Our adventuring party, which consists of 3 long-timers and a new guy who joined about a month ago, just fought through 4 tough battles to discover the lich had moved the artifact we were seeking through a portal to another plane. The new PC suggested we immediately jump through the portal and continue fighting until we reached the artifact before the lich reinforced his defenses. My PC argued that would be suicidal with as exhausted as we were (we were down to a third of our healing surges & dailies), the lich would already have the other side defended, and we should withdraw, rest for the night, and attack from another nearby portal to the same plane. We have no idea what's on the other side of the portal, and the GM established it'd take us several minutes to retreat back through the portal after we enter it if things get dicey. We also have no indication whether the situation would drastically change within the next day or even what the lich is using the artifact for.
This quickly turned into a 15-minute argument with both my PC and his PC refusing to budge. His PC thought I was a coward who would doom the mission, my PC believes he's an overconfidant, reckless idiot who would get us all killed by warping into the middle of the enemy's base without intel, rest, or a plan. When one of the other PCs expressed an interest in at least seeing what was on the other side, his PC suddenly demanded a vote on whether to go through the portal or not. It ended up as two for going through the portal, one against going through the portal, with one undecided (she said whatever choice we made, it would probably be the wrong one).
My PC didn't want to risk the undecided PC finally agreeing to go through the portal as well, so he pulled rank as the de facto party leader to demand we withdraw, heal up, and gather some intel before we attacked it the next morning. The rival PC sneered and said if he had known my PC considered himself "in command" he would have never joined the group. The other PC agreeing with him is threatening to enter the portal by herself, forcing the other PCs to go in after her to protect her.
I hated to pull rank, but I feel the rival player believes the GM will always protect him no matter what reckless action he pursues (in a previous session, his wizard took point in the marching order to impress an NPC and walked into an ambush) and I have no reason ICly or OOCly to trust his judgement. The rival PC has also made no effort to befriend the other PCs, has threatened/denigrated my PC & the undecided PC before, and has ignored or acted counter to the party's suggestions before. Perhaps if I trusted him more, or I believed he cared about the party's well-being, I wouldn't have tried to overrule his suggestion, but I don't think he gives a damn and is just using the vote to make us do what he wants. This may end with his PC (and perhaps the player) leaving the party.
Did I cross a line by pulling rank and demanding the party withdraw? Is he really suicidally reckless and threatening to drag the party down with him? Do I have reason to distrust him due to his previous behavior? How should we resolve this without the party going up in flames?
You blocked the player who wanted to go through the portal. A better tact might have been to figure out a way to say "Yes, and..." then use that opportunity to improve upon his idea without negating it. Perhaps you might do a compexity 1 or 2 skill challenge to wedge open the portal briefly so that if things get too intense on the other side, you could jump back instead of having to it "take a few minutes" per the DM's declaration. That's a legitimate in-game challenge for a distinct benefit that suits your collective needs. Or perhaps the same process to scry on the other side of the portal and give you more information to make a an informed decision.
Point is, he said "Go" and you said "No." You were failure mitigating based on no concrete information; he wanted to move the game forward. Neither of you had any incentive to back down. Not even Getting the Hell On With It seemed to matter. Starting from the position of "Yes" to back his play would have "forced" you to think of a way to be able to agree to his plan and make it better through collaboration. If I were you, I'd sincerely apologize for blocking, escalating the situation, and then make an offer that would back this player's play and move the game forward. (It sounds like your DM needs to give more context, too, so that you can make meaningful decisions. Or at least offer you a legitimate in-game challenge to acquire it.)
This is what blocking is and does, guys and gals.
Yep, you blocked. If you had stated first that it was too much of a risk and the party needed to wait, and he said no, he would have been blocking. Argument between the characters can ensue no matter what has been proposed, but for it to occur between the players is crossing the line.
It doesn't matter what your PC wants. If you want something, you make your character do it. YOU didn't want to go through. Why not? What if the DM does kill your character? What would happen then?
iserith wrote:
JeffGroves wrote:
iserith wrote:
You've made it clear that it's a personal issue between you and this player. That's why there's conflict, not because either one of the approaches in the scene was better than another. Talk to the player about it outside the game, because dealing with it in game obviously doesn't work and just wrecks the game.
