PDA

View Full Version : A Somewhat Problem Player



Brickwall
2007-09-29, 10:20 AM
Hooray for D&D! A game that encourages cooperation, group effort, and friendship.

Not very successfully.

So, here is the issue. One of the players in my totally new group (I knew none of these people beforehand) is playing a Battle Sorcorer. He rolled really well (a 17 Cha and 18 Int), so he's extremely powerful. Fine, rolls do that. He doesn't seem to take over combat (though I'm sure he will at much later levels), so there's not much of a problem there. Here is the problem, though: social skills. We're only at level 3 and he has something like a +12 bonus to things like Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff. Again, still shouldn't be changing the game much, right? Wrong. He uses them on the other players. Basically, he's trying to screw over the group and grab everything for himself. He may have an IC reason for doing it, but it's really not going to be fair in the long run if he, the least dependent on equipment, has all the treasure and basically controls the group and any major NPCs. The group is only level 3, so I can't really send vampires or other things with Dominate against them.

How can I make sure that everybody, most of whom are shy-gamer-type people, gets their chance to do what they want to do? I really don't have the kind of proof I would need to tell this guy that he's trying to run the party, but I forsee it happening in the future, and want to stop it now.

Please advise. :smalleek:

Teeka
2007-09-29, 10:45 AM
I suffered from a very similar problem, though I was one of the players being taken advantage of. In the end the DM decided that that in most situations those skills would not work against party members or, in the situations where they could work, the player had to describe exactly what their character was saying and doing, and from there the DM decided the odds of success. I was not the DM, so I do not know exactly what method he used to decide the chances of a player character believing what they were told, but I do know that as time when on most of the player characters stopped listening to that particular character.

Also, feel free to speak up if the party gets an item that might be particularly useful to a specific player. You do not need to say who the item goes to, just mention that in might be particularly useful if a certain character got it. It might make people more willing to speak up if they hear the DM giving a suggestion that makes it sound okay to do so.

Ganon11
2007-09-29, 10:48 AM
I've always felt that relations between PCs have to be roleplayed out, not determined by the roll of a die. So in order to bluff/intimidate the other party members, the player himself will have to bluff/intimidate the other players.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 10:48 AM
The PHB says that those skills don't work against party members.

Idiotbox90
2007-09-29, 10:50 AM
Inform him that inter-party conflict is not allowed. Social skills are to be used on NPCs only, unless he has a plot-related reason.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-29, 10:54 AM
The PHB says that those skills don't work against party members.

She beat me to it. You should simply inform him that although he may trick and diplomacize the heck out of NPCs, PC's are not effected by those skills and if he wants to do what he's doing he wil have to roleplay it out.

Douglas
2007-09-29, 11:13 AM
Actually, only Diplomacy says that. Intimidate references Diplomacy for the friendly attitude but it is not clear from the text that the restriction to NPCs carries over, though it is entirely reasonable to rule that it does for the out-of-combat use.

Bluff has no such restriction and works equally well against both NPCs and PCs.

Quietus
2007-09-29, 11:18 AM
Actually, only Diplomacy says that. Intimidate references Diplomacy for the friendly attitude but it is not clear from the text that the restriction to NPCs carries over, though it is entirely reasonable to rule that it does for the out-of-combat use.

Bluff has no such restriction and works equally well against both NPCs and PCs.

Intimidate also states that after X amount of time, the effects wear off. So are the other PCs really handing over treasure, and accepting that they won't see it again? If this is the case, they should remember that a minute later in-game, they get over being scared of this guy and demand their cut of the loot. If he's constantly walking around in a storm of intimidation, they're perfectly justified in walking away from him, and leaving him out of the group. Who would want to travel with a guy who does nothing but put you down and verbally beat you into submission all day?

Depending on the characters, it might even be IC to wait till he's asleep, take your fair share of the loot, and THEN leave.

Crow
2007-09-29, 11:24 AM
Rules as Written are not intended to be followed without application of Common Sense.

If you are the DM, and you say that something doesn't work on the players, it is so. Your job (and some say the intention of the game) is to make this game fun for everybody. What the player is doing clearly undermines this goal.

