DM control over character concepts

[The J Pizzel]

How much control to you guys (DM's) take over the concepts of your players characters. For example: I've got a player who is just generally mean to the other players. He says he's playing in character. I frankly don't care. He's the only player in the party who's mean to the other characters and it bleeds over into real life and is disrupting the game. The other 3 players have actually begun thinking of ways to kill him in game. This is not the type of game I'm used to running. All my players have always gotten along in game and out of game. So here's my question again, only more specific...

If I were to send an e-mail to my players saying somethings along these lines..."Hey guys, new rule. This is going to be a epic game with all of you being good moraled people who are nice to each other. If you feel like you'd rather play in a game where you backstab each other and steal from each other, sit out till I play an evil campaign. If you've developed a character for this campaign and want to re-vamp him. I'll happily alow it"

If I send an e-mail like that out, am I taking out the whole reason people play RPG's. Please help.

pizzel

[Innis Cabal]

its not odd to tell your characters what kind of game you will be running, they dont like it they wont play it...your the DM, you make the rules

[The J Pizzel]

What I'm worried about, is wether I'm making the game pointless to play. We play the game to conceive character with personality and traits. If I tell my players they can't have certain personalities, am I going overboard.

[Innis Cabal]

no, your not. In a game with LG characters there is no space for a CE, that would create pointless arguments that will bog down gameplay. Yes its an RPG and yes you should play the person you want but there is a couple things to remember. One-The DM is the god of the game. How is saying no CE,NE, or LE alignments is worse then banning reserve feats if a character really wants them? Two-Since you, as DM, run the game it is your right to make a game you are comfortable running, the PC's arnt the only ones supposed to have fun after all

[blacksabre]

Sounds like the players already have it figured out..

If the party does want to kill him off, then have them do it..slit his throat when he's sleeping...have him roll up a new charatcer

If they don't want to kill him, leave him behind in a town..

Let him know his role playing was so good it really made everyone hate the character..and they didn't want to adventure with him..

[LongVin]

What I'm worried about, is wether I'm making the game pointless to play. We play the game to conceive character with personality and traits. If I tell my players they can't have certain personalities, am I going overboard.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to atleast push the characters towards certain types of characters. Normally, I'll ask the players what type of game they want to play or give them some choices. And after that if I think it is warranted I'll make some house rules suited to the game for character creation.


My groupin a Call of Cthulhu game I wasn't DMing had a similar problem. We had a player who always played characters that did not work well with the group and wouldn't even budge to make them more group friendly. In previous campaigns I even PKed him a few times for him to get the hint(this would be after he tried to attack, or screw over my character multiple times.) But in the second part of our Call of Cthulhu game 4 out of 5 of the players were in an insane asylum and attemping to escape or helping the others escape. The other player decided he wanted to play a cop who was trying to arrest us.

After that for games I DMed I started putting in rules for character creation.

Or alternatively you can have a very strong NPC who oversees the group and keeps everyone in line and resolves any disputes between the team. I did that previously to the CoC incident, it worked fine until said player tried to kill NPC on multiple occasions resulting in the PC's death in the end.

[Tallis]

If the PC is disrupting the game you are well within your rights to ask the player to change the way he plays. If all the other players want a cooperative game then he needs to adapt or find a game with people that enjoy his play style.
If he is being adversarial and the others kill him, then that's what he gets for making powerful enemies. Let him know that when he rolls up a new character it should be designed to work with the group.
I do recommend talking to him first and explaining the situation. Give him a chance to change. Ask the other players to give him that same chance before they kill him. The death of his character could lead to bad feelings that may be avoidable.

[Maxymiuk]

When I was recruiting for my chatroom game, I made it very plain to everyone that I want a party that, while being a bunch of thieves, muggers, gangsters, and all around bastards, will be able to work along with one another and won't dissolve the game into a backstabbing fest. Reason? I wanted to run a grimy urban underworld type of game, and didn't want to deal with people who think being criminals = being Evil, and being Evil = stepping on kittens and setting the city on fire during the first game.

It was my prerogative as a GM to limit their character choices. My justification was, I wanted everyone (including myself) to have fun.

[Galathir]

I like to talk to the players before starting the campaign and find out what we want to play. I try to have character concepts stay generally in line with the rest of the party and the campaign. I try to give the players a lot of freedom in character design but I reserve the right to limit things if I think it will be detrimental to the fun of the group.

