charge of the spell availability, so unless there is some broken skill abilities I don't know about, I don't see a huge problem.

Matthew
2007-01-28, 10:06 AM
I hate people who do this. In my experience, some good party strife isn't just not a problem--it's awesome. Plus, it makes no sense. Of course the random four people who came together exactly match up and fit every role and get along perfectly! It's a hell of a lot more fun if you've got no cleric and the Dragon Shaman has to milk everything he can out of Lay on Hands, and the Monk comes *this* close to tackling the Wizard (me) for "recklessly" using magic.

This doesn't mean we have to go at it like ancient enemies, but at the same time, we don't have to be bestest buddies.

That's one way of viewing it. Another would be why would a bunch of people who don't get along come together at all, nevermind stay together for any prolonged period? Indeed, that is one of the fundamental problems in D&D groups that have widely disperate character types. I don't think the OOB is advocating no inter party friction, he's attempting to prevent this situation:

Player A: "My Character is Sir Hector, a Lawful Good Human Paladin"
Player B: "My Character is Taelos, a Neutral Good Elven Scout"
Player C: "My Character is Baltar, a Lawful Neutral Human Cleric"
Player D: "My Character is Daelrak a Chaotic Evil Dark Elf Dread Necromancer. What? Why are you guys looking at me like that?"

archmagedrow
2007-01-28, 10:19 AM
situations like that are easily explained. Usually the mission or goal they are set will explain why there is an evil necromancer in the party. IF there was a class problem the DM should have stated at the begining alignment requirements and or which expansions could be used. If such was done then bob should have sucked it up. if not then if you allow pc fighting let it continue ingame only. and make the PC leader deal with it

Matthew
2007-01-28, 11:15 AM
Hardly, they are explainable, but not easily. Also, the Paladin would almost instantly lose his Paladinhood for associating with an Evil Character.

Note that the OOB is talking about stating at the beginning of a campaign that the Characters should be compatable. Indeed, that is the very point I am making.

Jade_Tarem
2007-01-28, 01:42 PM
Well, just a nitpicky thing, but I have always houseruled that the giant interplanar flaming spiked totem pole was removed from Heironeous's arse and as such paladins may associate with evil PC's for the greater good. That aspect of the paladin code never made much sense to me anyway. Do they take an oath about that?

"I pledge that, when facing a choice between working with a lawful evil wizard for a month or letting millions suffer and die at the hands of a much greater evil, I will choose the latter for arbitrarily decided balance issues!"

My other post was more of a joking one, although the first suggestion could work. You could also simply halt the campaign the next time the shinanigans break out, and ask each of them to justify thier position. You'll often find that they've got nothing or have forgotten why they don't like each other. Point out to the complainer that the other guy can make his character how he likes, and that it would be more effective to lead by an example of good roleplaying. Point out to the muchkin that his character seems to be causing problems for the others and that he may want to reroll or tone down the munchkin to roleplaying ratio, at his discretion. If either protests, point out that the rest of the party is behaving more maturely than they are. If that doesn't do the trick, find new players, as these two obviously can't handle the intricate workings of DnD or social interaction, being completely intolerant of compromise as they are.

And as for the "compatable at the beginning" thing... It's unnescessary if your players are good enough. Right now I'm running a campaign with a party of 3 - A human ranger, a dwarven rogue, and a half-orc barbarian. Ranger and Rogue are frequently at odds with one another (the Ranger is CG and the Rogue is LE) and as such argue more often than agree. The barbarian is successfully being played as the kind of "happy idiot" that doesn't get involved in that (actually, he's willing to be manipulated into doing wildly outrageious things that his player knows are bad ideas - good rp right there). The rank disparity between Ranger and Rogue is another sore point. It also hurts that they're relying on the Ranger and his awakened animal companion for healing, and have no arcane casting. Regardless, they work seemlessly in combat and the bickering is pure roleplaying. Rogue is usually kept in check by Ranger (and the times he isn't are pretty funny) and they both handle Barbarian nicely. So I think what the OP is asking about are difficulties with the players themselves.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-28, 02:12 PM
There's an easy solution to this. Bring in two antique pistols every game session, loaded with one bullet each. Explain that if they're going to argue, you want to see it resolved by one of them dying in an honor duel. After everyone has their laugh, suddenly get stone faced and say "I'm not kidding. I want you two to shoot yourselves next time you argue".

Let it sink in for a second in the silence that follows, then begin the game. Every time it sounds like they're about to argue, tap the pistols.

On the down side, they might take it literally, some of the players might not come back, and one of them just might call the police. But they won't argue.

endersdouble
2007-01-28, 03:06 PM
Hardly, they are explainable, but not easily. Also, the Paladin would almost instantly lose his Paladinhood for associating with an Evil Character.