It isn't fun to have to say: "Well, I guess this dragon intimidated me then..."

It is great fun to say: "Dragon be damned! I'm not letting that lizard push me around!"

It's the same with all of the "social" skills.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-29, 11:30 AM
If he claims it's in character for him to use intimidate to bully the other characters out of treasure, then likewise it can be in character for the party rogue to slit his throat while he sleeps. Do not unto others...

Brickwall
2007-09-29, 11:39 AM
The party rogue has a reason not to do it. Rather not go into specifics, since apparently, [some of] my players are on this forum. :smalleek:

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-29, 11:41 AM
Your guy can use Intimidate to give the PCs a -2 penalty to a couple things (make them Shaken) for a round. He can't use it to make them give him things.

He can't use Diplomacy on them at all.

He can use Bluff on them at his option, but a successful Bluff check vs. their Sense Motive only means that the players can't tell if he's lying. It doesn't mean the players have to believe him. You should never respond to a successful Bluff check with "He's telling the truth," but rather with, "He seems to be telling the truth," "You can't tell if he's lying," or "His face is unreadable."

bosssmiley
2007-09-29, 11:44 AM
If he claims it's in character for him to use intimidate to bully the other characters out of treasure, then likewise it can be in character for the party rogue to slit his throat while he sleeps. Do not unto others...

And I think *that* was the sound of Kurald Galain winning the thread. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously Bricky I'm sure that, like most of us, your players play D&D to be heroes, not patsies.

Have a quiet word with the guilty player outside the game to explain the situation (both ruleswise and playwise). Appeal to his sense of fair play ("How would you like it if the other players pulled xyz stunt on you?"). If that fails appeal to his self-interest ("Your bullishness is ruining the fun of the other players and, if it goes on, they'll not bother gaming with you any more").

If he doesn't see the light after that then he's no loss as a player. Simply don't invite him back. :smallannoyed:

The world is really a very simple place. :smallamused:

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 11:46 AM
Bluff would work obviously IC as well as OOC, Diplomacy doesn't work IC, and Intimidate is a little iffy.

Also, don't forget that while these arguments are happening, it should be at the end of the adventure, with the Warmage out of spells, low on HP.

If he continues to bully them, just have the cleric stop healing him.
Or, keep in mind that the players are just as strong as the mage, stronger, since he is out of spells, and they outnumber. Use force to keep your gear.

Serpentine
2007-09-29, 11:48 AM
Regarding Bluff, it's lots of fun when nearly everyone has high Bluff but low Sense Motive... :smallsigh: :smallbiggrin: But then, we don't use it for malicious purposes. The closest we came to that in tonight's game was one character having stuffed animals thrown at her when she was tricked into walking in on a lizardfolk in the bath...
Um. Listen to everyone else?

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 11:50 AM
Serpentine has a good point, if not directly stated. Have the characters suddenly gain ranks in sense motive.

Serpentine
2007-09-29, 12:00 PM
I'm helpful ^_^

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 01:30 PM
Errr. . . Uh. . . yeah!! Helpful!! :smallwink:

*Calls in security*

Tallis
2007-09-29, 04:44 PM
Well, as stated above, those skills don't even necessarily work on players.
If you don't want to go that route, have an NPC with an interest in the party intimidate him and make him give back what he's taken, plus some extra. Also, your other players are well within their rights to not watch his back in combat. You might point out that he's creating a dangerous situation for himself by mistreating his companions.

Thane
2007-09-29, 05:02 PM
Bluff will work on PC's, intimidate and diplomacy do not. Players can't use them on other PC's, and even NPC's can't use them on PC's.

Bluff will work, but as the DM you're in control of the circumstance modifiers. Remember the boy who cried wolf? Same person bluffs the same people enough times and he gets a negative 1,000 modifier.

"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... um... you won't fool me twice."

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 05:10 PM
Try to chat with the PC. IF he refuses to listen, drop an intimidate +25. Explain the functionality of cheese shocktrooper, and tell him that either he plays fairly or you'll drop a level 52 fighter with a legendary oversized two handed sword that breaks rules and get him to shocktroop the char because of an old grudge. That should calm him down if worse goes to worse. And if not, take the Final solution: give him, in RL, some music system that is set to blast out Michael Jackson's Heal the World 24/7

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 05:27 PM
Just have somebody else intimidate him, and make him feel how unfair it is. And it's illegal (by the rules).