Here is the deal. The other players either want to go through the portal or don't care. You decided you didn't want to go. They came up with their characters motivations to want to go, or not to go. You then came up with a motivation for your chararacter to not want to go.
YOU provide your characters motivations. If the rest of the group wants to do something, you get to get over it and go along. Later on it will be your turn to do what you want, and some other player will have to come up with some motivation for their PC to do it.
Declaring yourself the leader, and then saying "so you all have to do what I say" is a good way to be laughed out of the room and I commend your group for not doing so. Leadership is about being the person who consistantly and regulalrly makes good decisions for themselves. Others see that, and naturally seek guidance because they recognize your ability to make good decisions. It is NOT "I'm in charge do what I say". A hint about leadership. If anyone ever says "As your Leader" they are a terrible leader.
Reading your responses, it sounds a lot like you don't like this player. Have a conversation with this player about the things they do that you do not like, and try to help them overcome these things. The two of you will enhance your relationship if you go about this right, and you will overcome your differences. That will prevent this issue in the future. Do not say "Hi John, these X things about you suck". Consider saying "Hey John, when you do these things it bothers me. Is there a reason you do them, and anything I can do to help you so that you don't want to do them. Or maybe is there a good reason this shouldn't annoy me?"
A good motivation for your PC. "I consider you all my good and trusted friends. If you want to go through, I trust your judgement and will follow. If only to help ensure your safety. "
Krusk wrote:
The point remains: work out your issues with this person outside of the game. This is not a game issue, this is an interpersonal issue. The kind approach "not working" is not license to use a less kind approach, because those don't work either and cause very many more problems.
Sounds like the group needs to go a to a favorite restaurant and discuss this out of game like Centauri has advised. All involved must do their best to keep name calling to a minimum and avoid the blame game entirely.
Also, all in involved must remember that it is just a game.
There is a good chance you might not "click" with this player. I have seen this a lot through the years. That leaves several options:
One or the other leaves the game. Not the best option by far.
Work it out and become friends. The best option but not always realistic (especially the friends part).
Suck it up and hope that the annoying behavior doesn't become a habit. Sometimes, a new player will act as if he is in his old game. Once he realizes he isn't in his old campaign anymore, he might back off.
Agree to disagree and play on. One of the cool aspects of D&D is that the players don't have to like each other they just have to work together.
This might seem strange, but if the issue is simply between you and the other guy, maybe you and him should go out, get a bight to eat, and discuss it yourselves, just the two of you. If nothing else, you will know how you two stand with each other. Keep in mind, the offending player may not be aware he is doing something wrong or annoying.
This leads to the next item. For this campaign a party leader must be agreed upon since your group is one that uses party leaders. Once decided, the other players and DM has to support the elected leader. The leader can change when campaigns, games or character rosters change of course. Traditionally, the players that have been in the group the longest should be the leaders.
If the new player is dictating how things go to the annoyance of the other players (clearly he is annoying you) the DM has to step in and reign it in via out of game discussion. You have told your DM that this guy is getting on your nerves right? If not, tell him (out of game) so the DM has a chance to work on it. Remember, DMs aren't psychic.
It also doesn't help to worry about whether your character lives or not. If the DM wants to kill your characters, he will. If that's a problem for you, have a back up character or other contingency, so it can stop being a problem.
Reading your responses, it sounds a lot like you don't like this player. Have a conversation with this player about the things they do that you do not like, and try to help them overcome these things. The two of you will enhance your relationship if you go about this right, and you will overcome your differences. That will prevent this issue in the future. Do not say "Hi John, these X things about you suck". Consider saying "Hey John, when you do these things it bothers me. Is there a reason you do them, and anything I can do to help you so that you don't want to do them. Or maybe is there a good reason this shouldn't annoy me?"
JeffGroves wrote:
OP: you've made several faux-pas here. That's all right though, we all gotta learn somehow.
