I have a player who has pulled a 180 w/his character out of the blue. We have been in the same campaign for about two years now, and it is about ready to end/come to fruition. He plays a high level Wizard. A few games ago, he just up and walked out. Not from the gaming table - from the party. He severed all ties with the group and wants his own mini-episode game run along side the regular campaign.
Not only does this throw a wrench in my current campaign plans but it also confuses and upsets me and some of the players. There was really no catalyst or reason for him to leave and hate on the party/NPC's. He wants to go evil now and "kill people" so he can go deep undercover with their current enemies, the city of Shade. I told him there may be no coming back from acts like that and you cant just go "evil" for a while, kill people and then come out of it. He thinks he could polymorph himself into another person for a long time and eventually believe he is him and that would justify the evil turn.....that is player one.
Now....I have another problem with a PC in the same game who read the DMG 4E and now keeps bringin up the section where it says something along the lines of the DM should always hear players out with their character plans and make them come to fruition. I told him I do do this but not in EVERY case. He want to make a mythal (or find one) and use it to take over the city of Shade. I told him that really is not even the nature of the item and that taking over the city is a pretty lofty goal. He feels if he had a floating city to himself, he could do it.....
So I basically have one player who is unhappy becasue I wont give him or let him make/find a mythal and take over the city of Shade (why can't we do it? he argues...) and the other one is now so paranoid about his guy that he thinks if he tells me anything about what he wants or his plans for the PC down the road, that I won't let him do these things. This is totally not the case and I have explained it to him. however, he won;t hear me out. As a result he feels he needs to spring them on me and the group in the game (the game he is making me run for him solo, while the rest of the group "watches") or they won't happen.
Any advice on handling players/situations like these? I have always been really open with my players as far as helping them achieve their goals but these two situations boggle my mind. One seems like a lofty goal destined to fail (taking over Shade) and the other is a PC problem I have never encountered before. After two years in the same campaign it seems that the culmination is slipping away from me and I a may not be able to wrap it up the way I intended to - which is totally fine. i have already got more ideas, I just need advice regarding these two target areas to reassure myself that I am not just being a obstinate DM.
One seems like a lofty goal destined to fail (taking over Shade) and the other is a PC problem I have never encountered before. After two years in the same campaign it seems that the culmination is slipping away from me and I a may not be able to wrap it up the way I intended to - which is totally fine. i have already got more ideas, I just need advice regarding these two target areas to reassure myself that I am not just being a obstinate DM.
I don't think you're being "obstinate"--I think these two problem players are being bratty. The DM and the players are supposed to cooperate with each other, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for players to run roughshod all over the game (and the DM, and the other players).
Maybe you could try to accomodate the mythal builder by having his quest turn out to be very long and involved (as it should be). He'll need to do research and build allies, as well as deal with retaliation from the Shades. As for the guy who wants "mini-episodes" for his character? Don't know what to say about that, except that it sounds like that player wants his character to be the "star". Perhaps he's not a player you'd want in your group.
Now....I have another problem with a PC in the same game who read the DMG 4E and now keeps bringin up the section where it says something along the lines of the DM should always hear players out with their character plans and make them come to fruition.
If he likes reading the DMG so much, then make sure to point him to page 32. :P
And to reiterate what was said before, nope, you're not being an obstinate DM. You just got two problem players, one with a really dumb idea and another with a self-centered idea. I say you give them what they want... and make them regret it. Run the wizard in a few solo games, and have him "infiltrate the bad guys by becoming evil". Then run him in a game with the other players in which they're convinced he has switched sides and are out to kill him. Getting bludgeoned to death, or near death, by the rest of the party will probably settle that.
As for the other guy, make it clear that taking over Shade is near impossible. But if he wants to go through with it, then go ahead. Just make sure you play the Shades as they would be played, and that the mythals work the way they're supposed to. The look on his face when his plan turns out to be crap and he's killed by the Shades should prove to be pretty amusing.