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 05:30 PM
Nope, It ain't. A DM's words override rules, PERIOD. So says DMG. And yes, Heal the World is against the rules of being civilized, but that's why it's a last resort.

kamikasei
2007-09-29, 05:35 PM
And if not, take the Final solution: give him, in RL, some music system that is set to blast out Michael Jackson's Heal the World 24/7

Don't be ridiculous. An artifact so evil is surely more unattainable even than the Ruby Rod of Asmodeus.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 05:38 PM
Nope, I actually have one. A discman, set on auto and modified. Hearing it sets your sanity points to -aleph 2.

truemane
2007-09-29, 05:42 PM
As has been said, you can lay down the rules all you want, but all that's going to do is make him smarter about walking the edge of them or cause other problems down the line.

When you appeal to the rules (even house rules) you are telling him that the rules are more important than anything else and appealing to him on his own battlefield. It doesn't solve the problem.

What you have to do is explain to him (in private), what your fears are. What you think is going to happen in later levels, and how your concerns are for the story and the group and the game, that you're not trying to nerf him or be mean.

His reaction will tell you everything. If he backs down and says he's sorry and he was just screwing around and he'll knock it off, then you've solved this problem and set up the stage to solve ALL such problems in the future.

But if he blusters and sputters and gets all I can do whatever I want the RAW doesn't say so and you just try and stop me, then you know you can't work with that guy and your best bet is to quietly cut him from the roll call.

A group can ONLY work when everyone in it is operating on the same assumptions. When everyone else is playing Listen to the DM and do whathe says, and one guy is playing Rule the World Try and Stop Me, no number of rules are going to fix it.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-29, 05:46 PM
But Heal the World will. No save, obey or go insane.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-29, 07:01 PM
The easy answer is, as I said, force somebody to intimidate him into doing something he doesn't want to.

Gygaxphobia
2007-09-29, 07:27 PM
A group can ONLY work when everyone in it is operating on the same assumptions. When everyone else is playing Listen to the DM and do whathe says, and one guy is playing Rule the World Try and Stop Me, no number of rules are going to fix it.

QFT, well said too. Go with Truemane all the way.

Force/Bullying/Counter-Intimidation aren't on, don't meet aggression with aggression when you're trying to play with a clear and friendly atmosphere.

AslanCross
2007-09-29, 09:39 PM
Diplomacy (Cha)
Check

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

Emphasis mine.


Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like. If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff.

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

So yeah, by RAW, a PC isn't a legal target for diplomacy. One could bluff other NPCs, but it isn't mind control, and there should be severe penalties for subsequent bluffs against that same person.

Intimidate would work, I guess, but:

If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).

So the guy you intimidate would prove to be unfriendly later on.

Furthermore:

Try Again

Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial check succeeds, the other character can be intimidated only so far, and a retry doesn’t help. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly resolved to resist the intimidator, and a retry is futile.

bosssmiley
2007-09-30, 05:10 AM
But Heal the World will. No save, obey or go insane.

*pffft* Could be worse. Could be "Earth Song". :smalleek:

Citizen Joe
2007-09-30, 08:10 AM
Attitudes are NPC attributes used by the DM to dictate how an NPC will react. PC's aren't controlled by their attitudes, they are controlled by their players. So even if the character's attitude is fanatical, the player is going to dictate what the specific action will be. This is also why charm person doesn't work very well on PC's.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-30, 08:42 AM
Ah yes, but the rules specifically state that Social Skills can't be used on NPC's for any real effect.

Besides, looking at this logically, how is one Warmage going to intimidate a fighter, rogue and cleric of his same level, together.

It's illogical.

leperkhaun
2007-09-30, 08:48 AM
Have them RP it out and give Bonuses (or penelties) for situations. A rogue staring at +4 gloves of dex probably isnt going to buy a whole lot of crap that someone besides him needs them more.

