Player Aggravation

[Cyussu]

So, the campaign I've been DM'ing took a turn, and people died prior to a time skip I had planned after the 1st arc, giving the party ample time to create new characters, or to quit. My issue is, 1 person hasn't made a character PURELY because he /demands/ to be given PC info when, and I do believe I am correct, he has no right to demand such information.

The scenario currently is: He wants to play an Evil character, plain and simply to ruin the general story I had hopes to it end in the world's destruction, etc etc. Well, he wants to know if there are any LG or Paladins in the party (There are no Paladins, there IS a Paladin-esque player though), do I REALLY have to tell him? What I have told him is that I am not obligated to tell him any personal PC info, he does NOT get to Meta Game.

[Flickerdart]

"I want to play an evil character, is there any PC in the party that this won't jive with" is not just information he's entitled to, it's downright mandatory for anyone playing an Evil PC. Would you rather he showed up with Count Chuckles von Rapesbabies and then have a spat with Sir Holy Nobleguy every session until the end of the campaign? Is ruining your own campaign really worth it?

[Mr Beer]

I think the bigger issue is that he is either planning to ruin the game or you believe that he is...so I'm not sure why you're playing with this guy. FWIW I would discuss with him exactly why he wants to know and how intends to play the character. If you don't like the answers, uninvited him. If he's plausible, tell him your concerns and let him know you'll ban him if there are shenanigans.

[Cyussu]

@Flickerdart; My issue is I have multiple possible ways this campaign can end. The ISSUE is he wants the planet DESTROYED, outright, by abusing class progression and power-gaming it all.

Also, I have seen several cases where EVIL and GOOD have been able to compromise for the general overall attitude of the party, on top of which, the party (PCs, not my call) has agreed on having 1 person "Lead" and running a Democratic Voting System due to the Odd Number of Players.

@Beer; I've known this guy for years, when he asks /specific/ questions...He's usually planning something very very heavy...

[Finkmilkana]

Considering the Code of Conduct can be read to mean a Paladin falls if he works closely with evil partymembers and this would mean the group just can't work together? Yes, he should be entitled to know.

In general it's usually a good idea if the player know what the rest plays (i.e. Classes and whatever the characters would tell about them upfront, but not full backstory). Else the chance for a non functional party is quite high. No one wants to make new characters after the first session just because one player played an orc hating barbarian and someone else had a cool orc concept...

[georgie_leech]

If you have concerns that the player is going to be disruptive, I'd suggest that whether he knows if Paladins are in the party or not wouldn't be much of an obstacle either way. If he isn't being disruptive, then it's probably a good idea to know if there are Paladins if he hopes to avoid conflict.

It's possible he's being a real jerk in how he's asking, but that changes neither of those possibilities.

[PaucaTerrorem]

You say you've known him for years? Have a conversation with the guy. If that doesn't work, you mentioned that he wants to destroy the world, let him play it until the rest of the party figures it out(drop some hints). Then pull his character sheet, tell him to make a new one (non world destroying if he still insists on evil) and *BOOM* the party has a new foil. Hell, have that be the conversation. I tried that in a campaign a few years back. DM was down for it. My tiefling wizard was shooting for lichdom and we discussed what would happen if the party figured it out. They did. My guy ran off. New enemy.

If that doesn't work I would boot him. Or just do a rocks fall scenario on him each time he brings an evil character to the table. Remember, you're the DM. If an evil world destroying character will ruin the campaign you don't have to allow it.

[Troacctid]

In my opinion, this is a type of metagaming that is healthy and should be encouraged. It's good for players to communicate with one another when creating characters. If one of your players is interested in playing an evil character, the other players need to be okay with it, or it can easily ruin their fun.

I also believe that creating a backstory is more satisfying when you do it collaboratively with the other players' characters--two adventurers meeting randomly in a tavern makes for a less compelling story than two adventurers with a pre-existing relationship that colors their attitudes and actions toward one another.

[Thatwarforged]

If you have an issue with him being evil though I don't usually condone houserule changes in middle of a campaign you may want to tell him their is no other evil party members (I'm assuming for the sake you have a paladin'esque player) so that you see no reason to bring in a evil player or tell him yes their is a paladin esque player so play something else. If push comes to shove you can throw the all punches at him like monster specially like his flavor so they maul him a lot.

[OldTrees1]

@Flickerdart; My issue is I have multiple possible ways this campaign can end. The ISSUE is he wants the planet DESTROYED, outright, by abusing class progression and power-gaming it all.

Also, I have seen several cases where EVIL and GOOD have been able to compromise for the general overall attitude of the party, on top of which, the party (PCs, not my call) has agreed on having 1 person "Lead" and running a Democratic Voting System due to the Odd Number of Players.