I currently have some issues with my current Realms game I need advice on.
I have a player who has pulled a 180 w/his character out of the blue. We have been in the same campaign for about two years now, and it is about ready to end/come to fruition. He plays a high level Wizard. A few games ago, he just up and walked out. Not from the gaming table - from the party. He severed all ties with the group and wants his own mini-episode game run along side the regular campaign.
Not only does this throw a wrench in my current campaign plans but it also confuses and upsets me and some of the players. There was really no catalyst or reason for him to leave and hate on the party/NPC's. He wants to go evil now and "kill people" so he can go deep undercover with their current enemies, the city of Shade. I told him there may be no coming back from acts like that and you cant just go "evil" for a while, kill people and then come out of it. He thinks he could polymorph himself into another person for a long time and eventually believe he is him and that would justify the evil turn.....that is player one.
Now....I have another problem with a PC in the same game who read the DMG 4E and now keeps bringin up the section where it says something along the lines of the DM should always hear players out with their character plans and make them come to fruition. I told him I do do this but not in EVERY case. He want to make a mythal (or find one) and use it to take over the city of Shade. I told him that really is not even the nature of the item and that taking over the city is a pretty lofty goal. He feels if he had a floating city to himself, he could do it.....
So I basically have one player who is unhappy becasue I wont give him or let him make/find a mythal and take over the city of Shade (why can't we do it? he argues...) and the other one is now so paranoid about his guy that he thinks if he tells me anything about what he wants or his plans for the PC down the road, that I won't let him do these things. This is totally not the case and I have explained it to him. however, he won;t hear me out. As a result he feels he needs to spring them on me and the group in the game (the game he is making me run for him solo, while the rest of the group "watches") or they won't happen.
Any advice on handling players/situations like these? I have always been really open with my players as far as helping them achieve their goals but these two situations boggle my mind. One seems like a lofty goal destined to fail (taking over Shade) and the other is a PC problem I have never encountered before. After two years in the same campaign it seems that the culmination is slipping away from me and I a may not be able to wrap it up the way I intended to - which is totally fine. i have already got more ideas, I just need advice regarding these two target areas to reassure myself that I am not just being a obstinate DM.
Player 1, the side game guy. Tell him no, you have no time or inclination to run a game just for him. Perhaps offer him a substitute, remove his current character and make an NPC story for him to be useful to you in the game.
Player 2, Mythals require a group ritual of ancient and powerful mages to create and don't work the way he wishes they did, not to mention any mythal or shade city would be defended by many powerful enemies.
Both of these characters sound like there plans (succeed or fail) would make great end stories for there epic destinies, you could have them play untill then and give them a sum up at the very end on how that went for there now retired characters.
-The player who wants to take over the City of Shade: Firstly, it sounds like he doesn't exactly know what a Mythal is. I'd guide him over to Elves of Faerûn, so he can freshen up on what a Mythal is. That aside, players often do come up with silly things to do. As a DM, you can either go along with it, or dissuade the character from attempting to do what he is doing. Personally, I'd do the latter. And, there's a variety of ways of going about doing this: Perhaps introduce an agent of the Olin Gisiae, an Elven organization that keeps Elven secrets secret. They threaten the PC, telling him to stop putting his nose where it doesn't belong, and that if he continues, there will be consequences for him to pay. Or, an agent from the City of Shade arrives, and steals/destroys all of the research that he's been doing, reducing his efforts back to 0, and alerting him that the Shadovar are on to him, and are none too pleased.
Lol, if you didn't want to be that mean, just refrain from pulling your punches. An even level con should be a challenge for a player in 4th edition.
As for the mythal... Do they even have rules for Mythals, or even epic spellcasting for that matter, in 4th edition? If not, you would be completely within your rights to rule that they are impossible to create without Mystra and the weave. And for going to war with shade? My philosiphy is give the players what they ask for, but don't pull any punches. A few shade assasins and small legions of hardened warriors should wear down the party in no time. I guess the question is where the other party members stand on this? If they want to go to war with shade too, then they made their choice. If not, then it's a little more tricky.