RandomNPC
2007-09-30, 08:24 PM
well my players either end up killing off the offending PC once things get to out of hand (only two occasions, both i beleive were justified) or the offending PC calms down. if you want it in character theres nothing a good "you got killed while you were sleeping" isn't going to fix.

i don't suggest interparty conflict but if it happens then thats what you get.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-30, 08:52 PM
Ah yes, but the rules specifically state that Social Skills can't be used on NPC's for any real effect.

Source plz.

Arbitrarity
2007-09-30, 08:56 PM
Source plz.

Bet he meant PC's, not NPC.

Otherwise... Citation, Please (http://www.xkcd.com/285/)

Aquillion
2007-09-30, 10:42 PM
Well, first, there is one very good argument why intimidate (and all other social skills that involve the listed Hostile-Helpful attitudes) won't work to change players attitudes.) Those attitudes are listed in exactly one place in the PHB, and it is in a section titled "Influencing NPC Attitudes".

On top of that... the attitudes sidebar only lists these as "possible" actions. Just as a DM is free to say "The goblin is friendly, but won't do that", a PC is free to say "Fine, I'm friendly. I'm going to inform you, in a friendly manner, that if you so much as touch the portion of treasure that belongs to me I will kick your ass into next week." The NPC attitudes list (which is the only thing Intimidate can influence outside of combat) explictly does not require or forbid any sorts of actions.

On top of that... Intimidate only changes attitudes to "friendly". Friendly is less than what you'd usually assume allies to have (you'd expect allies to be "helpful", most of the time.) An intimidated person, per RAW, is not automatically going to give items, nor give up even a coin of treasure or payment that they feel belongs to them. What 'friendly' means is that they'll chat with you and give you limited help--directions to a local shop, for instance. Not their share of the treasure; even "helpful", the level above friendly, doesn't do that. Intimidate shouldn't ever be useful to get things from your party members; it actually gets you less than you'd get from a normal ally.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-01, 07:44 AM
On top of that... Intimidate only changes attitudes to "friendly".

I'm having a hard time picturing intimidating as changing anyone's attitude other than to fearful or aggressive.

Rad
2007-10-01, 07:55 AM
As has been said, you can lay down the rules all you want, but all that's going to do is make him smarter about walking the edge of them or cause other problems down the line.

When you appeal to the rules (even house rules) you are telling him that the rules are more important than anything else and appealing to him on his own battlefield. It doesn't solve the problem.

What you have to do is explain to him (in private), what your fears are. What you think is going to happen in later levels, and how your concerns are for the story and the group and the game, that you're not trying to nerf him or be mean.

His reaction will tell you everything. If he backs down and says he's sorry and he was just screwing around and he'll knock it off, then you've solved this problem and set up the stage to solve ALL such problems in the future.

But if he blusters and sputters and gets all I can do whatever I want the RAW doesn't say so and you just try and stop me, then you know you can't work with that guy and your best bet is to quietly cut him from the roll call.

A group can ONLY work when everyone in it is operating on the same assumptions. When everyone else is playing Listen to the DM and do whathe says, and one guy is playing Rule the World Try and Stop Me, no number of rules are going to fix it.
QFT. I'll never stop repeating it: problems that arise from players' satisfaction and interpersonal problems are not to be addressed by the rules. Sort that out as adults. Point him to the second half of this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) od the Giant, which is about this kind of issues.

EDIT: also note that diplomacy rules are the most broken of the game, even worse than polymorph spells. Consider house rules (like the giant's or simply forbid to buy ranks there).

Tormsskull
2007-10-01, 08:29 AM
I'd just allow the other PCs to handle the situation how they choose to. I'd retcon the decision that allowed PCs to be effected by the social skills though, as then even enemies could potentially turn the PCs against one another by the roll of a die (and without even the use of magic).

Then, the if bully PC continues his ways and the other PCs don't want to step up to him, so be it. If they decide to leave him, kill him, curse him, whatever else-him, then so be it as well.

Green Bean
2007-10-01, 08:57 AM
I'm having a hard time picturing intimidating as changing anyone's attitude other than to fearful or aggressive.

I figure it's more of a 'virtual' friendly attitude; functionally the same (you'll be polite to the really scary guy, and if he asks for information, you'll give it to him), but descriptively different.