[Woot Spitum]

How much control to you guys (DM's) take over the concepts of your players characters. For example: I've got a player who is just generally mean to the other players. He says he's playing in character. I frankly don't care. He's the only player in the party who's mean to the other characters and it bleeds over into real life and is disrupting the game. The other 3 players have actually begun thinking of ways to kill him in game. This is not the type of game I'm used to running. All my players have always gotten along in game and out of game. So here's my question again, only more specific...

Talk to him out of game. Remind him that if his character is so opposed to the other party members, it probably isn't in-character for him to be traveling with them in the first place. Remind him that having fun is the most important part of the game, and that ensuring that the rest of the party doesn't have any fun is not a good way to make a character. Don't be afraid to issue an ultimatum: Either find a way to make his character fit in with the party more, or make a new one who does.

[The J Pizzel]

It's not so much an alignment issue. There all N or G. It's mainly an ***hole issue. Honestly. This player used to play like 7 years ago. Even then he would consantly claim he was better and that he could kill them at will (he always plays a dwarf cleric of moradin too) and so on. He's just downright dificult to play with. So I took a loooonnnggg hiatus from DnD. I started playing again about 3 years ago and have been playing since. Every party throughout these last 3 years (and I've had a lot of players come and go) got along just fine. If there was any "my character doesn't like mages", or "my dwarf hates elfses" it was role-played perfectly well and everyone got a long and had fun doing it. This guy hears I've been playing and is upset I haven't invited him to play yet. I'll give you one guess why!!!! So I figure, hey, it's been like 5 years since he's played, maybe he's grown up. NOPE. First session and he's pissing off everyone at the table to the extent that one player (the one guy who played with him back in the day) has said if ***hole player doesn't stop, he will quit the game. The problem with the whole thing is that he lives ACROSS THE HALL from us and we don't want to just be jerks about it. The few times in game we've brough it up he claims that he's just acting in character. What's a DM to do.

Edit - and this guy doens't take constuctive criticism very well, much less me telling him he's playing like an @$$.

[Diggorian]

What's a DM to do?

Kick him out of your game. He's making less fun that which you've put time and effort into making enjoyable.

"Dude, your playstyle doesnt gel well with ours. I'm sorry, but I think we'd have more fun without you in the group."

<permission granted by this author to cut and paste the above passage into an email sent to this player>

He'll either: A.) ask for a chance for redemption, maybe give him one more chance; B.) say OK and leave.

As to player concepts, I like to leave them up to players with few restrictions. In D&D, I run a with no Evil PC's policy. Once they establish a character in play, I want them to reamin faithful to that portrayl as a actor does with her role in a series. I like my RPG's heavy on the R. :smallbiggrin:

[TempusCCK]

Eh, I say let him get killed, in fact, encourage your party to do so. In character he's a butthead. In character he will recieve the standard issue butthead response, swift and violent death.

It's a staple of D&D.

And the best part is that you just justify your actions the same way he's justified being a douchebag. Irony is a harsh teacher.

[Mewtarthio]

As the DM, you decide what sorts of characters fit in the collaborative story. You wouldn't let someone play a time-displaced Napoleon Bonaparte (Marshal 5) in an ordinary DnD game, or allow a Sith Lord to run alongside Jedi in a Star Wars game, or let something like this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/hq/polyffs3) happen, would you? Then you shouldn't feel obligated to let a complete and total jerk play in a party of people who would otherwise get along.

[RandomNPC]

i've got two gamers who like going back and forth, but everyone else straightens them out most of the time.

when i anounced a non-evil game, allowing chaotic but asking to stray from it, everyone had stated before they didn't think a good character would be as fun. we havent started yet, we have some loose ends to tie up, but everyone keeps going on about the "good city game" i had them roll characters up for.

The idea i'm poorly getting across, is a little interparty chaos is ok, like my two gamers. You have a large amount of interparty evil, with only one source. i tell my group, you may be lawfull and chaotic, and you may be good and evil. you as a party keep each other alive, play nice.

[JackShandy]

I think dealing with the problem out of game is preferable to trying to deal with it in game. The problem with the "just kill his character" is that if that player thrives on in-party conflict and the other people don't you are still allowing him to dictate how the game goes.

I like doing character creation as a group to make sure everyone has compatible character concepts before we start play. By "compatible", I don't mean everyone has to get along in character, but that everyone's in-character actions will produce games that all the players are intersted in.

