So anyway, it's been years since I last played and I could be wrong about a great many things, so I have two questions I'm looking for answers to here:
1) Concerning the skill-rolls-to-control-other-PCs specific issue: can anyone point me somewhere where this is made explicit in a rulebook? I feel certain I've actually read this as a stipulation (you can't control other PC's actions with manipulative skill rolls, you must role-play with them) but I will admit that it's possible I may have actually read this in the rules of one of the other many games I've dabbled in over the years.
I think it's pretty fun-sapping to play with a player who tries this sort of thing, but I really think it was the DM's job to put a stop to it in the first place.
2) More General Player Etiquette: the other stuff is pretty annoying too - I don't care if the party thief wants to sneak off at night and see if there's stuff in town they can steal or whatever (even when they fail and bring havoc down on the party it can make for an exciting afternoon's play), but taking a lot of time out of the session is just plain rude in my opinion, especially when half of the time it ends up the player is doing stuff directly detrimental to the party. Can anyone point me to a good D&D Player Etiquette guide that helps make some of this stuff more clear? I think this could be helpful, because I feel like I can attribute some of the disruptive play-style we're seeing to the relative newness of the player in question to the concept of RPGs in general.
The 4e Player's Handbook has a tiny blurb that touches on this sort of thing as a guideline in the Alignment section (p19) - the bit that says, "Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you." - but I'd like to find something more detailed as an etiquette guide. Any suggestions?
...the funny thing is that this character is always the first to complain to the DM when the party Barbarian starts to entertain the idea of putting an axe in their gut.
In regard to the character stealing and what not i'd say he just became fair game for the party. If a character catches him stealing and he can't talk his way out of it then I don't think i'd have a problem if the PC's got all stabby.
If that guy is disrupting the game then the DM really needs to fix things. Shouldn't just cater to that guy's whims. If the guy truly wants to plan nefarious schemes then he should get that done before the game starts or done with a minimal amount of time taken during the game.
Personally I'd just off the character and be done with it. He shouldn't do bad things to the party and expect not to have consequences.
Your characters rely on each other to get through life threatening situations. Why would they bring along someone they don't trust?
Vote the character off the island.
Your characters rely on each other to get through life threatening situations. Why would they bring along someone they don't trust?
Win.
I will never understand why anybody would want to play a 'every-man-for-himself, quasi-party-enemy characters - sneaking around, stealing from the party'.
Perhaps you can negotiate for some of the spotlight time to be lessened or if the spotlight can be more equally placed between party members. I would like to mention that some of the most fun games that I've ever played in have had included a nefarious party member.
Hope that guy's character doesn't like to sleep. My 'unaligned' character really doesn't have strong reservations about slitting throats in the circumstances described.
I'm with you on this one.
To the OP; it sounds as though the DM is willing to allow this player be the kind of evil character that may end up hindering the party.
I will offer this bit of advice, if the game has become less enjoyable by everyone(aside from this player and the DM) then it is probably time to confront both the player and DM. Explain to both how you feel outside of game. If it is affecting many aspects in game too, then explain how troublesome/tiresome this is becoming for you and the rest of your group.
This is supposed to be a game, and as a game it is supposed to be fun. A player can play an evil character without being disruptive to the party or game. It's up to the DM to reign in the PC if the player of said PC isn't going to.
What I suggest is to have a group meeting where all the other players disscuss with the DM and the troublsome player what their feeling and that they don't want this discrtaction in their game. Don't make it an attack on the other player (especially in game). Talk about how your not having fun and how you frankly don't like the idea of another player stealing your well earned tresure and taking half an hour out of you gaming time. It sound like your DM is siding with the other player so aim your argument at him as he is the one you have to convince. Also let the other guy have a chance to defend himself (he's playing too).
If you don't like the response you get then I suggest leaving the game altogether. If your not having fun then find another game. I had a player doing a very similar thing in a game I was playing in so I said I was leaving to start DMing my own game and most of the other players joined me and we've been playing together for the last 5 years quite happily.
I would not suggest killing him in game. This brings you down to his level. I would boot him out of your party (in game) by saying he's a disgrace to your ideals and not fit to stay in the group. Make him an out cast and refuse to let him join you adventures. Hopfully this will either make him change his ways or make a new character.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
I've done this in a real life gaming situation, and it does work.