Or, alternately, have a member of the Shade-allied forces infiltrate the circle of casters and throw the ritual off at the last moment, costing the player a fortune in time and money.
As for the other guy, tell him that D&D is a group game and you're not going to subject the other players to watching him glory in his role-playing self-gratification and that you don't have the time or desire to craft two adventures per gathering to sate his ego. If he wants to have a solo adventure, let him write a fanfic. Otherwise, he needs to leave his character with the group or roll up a replacement character.
As to the second... It sounds more like the player wants a Mythallar, which is what the Netherese use to power their enclaves. Same basic problems as above though. Almost nobody remembers how to craft one, and those that do are disinclined to share that knowledge, in fact one of them is the lord of Shade itself. And in the end, unless you are playing 4e, it requires Proctiv's Move Mountain, an epic spell that is beyond even the most powerful mages that run around Faerun (spellcraft DC: 280).
I want to end the campaign soon as the characters are all high level and want to try 4e. I had the finish planned out but when the PC that ran off decided to not give me his PC game plan anymore because, in his words, "otherwise it won't happen" - I became stumped a bit as planning to anticipate "odd action A" and "senseless act B" were pretty tough when trying to steer a high level wizo away from his secretive goals. All in game mind you...
I came up with a solution to that however, and a new finish to the game - but I don't want the other player (I want to take over Shade player) to fill unfulfilled if I send him to Shade to most likely die. He does not know what a threat Telamont is not to mention the princes and others. He just keeps saying it is a fantasy game and I should be able to do what I want, otherwise what's the point?
To an extent I agree with him but he has to realize that somewhere down the road, a line has to be drawn.
The main thing is to not penalize the remaining party members for the others foolishness.
As for the go it alone guy... let him descend to evil, let him try and get in good with the bad guys. Then do what I suggested above, or let him know that his act was REALLY convincing, and send a couple chosen after him. Lol.
"Are you SURE you want to take this action?"
A lot of the time, I'll just kill you anyway, because I run hardcore old school D+D where if you don't do the thinking, you die, but for stuff that ruins everyone else's fun, you need to really sit everyone down and have a chat with them.
Personally, I think the guy who wants to turn evil is being STUPID, and he should be rewarded with Twinned Enervation powered by Hellcat Gauntlets, which will give him 2d4 Negative Levels and an additional 8d6 of HP damage. Give the guy a Greater Empowerment rod. Whatever hits him next should kill him. On average, that's going to be 10 negative levels +27 HP of damage, so all it takes is one 15th level Shade Wizard with Greater Invisibility and Improved Initiative.
The other guy has to be told "Look. Unless you know Shadow Weave Magic, you can't cast spells in the City of Shade at all." My PC's are currently working towards this goal also, and they have VERY different means of achieving them.
If I assume these guys are around 20th level then going against the city of Shade should normally be suicide, but whatever, make a hell of a social thing out of it, include every powerful NPC and let them negotiate with Elminister. It sounds exactely like the super-cinematic end-quest you want for 3.5.
Note: I once ran a small-scale godwar in Faerun, where two priests managed to stir up heaven itself, which led to the most amazing battle in a long time (it included Cyric, a ton of demons, selune, shar, a shadow-tarrashua, shades and yea...). We had a lot of fun, and it made sense in the plot-line.
For the second guy its more difficult. I would say this to him:
I am GMing this game so that it is fun to you, I am not your enemy. If you cannot tell the judge what you are up to, he will not judge your game (not play your solo-session). If your character behaves to far outside the square of the group without me knowing the bigger picture he will become an NPC, be killed or something else nasty. If you tell me what you are up to, I may be in for a solo session or two, and a trip into evil and back.