[Laesin]

You, as DM have two opportunities to control character creation
1. Right guys I dont want I don't want X type characters in this game, it won't fit the mood.
2. Sorry Bob, I don't really think this character will fit in well with the rest of the party. Could you design something else?
I recommend you use both. #1 will push them in a certain direction without limiting them too much. #2 will allow you to stop a character you didn't foresee being rolled up from ruining the game.
Most players shouldn't have a problem with this. If this guy does then he's a problem player not a problem character and you're better off without him.
There have been a number of occasions where i wish our DM had used rule 2 on me. It wasn't that I had deliberately designed a character that wouldn't fit, but that I had no knowledge of the other characters at all and the game suffered because of my character. Needless to say I got my character killed off quickly. Nevertheless though I had agreed with the DM that my character would die, my character intended to survive and tried his hardest to find a way out of a no win situation.

[EagleWiz]

Well if the others don't want to adventure with him then suggest that they kick him out of the party (In charactor). Then he will have to:

1. Play nice
2. Play by himself
3. Quit
4. Turn evil and attack. (And that would probably result in him dying)

Then again there is always the other option: Have them fight a monster with a CR of avrage charactor level +3 who only attacks the jerk. If hes a jerk who is going to have him raised from the dead.

[Goff]

If he's the kind of player who trys to be 'better' than everybody else in the party, then perhaps you could tell him that he is 'too good' for your game - making an imbalance in both character power and fun. And perhaps tell him that he should find himself a 'more skilled' group to play with. No hard feelings, it's just that there's too big a difference.

[clericwithnogod]

it bleeds over into real life and is disrupting the game.

This is your biggest problem.




All my players have always gotten along in game and out of game.

Wow. I've never been in a group in which characters (and players) haven't been at odds over things sometime. In a particularly close group, much like family, the disagreements are the most intense.



If I were to send an e-mail to my players saying somethings along these lines..."Hey guys, new rule. This is going to be a epic game with all of you being good moraled people who are nice to each other.


There's a lot of value in some conflict within the party. People don't necessarily have to get along with or like each other to work together. There are limits, and it sounds like your player crossed them, but forcing everyone to play we-love-puppies-and-each-other characters takes a lot away from the roleplay experience.



If I send an e-mail like that out, am I taking out the whole reason people play RPG's. Please help.

It depends, some people play RPGs just to hang around with their friends, some just to kill everything, some to get all the items they have and some to roleplay unique and interesting characters. For people in the last group it's pretty limiting. There's a difference between having a character that's with the party for his own ends or has different values and one that is just awful to roleplay with.

Requiring "good moraled people" doesn't limit boorish behavior. A "well-played" paladin (or exalted) character can be just as disruptive to group harmony, even in a generally good group.

It sounds like the problem is with your new player, not his character's motivation. I've played with people who were rude and difficult in game regardless of what character they were playing, but playing a rude and difficult character to justify such behavior isn't uncommon.

But, having not heard his side of the story, it could be coming off worse than it is if (as it sounds) the rest of the group has been together for a long time. Sometimes groups get into used to ways of doing things which evolve into those being the "right" way to do them.

Adding a new player to a group means you should expect things to be somewhat different as the new player's playstyle mixes with the group as a whole. You could keep bouncing people until you get one that plays in the exact style your group has developed (from the playstyles of the current group of players mixing together). Limiting playstyles that way makes a game kind of stagnant though, in my opinion.

A campaign can be disrupted just as badly by a player or two that has played with you a while that refuses to allow anyone to be different than they expect and it may be worth asking the other players to give the new guy a little space to settle in. You want to be loyal to your long-time players, but you also want the new player to feel equally as important in the group. You don't want to end up with two castes of players.

[Matthew]

There are two 'good' ways to approach a game of D&D

1) What kind of game would you guys like to play?

2) This is the kind of game I am thinking about running, are you interested in playing?

Both are equally valid.

[Caduceus]

I have no problem with the DM making character concepts, but that's from the DM's perspective (very rarely does anyone else want to do the dirty work in my group). My players don't mind if I make characters FOR them, even, as long as I take their personality types into account and ask their consent on major decisions about a character.

For example, I know not to give Sam a changeling rogue because he's a pervert and would try to give her ranks in Profession (Prostitution) like he did with his rogue Kerwyna in my first game. Nor should I give him a cleric, because he won't bother reading the turning rules.

John should never have a psionic or elven character, because the first chance he gets he'll walk it off a cliff. And as he falls, he'll position any sharp implement on hand so that it gets shoved through the character's gut upon landing.