Hope that guy's character doesn't like to sleep. My 'unaligned' character really doesn't have strong reservations about slitting throats in the circumstances described.
Amen.
This isn't on the DM to police; just to adjudicate the rules. I'd say the intimidate moves within the party make sense, but the DM should be letting the defender respond with Sense Motive, Intimidate, or even Will Saves. That sort of thing happens all the time when there's an Evil character in the party.
In the end, every player is out for themselves. It's all a matter of what it takes for them to show it. Sometimes nobility wins and a Lawful Good character will become a martyr, but more commonly, your characters will end up beating this person and leaving them ass-over in a field, bound to some stocks, with a sign that says in Orcish "Free Buttsecks" next to them and several pounds of meat on the ground around them.
On top of that, this player tried to use an intimidate roll against another PC in the party... and the DM supported it!
This is not an option. Period. Ever. If this happens again, hand your character sheet to either the problem player or the DM and say, "Here, I thought this was my character, but I guess not. Should I go watch TV while you play this character?"
I am dead serious. Don't hesitate or back down. They will get the message. If they try this with someone else's character, grab that character sheet and hand it to the problem player or DM. You have to do this. "YOU WILL NOT DICTATE MY CHARACTER'S ACTIONS OR EMOTIONS, PERIOD." Flat out tell everyone that that is not allowed.
Perhaps a more laid back approach: The next time something like the above happens, simply look up with a surprised smile on your face, as if you can't believe he has the brass to try to intimidate you, and simply say, "Dude, play your own character." This actually happened once in my game, it wasn't a big production, but it was very effective.
1) Concerning the skill-rolls-to-control-other-PCs specific issue: can anyone point me somewhere where this is made explicit in a rulebook?
Sorry, I don't know of any specific rule; I imagine the developers never thought there needed to be.
An intimidate on a character to make them do something is not a subtle thing. You don't get to make Intimidate skill rolls because the character raised an eyebrow in a sinister fashion. The character doing the intimidation has most likely directly threatened or implied that they will kill your character if you did not do as they wish. The player is "hiding" behind the game roll and mechanics, if that has not been RP'd out in some way.
Intimidating a character is a short-term gain. Once the effect wears off . . .
Well, about the only thing you could do to such a character is
***
Threaten to kill the character unless they reverse what was done by your character under intimidation. No need to make an intimidate roll for your threat - it's up to the player whether his character acts on the information or not.
***
If that doesn't work, either actually kill the character, or if you feel your character would not do that, then just kick the evil s.o.b. out of the group.
Now, you can play games in adventuring groups where this kind of behaviour is normal (think all playing Orcs for instance?). It can even be fun, but the players should either be all in for that kind of game or not.
More usually, it is completely unbelievable that a bunch of heroes would keep such a bully around. He's either dead or gone, and if the player whines about having his character's behaviour seen through to that obvious conclusion, he's gone too . . .
Bob: "I want to intimidate Cindy. I roll and get a total of +32."
DM: "Cindy, Bob looks really scary right now. You feel in intimidated."
Cindy: "OK, wow, I'm scared. I stab him."
I played a session recently with a person who wants to play one of those every-man-for-himself, quasi-party-enemy characters - sneaking around, stealing from the party, taking the DM aside for 25 minutes at a time in order to work on nefarious schemes...
This is not good. What an un-fun way to play for everyone except that one player.
You can:
(1) Talk to the player about how this is not fun for the rest of you, or
(2) Talk to the DM about putting a stop to this, or
(3) Talk to the other players about putting a stop to this, or
(4) Take matters into your own hands (assassination and destroy the body), or
(5) Quit.
Or, of course, put up with it and whine to others like us who will listen.
2) More General Player Etiquette:
This is what I feel your problem really boils down to. My guess is that this player does not respect the status quo. This problem player is the same kind of problem player that has always been around and will exist for all time. Everyone has played with one. Ask the other group members what kind of a game they want to be part of. Is it one where the players sabotage each other? Is it mostly teamwork oriented? Something else? Get a consensus and let the majority rule. Get on board or get off. I would personally not play with this player in question.