Play on his team but on your terms
Granted, I made Clairiburnus Tanthul the creepy, skinny, disturbing looking, long haired, anime-style villain with a glaive, but so what? That sheet, assuming you don't care about things like experience point penalties, is noxious in a million ways.
The only way you can really cripple these guys is with melee attacks and buffing your own people. They throw people in the way for that. My problem right now is that the PC's want to kick these guys out of Sembia, and it's 1375. They're playing the political game, and they're not doing too badly.
I have the conflicting character goals thing too with two of the four characters, but fortunately, the GMPC is the cleric, so there's always the ability to provide rapproachment by saying "Listen. Someone will be doing things without healing magic." That usually unifies the group for a touch.
Plus, they've gotten so many other people to hate them that separation=death.
In the future, when someone like this is about to leave the group, ATTACK them with one of their old enemies. That can be a great boon also. Make the impression that if the group splits up, they won't be safe.
Is Shade held in place by a mythal or a mythallar?
-Mythallar.
Were this my game, I'd accommodate both players. I wouldn't do this out of any sort of obligation, but rather to just let them reap the consequences (good and bad) of their actions and keep play going.
You can structure things so that player 1's goals intersect with player 2's goals. Perhaps player 2 can't find anything out about Mythals from the elves, but learns from in-game info you throw at Player 1 that P1 has found a library of stolen Mythal lore in the City of Shade.
What class is Player 2?
I have even LESS respect for DMs that try to accommodate stupid, game-ruining players.
I have even LESS respect for DMs that try to accommodate stupid, game-ruining players.
That's too bad....some really good DMs you'd otherwise do well to know. :P
Sure, players can just up and decide to be jackasses sometimes. Nothing new there. The trick is getting these players back into the fold.
I guess I view such behavior as more of a challenge than a hindrance or an annoyance.
That's too bad....some really good DMs you'd otherwise do well to know. :P
Sure, players can just up and decide to be jackasses sometimes. Nothing new there. The trick is getting these players back into the fold.
I guess I view such behavior as more of a challenge than a hindrance or an annoyance.
Oh I know some really good DMs. I'm fortunate to be in groups with non-stupid players (as in the kind the OP described). In NYC, we have a meetup site and all where DMs post what they look for in players, and that helps alot. If we do get some undesirables, I tend to become the mean guy who boots 'em off the island (cause the others are non-confrontational). Once, there was this guy who stunk. Really really bad BO. He was also loud and talked too much. Pretty much annoyed the whole group, but they couldn't tel him so.
drizzt420:
Were this my game, I'd accommodate both players. I wouldn't do this out of any sort of obligation, but rather to just let them reap the consequences (good and bad) of their actions and keep play going.
You can structure things so that player 1's goals intersect with player 2's goals. Perhaps player 2 can't find anything out about Mythals from the elves, but learns from in-game info you throw at Player 1 that P1 has found a library of stolen Mythal lore in the City of Shade.
What class is Player 2?
He just told you that kind of structure was impossible. D+D is not about instant gratification and getting what you want. D+D is about participation in a world of living, breathing characters who have hopes, thoughts, and dreams. The DM has the right to tell the PC: Look, your goal is IMPOSSIBLE.
Because despite the fact that it might be IC for the character to WANT this, it's the DM's job to say "Look, your intelligence score tells you that this is flat out impossible. Even Prince Telamont Tanthul casting his take over the world from his bedroom spell couldn't succeed at the action you're discussing."
There's a large part of "Participating in the DM's vision" that most players who play the game these days seem to be missing. To me, half the fun of the game is sharing the world with the Dungeon Master, and lately, more and more, all that is "All about me."
In NYC, we have a meetup site and all where DMs post what they look for in players, and that helps alot.
-Where is this?
He just told you that kind of structure was impossible. D+D is not about instant gratification and getting what you want. D+D is about participation in a world of living, breathing characters who have hopes, thoughts, and dreams. The DM has the right to tell the PC: Look, your goal is IMPOSSIBLE.
