Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

i am not sure what else to tell you Neonivek.  Its pretty clear that your problem player isnt looking to play fair (nicest way to describe it I could think of  ).  Its also clear that other players do want to play.  I think based on what you have told us you could handle a game at around 6th-8th level easily.  It also seems clear that you are grasping for whatever straw you can find to deal with you problem player short of just saying "No".  I hope it works out for you, cuz a fun RPG session is priceless.  I suggest starting at no higher than level 3 to help the party ease into their characters. Lastly, it is my opinion that the funnest part of the game is between level 1-6, with levels 1-3 being the core.  Thats when survival isnt guaranteed by equipment and instead by good roleplaying and tactical decisions.

[Neonivek]

I am taking all the advice seriously even if it seems like I am shrugging it off.

Anyhow it likely won't work fine for me. I have two destroyer players (players whos goal is to have fun at everyone else's expense) and they are irremovable from the game (as well their loss would end the game as they are one of those horrible package deal players)
-One of their previous DMs REALLY pulled stuff in their favor.

As well I have two new players to dnd (one of whom is a destroyer) and the other is basically the slave of the destroyer who likely wouldn't roleplay if their life depended on it (the destroyer is a HAMMY actor.)

It really is set up to fail in many ways.

I didn't really ask how to deal with those kinds of players, without kicking them from the game or making it intollerable, since for the most part any experienced DM of any talent never deals with those players and when they do their usual response is to punish them until they leave or get the picture.

My goal is mostly to be as harsh and epic as I can.

[Fayrik]

Anyhow it likely won't work fine for me. I have two destroyer players (players whos goal is to have fun at everyone else's expense) and they are irremovable from the game (as well their loss would end the game as they are one of those horrible package deal players)
-One of their previous DMs REALLY pulled stuff in their favor.

Oh god, what kind of group have you accepted.

...I think you should make it (if it's not to late of course) so that the big bad guy's second in command is a giant crystal glass carp with feathers, wings and five mouths.

[GlyphGryph]

I think you should play hackmaster instead. If you've got a group of destroyers, might as well play a system that handles it.

Alternately, let them know its not cool and that shit aint gonna fly.

I really would have gone with a much more traditional campaign until you got the group used to playing together and instilled some good habits in you - in many ways, you're setting yourself up for trouble here. If every one of your players is dead set on removing the fun of all the other players, just play some goddamn munchkin or something.

Man, now I really want to run a game though...

Off to forum games to start an RP recruitement thread!

[Darvi]

Hmm, if you can't get rid of 'em, let 'em fail horribly at the end of the game. Give them a bad ending. The worst.

[Sowelu]

Consider that it might be time to throw in the towel.

If you were an artist, and got a commission from six people--two of which were total jerks and would actively try to sabotage the process--and you knew that the process would take a lot of time and might not even pay off that well, would you take the job, or would you reject it after seeing what their requirements were like?

There are SO MANY other things you could do with your time, and other groups you could find that are sane and sensible.  Your time, sanity, and respect for humanity are all limited resources, start treating them that way.  You know the saying, don't throw good money after bad?  Well if this game looks like it's just going to go downhill, you might not want to throw good time after bad.

(It might not be THAT bad of a group, in reality, but you should consider it at least.  It's always an option.)

[Truean]

Another problem with D&D is the wonky ass mechanics. I tried to introduce a friend to the system in 3e as a paladin. Rather than charge around like a bloodthirsty moron he actually tried to play with some brains and fit his character. Naturally the system just about died.

Rather than charge the goblin blindly, he wanted to wait until it tried to strike him. This was punished by the rules because it essentially gave the goblin one extra round. The BS comes from:

1.) it is a completely legit tactic.
2.) It totally fit his character...


WTF?

[Darvi]

Hmm, well as a GM you could make it work. First turn would be him acting defensively (+2 AC I think?), and next turn he would get an Attack bonus or something.

[Sowelu]

I see zero wrong with this.

Yes, it makes him weaker in combat.  So what?  Maybe against intelligent foes, he needs to take on enemies that are one CR less than normal, so he advances a little slower.  But the plot rewards could totally make up for it...give him better leadership bonuses if he wants that...or, give him a holy weapon that loses its bonus powers if he violates that directive.  "+1 sword, +2 against intelligent creatures in self-defense if it has not struck an intelligent creature EXCEPT in self-defense in the last week"?  Hell, plenty of paladins would fall all over themselves for that sword.