@Beer; I've known this guy for years, when he asks /specific/ questions...He's usually planning something very very heavy...

You have an issue with the player intending from the get go to do something(take your pick of: destroy the planet or abusing class progression) that would destroy this specific campaign. Why is that not an immediate veto on their PC proposal? As the DM you are in charge of making sure that everyone is playing the same game. Part of that charge is by vetoing PC concepts that cannot work with the campaign.


On the other hand, when a player asks metagame information to try to ensure their PC proposal does fit the campaign, you can either answer with the relevant information or say yes/no without information. By simply saying yes you are telling the player that you do not see any problems and that they can let you be responsible for that. If I wanted to play a Necromancer and I asked my DM if there was a Cleric of Pelor in the party, the DM could say that "I do not expect problems with you having a Necromancer". By doing so the DM answers my real question and avoids giving me metagame information (especially if that information would mislead me in the case of a tolerant Pelorite).

[Coidzor]

The scenario currently is: He wants to play an Evil character, plain and simply to ruin the general story I had hopes to it end in the world's destruction, etc etc. Well, he wants to know if there are any LG or Paladins in the party (There are no Paladins, there IS a Paladin-esque player though), do I REALLY have to tell him? What I have told him is that I am not obligated to tell him any personal PC info, he does NOT get to Meta Game.

Is there a particular reason why you've banned them from talking to one another about what their characters are? :smallconfused: Because, seriously, knowing what the other people are playing to build characters that are complementary is so far away from the actually problematic areas of metagaming that it's baffling as to what your issue could possibly be without further explanation on your part.

[Thatwarforged]

You have an issue with the player intending from the get go to do something(take your pick of: destroy the planet or abusing class progression) that would destroy this specific campaign. Why is that not an immediate veto on their PC proposal? As the DM you are in charge of making sure that everyone is playing the same game. Part of that charge is by vetoing PC concepts that cannot work with the campaign.


On the other hand, when a player asks metagame information to try to ensure their PC proposal does fit the campaign, you can either answer with the relevant information or say yes/no without information. By simply saying yes you are telling the player that you do not see any problems and that they can let you be responsible for that. If I wanted to play a Necromancer and I asked my DM if there was a Cleric of Pelor in the party, the DM could say that "I do not expect problems with you having a Necromancer". By doing so the DM answers my real question and avoids giving me metagame information (especially if that information would mislead me in the case of a tolerant Pelorite).


Is there a particular reason why you've banned them from talking to one another about what their characters are? :smallconfused: Because, seriously, knowing what the other people are playing to build characters that are complementary is so far away from the actually problematic areas of metagaming that it's baffling as to what your issue could possibly be without further explanation on your part.

I don't think he is with holding the information because he wants them not to know each other or their classes. He specifically said that he knows the player and when he asks about something he usually is planning something. On the other hand he could really want to know if he will be steping on someones toes. Though I have had experience with players want to know about other party members specifically to undermine them, bringing in a evil character when they know majority of the party is good then sliting the throat of the cleric so that he cant tell the party how evil he is and so that the cleric is not against him. Had that happen to me in play we told the player but he specifically choose an evil eat children kind of warlock then killed all good aligned players.

[Coidzor]

I don't think he is with holding the information because he wants them not to know each other or their classes. He specifically said that he knows the player and when he asks about something he usually is planning something. On the other hand he could really want to know if he will be steping on someones toes. Though I have had experience with players want to know about other party members specifically to undermine them, bringing in a evil character when they know majority of the party is good then sliting the throat of the cleric so that he cant tell the party how evil he is and so that the cleric is not against him. Had that happen to me in play we told the player but he specifically choose an evil eat children kind of warlock then killed all good aligned players.

Understanding why and how the information is restricted in the first place is pretty key background info, though.

As is whether there's another player who this guy has some personal antagonism/beef with that would be likely to play a Paladin-type.

[Darth Ultron]

So do I REALLY have to tell him?.

I have a simple rule: The DM will not tell any player anything about another players character outside the game. If one player wants to ask another player and that player wants to answer, that is fine. But the DM stays out of it.

This nicely handles your type of problem.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think he is with holding the information because he wants them not to know each other or their classes. He specifically said that he knows the player and when he asks about something he usually is planning something. On the other hand he could really want to know if he will be steping on someones toes. Though I have had experience with players want to know about other party members specifically to undermine them, bringing in a evil character when they know majority of the party is good then sliting the throat of the cleric so that he cant tell the party how evil he is and so that the cleric is not against him. Had that happen to me in play we told the player but he specifically choose an evil eat children kind of warlock then killed all good aligned players.

That I how I read it too. Hence the whole first paragraph was devoted to how to respond to a campaign breaker. The second paragraph(on how to respond to an actively cooperative player) was included for completion not for relevance to the OP's situation.

[Thatwarforged]

Ha I think I'm more tired then I thought I completely skimed over it a forgot about it. Sorry mistake on my part. Yeah I completely agree that he should Veto the character, if he needs a reason he can always tell the player that they have a LG in the group that would issues with an evil character and so to stop any Good V. Evil in the party and for sake of cohesion.

[Cyussu]

I never said whether or not that the player can or can not speak to others, the fact he doesn't is not my fault, nor does he message me. In current, he's the 1 holding the group back, which I am not complaining since I get to work on tweaking and fine-tuning the actual mathematics of the realm and such, but it is not my fault that he lives or is in daily contact with roughly 1/2 the group, so I honestly do not have any problems with anybody else, and Evil isn't the problem, it's the knowledge of this player's mentality and his general nature as a D&D player.

As for the Evil note, the party is 1/3 Evil, 1/3 Good, and 1/3 Neutral of some form. Evil isn't the problem per se, it's the actual player that causes it to be a problem, since he /wants/ to end up ruining the game's overall fun...I'm pretty sure y'all know how 3 hours(Not even kidding...) of "planning and strategizing" for a fight that was literally 2 rounds long...Like...3 wasted hours... x~x I digress though, my issue is mostly that he demands for information and is usually incorrect on several notes. I do thoroughly appreciate the feedback and the assistance, the guy is a good person, just a bad gamer. :/

[Thatwarforged]

the guy is a good person, just a bad gamer. :/

I know a lot of people like that unfortunately.

Well you can always tell him the truth that his character will potentially ruin the groups joy and the story or you could just ask him to build a different character. If the issue really is him then you may want to talk to him and straighten things out to fix the problem.

[HammeredWharf]

You should tell him the real problem instead of engaging in a pointless power struggle over who has the right to demand what info. Making D&D fun isn't solely the DM's responsibility. He's being very immature if he's actively trying to ruin the game for everyone else.

[Cyussu]

You should tell him the real problem instead of engaging in a pointless power struggle over who has the right to demand what info. Making D&D fun isn't solely the DM's responsibility. He's being very immature if he's actively trying to ruin the game for everyone else.

Well another issue is he thinks he's the DM and tries to enforce that what he says is automatically correct, even if the books and other rulings state and are proven that he is not correct.

[Coidzor]

I never said whether or not that the player can or can not speak to others, the fact he doesn't is not my fault, nor does he message me.

If you haven't forbidden it for some reason and there's not some kind of vendetta between two players, what do you care, then? You'd need to address the issue directly anyway if he does try to cause trouble.

Also how is he even asking you anything, then, if he's not talking to you? :smalltongue:


but it is not my fault that he lives or is in daily contact with roughly 1/2 the group

Sorry, what? He lives with them but doesn't talk to them? He's geographically isolated from the rest of the group? What?


since he /wants/ to end up ruining the game's overall fun

If this is true and not hyperbole or a result of a misunderstanding, well, the solution is incredibly self-evident, stop playing with him.


...I'm pretty sure y'all know how 3 hours(Not even kidding...) of "planning and strategizing" for a fight that was literally 2 rounds long...Like...3 wasted hours...

It sounds like you may have needed to say something at some point over the course of 3 hours, there. Like. Anything, really. :smallconfused:

[Cyussu]

In order:

I had to message him 1st. He doesn't take the initiative and I'm close to saying if he's not ready by the deadline, he's not playing

The household he lives in, has 4 of the players out of the 9 PCs.

He spent the entire 1st session trying to kill townsfolk of the 1st town... -.-;

I did, several times, not my fault he kept trying to over think the current engagement.

[HammeredWharf]

Sounds like he's just a troll IRL and you've got to stop feeding him or kick him out. I've got a couple of them in my group, and have found it's better to shut down their "let's tease the DM" antics with simple phrases like "Maybe, but we're no going to argue about this now. If you want, you can show me proof of your reading of the rules post-session." As for deadlines, he can't play without a character and it's his responsibility to make one that doesn't annoy every other player. Until then, you've got eight other players.

Especially if it's a big group, spending time and effort on someone who's being disruptive on purpose isn't worth it.

[Cyussu]

Sounds like he's just a troll IRL and you've got to stop feeding him or kick him out. I've got a couple of them in my group, and have found it's better to shut down their "let's tease the DM" antics with simple phrases like "Maybe, but we're no going to argue about this now. If you want, you can show me proof of your reading of the rules post-session." As for deadlines, he can't play without a character and it's his responsibility to make one that doesn't annoy every other player. Until then, you've got eight other players.

Especially if it's a big group, spending time and effort on someone who's being disruptive on purpose isn't worth it.

Well, I never thought 10 people total was a big group, albeit I was in a group that had 18 people for 1 DM...Digressing...His previous character got mentally permanently dominated at the end of the 1st chapter of the campaign, since he chose to abuse my phrasing (Where everybody else did perfectly fine) and made a 7th level CR19 character -_-; I'd say he's an optimizer, but he doesn't do that all that well either... I guess I'll wait until I see him online again and speak to him. Thank you everybody and I guess if worse comes to worse, I'll just have to drop him from the game altogether. Curse my need to make everybody happy ~_~ And the *******s who abuse that factor...

[Studoku]

Seems fairly straightforward. Don't let him play.

[Flickerdart]

@Flickerdart; My issue is I have multiple possible ways this campaign can end. The ISSUE is he wants the planet DESTROYED, outright, by abusing class progression and power-gaming it all.
This has nothing to do with whether or not there's a paladin in the party, which is the thing he wants to know and the thing you're both making a massive fuss about.

[Ingus]

It seems like a problem with the player, not with an evil PC.

Usually, when this occurs in my games, the DM helps alot the inside man 'cause having a mole in the party is, indeed, funny (even if you're the screwed good guy).

The problem is that your player may want your help in ruining your own campaign for everyone else. In this specific case, if you allow PvP in your game - which is per se not recomanded - I suggest you to, at least, be fair with both parties and do not tell any information at all.
The only thing you may concede to the evil character is some background information about the original party: if he wants to infiltrate, he might be able to devise something.
This has to be in game: let him roll gather information checks, let him cast divinations, let him stalk the party... but all should be decided by dice rolling.
After all, dice are chaos and chaos is fair :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Okay. First and foremost, you're saying you believe he wants to play this character to ruin your campaign.

Tell him "no."

Not about whether other PCs are good or not, but about this specific character. Veto any character you don't think will work with your game. Period. It's not fair to anybody to allow them in. If you allow them in unchecked, ruining the game makes it unfun for many people (you, among them). If you try to check them with DM fiat powers and plot elements, you probably frustrate them and make them feel railroaded.

So just don't do it.

Be honest. Tell him that character doesn't work for the game, and to make something else. Give him advice if needs be about what kind of character would work. But do not, under any circumstances, allow a PC you think is designed to ruin your game. Intentionally or not.

[Psyren]

I have a simple rule: The DM will not tell any player anything about another players character outside the game. If one player wants to ask another player and that player wants to answer, that is fine. But the DM stays out of it.

This nicely handles your type of problem.

The DM, however, should know everything the players know about their characters, including what those players have and have not told each other.

So while I'm fine with them just asking each other and working it out that way, at the very least the DM should be CC'ed on these communications. It's no fun for anyone when the players try to spring new information about their characters on the GM (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml) out of the blue, and almost always backfires.

[Coidzor]

Well, I never thought 10 people total was a big group, albeit I was in a group that had 18 people for 1 DM...Digressing...His previous character got mentally permanently dominated at the end of the 1st chapter of the campaign, since he chose to abuse my phrasing (Where everybody else did perfectly fine) and made a 7th level CR19 character -_-; I'd say he's an optimizer, but he doesn't do that all that well either... I guess I'll wait until I see him online again and speak to him. Thank you everybody and I guess if worse comes to worse, I'll just have to drop him from the game altogether. Curse my need to make everybody happy ~_~ And the *******s who abuse that factor...

10 is a big group. The game expects 4 or 5 players and can commonly easily accomodate 6 without much adjustment. More than that and organization and real world logistical concerns become an increasing issue.

Sounds like you have much larger, more pressing issues than that he wants to know if anyone else in the party is a paladin and can't be arsed to talk to the people he lives with.

Also, stop being a doormat, it's not an attractive quality in a friend and it's even worse in a DM. But, of course, don't go in the opposite direction and start throttling the agency out of your players, either.

So why haven't you had a frank discussion with him about how he's not jiving with the game at all and instead seems to be hell bent on being asked to leave?


The DM, however, should know everything the players know about their characters, including what those players have and have not told each other.

So while I'm fine with them just asking each other and working it out that way, at the very least the DM should be CC'ed on these communications. It's no fun for anyone when the players try to spring new information about their characters on the GM (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtml) out of the blue, and almost always backfires.

Seconded.

[Twurps]

IRL problems will never be solved in game, and what you have here is a IRL problem. Any advice on what to allow and what not to allow is useless unless you've resolved this. Talk to the guy and come to an understanding about what game you all want to play. If you can't agree on what game you're going to play, dont play.