I played a session recently with a person who wants to play one of those every-man-for-himself, quasi-party-enemy characters - sneaking around, stealing from the party...
No disrespect intended, sir, but I stopped reading here.
Two bites of advice:
1. Run away from this game like it's the Black Plague if you have no personal attachments to it. Don't even show up. At most, give the DM a: "Sorry, this game is not for me" John Doe letter.
2. If you have a friend in the game, and don't wish to burn bridges, politely bow out of this game for now and say "Let me know when said sniveling moron has quit the game."
You are just not going to have a fun time if this kind of character bothers you. All that's gonna happen is, a week... a month down the line, the game will just implode on itself into a daytime soap opera.
Vote the character off the island.
Your characters rely on each other to get through life threatening situations. Why would they bring along someone they don't trust?
Tell the DM to get a spine or you'll vote him off as well. The only reason Real Jerks are successful in ******* off other players is because the DM enables them because "they're roleplaying".
The jerk player is 80% Wrong. I charge the enabling DM the other 20%.
If you feel that there is the potential to develop an enjoyable game with your current group, it would probably be a good idea to sit down and discuss the situation with them in a calm manner. There's a good chance that many of them feel the same way. Heck, if you don't know each other well, there's a good chance that the DM and the nettling player in question may not realize just how annoying their behavior has been to the rest of the group. With luck, a reasonable compromise can be reached.
If matters cannot be worked out at this time, I would recommend taking your leave. Little can be gained from being overly aggressive. It's just best to cut bait at that point.
Here's hoping things work out.
I've played in many campaigns like this. In general, they're a huge waste of your time. Go find another group of PCs who want to kill monsters, not each other.
This. Is the "eeevil" character played by the DMs boyfriend at all?
Player: The player needs to realize that this game is designed to be played cooperatively. Period. If he wants to play that sort of game, he needs to at the very least make sure the rest of the group is ok with it. It sounds like he's playing the sort of jerk he actually is, not caring about other people, and just wanting to mess everyone else up.
DM: The DM needs to realize that his BIGGEST JOB is making sure everyone at the table is having fun. That is clearly not the case with this game, so the DM needs to step in and do SOMETHING. Either get that player to play the game everyone else at the table wants to play, or worst case kick him out.
If the guy isn't mature enough to handle it and still be friends (if that's the case), you probably don't want to be friends with him for long anyway.
If you have a player whose character is a self-absorbed antagonist to party goals, then it shouldn't be on the DM to resolve. He's there to interpret rules and invent others, and manage a universe. Not to bug with trivial BS that can be handled by the party.
When I play, either as player or DM, I've yet to tolerate a DM who interferes in this and never DM'd in a way that does. Inevitably, a character who isolates himself or alienates himself from the party will get himself killed. Likely to be eaten by a grue, much?
I had to deal with this in a party once when I was DM. A thief tried to leave the party stranded on a derelict ironclad while taking all the loot aboard a caravel. I prepared the game in advance to have something bad happen to the caravel; remaining on the derelict was secretly the progressive route. The betrayer found himself aboard an exploding vessel, made his save, and then was rescued by the party, only to be beaten to death and dumped out to sea for his treachery.
Sacrilege though it may sound, the DM's role is basically to be a pseudo-god of the game world itself. The responsibility of handling PCs is on the PCs.
If he is RPing that he's one of the bad guys, he is making his character fair game. If his character was just an NPC that the party adopted into its ranks, that NPC probably wouldn't last very long... so how does this PC escape the party's wraith?
Other players should speak immediately to the DM and demand that he put a stop to it. The player responsible should be told in no uncertain terms WHY this kind of activity is not acceptible and then given the option to immediately alter the character concept accordingly or to just generate a new character. Should the player refuse THEN, yes, the other players can simply "VOTE HIM OFF THE ISLAND." Violently, if their alignments allow, but simply stating that their characters do not trust him and will never again associate with him should accomplish the DM's job for him. The DM should then be admonished for failure to do his job.
Note that there is no reason for acrimony here; no reason anyone involved should get their knickers in a twist just to straighten it out.
Is one of your party members working against the party?
Is he trying to steal from you or even get you killed?
DON'T whine to your GM. It's a fast-track to the group sharding.
DO what your characters would do. Exact in-game justice in an irreversible way.
