[3.5e] Since "just because" doesn't seem to be enough...

[TheCountAlucard]

So, I started DMing a 3.5 game a few weeks back. We typically play on Fridays, though we had a game session last night, since it's spring break and all.

However, we've had a bit of a problem: from the very beginning, one of the players has had it in his head that he should be able to play two characters.

And no, I'm not talking about taking the Leadership feat. I mean, he just wants to play two characters at the same time... and he makes a point of bringing it up almost every session. I try and explain that it would be unfair, unbalanced, et cetera., to the other players, who are more than content to have just one PC, but he doesn't seem to understand why that's the case.

In the very beginning of the campaign, out of some stupidity on my part (mostly because after twenty minutes of failing to get my point across, I was just plain tired of arguing it), I went ahead and let him play the second character. Said character ended up being shunted into the background and ignored for the majority of the session, except for a bit where he used the character's non-presence as an excuse to metagame.

After that, I made a point of having said second character go bye-bye via joining up on a crusade to reclaim a temple in the mountains. The player initially didn't have a problem with it at the time (well, he did, but he eventually accepted it), and we got on with the session.

Now, last session, he announced out of the blue that he wanted to retire his current character and have the secondary character rejoin the party. I explained to him that it wasn't an option at the time, since the secondary character was part of that crusade (and since the mountains in question were a week's journey west of the party's starting point, and that the party had traveled several weeks south since then).

"Uhh, no he isn't," the player countered, "he wouldn't do something like that."



Anyway, we came to the agreement that he could retire the primary character after the party had finished their current task, by which point the crusade would likely be over and allow the secondary character to go adventuring with them.

The other players are starting to get annoyed with this (and frankly, I can't say I blame them), so I'd like some help in putting these arguments to rest once and for all. (I just called him on the phone to talk to him about this, and he still says he wants to play two characters, and sees no reason why he shouldn't be able to.)

I don't want to kick him out of the group or anything, but if we keep having these arguments, that may very well have to be what happens.

(Also, he's been complaining for the last three sessions about how he can't use his Reflex save to avoid attacks; any suggestions for dealing with that?)

[Sinfire Titan]

The Reflex to avoid attacks is him trying to bring another system into the matter. Give him a Warblade if he wants stuff like that.


The second character thing? You are free to say no, but remember that he may just rush head-long into combat and intentionally try to get killed, to justify it. If it happens, let him make a new character and tell him it has to be a new one, not one that was previously in the party. Hound him for it too.


Oh, just remembered the feat Trickery Devotion, from Complete Champion. Show him it. It should shut him up.

[MachineWraith]

However, we've had a bit of a problem: from the very beginning, one of the players has had it in his head that he should be able to play two characters.

Explain to him that his two characters would inevitably end up helping each other out more than the rest of the party. It may not be by much, and it may entirely on accident, but it will happen.

Maybe tell him that you've balanced all your encounters around having one character per party member, and that you don't want to have to go retool your entire campaign just so he can be special.

Also, he's been complaining for the last three sessions about how he can't use his Reflex save to avoid attacks; any suggestions for dealing with that?

Because the game is designed with your AC representing your ability to dodge/shrug off blows/deflect attacks, and your reflex save as your ability to avoid anything else. If he doesn't like getting hit, he should bump his AC. That's the way the game's designed, the game's not perfect, get over it.

Also, you have my sympathies.

[JoshuaZ]

Reflex save and AC represent very different things. The rough idea is that reflex saves are what happens when something big but unguided occurs (say an explosion or a trap). That's distinct from AC in which a person is specifically trying to make contact with you and can change their movement in the process.

As to the one v. two character issue, maybe sit down with him and find out why he wants to play two characters so much? And why does he think he should be able to do so?

[TheCountAlucard]

The Reflex to avoid attacks is him trying to bring another system into the matter. Give him a Warblade if he wants stuff like that.

I've also noticed that he never seems to bring up the whole "Reflex save" thing when other PCs get hit with attacks, and I'm sure I'd catch some hell from him if a monster did it.

You are free to say no...

I've said no, but that hasn't stopped the arguments.

Oh, just remembered the feat Trickery Devotion, from Complete Champion. Show him it. It should shut him up.

Will look at it.

Explain to him that his two characters would inevitably end up helping each other out more than the rest of the party. It may not be by much, and it may entirely on accident, but it will happen.

In fact, that's already happened, as well. I just tried this against him. "I won't," he said, "you don't have to worry about it."

Maybe tell him that you've balanced all your encounters around having one character per party member, and that you don't want to have to go retool your entire campaign just so he can be special.

Brought that up as well, reminding him of the time the party took down a boss encounter in two rounds. "That's your problem," he insisted, "you're the one with the Monster Manuals."

Because the game is designed with your AC representing your ability to dodge/shrug off blows/deflect attacks, and your reflex save as your ability to avoid anything else. If he doesn't like getting hit, he should bump his AC. That's the way the game's designed, the game's not perfect, get over it.

...But he won't get over it. Actually, that was my very first argument against it the first time it came up.

[gdiddy]

Tell him that if he isn't getting what he wants out of your game that he should look into a different system. He can do all the research and maybe DM a session in that different system, with his rules. But right now, for this game, you are playing by a set of rules that everyone agreed to by playing.

If he doesn't stop complaining or put his money where his mouth is, tell him that his play style may not belong in the current game.

[Nero24200]

Just no on the two character's thing. It's possible you built your campaign around only a certain number of PC's...but more than that, that entire game as a whole is built under the assumption that player's only have one PC each.

Why should he be the only one with an exception to the rule? I honestly can't see any way him having a second character will make the game better. It'll give him a unfair advantage in combat, so it boosts nothing mechanical. I don't see how having it as a second PC rather than a DM controled NPC makes RP any different, other than the fact that it makes it alot easier to potentially metagame.

If he really wants to be special, try using the "Rolling Armour" variant. It's pretty simple, whenever someone attacks you, roll a D20 and add all your armour bonuses. That's your AC against the attack. The D20 essentially replaces the base score of 10. That way it'll feel more like he's "dodging" attacks when they miss, rather than them just missing.

The varaint shouldn't be much of an issue if you use it, since it won't alter game mechanics as a whole if his PC is the only one using that variant rule.

Though personally, I'd talk to the group. If they feel much like yourself, it may be an idea to give this guy some space from your gamming table.

[MachineWraith]

In fact, that's already happened, as well. I just tried this against him. "I won't," he said, "you don't have to worry about it."

He can't prove that he won't, so you won't accept it.

Brought that up as well, reminding him of the time the party took down a boss encounter in two rounds. "That's your problem," he insisted, "you're the one with the Monster Manuals."

Your response? "That's right, it's my problem, and I'm fixing it by not letting you play two characters."

...But he won't get over it. Actually, that was my very first argument against it the first time it came up.

What level is your party at? I'd make him run two test battles, him vs. one monster. Naturally, I'd pick the highest-Ref monster I could find. Preferably one that would normally be fairly easy for him to beat. Let him fight it normally and (hopefully) destroy it. Then do the "Reflex to dodge" business and watch him get torn to shreds (again hopefully).

Honestly, at this point, I'd tell him, "Look, I'm DM, I'm running it this way. Period. If it's that big of a problem for you, find another group."

He's really just being an obnoxious little punk, from what I'm hearing.

[Yuki Akuma]

Why are you playing with this person?

[jiriku]

Your question isn't really a D&D rules question so much as an interpersonal relationships question.

Basically, you and he have a disagreement over how much power he has to set the rules of the game, and how much power you have to set those rules. He expects that he can get what he wants by demanding it insistently. I would not be surprised if he is like this away from the gaming table as well.

If you're good at defending yourself from pushy, overbearing people IRL, simply use that skill with him.

If you normally have trouble handling people who are like that, may I suggest The Broken Record Approach. Develop a stock line, such as "I understand you want that, but I run my game a different way." Say it every time he asks, and don't say one word more. Refuse to discuss, negotiate, or provide reasons. Do not engage. Respond to every counterpoint with "Oh, I know what you mean, but I run my game a different way." Be kind, be sympathetic. Be understanding. But tell him "I believe you would, but I run my game a different way." Be a broken record. If he is used to getting his way, you may need to repeat yourself 30 or 40 times (seriously, I am not exaggerating). However, eventually he'll get the hint that you have made up your mind and that the point is not subject to negotiation.

[Kobold-Bard]

Why are you playing with this person?

Probably because they're friends. Maybe they're not especially, rather it's just a local group, so exiling one person from doing something they enjoy doing, especially if there's no alternative (which there often isn't for this particular hobby) seems a bit harsh.

Two characters: Why does he think he should get two? Just because he wants one, because that's not how it works. Would he get double money in Monopoly just because he wanted it?

Reflex Saves: That's just how the rules are. They may be silly, but that's how it works. Suck it up or get a book to the head.

[Kurald Galain]

(Also, he's been complaining for the last three sessions about how he can't use his Reflex save to avoid attacks; any suggestions for dealing with that?)

That one is easy: have him targeted at least twice a session by an attack spell that grants him a ref save.

[gdiddy]

This sounds like a very young person's manipulation tactic, something akin to what a four year old would try. Since their parents failed to teach them about rules, respect, common decency, or limitations, it's often the place of their DM to instruct them on how to be an adult human being. Afterall, they are trying to role play an adult and if they can't fake it in real life, how can they do it in game?

[Evard]

Another vote for: Why do you keep that player around? Do you really need him?

If you are friends IRL this game could hurt that and really no one wants that...

[Sinfire Titan]

Have you asked him to justify his request OOC? Literally saying to him "Why should I give you something that powerful when I'm not going to give it to the rest of the party", is likely all you need to do.

[Forever Curious]

...could he not play a dvati?

[TheCountAlucard]

What level is your party at?

They just got to sixth level.

He's really just being an obnoxious little punk, from what I'm hearing.

I don't mean to badmouth him or anything, but it's seriously getting on my nerves.

Why are you playing with this person?

Because we have the game over at the dorms, where he and two of the other players are living. Because before the start of this game, he was a pretty decent player who didn't argue with me like this. Because we also play Exalted on Saturdays, and Saturdays might get awkward if he's booted out of the Friday game.

Why does he think he should get two?

I really don't know; he was playing two characters in the party during his brief stint as DM, and that might have a factor in it, but I wasn't playing under him at the time, so I can't really be sure.

Have you asked him to justify his request OOC? Literally saying to him "Why should I give you something that powerful when I'm not going to give it to the rest of the party", is likely all you need to do.

Actually, yes, I did - his answer was that the rest of the party didn't want to play two characters.

...though it was amusing to then see the other players say, "Actually, yeah, if he gets to play two characters, I wanna play two characters, too..." (I'm fairly sure they were just backing me up here, so we could get back to playing. Either way, it shut him up for a bit.)

[Sinfire Titan]

Actually, yes, I did - his answer was that the rest of the party didn't want to play two characters.

That isn't exactly solid grounds. Ask him what he has done OOC to deserve two characters. And if he justifies it, remind him that the rest of the table doesn't want to play two characters.


Alternatively, Gestalt everyone.

[Evard]

That isn't exactly solid grounds. Ask him what he has done OOC to deserve two characters. And if he justifies it, remind him that the rest of the table doesn't want to play two characters.


Alternatively, Gestalt everyone.

Gestalt everyone but him and let him actually have two different characters that he has to keep up with and roleplay (if he drops one in the background then is goes on a crusade again?)

[TheCountAlucard]

Hey, some good news! I convinced him - at least, for now - to drop the whole Reflex saves thing!

Prob'ly won't matter anymore, since the character he's bringing in to replace the Rogue he's retiring is a Fighter.

And yeah, since he's retiring his Rogue at the end of the adventure, that means he'll just be playing one character. Hopefully we won't have to argue about it.

Still, thanks, guys!

[Temotei]

If another character "goes on a crusade," have him go to a "pleasure house" and rack up a massive debt to a "mafia." Then have the character killed.

Win.

[Iban]

If another character "goes on a crusade," have him go to a "pleasure house" and rack up a massive debt to a "mafia." Then have the character killed.

Win.

I like the way this guy thinks :P


And congrats with solving your problem

[Evard]

I bet he brings up something else relatively soon though any takers?

Mafia? Nah even better is that the character caught X disease from a toilet (or from having fun) and died or is to depressed to go on :P

[Thurbane]

...could he not play a dvati?

I was going to suggest the same thing.

There's also the Vestigial twin trait in DMG II, but at a much heftier LA cost.

[DabblerWizard]

It seems that you've done plenty of explaining and reasoning with the guy, but he doesn't give up.

It's your right to decide whether he can have two characters or just one. In the end, he just has to accept you decision.

A way to express this fact is to plainly tell him that (1) you have already made your decision, (2) you will not discuss this with him anymore, and (3) that if he continues being an annoying person, then... insert some consequence for his behavior that you're willing to uphold.

[ericgrau]

and he makes a point of bringing it up almost every session

This should have been your biggest clue to ignore him. When his main line of reasoning is repetition not logic. I'd talk to someone in depth once, maybe twice. Then you ignore him and "just because" is enough after the first time. Heck, it's too much.

As for problematic players first you say no and just keep playing, then you talk to him, then if it's a major problem you talk to him and warn him that he'll be out of the group if it continues to ruin the game for everyone else, then when all other options are spent you follow through and really do boot him for the sake of the group. If it's a lesser problem, see above post.

[Myou]

As a DM I'll listen to any idea from a player, and consider it. Once I've decided, I'll try to presuade them that my decision is for the best.

If I can't convince them to drop something, then I just tell them that while they may not agree, they are to drop it - I will not DM for someone who refuses to accept my judgements. So if he argues any more about it I would just tell him that the answer is no, and that I won't discuss it further.

[magic9mushroom]

The guy's obviously just trying to cheat/munchkinise, and the way to beat him is to point out that the game is fun because and only because there's a challenge in it, and if one player is >> the rest then challenging everyone becomes impossible.

If he doesn't accept that, kick him out, he obviously doesn't want to play D&D so much as indulge his power fantasies.

[KillianHawkeye]

You can always let him play two characters at half the level of the rest of the party. Maybe he'll learn something after all the deaths.

[Coidzor]

...Yeah, definitely sounds infantile. Sorry you got stuck with him.

Caving in with a little kid in the first place makes reestablishing yourself all the more difficult. I mean, if he's not going to accept that you're running the game, he's just going to get worse and worse and more of a ****.