Dustin wants SO badly to play a dwarf, if only for an excuse to use a Scottish accent other than finding Sean Connery, and I try to make room for that while not restricting him to the usual persona of brash fighter (he likes rogues and bards, too).

Alex works well with anything I give him, but he'll try to "twink" it out in his own fashion by twisting rules out of my grasp, so I need my finger on the N.O. trigger whenever he says he has a plan.

They all understand that I love character creation and building a basic personality framework for the characters, and they allow for that, too.

What I'm trying to say is, it's fine to make a group concept, so long as you allow for each player's strengths, weaknesses, and preferences.

[The J Pizzel]

clericwithnogod - thanks for a well thought out and optimistic answer. I really appreciate it. And you do have a point with the idea that "usually" the group needs to adapt to the new players style. The problem is that this is not a new player. He's always been like this. He knows how my groups play. He played back in the day, and he's watched this group play for about a month now. And two of my players in this group are relatively new. When I say that my players have gotten along I really mean it. Sure there's a "well I would've done that differently" or a "man, why didn't' you heal me last round i'm at -5 now" types of things. But there all resovled quickly with a "man i'm sorry, I thought you could take another hit. I'll toss a cure critical on ya next round is that cool?" Thats what i'm used to. Thats what my players are used to. This is the new guy (who will be player B)

A: alright guys. here's the loot (spreads on table) from that temple of vecna we sacked. lets divy it up. hey player B, do you need to take the holy symbol to your temple or something?

B: (to the DM) I grap it all and throw in my bag of holding. i'm giving all this to my church.

A: hey man, we all sacked that temple, don't you think we should at least split the items. you can keep the gold as a tithe or something. hell, or vice versa if you want.

B: nope, i'm giving it all to the temple. you guys are ****t out of luck.

A,C,D: (during smokebreak) hey pizzle, if he keeps that ****t up, we're quitting!!!

That was one isolated example. There are about 5-8 of those a night mind you.

pizzle

[Tor the Fallen]

Hopefully he won't flip out and refuse to leave, and after you call the cops on him, he'll retaliate by throwing a brick through your window.

[Nevermore]

.... wow. I've experienced this myself. My Barbarian's response was to rage, grapple the paladin (in this case) into the bag of holding, tie the bag shut then leave it at the bank with instructions to send it to his temple 1 week later (5 days after we left town.)

The guy complained but I simply replied:

"You don't have a monoply on playing characters that dislike other party members."

[Goff]

Hopefully he won't flip out and refuse to leave, and after you call the cops on him, he'll retaliate by throwing a brick through your window.

I'm getting the strangest feeling of deja vu...

[Tor the Fallen]

I'm getting the strangest feeling of deja vu...

Was that you?

[Goff]

No, but I remember the thread well, especially as it was all unfolding into a full-scale disaster. Geez, I'm blank on who that was... to the archives!

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Nananananananananananananananana
GOFF MAN!
Nananananana
GOFF MAN!!!
Nananananana
Goff man!

[random11]

clericwithnogod - thanks for a well thought out and optimistic answer. I really appreciate it. And you do have a point with the idea that "usually" the group needs to adapt to the new players style. The problem is that this is not a new player. He's always been like this. He knows how my groups play. He played back in the day, and he's watched this group play for about a month now. And two of my players in this group are relatively new. When I say that my players have gotten along I really mean it. Sure there's a "well I would've done that differently" or a "man, why didn't' you heal me last round i'm at -5 now" types of things. But there all resovled quickly with a "man i'm sorry, I thought you could take another hit. I'll toss a cure critical on ya next round is that cool?" Thats what i'm used to. Thats what my players are used to. This is the new guy (who will be player B)

A: alright guys. here's the loot (spreads on table) from that temple of vecna we sacked. lets divy it up. hey player B, do you need to take the holy symbol to your temple or something?

B: (to the DM) I grap it all and throw in my bag of holding. i'm giving all this to my church.

A: hey man, we all sacked that temple, don't you think we should at least split the items. you can keep the gold as a tithe or something. hell, or vice versa if you want.

B: nope, i'm giving it all to the temple. you guys are ****t out of luck.

A,C,D: (during smokebreak) hey pizzle, if he keeps that ****t up, we're quitting!!!

That was one isolated example. There are about 5-8 of those a night mind you.

pizzle


Wow, that is a hard player.