And that's Bob's fault how? To quote Roy, "We're free to choose our own alignment, and we don't have to answer to you just because you'll lose class features if we don't." Evil doesn't mean "rapes puppies at the drop of a pin." It might mean "ruthless" or "self-centered" or "cruel" or any number of things, or, in fact, it might indeed mean puppy-molesting--but it doesn't have to. Three out of the four characters of the party can get along just fine--the scout and the cleric don't have to like Bob's methods, they just have to deal with his deeds, which might be quite reasonable. In my opinion, the paladin is much more responsible for strife there than the dread necro.

endersdouble
2007-01-28, 03:07 PM
There's an easy solution to this. Bring in two antique pistols every game session, loaded with one bullet each. Explain that if they're going to argue, you want to see it resolved by one of them dying in an honor duel. After everyone has their laugh, suddenly get stone faced and say "I'm not kidding. I want you two to shoot yourselves next time you argue".

Let it sink in for a second in the silence that follows, then begin the game. Every time it sounds like they're about to argue, tap the pistols.

On the down side, they might take it literally, some of the players might not come back, and one of them just might call the police. But they won't argue.
I'm assuming you're kidding. If not, please seek serious help. If so, can you stop posting stuff like this in a thread where people are trying to have a real discussion? You're just spamming the damn thread.

An in-character duel could be vaguely interesting, though, actually...but probably would cause more problems than it solves.

Matthew
2007-01-28, 03:25 PM
And that's Bob's fault how? To quote Roy, "We're free to choose our own alignment, and we don't have to answer to you just because you'll lose class features if we don't." Evil doesn't mean "rapes puppies at the drop of a pin." It might mean "ruthless" or "self-centered" or "cruel" or any number of things, or, in fact, it might indeed mean puppy-molesting--but it doesn't have to. Three out of the four characters of the party can get along just fine--the scout and the cleric don't have to like Bob's methods, they just have to deal with his deeds, which might be quite reasonable. In my opinion, the paladin is much more responsible for strife there than the dread necro.

It's nobody's fault. The point is that the DM is trying to avoid this situation arising by saying at the outset, let's build a party that can 'get along'. There's obviously going to be a certain amount of leeway and discussion.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-28, 03:49 PM
Hey, it was a little over the top, but my point is that there isn't really any good way to keep both players from arguing outside of an epiphany from one or both of them. That's mostly outside of the poor DM's control. The best he can do is try to convince them otherwise, which could be simple or impossibly hard depending on their personalities. The problem is that they're both dead serious about their viewpoints and can't take anything in stride.

Diggorian
2007-01-28, 05:11 PM
Seems to me Bob has the right to play whatever he wants that 8th allows, and Job an kick rocks if he cant deal.

Our parties always have some bit PC fricition, which is natural when ya have a diverse group. We leave it in character though. How's Job's PC gonna complain to Bob's PC that he's too munchkiny? :smallwink:

I once had a CG ranger that conflicted with LN necromancer, for obvious reasons. We were questioning some NPC that the necromancer had his skeletal guardian restraining. He kept threatening to tear him apart slowly then raise him as undead, and the NPC kept saying he knew nothing. I told the necro to release the guy; he winked at me like "play along", but I'd seen him do bad stuff before.

When he made his undead start digging into the guy's arm, I flipped my shortsword to grab the blade then handle-bashed the necro across the mouth with subdual. Downed him. Later, we reconciled and he decided to recant his ways and become a cleric (LG).

Much later in the camp, I was in a position to intimidate some bad guy so I told'em I hit someone so hard once their alignment changed. He sensed motive and saw I wasnt bluffing, became Shaken. We all laughed. :smallbiggrin:

Seffbasilisk
2007-01-28, 06:07 PM
ARRRGH!


That said. Muchkins are those who use peoples abscense of knowledge to cheat. Powergamers are those that tweak out thier characters to create extremely strong characters. Min-Maxers are the bastard children of powergamers who powergame in one area at the expense of the others. What Bob seems to be is an OPTIMIZER. Someone who just likes how things fit together. IE a character that plays a Grey Elf Wizard and spends his first 4K (that he can spend on magical items) on a Headband of Intellect +2.

The Necromancer doesn't seem to be causing any issues. If you don't like the class, just don't allow it in the game, but don't do it because Joe doesn't like it. If Joe starts insulting Bob, dock him XP. Each time he tries to pull ****e like that, dock him more. Eventually he'll be quite a few levels below the group and should start to change his ways. Don't make the XP docking beyond the first carry over between characters (so he has a chance), but the first amount you dock from him, make it stay for the next two characters as well. This way he won't be 'Ok. My fighter dies. Here's a barbarian I rolled up.'

It looks to me like Bob chose a class that you think's a little too powerful and Joe decided to butt in and cause trouble. So shut Joe down, and move on.