- Blocking another player: that's been discussed exhaustively.
- Trying to mitigate failure: you're playing an adventurer, you do quests. Chance of death is part of the job description. Avoiding dangerous situations because you're afraid you're going to get killed might save you, but it will also more than likely fail your quest.
- Acting on the basis of "that's what my character would do": you, as a person, are in control of the game. You're not a slave to a fictional character you created. You can always find a reason to act out of your character's usual behaviour. Don't let it dictate your game.
- Assuming the DM is out to kill you: imagine a scenario where the party jumps through the portal and dies within the hour. What then? The campaign ends, the DM "wins", and the story is over. Where's the fun in that? If you have a capable DM, he will never put you guys in a situation where death is inevitable, because that's just bad DMing.
For more insight into these things, I suggest you read the two links in the second line of iserith's signature, under the heading Players. It will most likely change the way you approach the game as a player, for the better.
I think there might be a little blame all around, but most of it falls on your shoulders. The player might have been a bit argumentative, and if the DM has a history of boring failure and punishing players for "stupid" decisions, then he might be part of the problem. But you basically flat-out blocked his idea. And you pulled "rank" - which is something that has no place at a table.
Generally, it's a good rule of thumb to agree to whatever idea is said first, and try to build on it. What you should have done was built on his idea rather than blocking it. Say something like "Good idea. I can try to do X to make it better." You wouldn't be blocking, and the other player would feel a bit better and more valued than if you just go "no, your idea is stupid."
(Note that I don't believe there are stupid ideas in D&D. As a DM, I'm willing to roll with anything and let the dice decide if the idea was stupid or not).
"Yes, and... we should convince our radiant buddies to come in for support."
"Yes, and... I can quickly use a scrying ritual to gather some intel.."
"Yes, and... we should hold the portal open so we can quickly retreat if things get too hot or we grab the artifact"
If you've got a good DM who is willing to run with it, this can be an interesting skill challenge.
CCS wrote:
JeffGroves wrote:
Our mistake. You are perfect and did everything right. The other player is such a meanie head.
Is that what you are looking for? We gave advice to fix your situation. Try it and get back to us, or stop posting about it. You come off like you are just waiting for someone to come along and agree with you.
Jeff, sounds like you and your group needs to have an out of game pow wow and soon.
Tell the group what you said to CCS, especially the parts where you think the player is the "I can do anything" type who has destroyed 2 campaigns in the past in your experience, and that you are afraid of a three-pete. Try to be diplomatic as possible and avoid name calling, though that may prove difficult. The offending player must be present; no behind the back type of stuff.
The fact is, your distrust of this player is also a campaign breaking issue. Not only can it make for a miserable game for you, your anger can boil over and cause the group to fracture. The hope is you two can reconcile this issue before it becomes a, "He goes or I go" type issue.
I do know of the type of player of which you speak. They can be annoying for DM and other players alike. I have dealt with a few in my day and trust me, grousing about won't fix this. You have to be very careful, or you may end up being seen as the bad guy. That's why you must talk with your DM, the other players and the "offending" player. See if the others feel about the new guy as you do. This is critical. If they do, then the needed steps are clear cut-- the new player changes his tune or he's gone.
If it is only you that has a problem with this guy or his style of play, things are trickier. The Group can modify things to help you, but if they see no problem they will not be moved to do much. That leaves you and him working it out. By all that is holy, do not instigate in game retributions or PVP against this player. This will make you the bad guy and you will be the campaign destroyer you so despise. Do not make the DM become a baby sitter who has to make you two get along. Better for you two to work it out, out of game, on your own.
Should he choose not to work with you, then you have two choices-- suck it up or leave. On sucking it up, it may be that the other players' (or DM) haven't noticed the issue yet, or it hasn't affected them negatively. By sucking it up time is on your side, and should the player be as bad as you fear, the others, including the DM, will eventually see it. Try to avoid whining. State your case to be sure, but don't whine about the other guy every game. Just wait; bide your time. When he gets on enough nerves he'll most likely be forced to tone it down or leave and you won't be seen in a bad light.