Because despite the fact that it might be IC for the character to WANT this, it's the DM's job to say "Look, your intelligence score tells you that this is flat out impossible. Even Prince Telamont Tanthul casting his take over the world from his bedroom spell couldn't succeed at the action you're discussing."
There's a large part of "Participating in the DM's vision" that most players who play the game these days seem to be missing. To me, half the fun of the game is sharing the world with the Dungeon Master, and lately, more and more, all that is "All about me."
-Indeed. As a player, I enjoy D&D. I know, however, that when I do things that are disrupting, I nudge the scale over slightly, where not playing D&D is more likely than playing D&D. No D&D, no fun. Thus, people should think before they act.
Player 1: Let him become evil. Once he does, he is going to learn two important things. First, Shade has no desire to deal with him, as he is not of Netherese descent and therefore unworthy. This means that his plan will ultimately fail, and Shade may decide to off him for his temerity. After all, to the Shades, they are the good duys. They are bringing back true civilization to the realms. By their efforts a new golden age will be brought about, by whatever cost necessary. Why would they need some phychotic nut job? They would be doing the realms a favor and removing a potential threat by eliminating him.
Second, this is the 3.5 realms. As everyone points out, nothing big can happen without Elminister or some other high level NPC getting involved and saving the day. So thats exactly what I would have happen. Let the player go on his killing spree. Then let him face the reprocussions as the harpers and chosen respond to the new threat of a powerful mage abusing the weave, and laying waste to villages in the realms.
Player 2: So what he wants is a Mythaller of his own. Thats just fine, except how does the PC know about them? Not the player, the PC? Once he is able to make those kinds of knowledge checks, he is now going to have to figure out how to make one. That should involve tracking down ancient enclaves, and investigating them. Guess who monitors those sights like a hawk? Thats right, the Shades. Give him a good taste of what the Shades can throw at him, and maybe he will change his mind. Otherwise, his quest will take a very long time, and be fraught with frustration, which it should.
Anyways... thats what I would do.
He just told you that kind of structure was impossible.
No, he didn't.
He said the player's actions threw a wrench into his campaign plans and upset a couple of the other players.
D+D is not about instant gratification and getting what you want.
True. Good thing that’s not the problem we’re dealing with here.
D+D is about participation in a world of living, breathing characters who have hopes, thoughts, and dreams.
Like the goals his two problem players have?
Look, I know just as well (if not more so) than you that problem players need to be dealt with. However, it sounds like the players drizzt420 has aren’t problem players in the traditional sense.
I subscribe to the view that sometimes the best campaign and adventure ideas don’t come from a DM’s head. Sometimes they come from the unexpected actions taken by one or more players at the table.
I’m curious to know more of how drizzt420’s campaign was supposed to end.
-Where is this?
You've never been to the site or monthly meetups? Here's the link:
The NYC Dungeons & Dragons Meetup Group
Player 2: So what he wants is a Mythaller of his own. Thats just fine, except how does the PC know about them? Not the player, the PC? Once he is able to make those kinds of knowledge checks, he is now going to have to figure out how to make one. That should involve tracking down ancient enclaves, and investigating them. Guess who monitors those sights like a hawk? Thats right, the Shades. Give him a good taste of what the Shades can throw at him, and maybe he will change his mind. Otherwise, his quest will take a very long time, and be fraught with frustration, which it should.
Anyways... thats what I would do.
I agree, despite what I said in an earlier post about stupid players. The second player is not really being a problem. In one game I was in 4 years ago, my drow theurgess managed to extract information on mythals (using ... evil, meanie methods) and rediscovering the art of High Magic. Even after questing for a year (RL time), I and my companions raised a mythal using recovered artifacts, sacrificial victims (one of which was a former party member, a paladin I betrayed), and all that jazz. While we were performing the rituals, we were attacked by every fiend, undead, and what-have-you in the land. It was a harrowing experience. But was awesome.