If you're going up against a big nasty villain, you shout "Heironius forgive me!", forge your justification in the fires of the orphanages your foe burnt down, and voluntarily lose that bonus for the advantage of the first strike.  (If you let him get away with exceptions to the mechanical rule, then you're just not playing fair.  Part of the fun of playing a paladin is deciding when it's okay to sacrifice your ethics and draw wrath upon yourself in exchange for the true greater good, however painful it is!  If he doesn't lose anything for it, then you're doing his player a disservice.)

[Truean]

Not the point:

I get that the system can compensate; it shouldn't have to.

Dude, Sowlu, it isn't about some crazy "Self defense only" kinda thing. He was playing smart and cautious. Sure, we know the stupid paladin isn't in any real danger from that goblin most of the time, but in real life, that shit is sharp and can mess you up. O just gulp a healing potion.... This is the origin of power gaming and you shouldn't be punished for not being one.

Yes, there are ways around it, but you shouldn't have to jump through hoops for it. Waiting for your opponent to misstep is great....

[Sowelu]

Oh.  In that case, your error is that you're trying to ignore the abstraction that the game already uses.

You really think that your "to hit" roll is "oh I'll just stab him"?  It represents an elaborate dance of waiting for your enemy to misstep, or to feint and go in for the kill.  That's why you get better as you're more experienced, really.  Saying "I'm going to attack him once he leaves an opening"...well, okay, that's all well and good, every single character does that already.  Just make a standard to-hit roll, and describe your action, but it's already assumed that you're doing that.  If you specifically want to fight defensively, then as already mentioned above, there's rules for doing that.

[nenjin]

Here's an alternative Neo.

Shelve any serious content you've worked up so far. (I.e. content you want people to play through maturely and appreciate.)

Craft a new, less serious set of adventures for these guys.

Use them to get experience. Roll with the punches. Don't get committed to any story outcome. Just basically give them a loose plot and turn them loose.

Why will this be good for you? It will teach you how to deal with the worst kinds of players while still keeping your cool. It will teach you to react to asinine, player-created situations with grace and fun. The biggest reason destroyers wreck a DM's fun is because DMs are committed to the worlds they create. So do the opposite. Be uncommitted. Not in the lazy or "I don't give a fuck" way, but in the "You stab the King in the face?.....Ok, here's what happens...." way.

Every DM wants to run their Magnum Opus. Sometimes, based on the players, it's not the time for it. And TBH, some really fun campaigns have resulted for me both as a DM and as a player when the DM let go of control and just let the story evolve.

I don't know how much evolution will really happen with your group....but rather than going into a session feeling like it's already doomed to suck at some point...go in with a completely open mind, and game plan. You might find you get more entertainment manipulating the players through their own decisions than you do trying to make them march to orderly beat of a drum.

[Truean]

Oh.  In that case, your error is that you're trying to ignore the abstraction that the game already uses.

You really think that your "to hit" roll is "oh I'll just stab him"?  It represents an elaborate dance of waiting for your enemy to misstep, or to feint and go in for the kill.  That's why you get better as you're more experienced, really.  Saying "I'm going to attack him once he leaves an opening"...well, okay, that's all well and good, every single character does that already.  Just make a standard to-hit roll, and describe your action, but it's already assumed that you're doing that.  If you specifically want to fight defensively, then as already mentioned above, there's rules for doing that.

A +2 that becomes worthless along with AC in general at higher levels?

[GlyphGryph]

Just like with really dangerous stuff in real life, the person to shoot first is the person more likely to win. Imagine that.

I second Nenjins idea - if you've got players committed to screwing things over with the other players, and they are all happy with that, work with what you've got. Give up any overaching plot you've got except in the most tenous terms, and just try to roll with things and insure the players have some fun. I've played games where EVERY character existed solely to screw over the other characters and there was no semblance of balance, and enjoyed myself greatly, but the host has to keep that in mind and work with it. (there WAS no campaign beyond "okay, shit, I guess it would be cool if this happened next")

D&D isn't really a great system for it though.

[Neonivek]

Maybe I should just use Call of Cthuhu... If I had the books...

I mean it has Power gaming punishment built in!

Hmmm