Should leaving be the only acceptable option for you, tell the group, in an adult way, that you'll sit this campaign out. That way, you'll be invited back. "Either he goes or I go," should be of a last resort, and be warned-- that often backfires!
Either he goes or I go
Krusk wrote:
How's this:
"Look, I tend to be more cautious and tactical, and that's how I play my characters. I might need to back off a bit, but its hard. Every hero group in has its yin/yang, who clash: Wolverine/Cyclops, The Human Torch/The Thing, Iron Man/Captain America, even Superman/Batman. But when the chips are down, they also have each others' backs and respect one another, and would die for each other.
So can we consider [my character/your character] to be the rivals of the group? You and me agree that our characters can butt heads over inconsequential stuff, but that when it comes time for the really important things you and I not get too caught up in our characters' bickering. We lay out our ideas out of character and let the rest of the group have a vote, cuz its their game too, and then we can go back to role-playing out whatever that agreement was. That way we dont derail everyone else's fun, and if it goes bad, well, it goes bad, and we play it out."
Nice. And the characters could even keep bickering even as one of them somehow forces the issue, but the players would still be in agreement.
As long as there was agreement, it could even come down to a coin flip. Win the flip, and your character gets his way. Or, if you volunteer to let the other person have their way, then you get your way next time - though that could be gamed by someone who didn't enter into this in good faith.
Is there a possibility for the DM to call an OoC session or ask for a session the start an hour earlier where the group can talk about this? If not, then yeah, it is pretty tough to talk to they guy out of game when you can't reach him, or he won't talk to you. This is one of the downsides to online gaming.
If the group can't get together to hammer this out then it really does come down to the two options of either suck it up or the "I go or he goes" stance. Like Krusk says, don't bring on the "I go or he goes" thing unless you are prepared to be the one asked to go.
Should you try to stick it out, do yourself a favor and do not dwell on how bad the next session might be. This will only pave the way for you to be disappointed and cause you to come across as a downer as such vibes can be felt by others, even across the net. It is possible that, after a few sessions, his "recklessness" may tone down and your dislike of his play may subside, but that won't happen if you judge a session as a failure before it starts. The same advice would apply to the other guy in regards to you and the players he doesn't like as well.
What I see here is two guys that don't like each other, and the only ones that can change that situation are those two guys.
I would have to say in light of the scenario you present here that, if the game becomes not fun for you, I would recommend that you bow out gracefully and hope the next game/campaign is better.
What I see here is two guys that don't like each other, and the only ones that can change that situation are those two guys.
Kishri wrote:
Ok, here is where you take a deep breath (metaphorically). Remember when I advised against placing blame? That applies to upon yourself as well. You're not a bad guy. We all make mistakes. Sometimes things just go wrong. It happens. Don't beat yourself or your character up. Don't over think it.
Take that deep breath, clear your mind and get back to why you play in the first place-- to explore cool worlds, do cool things via your character and have some fun. Think of all the fun times you had with your group(s). There is no reason I see here as to why you cannot have fun with them with the current character you have. You control your character; it does not control you. It is cool to RP misgivings that your PC has over the incident, but don't take it to the point that it becomes annoying to you, the other players or the DM. Don't let it bog the game (or you) down.
Should you find that playing your current character is a total downer, you could switch him out, but honestly, if you and your group role plays this right, it can be a very insightful and interesting story between your character and the others. I think it would be interesting to see how this turns out.
I am glad for you that things seem to be turning around between you and the other player. The key here is to remember, be it as your character, or yourself, that this is just game. Besides, if it makes you feel any better, some of my best friends are folks who I butted heads with just as you did when I first met them. Just keep chucking those dice (including virtual ones) at the monsters and all will be fine. 
JeffGroves wrote:
It sounds like everything worked out well enough. One thing I am curious about though:
JeffGroves wrote:
Winterleaf wrote:
JeffGroves wrote:
JeffGroves wrote:
Many states/cities have free therapy options or hotlines you could call. Talk this stuff out with someone.
JeffGroves wrote: