Am I the only one who finds the argument "you can't role-play play the character you want because this is a heroic game" a bit of a lame cop out? It was my first reaction as well to chime in that he picked an inappropriate charecter, but who am I to tell someone thei character is "wrong".
Wrong for the table, not in some metaphysical absolute sense. Come on, Jester, why are you spoiling for a fight on this? It's pretty clear that the OP is unhappy with the behavior of the other player, and the player is acting contrary to the desires of the other players. ("none of the other party show even the slightest intrest in similar persuit") The DM doesn't want to run the game the way this player is playing. That's sufficient to declare him "wrong" for their table. That doesn't mean there isn't some alternate hypothetical table out there where he'd fit in. But at this table, with this DM, he is wrong.
Here's the thing, people didn't argue it was wrong from that perspective. They launched right into the mantra of "it's a cooperative game!" and talk of interventions. They went right into this discussion as if the player was causing arguments and fights at the table, not doinging something that caused apathy.
Problem: I have a player whos character is motived 100% on self intrests, which Im fine with seeing as soon as he needs the parties help and they refuse him he will see the error in his judgment.
Iv tryed explaining to him the idea of working together and pooling recorses but he keeps defending his characters actions with a firey passion that taking advantage of the party is what the character would do and insists that pooling his characters hard earnt profit with the rest of the party is unfair (which is kind of true considering none of the other party show even the slightest intrest in similar persuits and are content with spending thier down-time in brothles and taverns). Any valid points from me are met with hour long arguments/discussions on realisum, viability and counter arguments and I feel that if I put my foot down he will loose heart with the character and give only token participation if at all.
How in the infinate hells do I instill in him a sence of companionship with the party without railroading him? Is that even possible? And how do I keep the loot etc fair if hes the only one willing to put the work in to gaining extra while the rest of the party await the next adventure hook?
None of these questions are adequately answered by "have an intervention with the player" or any of the other conditioned responses thrown out. As I said in my last post, the best way to instill a sense of companionship is let it evolve naturally through the story. As for unfair loot, it's easy enough to add more treasure. A few others did suggest adding story elements that put the character's new purchases in jepoardy , requiring him to ask for help or risk losing everything. Ad for treasure, having class or character specific gear makes it more obvious who the treasure if for, so it's harder for one person to take and keep. Limit the disposable gold available.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
Here's the thing, people didn't argue it was wrong from that perspective. They launched right into the mantra of "it's a cooperative game!" and talk of interventions. They went right into this discussion as if the player was causing arguments and fights at the table, not doinging something that caused apathy.
Problem: I have a player whos character is motived 100% on self intrests, which Im fine with seeing as soon as he needs the parties help and they refuse him he will see the error in his judgment.
Self-interest for motivation is not a problem in and of itself and ostensibly will be self-correcting. The issues lie deeper.
The problem is hes already managed to steal 80% of the last adventures loot with sound reasoning, successful skill rolls, throwing the trail of him and onto other characters with Roleplaying and the fact the rest of the party seem oblivious (IC and OOC) to his 'antics'. Now hes wanting to invest resorces into a ship which he can use to further his characters wealth/influence without sharing a copper with the party (even point out his intentions to charge the party if they where to use his boat)
Read the OP one more time. He's not asking and not attempting - he's TAKEN 80% of their treasure. And he's not only intending to buy a boat with their money but to then CHARGE the other PC's even more to use it. A character with a high self-interest does not need to take 80% of the loot to be true to his motivation. A character who has larger goals for himself (AND the party) does not need to take the loot by hook and crook. Even if the other PC's would only spend it on ale and whores, if the other PC's truly don't care all he'd have to do is ASK to be given control of 80% of the loot and explain that the PARTY can make even more by investing in shipping. Note, however, that the indication is not investing party loot - it's taking loot from the party without asking. It may not be an issue now for most at the table but it most definitely can be an issue later and IS an issue for the OP.
Iv tryed explaining to him the idea of working together and pooling recorses but he keeps defending his characters actions with a firey passion that taking advantage of the party is what the character would do and insists that pooling his characters hard earnt profit with the rest of the party is unfair (which is kind of true considering none of the other party show even the slightest intrest in similar persuits and are content with spending thier down-time in brothles and taverns). Any valid points from me are met with hour long arguments/discussions on realisum, viability and counter arguments and I feel that if I put my foot down he will loose heart with the character and give only token participation if at all.
Ergo, the PLAYER is working actively to not just maintain but expand this point of contention. Even if it's just an issue between these two people it's an issue. And it doesn't HAVE to be this way. The character in question can simply accept that it will take longer to achieve his goals as he continues to watch his compatriots waste their money. He can take satisfaction in knowing that HE will someday have something to show for his efforts where his companions won't. Even charging them for use of what would be HIS boat is somewhat palatable if he's used only HIS OWN fair share of loot to get the boat.
How in the infinate hells do I instill in him a sence of companionship with the party without railroading him? Is that even possible? And how do I keep the loot etc fair if hes the only one willing to put the work in to gaining extra while the rest of the party await the next adventure hook?
None of these questions are adequately answered by "have an intervention with the player" or any of the other conditioned responses thrown out. As I said in my last post, the best way to instill a sense of companionship is let it evolve naturally through the story. As for unfair loot, it's easy enough to add more treasure.
The player is using the excuse of, "It's what my character would do," to obtain excessive treasure for his PC AT THE EXPENSE OF the other PC's and will not consider alternate approaches to playing his character. That is being a jerk, in character and out and while it's POSSIBLE to run a game with those kind of PC atttitudes it is not something a player has a right to do. Even if the other players LET someone walk all over them it is not something the DM has to allow if he doesn't want to run that kind of game.
And the answers to these questions were given in the link to Rich Burlew's column and repeated elsewhere. The player can and should choose to have his character act differently. The unwritten rule/understanding is that players are largely obliged to SEEK ways to have their characters like the other PC's and be willing to cooperate with them, adventure alongside each other, and treat each other fairly. Intra-party conflict is certainly an aspect of the game that CAN be explored (I'm actually of the opinion that at least a little inter-PC conflict makes for a better game) but the game is NOT expressly intended to do so. It is the PC's AS A GROUP against the world, not MY PC against the world and his own party members too. A player who has been ASKED OOC to be more cooperative and responds with, "NO. This is what my character wants to do," would not listen to any answers to those questions anyway.
It is the expected honorable, fair, and cooperative party of PC's that the OP wants to see and which the player in question obstinately refuses to enable. It isn't that some players aren't getting enough treasure and you can just heap on more to make up for 80% of it going to ONE PC. You have to admit that's a bad way to run a game. At the very least you're only going to run into trouble down the road with one PC having too much treasure, not with the others having too little (and wasting a lot of it anyway).
A few others did suggest adding story elements that put the character's new purchases in jepoardy , requiring him to ask for help or risk losing everything. Ad for treasure, having class or character specific gear makes it more obvious who the treasure if for, so it's harder for one person to take and keep. Limit the disposable gold available.
Good points, and I'd add that there's no reason why any one post has to have all the answers. It's good that people ARE looking at the issue from differing perspectives. It should go without saying that there are two sides to every story and almost always missing details of what's ACTUALLY happening at the table. But there's no reason to fault people for not displaying the wisdom of Solomon with every response either.
Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.
My 1E Project: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm
I’ve removed content from this thread because vulgarity is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg... .
If you need help, you can contact us through the Knowledge Base. You can log in there with the same account you use to post here.
Having trouble accessing the Knowledge Base? Post here and we can get it fixed.
Am I the only one who finds the argument "you can't role-play play the character you want because this is a heroic game" a bit of a lame cop out? It was my first reaction as well to chime in that he picked an inappropriate charecter, but who am I to tell someone thei character is "wrong".
I don't see the problem here. It doesn't sound like he's impacting any one else's fun or ruining their game. They seem oblivious by the OP's comments.
My advice to the DM is let things unfold but be prepared for when poop hits the fan. I would let him know that taking magic items from other party members is unacceptible regardless of what the game says. It's needed for balance and math, so he should ease of the swiping of magical items. But, let him know you will increase the ammount of gold available in the game. He's buying a ship with his money, not exactly something game breaking, he's not using the extra money to pimp himself out in magical items. He's enjoying himself, give him a little extra gold to balance out what he's spending and stealing.
If the player were to want to play a super-powered radioactive half-vampire, half-night_elf, half-Klingon, 3/4 android lone-wolf Yakuza enforcer in a cooperative, social, heroic fantasy game, it would be no more or less of a "cop-out".
This is a game of imagination where players are encouraged to play the role of any character they can imagine, but that should be qualified with "within reason".
It is the player's responsibility to create a character that fits in with the group, the game world, and the game, and if the player is so inflexible that he/she absolutely cannot or will not grasp how to play a social and cooperative game, in spite of the best efforts of the DM and group to try to meet that player half-way while still keeping the game fun for everyone else, that player will need to be removed from the group.
Now, that said, there are some great points here:
Is it really a problem? It really is only a problem if someone is not having fun because of it. If the other players are all on board with this and say it is perfectly OK with them, then the OP might want to ask himself if it really is that big a problem, after all, if only the DM is annoyed by the behavior and can't find some way to adjust. However, if the players are getting disgruntled about the behavior of the player in question, the game needs to be stopped until everyone can come to a "gentleman's agreement" on the best way for everyone's style of role-playing to meet up on the same page so that everyone can enjoy themselves, which is, after all, what everyone is there for. .
With the right group, a "scoundrel" character can actually work well. It is certainly possible for everyone to have a great time with a character acting as the party's Doctor Smith (that character from Lost in Space whose selfish, cowardly, and self-serving schemes and antics caused trouble for the other characters every week): it can potentially provide some very memorable role-playing opportunities and an almost endless supply of plot hooks to keep the game going. But, that all depends on the willingness of all the players to accept that sort of character and make some room for it, and for the DM to be flexible enough to keep that sort of character involved in a way that doesn't hog the spotlight, while still keeping that character involved in the fun. .
Is the character really "stealing" from the party, or is it "fluff"? It can certainly be argued that the player in question is actually not ripping the other PCs off, if he's essentially bought, on the party's behalf, a pretty cool plot device that all the PCs actually have an equal share in, in the form of that ship. This might be something that most other game groups would have had the party split the costs of voluntarily, but in this case the player could have taken it upon his character to invest in this ship for everyone else, as a party. Again, if all the other players are OK with that, and the player who did it is really being more cooperative and generous than the character he's playing is being "fluffed" to seem, then it's not a problem. That depends a lot on whether the entire party is in reality reaping the benefit of that one character's "selfish schemes". .
Stealing magic items is probably a shortcut to a group meltdown, and should be stopped. I totally agree that stealing magic items from other PCs is something the DM should put his foot down about, with no compromise, since a typical game of D&D depends on characters getting a fair share of magical loot appropriate for their level, to ensure that the characters are well-balanced with each other and against the threats the DM plans for them to face. In contrast, non-magical loot and money is usually just there to support role-playing: D&D characters typically end up with more money and loot than they know what to do with, and there's certainly some room to play with it.
Two RPG rules I tend to go by are: "it's only a problem if someone is not having fun", and "a cooperative game cannot survive an uncooperative group member".
Usually, one or more players - or a DM - who cannot or will not cooperate is going to be doing things that are not fun for other people, and so that is a problem.
The OP needs to decide for certain if it's really a problem, and whether the player is really being uncooperative, independent of whether the character is a scoundrel or not. Whenever there is any doubt, this can only be determined for certain by talking to the group out-of-character, individually and as a group, to find out for certain whether or not everything is going smoothly.
Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
"Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
"Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
If it's only an issue between the OP and the guy who wants a boat, then why is the onus on the player to change to suit the DM? The DM could get over it and facilitate the player's idea of fun (getting lots of money) by skewing the numbers for the rest of the party to keep them on track and letting Cap'n Boatowner dump all his excess money into gold sinks that he's providing himself.