If Bob had chosen to play a Ninja, would there be this trouble? Would it go in reverse? Would you give him shiny benifits for choosing a weaker class? I think not. So don't slap him down for trying to make a strong character. Slap down Joe for butting in and causing dissention.

The 8th Sin
2007-01-30, 08:23 PM
There seem to be some misunderstandings.
1. This was an out-of-game problem
2. I am not okay with the Dread Necromancer
3. I'm not okay with the Dread Necromancer because technically, it's not a Dread Necromancer. He modified the class to give himself better combat capabilities. (Plus, the dread necromancer is a little bit cheap.)

Also, it came up in the latest meeting that he was of a race I had not sanctioned and he didn't even ask me. Nevertheless, this is beside the point. The problem with the classes are solved. What I want is more advise on how to deal with these problems in the future.

Matthew
2007-01-30, 08:27 PM
It might just be the case that your style of play is not suitable for Bob or that Bob and Job will never get on. You need to have a serious discussion with them both and see if a compromise can be reached. If you cannot all reach an arrangement outside of the game, you don't have much chance in it.

JadedDM
2007-01-30, 08:33 PM
How did Job know what Bob's choice of class was? Did Bob announce it, or did Job take a look at Bob's character sheet?

If it's the latter, I would make it a rule that nobody can see a character sheet but the player and the DM. This is something I do. A player's class, ability scores, and alignment are not revealed until after the character is dead (as in permanently--no chance of raise), retired, or the game has ended.

I used to have a player who was obssessed with knowing what everyone else had rolled. He would mock the people who had lower rolls than him and whine and throw a fit if he saw a player who had better stats than him. It was for everyone's best interest to just make that information as private as you can. This way, Job has little ammo to attack Bob with.

Shazzbaa
2007-01-31, 07:15 AM
Sounds like Bob is trying to get away with stuff. Don't let him get away with stuff, but deal with him personally; don't confront him in front of the rest of the group. Job can't very well butt in if he's not there.

You want Bob in the group, but if he's to play in the group, he must conform to the rules you've laid out. Simple as that. Tell him that things do need to be run by you beforehand.

The anger from Job seemed largely situational, but if he continues to clash with Bob, I still stand by the idea that you basically tell them to save it for later and take it outside.
If this is the case then I would try to step in and delay the argument by saying something along the lines of "Hey guys guys, you can argue about this point outside of the game, please, let's move on." Give them a chance to retort if needed, and if they don't say "thanks for understanding".

If they're not good friends, I'd try to end it with "Guys, no matter how much you argue, you're not going to get experience from defeating the other person in a verbal debate, let's just play the game and drop it." Then immediately go on with the game.

Diggorian
2007-01-31, 10:59 AM
8th, I got confused when you mentioned "some unruly PC's" -- PCs being Player Characters.

Whenever I'm looking for new players I do a one-on-one interview with them to discuss what they expect and I require. Asking what kind of PC they would make for a given game and some of their past experiences in RP is essential. I figure before I volunteer to entertain them for hours on end for free, I've gotta decide if they're worth it.

Tell /bob how things have to be to be in your game. If he cant have fun within the limits you set, oust him.

The 8th Sin
2007-02-01, 03:21 PM
How did Job know what Bob's choice of class was? Did Bob announce it, or did Job take a look at Bob's character sheet?

If it's the latter, I would make it a rule that nobody can see a character sheet but the player and the DM. This is something I do. A player's class, ability scores, and alignment are not revealed until after the character is dead (as in permanently--no chance of raise), retired, or the game has ended.

I used to have a player who was obssessed with knowing what everyone else had rolled. He would mock the people who had lower rolls than him and whine and throw a fit if he saw a player who had better stats than him. It was for everyone's best interest to just make that information as private as you can. This way, Job has little ammo to attack Bob with.

It's a great idea, but won't Job figure out what class Bob is based on what abillities he uses. And if he plays a modified class or one Job is not familiar with, then Job might demand to see it. I wouldn't let him of course, but it would rend apart the game.

JadedDM
2007-02-01, 04:50 PM
Well, it depends on the class. Some classes are quite easy to recognize, like paladin. Some aren't. For instance, someone might not realize easily the difference between a mage, sorcerer, and specialist. (And with the 500+ prestige classes out there, it blurs things even further.)

Likewise, we once had this PC in my game that was a half-elf fighter/thief. But he also played the lute, so everyone just assumed he was a bard (even though he never once cast a single spell throughout the game). Nobody learned the truth until after the game was over.

But if Job does figure it out and he does start stirring up trouble over it, the best (and really only) thing you can do is just point out to him that he is not the DM and he has no say over what other players can and can't do. The only way Job has a legitimate complaint is if he is somehow getting the short stick in it all, like if Bob was getting special treatment or something.