I don't think the DM is just there to arbitrate the rules and nothing else, it's his job to RUN THE GAME, in all senses of the phrase. That includes making sure everyone is enjoying themselves, getting along, etc. I do at least as much out of game discussion for my games as in game.
And since I've adopted that philosophy, I've had DRASTICALLY less player problems of this sort, because I can actually resolve them.
The idea that the DM is just there to act like a fancy computer and only present a game world for the players to use is silly and ignorant. He needs to be a tool for players to use to resolve these kinds of conflicts. It's not whining to say "Ok, this is becoming a problem and we need to do something about it so everyone can continue having fun", that's the MATURE response.
NOBODY has a right to play a PC that is a jerk or an irritant. It may not be written anywhere (it IS in my games) but PC's are expected to work WITH each other, not against each other. ...
I think you'll find that concept quite clearly spelled out in the PHB. So it is written down somewhere.
Indeed, 4e is built heavily upon that concept.
I totally disagree. If you all gang up on him in the game, he's gonna feel like, well, he's being ganged up on. I've had this happen in a game, and the guy it happened to never came back, and went on to be basically a social outcast (even among the nerds) through most of high school.
Nail hit on head here. If he's that easily asshurt, chuck him to the wolves. He was going to do this to himself one way or another. You can't invent an idiot, you can only give him an audience.
Friendships can be ruined over such things, and that's probably more important than one DnD game, if that's the case in this situation. I know now that I should have stepped in and done something back then, because as the DM it was my responsibility.
Wow. No. It wasn't. It was his responsibility not to be a pansy that couldn't take the consequences of his actions. You weren't somehow the sole cause of his lonely Saturday nights spent listening to Morrisey and pleasuring himself to vampire chic lit; the propensity and likelihood was there already. The problems with this kid started before he ever sat down at the table, not because the players had enough of him and beat up his fictional alter-ego.
And since I've adopted that philosophy, I've had DRASTICALLY less player problems of this sort, because I can actually resolve them.
I find the quickest way to resolve these problems is to refuse to play with people who would be likely to have them; however, noone is perfect, and it still happens. When it does, though, the players should be ready for the DM to use believable mechanics, not godmode someone.
The idea that the DM is just there to act like a fancy computer and only present a game world for the players to use is silly and ignorant. He needs to be a tool for players to use to resolve these kinds of conflicts.
I italicized the portion of what you said that didn't need to be there. The DM isn't a tool at the service of the players; he too is a player, but from a completely different perspective. His goal is to create and maintain an immersive environment and represent it in every concievable way. Often, this means telling a player "no", but more often, it means providing the players the tools they need to do something about their own problems. "When you do things right, noone will be sure you've done anything at all".
It's not whining to say "Ok, this is becoming a problem and we need to do something about it so everyone can continue having fun", that's the MATURE response.
I agree. It is, however, whining once it gets to a point that the players want the DM to solve it directly. The DM should be aware of the problem but not expected to fix it; it's a far better tactic to provide the players the means to their own solution. If he's the type to whine and scream that he's a L12 Warlock IRL and will pwn you all and he knows what WoW server you're on and if you dont do things his way he'll blog that you're into crossdressing or something.....then hand him his pack of clove cigarettes, a box of razorblades, and a CD of Goth Rock's Most Miserable and Angsty Hits and send him on his unmerry way.
You may want to consider a second option before walking away: As a group, talk about the kind of game you want to play. Establish some ground rules, up front. Such as, no stealing, assassinating, or otherwise 'intimdating' other PCs. From what you've described, it appears the DM and the player are in cahoots (while the rest of the group is left playing 'pocket pull' ;)). It doesn't sound promising but can't hurt to try.
Since the conclusion seems to be foregone, don't wast a lot of time on this, yours or their's. It should be apparent rather quickly if they are willing to work as a team (or not). If they're not, walk away for sure. Let them play the game they want and you find another.
1) Concerning the skill-rolls-to-control-other-PCs specific issue: can anyone point me somewhere where this is made explicit in a rulebook? I feel certain I've actually read this as a stipulation (you can't control other PC's actions with manipulative skill rolls, you must role-play with them) but I will admit that it's possible I may have actually read this in the rules of one of the other many games I've dabbled in over the years.
I think it's pretty fun-sapping to play with a player who tries this sort of thing, but I really think it was the DM's job to put a stop to it in the first place.
I can't agree with this one. In fact, players like you infuriate me when it comes to this point. It is YOU who are failing to roleplay here, or perhaps I am misunderstanding the way these rolls are occuring. (BTW, for me it is having my Diplomacy rather than Intimidate ignored that frustrates me).
How exactly is is any more unreasonable for someone to want to play a sinister and intimidating character or a highly elloquent character than for you to want to play super HULK SMASH!!! warrior.
You know what? Next time you want to claim your character supposedly has Strength 16, let's see you hit the mat and bench-press 300 pounds! Next time you want to claim your character can cast a fireball, let's see you actually make a fireball out of thin air and throw it with pin-point accuracy!
Now, look, perhaps what the player said specifically wasn't the most intimidating thing in the world when coming out of the mouth of the particular player. However, it is part of your JOB to imagine that it is coming from a 9' tall scale-covered dragon person who you've personally witnessed rip people's spines out with a single hand with very little provocation or reason and is speaking it with a much deeper, much more threatening, much more deadly tone than we can expect any player to be able to match any more than we can expect any player to demonstrate their Dexterity of 20, even if you happen to be sitting at the table with Charles Manson himself.
Now does that mean you have to let them "control" you? Well, no. No more so than the NPCs are "controlled" by the player who makes such a successful check. If the successful intimidate check is made, then your reaction should be something within the realm of what someone might do when they are sincerely afraid of another person. You don't really have to give them what they want-- if they've made a intimidate check against you, there is every reason for your PC to suspect from that point on that the other PC might kill them. Which may very well prompt them into taking actions that are rather unhelpful to that other PC in the future just to make sure your character doesn't turn their back on him.
Whatever he may get out of that successful intimidate check he'll no doubt lose when the entire part quietly packs up and leaves him alone sleeping in the middle of the Ogre-filled forest, or worse.. offers him up to the monster or stabs him in his sleep so he can't kill them all, because they just don't want to be around that dangerous, monsterous, psychopath any longer.
Generally is is a BAD idea to try to bully and scare those you want to be working with you cooperatively in the future. However, you should at least play along with the idea that your character is afraid of this character and make your roleplaying choices based on working from this perspective. This character is scary and just implied that they will kill you in a second if you don't give them their way, so appease them just as you would a mugger or soldier with a gun leveled at you until you can get the oppportunity to get away from them or screw them over in a way that they can't carry out their threats.
2) More General Player Etiquette: the other stuff is pretty annoying too - I don't care if the party thief wants to sneak off at night and see if there's stuff in town they can steal or whatever (even when they fail and bring havoc down on the party it can make for an exciting afternoon's play), but taking a lot of time out of the session is just plain rude in my opinion, especially when half of the time it ends up the player is doing stuff directly detrimental to the party. Can anyone point me to a good D&D Player Etiquette guide that helps make some of this stuff more clear? I think this could be helpful, because I feel like I can attribute some of the disruptive play-style we're seeing to the relative newness of the player in question to the concept of RPGs in general.
The 4e Player's Handbook has a tiny blurb that touches on this sort of thing as a guideline in the Alignment section (p19) - the bit that says, "Unless your DM is running a campaign in which all the characters are evil or chaotic evil, playing an evil or chaotic evil character disrupts an adventuring party and, frankly, makes all the other players angry at you." - but I'd like to find something more detailed as an etiquette guide. Any suggestions?
...the funny thing is that this character is always the first to complain to the DM when the party Barbarian starts to entertain the idea of putting an axe in their gut.
And on this point I completely agree with you. D&D just isn't an enviroment where traitorous actions should be occuring. The only kind of Evil character that can work in a player party is a Lawful Evil character who is nasty to everyone else, but views the party as his entorouge and committs the evil actions with the express purpose of furthering the party's power or goals. Any kind of Evil character who decides to be detrimental to the party for their selfish ends just doesn't work out with the possible exception of 1 session games with characters that are never used again. If the players want to play a 1-shot adventure with a bunch of backstabbing party members, it works, but for an ongoing adventure the party has to be fairly united.