If you don't have time to work on their side plots, enlist a co-DM to take up the slack, running the bits that their own character isn't involved in. Or just learn to take turns dealing with the different plots. I have seen a DM handle 5 players each doing his/her own thing, and it ran well, especially since half the work is done by the players, you just have to fill in the blanks on the adventure they have handed you.
No, he didn't.
He said the player's actions threw a wrench into his campaign plans and upset a couple of the other players.
True. Good thing that’s not the problem we’re dealing with here.
Like the goals his two problem players have?
Look, I know just as well (if not more so) than you that problem players need to be dealt with. However, it sounds like the players drizzt420 has aren’t problem players in the traditional sense.
I subscribe to the view that sometimes the best campaign and adventure ideas don’t come from a DM’s head. Sometimes they come from the unexpected actions taken by one or more players at the table.
I’m curious to know more of how drizzt420’s campaign was supposed to end.
That may be, and sometimes they do, but.,..
Caveat here.
He said that it upset two of the other players. That means that was A) The wrong thing for those players to do and B) Those players that caused the situation are being disruptive. Feelings were already wounded out of character, and no matter what you do in game, you can't always fix that. '
You shouldn't take actions that make the game less fun for others. It depends on the group, of course, but clearly, our fellow dungeon master here has already let us know that a line was crossed.
The thing is their benefactor does not want anyone controlling Shade, he/she wants it to be destroyed. He/she lied to the PCs and told them that with his/her help they would be able to totally control Shade. The artifact he/she gave them is actually meant to destroy it. The benefactor needed them to unleash some great evil nasties in the desert (more evil acts for the one PC) because these things will help distract the Princes. While distracted and with magical aid from the "benefactor" they can possibly get onto the enclave. Then it is up to them. If they do get to the Mythal the PC who thinks he now has control realizes he made a big mistake.
After their actions many Princes are dead and the city is in ruins. If they made it off the city in time, they have many problems to deal with now.
The remaining Princes will be looking at who did this to them. The PCs let loose some very bad ancient evils to distract the Shades and now they are ravageing the world. They may now wish to seek revenge on their "benefactor" after he has betrayed them in such a way.
Letting the PCs ideas turn into a campaign is not a bad thing. Just let them know that every action has a consequence, and they should be prepared for it to bite them on the tail. My players have influenced my game greatly with an odd comment or two and I was pretty thankful for it.
The more i think about this, and my earlier judgment, the more I realize I made a minor mistake. The one thing I failed to account for was that you knew how the campaign was going to end. This to me sounds like railroading. You already knew where the players had to go and what they had to do to get there.
Maybe. I just got the impression that the OP had some plans in effect. I'm not sure that means he was "railroading", or that his plans are what stifled the players in question.
Suprise, the players decided that they were as involved in developing the story you are telling as you are, and started exercising free will. If they are disruptive and people aren't having a good time, then by all means reign them in.
According to the OP, they are being disruptive (or at least the first guy is).
This I can attest to from personal experience.
The trick lay in how you respond. Do you totally stonewall your players? Do you go with their flow and re-write the ending? Do you try to incorporate both what the player’s want and what you had in mind?
I don’t envy the OP for this position he/she is in.
Allowing the players to follow their paths only to kill them/have them killed by elminster/have their plans horribly fail would be a silly way to DM the end of your game, it would also be not fun at all and would marr the start of your 4th Ed game.
I would just meet with the player out of game time and speak to them.
You say you are planning on wrapping up the game so you think that a solo quest isn't really an option. Say you would greatly appreciate it if he could bear with you on the campaign and see it through to the conclusion you had in mind.
There is another option as well.
You can have BOTH players do what it is they want to do, but detach it from the game.
So each one tries their quest and writes a downtime for you. A few months/year of game time. You don't play the time, so you don't use up session time.
You talk through with the players outcomes you'd be happy with and a situation you'd like to be in after the months of non play time.