I think the best solution is for the characters to behave just like they are expected to, simply leave him in town and go for the next adventure without him.
If he plays an annoying character, his character should be treated as one. A DM can't force the other players to keep him in the group. After all, by kicking him out they are just roleplaying their characters...

[Tor the Fallen]

Or the neutral character can arrange for an 'accident'. Maybe the party rogue forgets to inform him about the trapped door....

[Destro_Yersul]

clericwithnogod - thanks for a well thought out and optimistic answer. I really appreciate it. And you do have a point with the idea that "usually" the group needs to adapt to the new players style. The problem is that this is not a new player. He's always been like this. He knows how my groups play. He played back in the day, and he's watched this group play for about a month now. And two of my players in this group are relatively new. When I say that my players have gotten along I really mean it. Sure there's a "well I would've done that differently" or a "man, why didn't' you heal me last round i'm at -5 now" types of things. But there all resovled quickly with a "man i'm sorry, I thought you could take another hit. I'll toss a cure critical on ya next round is that cool?" Thats what i'm used to. Thats what my players are used to. This is the new guy (who will be player B)

A: alright guys. here's the loot (spreads on table) from that temple of vecna we sacked. lets divy it up. hey player B, do you need to take the holy symbol to your temple or something?

B: (to the DM) I grap it all and throw in my bag of holding. i'm giving all this to my church.

A: hey man, we all sacked that temple, don't you think we should at least split the items. you can keep the gold as a tithe or something. hell, or vice versa if you want.

B: nope, i'm giving it all to the temple. you guys are ****t out of luck.

A,C,D: (during smokebreak) hey pizzle, if he keeps that ****t up, we're quitting!!!

That was one isolated example. There are about 5-8 of those a night mind you.

pizzle

My response to that would be to wait until it's night time. As long as he has to sleep, and I'm playing the rogue, I'm betting I could probably loot the bag of holding while he's asleep. Then the rest of the party divys it up, and he ends up giving his church whatever's left over.

That's playing as a rogue though. The response would, of course, depend on character. If the guy insists on playing characters nobody likes he's going to be met with opposition from the other characters. The standard reason for an adventuring party travelling together (in my games at least) is that they're friends. If he's nobodies friend, why is he adventuring with them?

[Douglas]

No, but I remember the thread well, especially as it was all unfolding into a full-scale disaster. Geez, I'm blank on who that was... to the archives!
I believe this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784) is the thread you're looking for. I very much hope this situation never gets as bad as that one did.

Anyway, I'd suggest politely informing the problem player that his play style doesn't fit with the rest of the group and is making it a lot less fun for everyone else. If he doesn't take the hint, you may have to issue an ultimatum of change or leave. Be polite, but if it's really as bad as you're saying, be firm and don't back down.

[Goff]

That's the one, just as I was about to post it too.

*retreats back the Goff-cave*

[random11]

Two more options:

1) In the case of the "grab everything to my bag of holding", the right response of the characters is simply not letting him do this (putting treature in a bag is not a short 1 second action).
If that still doesn't work, the two strongest characters should block the door and say "You're not getting out without our share"

2) Divine intervention.
For some reason, I don't think most deities would be pleased by how that cleric represents him.
If that is indeed the case, several small miracles by your side are enough to show that the god is not pleased with his behaviour.
for example, a lightning might strike the bag of holding, spilling all the loot on the floor. The cleric can be zapped every time he tries to take anything more then his share.

[clericwithnogod]

clericwithnogod - thanks for a well thought out and optimistic answer. I really appreciate it. And you do have a point with the idea that "usually" the group needs to adapt to the new players style. The problem is that this is not a new player. He's always been like this. He knows how my groups play. He played back in the day, and he's watched this group play for about a month now. And two of my players in this group are relatively new. When I say that my players have gotten along I really mean it. Sure there's a "well I would've done that differently" or a "man, why didn't' you heal me last round i'm at -5 now" types of things. But there all resovled quickly with a "man i'm sorry, I thought you could take another hit. I'll toss a cure critical on ya next round is that cool?" Thats what i'm used to. Thats what my players are used to. This is the new guy (who will be player B)
<Example Snipped>
That was one isolated example. There are about 5-8 of those a night mind you.
pizzle

Ugh. That's awful, especialy in multiples. It sounded bad from your original post, but I'm just really slow to recommend kicking someone out of a group.

It's one thing for the rogue to complain about having to help poor people rather than well-paying rich people, the paladin to lecture the rogue, the wizard to treat non-casters as a lesser caste or the fighter to roleplay his dislike of wizards verbally.

It's another for the rogue to maybe try to steal an extra bit of treasure he particularly wants if he thinks he can get away with it, the paladin to be a little braver than smart or less compromising than would be to the party's best benefit, the wizard to cast to protect himself rather than benefit the greater party or the fighter to charge in rather than wait....when these things happen infrequently it can often be OK and add to the experience.

But actively and openly acting against the party like your example and doing it consistently... In character, there would be no reason anyone would put up with him. And out of character, not many people would enjoy sessions where that character was being played. Rather than sending a message that players have to play a certain way, it might be worthwhile to explain to him that in character, the response of any reasonable party to the way his character is acting is to force him out of the group (which I notice as I'm writing this Random11 has suggested they do in character).

There are certain things, regardless of character concept, that are bad form to actually do. Which is a good topic for a thread... Where do you draw the line on your character's behavior to avoid ruining the game for others?

As an aside, Moradin is both Lawful and Good, how does he rationalize his character taking the entire party's treasure? I don't believe in forcing worship of a deity on someone or using a deity as a limiting factor on a character. But you said he always wants to play a cleric of Moradin and he acts the way he does because he's roleplaying the character. The concept doesn't quite add up.

[JaronK]

Good roleplaying doesn't just mean playing the personality of your character. It also means making a character who, when roleplayed, will fit well with the others and make sure the game is fun. This player has not done so, and thus is a bad roleplayer. Tell him to shape it up.

JaronK

[The J Pizzel]

I can tell you this too. I think he does this as an attempt to be in control. Later on in that same session. AFTER the big fight. He pulled out a few of the items and said "alright, i'll allow A to have the +1 dagger". He's constantly telling the other players how they should act each round. They get mad cause they can't concentrate on what the other players are doing because this guys all like "hey, D, go move behind the X so A can Sneak Attack it. C, you haste the group, no you friggin idiot to Ray of Enfeeble it, save that for next round. God your a horrible wizard. I am so not curing you if you cast RoE this round. That's ALL FRIGGIN NIGHT!!!!

pizzel

[Argent]

I can tell you this too. I think he does this as an attempt to be in control. Later on in that same session. AFTER the big fight. He pulled out a few of the items and said "alright, i'll allow A to have the +1 dagger". He's constantly telling the other players how they should act each round. They get mad cause they can't concentrate on what the other players are doing because this guys all like "hey, D, go move behind the X so A can Sneak Attack it. C, you haste the group, no you friggin idiot to Ray of Enfeeble it, save that for next round. God your a horrible wizard. I am so not curing you if you cast RoE this round. That's ALL FRIGGIN NIGHT!!!!

pizzel

Honestly, just tell this guy you don't want him to game with you anymore. The point of D&D (and any game) is for everyone to have fun -- if one jerk is interfering with everyone else's ability to enjoy themselves, then that jerk needs to go. I understand you don't want to be the bad guy here, but sometimes, being the bad guy is what's called for. This happened in my group a number of years ago -- one player was single-handedly destroying the enjoyment of the game, and we eventually had to ask him not to come back. It's hard in the short term but in the long term, you'll thank yourselves for doing it.

[Jayabalard]

imo:

it's an out of game problem, and it needs to be dealt using out of game methods; talk to the player, and tell him that it's not ok to be a d**k, even if it's "in character"; make sure that he knows that noone is enjoying it. If he persists, write his character out of the story by DM fiat (not while you're playing, just remove him from the game), and don't allow him to create another one.

[Meat Shield]

I think any DM is within his rights to make rules regarding character creation. For the campaign I am running now, the first two rules I had were "good alignments only" (its a heroic save the world campaign) and "you all grew up together, moved apart, and have returned to your hometown", thus (hopefully) ensuring that the PCs would get along.

[Woot Spitum]

The berating everyone in battle is easy to deal with. Simply set a new ground rule: talking when it isn't your turn during combat is not allowed. You may not give advice to other characters during combat, that's metagaming and forcing other players to act out of character.

The unfair treasure distribution is fun to deal with, after all, you control the personalities of the priests of Moradin.