So in summary -- Social Skills SHOULD be usable against other party members in the way that the player says what their character is saying (the basic gist at least) and then rolls to see how well their character conveys that so that the other party members know how to react to it.
A good example would be when the party decides whether they are going to trust a Tiefling or Drow or Goblin who approaches them and claims to want to join up. Whatever the player says, a diplomacy or bluff check should be helpful to you (it is to me) as to just how convincing the character shounds.
I don't care if you are the most elloquent player in the world, if your character has a Charisma of 6 and just got a 4 on his Diplomacy roll to tell me I should trust him to watch me while I sleep, I'm turning him down FLAT. However, even if the player is shy and awkward and keeps his head down and mutters softly that he wants to join the party and then hits me with a bluff check of 28, I have absolutely no problem at all roleplaying that I completely believe and trust him (unless I make one hell of an insight roll in return).
However, in any ongoing campaign I never want to see any traitorous characters. Evil characters are fine so long as they are the kind of evil that views the party as the in-group they are committing their evil acts against other groups for the benefit of. If we have a character in the party who when the village is being attacked by Orcs decides he wants to go loot all the houses instead of fighting the Orcs, I can deal with that so long as he is pushing for this course of action with the intention of using the ill-gotten gains as party funds so to make our forces more powerful to dominate the world.
If we are playing one of those Game Day pregenned characters in a pregenned adventure and someone in the party grabs the final treasure and runs while the rest of the party is eaten by zombies or someone sparks a 'last man standing' duel after the adventure, I feel no bitterness towards them (in fact, I'd say that may be the sensible thing to do!) After all, no one stands to gain anything for having adventurers survive that anyway and I don't think anyone feels like further developing a pregenned character.
However, you should at least play along with the idea that your character is afraid of this character and make your roleplaying choices based on working from this perspective. This character is scary and just implied that they will kill you in a second if you don't give them their way, so appease them just as you would a mugger or soldier with a gun leveled at you until you can get the oppportunity to get away from them or screw them over in a way that they can't carry out their threats.
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. YOU may prefer a game where other players have the ability to control your character, but most people do not.
The OP was basically asking for advice on how to deal with the situation. Your reply was a long-winded explanation of how he is wrong. Not helping here.
I totally disagree. If you all gang up on him in the game, he's gonna feel like, well, he's being ganged up on. I've had this happen in a game, and the guy it happened to never came back
Yeah, he might go all Full Metal Jacket on your
...
Has he named his sword "Charlene" yet?
I suggest you talk with your DM about it, tell him that this "ebul" character is being a jack
and that he's disrupting the party, and that no one thinks this is "fun". If the DM continues to coddle his brand of immaturity than I'd suggest that you talk to the other members of the party and plan things out so that next time Gomer Pyles decides he's going to be a jerk, you all hand over character sheets, everyone at the same time.That will get the message across.
Anywho, OP, I still vote you should talk to the DM about it, if you haven't already.
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. YOU may prefer a game where other players have the ability to control your character, but most people do not.
The OP was basically asking for advice on how to deal with the situation. Your reply was a long-winded explanation of how he is wrong. Not helping here.
See, this is where I see the major failure. How exactly is telling you as a player how scary a situation is for a character? 4E has a lot more DIRECT manner of control.
Monsers can push your character. The "hold person" spell and "polymorph" spell take can take control of your character. So does the fear effect.
All of these are far more DIRECT manners of controlling your character than a skill that serves as a benchmark to tell you how scary, charming or believable something is. Those things are EXTREMELY helpful if you'll THINK about it. Just because you are told that your character is finding something scary, charming or believable does not mean that their reaction to this is controlled. Unlike all of the above examples you are free to have your character react in whatever way you want to it-- so long as you play along that they got your confidence even if all your OOC knowledge (do NOT lie, this is what it is all about) dictates otherwise. Every character is not going to react the same way to a goblin who really does want to sell them a helpful map or to an Ogre that they really do believe can rip them apart and eat them and is demanding they turn over a bag of gold. Does the character buy the map or point out they already have one or rob the goblin and take the map? Do they turn over the gold, flee or shakingly pull their sword and go on the defense demanding the Ogre get no closer? Do you have these kind of choices against a power that dictates you get pushed 2 squares straight backwards or get hit with an Ogre's club? No? Yeah, I didn't think so!