Then your next session starts after the interlude and you do YOUR finalle.
Be sure to give your other players a benefit for the downtime too. One could quest for the magical sword of kicking ass in your final showdown. Another could quest for the relic of being able to impose a permanent death on the baddie of the final showdown. Don't play them just give them the stuff and move on to your wrap up.
The one who wants the flying city can make the flying city which can be the stage of the final showdown. (and presumably crash in the battle for maximum dramatic effect)
The only problem is with the Evil one. He should Fake his evilness I think killing civies is bad. and perhaps gain some insight into the great evil that only your group can defeat in ... The final showdown. Before he is discovered and driven from the shades.
Then you can end the game with an almighty epic battle on the stage set by one character, with a "true enemy" discovered by another, and the tools of victory given to the other players.
The other PC, well....he is a bit stubborn and the biggest rule nazi I have ever met. He is VERY difficult to deal with at times but is still a player who gets a lot out of the game. With that being said, I have to admit that I am caving a little for him and will let him follow his goals to an extent. i am making sure he feels fulfilled here and that I am not trying to circumvent his ideas for his PC by telling him flat out that he can not do these things. Learn from experience, like you guys said - I just thought I may not have enough time to do all this stuff since the game is (was) rapping up soon.
It looks like Ill run the campaign longer than expected and we will hold off on 4E for a while. I usually plan my games on a game to game basis. I hate railroad gaming and only had a loose idea of how I wanted the campaign to rap up. This involved the group, and not a rogue PC who wants to go evil and kill people to "get in deep" with the enemy. I still do not see justification for this PC to do these vile things and justify them as a necessary means for a greater good. Now the PC who wants to take down Shade......man that is a lofty goal - and in 4e, if we play it with the current storyline, Shade does exist and is more powerful than ever. I guess I could have him thwart Shades plans for a decade or so in the 3.5 game, then the Spellplague hits and over the next 100+ years, they rebuild.
Now the PC who wants to take down Shade......man that is a lofty goal - and in 4e, if we play it with the current storyline, Shade does exist and is more powerful than ever. I guess I could have him thwart Shades plans for a decade or so in the 3.5 game, then the Spellplague hits and over the next 100+ years, they rebuild.
-Heh...If this is a 3e campaign, you can end it with the character "taking on" Shade. When you begin your 4e campaign, you can explain that Shade is stronger than ever because, in X Date, someone tried to take on the Shadovar.
The additional responses have been great guys and gals, I really appreciate the creativity and insight. The game has actually moved forward since my last post. The PC who wants to roll incognito evil is being ruthless and got his wish to play "mini-episodes" during the game. he is cool about this and eats up only small amounts of time. After twenty or thirty minutes of solo gameplay from him, he actually takes the initiative to turn the game back over to the other players, on his insistence.
Good to hear he's being a cooperative player.
Now the PC who wants to take down Shade......man that is a lofty goal - and in 4e, if we play it with the current storyline, Shade does exist and is more powerful than ever. I guess I could have him thwart Shades plans for a decade or so in the 3.5 game, then the Spellplague hits and over the next 100+ years, they rebuild.
Or, you can thwart the Shades totally and disregard what the official book says happens.
Solution:Talk to him...maybe his style of play and your are just not compatible. See if a compromise might be reached...heck let him inflitrate the Shades and have they mission for him to be to return to the party to 'spy' on them.
Player 2: Would annoy me because of pointing out the passage in the Dungeron Master Guide. But let him try...his plan is that bad. Sure it is immpossible but his character wouldn't know that till he does research into it.
The PC who wants to roll incognito evil is being ruthless and got his wish to play "mini-episodes" during the game. he is cool about this and eats up only small amounts of time. After twenty or thirty minutes of solo gameplay from him, he actually takes the initiative to turn the game back over to the other players, on his insistence.
Good to hear that.
I hope all goes well for your Realms game from here on out.