Jerky player: Here's all our treasure.
Priest of Moradin: We do not need any extra worldly wealth at this time. Go and divide it equally with your companions. Remember the words of the great Moradin himself: "Sharing is caring.":smallbiggrin:

[random11]

I can tell you this too. I think he does this as an attempt to be in control. Later on in that same session. AFTER the big fight. He pulled out a few of the items and said "alright, i'll allow A to have the +1 dagger". He's constantly telling the other players how they should act each round. They get mad cause they can't concentrate on what the other players are doing because this guys all like "hey, D, go move behind the X so A can Sneak Attack it. C, you haste the group, no you friggin idiot to Ray of Enfeeble it, save that for next round. God your a horrible wizard. I am so not curing you if you cast RoE this round. That's ALL FRIGGIN NIGHT!!!!

pizzel


That player is simply bad.
The worst thing that can happen in a game is that the relation between the players effect the relation between the characters, or the other way around.
If that player punishes a character for "a crime" of a player, there is not much you can do about it.
Not to mention that he has no right to order players around.

[The J Pizzel]

Alright guys, this is what i'm giving my players tonight. What do yall think?

These are some rules I’m implementing to ensure the enjoyment of everyone at the gaming table. If someone disagrees with a certain rule, please speak to me about after tonight’s session.

Rules for The Pizzels DnD Games:


I answer questions about the rules. If someone asks a question about how “x” works or can I do “y” in one round. I’ll answer it. No one at this table knows more about DnD than me, and the only person who knows even close to as much as me is Ape. There’s nothing that slows down a battle more than everyone trying to explain something to another player and then some of those explanations being wrong. Now, if you want to ask another player something like “hey, how long will invisibility last if you cast it on me” that’s fine. But when someone says, “hey pizzel, I wanna trip that guy, how dies it work”…I’ll answer it. If I claim something that you think might be wrong. Either I’ll quickly look it up on the SRD or we’ll do it my way for this instance and we’ll talk about the problem during a smoke break.

Please refrain from talking or cutting me off while I’m giving narrative. While I’m explaining how the room looks or how what the Bid Bad Evil Guy (bbeg) is wearing, don’t interrupt me. Ask me after I’m done. If I happen to say he performs an action and you wanted to do something before him, let me know. Also, if I’m explaining something to someone else, don’t interrupt me, it’s rude. While we’re on the subject. Please listen carefully when I’m describing stuff. I don’t want to repeat 5 times how tall the building is or how high the succubus is flying.

There will be NO discussing of how one character is better than the other. It’s uncalled for and un-needed in this game. This is a team hobby; if you want to claim that you’re better than someone else, go play Halo. And, if your character is that much better then everyone else’s, you don’t need to play with us lesser forms.

Do not try to play someone else’s character. It’s theirs. If you have an idea that might help the team say it. “Hey, if you’ll flank him I can sneak attack” is the correct way. Not, “c’mon man, what an idiot. Thanks for not flanking him *******, now I can’t do ****” (this is just an example, I’m not directing this at Casey or Nick, who usually play rogues). This is what I DON’T want to hear. Discussing strategy is fine; telling them what to do is not.

Dice: if you have more than one attack for any reason, roll all attacks at once. I understand some of you like to drop one dice at a time for damage, that’s fine. Just do it quickly. Pick the dice for your first attack, second attack, etc. Give me your totals and then roll damage. Also, when dealing mass damage: if your dealing a 10d6 fireball or an 8d6 icelance, be courteous enough to roll them all. No one wants to wait while you roll each dice one by one. I guess what I’m saying is draw the line somewhere; 5d(x) is about as far as we need to go before we just start rolling them all at once.

Dice (cont): there are a few of us who, lets face it, can’t add numbers up that fast (including myself on some nights). If your OK with letting someone else add them up real quick (I elect Babs), that’s fine with me. However, if your one of the players who will be adding them up, give the rolling player time to separate the different types of damage. Yall know I need elemental, sneak attack/skirmish, weapon, etc. damage separate for different reasons.

There will NO fighting amongst the characters that bleeds over into the real world. Playing a character with a few fun personality traits is fine “I’m a dwarf and I hatss nasty elfles” is fine. “I’m a fighter who has always distrusted to weird tree-hugging druids” is fine. If I feel that it’s bleeding over into the real world, I’ll call it a night. I’m a DM, not a chaperone. If it continues I’ll cancel the whole damn campaign and start a new one. Now, if you need help on how to not take stuff personally, ask Casey and Ape. There character’s pissed on each other, bought cursed brooms for each other and generally made each others life a living hell, but it was in game and it was fun. No one took it personally.

I have designed this campaign (and most of my campaigns for that matter) on a group of Neutral and Good heroes whom will work with each other to achieve a common goal. If your character concept doesn’t match that, I give you full permission to re-write it. There will be no backstabbing, stealing from each other, purposefully hurting each other etc. in this campaign. Having fun and screwing with each other is fine (ex. the wizard “accidentally” catching the rogue in his fireball because the knows the rogue hates fireballs), but deliberately doing it to piss each other off is not. Believe me, I can tell when you’re being fun and goofy, or downright ****ty.

There is no star in this campaign. All of you have equal points to shine. Do not think that your character is any more important or better than another’s. Have respect for each other and listen to what their ideas are. It may actually be better than yours.

Also, veterans, keep in mind that the new players might not spend a round exactly like you would’ve…that’s OK. Let them learn at their own pace. If you want to explain how they could’ve done it differently afterward, ask them if they want you to explain it. And new players, if a veteran explains how you can pull something off a little more efficient than you did, don’t take it personally. These guys have played long enough to learn how to pull off some cool stuff in the course of one round. Let them explain it to you. I’ve seen Ape pull some funky combos when it comes to free/swift/move/standard actions.

NO GETTING DRUNK I don’t care if you wanna have a few beers, don’t get buzzed or drunk. You’ll be wasting my time and the time of you fellow players. Also, please try to time your smoke breaks so that I’m not constantly repeating myself.
Oh, there will be NO, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, eating of Mexican Food before a session. It’s just not right to do that to the rest of us.

[Woot Spitum]

Pretty good ground rules. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that you haven't already covered.

[Matthew]

The rules themselves seem fine, but I think the tone could be a little friendlier. Still, you know your players better than I do.

[clericwithnogod]

I think you did a nice job with them. The only thing that seems a little limiting is the no stealing thing, depending on how you mean it. A character pocketing a little something he or she finds that the rest of the party doesn't know about isn't really stealing...depending on the outlook of the character. Since some party members might take it the wrong way, you could find a ring, keep it in your pocket until you get to a town, wander off from the party shopping for a little bit and come back with the new ring you bought at a shop for a few GP. It's the kind of thing that works with DM cooperation using whispers or passed notes so it's controlled. How often does the wizard cast detect magic at his own party members after all... And if someone does start to notice, it's a nice bit of roleplay.

And, you're an incredibly patient person if you're willing to watch someone roll 5 dice individually for mass damage. That would drive me nuts. :smallsmile:

[Rainspattered]

Let the party kill him. He has a righ to play an *******, as a character. If the rest of the party doesn't like it, that's why they kill him.

[LotharBot]

D&D is fundamentally a group game, with a DM and multiple players. Everyone is responsible for "making it work". An evil jerk in a lawful-good campaign isn't going to work unless the player is incredibly talented at making it work (like Belkar.)

If you as DM have to make rules like "don't try to run the other guy's character" or "don't fight amongst yourselves"... it's a shame you have to make those rules, but if that's what it takes to make the game work, that's what it takes.

[The J Pizzel]

Mathew - regrettably, I did have to put a little bit of a "stern" tone. They are like that

Clericwithnogod - I actually meant no stealing from each other. If a character finds something the rest of party doesn't, he can pocket it. I'll make sure my players don't interpret that wrongly. Thanks for pointing it out.

Lotharbot - yes, thats what it takes. Sad isn't it.

For those who've been following along: I have given the rules to the players and they all admit to be guilty of one thing on the list or another (which is why I covered alot of stuff, so the player in question wouldn't feel like this was an attack on him). They have all agreed to play nice and follow the rules. The problem player even admited he was sorry and will try to refrain from playing like that any more. I think I handled this nicely (for once).

jp

[Lolth]

I've had this issue on our chat recently, with one player who tends to make very confrontational/PvP types because he's a "build-monkey" (albeit not as good at it as some of the freaks here... :) ) and feels that it's OK to impose his aggressive style of play on any he perceives to be "weaker" (as in, less combat/PvP/one-on-one oriented).

I've tried explaining it to him, and he remains steadfast in thinking that it's OK. I refuse to step in and tell him "you can NOT play that way" but I've let him know he will find little in the way of plot from me so long as he continues.

On our chat, we tend to allow anything that doesn't outright break the setting, concept-wise, but I try to work with players to develop appropriate PCs. In this, mechanics is less important than concept, because we're a fairly particular setting.

In TT, I think the DM can and should be more exacting. In an online setting, where PCs interact with one another without DMs present all the time, I prefer a more open-handed approach, with the caveat that people read the setting information, etc.

Does this make sense?