IF there's a problem, then the problem isn't the guy buying the boat.
The problem is that it's the DM's job to referee the game and keep things fair, and the player who bought the boat did so by stealing rewards from the other players, an action which the other players might resent (and rightfully so).
So, the first thing that needs to happen is the DM needs to check with the other players to make sure they are alright with Cap'n McBoatowner stealing their characters' treasure to buy the boat.
If they are OK with that, then it's only the DM that has a problem, and the DM needs to either lighten up and find a way to adapt to his group, or find a different group to DM. And, the players may be cool with it: adventures on a boat and the opportunity to role-play what happens when their characters find out they've been cheated by someone they trusted as a friend could be exciting and positive experiences for everyone. .
If the other players do resent gaming with a PC that does whatever he wants at everyone else's expense, then the DM may be right in the concerns about the player's choice of character being a disruptive force at the gaming table, and he does need to talk to the player about it, and it would be up to the player to either change his characterization to something that both he and the other players will have fun with, or find a group that does want to be lied to, stolen from, and cheated (such groups do exist, with a variety of motives.)
Either way, I would be surprised if any experienced DM above is suggesting that the player HAS to change something without the DM first having to do a little homework (in the form of stopping the game and talking to the group), and I would be astonished if anyone who is saying the player has to change no matter what is saying that because the character bought a boat.
Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
"Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
"Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
I agree wholeheartedly on your first bullet, and that's the situation that I presume it to be. The second one, if that is the case, is also entirely fair.
The first bullet has trickier implications to navigate, the second one is nice and straightforward, it just really doesn't sound like the case to me. I hope OP comes back and posts up some clarification or a status update or something, otherwise we're just gonna be agreeing on what to do and arguing over speculation with regards to how much the rest of his party cares.
After a point, you cant hide behind the sheild of "its what my character would do".
if he has hit the point where it is bothering the other players, then the simplest thing to do is to make an encounter to kill/capture the character. chances are he has pissed off some NPCs that would want him bagged and tagged, just use one of them and get that guy outta there.
if you feel the need to deal with it OOC than basically tell him you dont care about his character reasonings, either fix it and play fair or remove him from play.
I agree wholeheartedly on your first bullet, and that's the situation that I presume it to be. The second one, if that is the case, is also entirely fair.
The first bullet has trickier implications to navigate, the second one is nice and straightforward, it just really doesn't sound like the case to me. I hope OP comes back and posts up some clarification or a status update or something, otherwise we're just gonna be agreeing on what to do and arguing over speculation with regards to how much the rest of his party cares.
The two aren't separate issues. Problem 1 develops into Problem 2, and it could do so at any time. All it takes is one guy doing the math and going "Wait a second... I have 8 gold, and the rogue just bought a ship?" The fact that it's just Problem 1 for the moment doesn't mean the DM needs to get over himself; it means he's picked up Problem 2 while it's still in its larval form.
The main border between the two issues is a matter of consent, and I've seen both sides of the consent equation happen. Where consent is given, some fantastic role-playing opportunities arise. Where no consent is given, it usually turns into the case of the whole group resenting the fact that their characters have effectively become the butt-monkey side-kicks of a PC whose player doesn't care if anyone else is having fun.
I think the original poster really should talk to everyone, and make sure he understands the situation, and has enough information to deal with any problems that actually exist.
That conversation can be as simple as saying to each player before the next game session: "Part of my job as DM is to make sure we as a group resolve any potential problems before anything gets too far, and I have to worry a bit about the situation with Cap'n McGrabbyhands; as you know, that character has been sneaking around and skimming some of your treasure off the top whenever your characters' backs are turned. To his credit, McGrabbyhands' player has used that treasure to buy a ship that is effectively a party resource, which seems fair to me since you will all benefit from it, but I do want to make sure you guys are cool with the direction things are going in."
I think a mature group with good communication skills will be cool with it. Unfortunately, I think most normal groups have less that perfect communication skills, and contain one or more players who have less than perfect maturity, so it's something that a DM is right to approach with caution.
Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
"Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
"Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