Almost always we as players are going to be in possession of knowledge that our characters don't have. If we rely entirely upon that knowledge, the game degrades to the point that we may as well be playing a wargame-- we've thrown roleplaying entirely out the window. Seperation of OOC and IC knowledge is the only thing that makes a character real. Your character is going to know things and be capable of things that you as a player are not and you as a player are going to know quite a lot of things your character won't know. The only way in which you are going to have a problem with accepting the results of a bluff, intimidate or diplomacy check is if you are so horrendously, pathetically incapable of seperating OOC and IC knowledge that you have no reason to be at any table of any game that is described as "roleplaying".
My post was precisely helpful because I've now twice explained full in-depth how to handle the situation-- which is to to stop ignoring a third of the game for reasons that make absolutely no sense.
Now, I know that there are those who think that a DM is just an umpire and is only there for the rules. But I think in a different way:
You are a group of players, one of them is the DM. The DM is a player, too, albeit a very special one.
And everybody at the gaming table signed a contract (not literally, of course.. but, hey, maybe there are groups that do that). And in that contract is the #1 rule: We are all here to have fun while we play.
And the OP suggests that this is not the case. So the DM, as the special player, has to stop this from happening. Analyse the problem and deal with it. And the players, who seem to be annoyed, should help the DM.
Usually, being blunt helps a lot. Be clear what your problem with that kind of behaviour is. Make it easy for the player to understand this. The player then has a choice to make: either allow everybody to have fun and stop playing like that. Or leave.
It really is that simple. But in-game fighting between PCs is not a good idea, because this is not an in-game problem.
That being said, I don't really think Hebitsuikaza is saying "Diplomacy checks should allow me to control another PC" (Correct me if I'm wrong here, by the way, I think this is the point you were trying to get across) He's saying they should INFLUENCE roleplaying decisions made by that player. That player should take that diplomacy check success into context when he declares what his character decides to do next.
Personally, I think that's a little too close to the border of taking player decision making power away, and I don't do it. But I do see how someone might decide to play that way, it could make for an interesting game.
But I think we can all agree that trying to use Intimidate on another party member is usually a bad idea, since party members are supposed to get along.
That being said, I don't really think Hebitsuikaza is saying "Diplomacy checks should allow me to control another PC" (Correct me if I'm wrong here, by the way, I think this is the point you were trying to get across) He's saying they should INFLUENCE roleplaying decisions made by that player. That player should take that diplomacy check success into context when he declares what his character decides to do next.
Personally, I think that's a little too close to the border of taking player decision making power away, and I don't do it. But I do see how someone might decide to play that way, it could make for an interesting game.
But I think we can all agree that trying to use Intimidate on another party member is usually a bad idea, since party members are supposed to get along.
This is what I am saying, but let me pose this in anther way.
A diplomacy, intimidate or bluff roll are rolls used to affect the state of a character.
Attack rolls and damage rolls are also rolls used to affect the state of a character.
If you are going to ignore my diplomacy roll, I have every reason to ignore your attack roll. They are EXACTLY the same thing-- means for your character to affect mine and for mine to affect yours. You can't say one is valid and the other is invalid, and even if you were to do so why exactly would you choose to give full validation of the VIOLENT path and none to the social path? So you are locked into a mentality where brutal killing everything in sight is the only way to accomplish anything? What a revolting world the inside of your head must be.
Furthermore, if you CHOSE to use your Intelligence stat as your dump stat, you do NOT get to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all monsters and terrain and kingdoms in the Campaign Setting just because you have no life and have memorized the entire Campaign Sourcebook and Monster Manuals line-for-line.
If you CHOSE to have a Wisdom of 6, then you chose for your character to be a wishy-washy gullible fool who swallows everything fed to him and wouldn't survive one night on his own in the wilderness. You had options when you made the character and you decided having a +10 on your attack rolls at level 1 was more important than having half a brain. Because you made this choice, you should suffer the consequences of that choice as bravely as the person who decided to have a Constitution of 6 has to suffer theirs.
And if you decided you would never, ever need Charisma for anything and decided to abandon it in favor of making your combat stats all godly-- then you'd best remember that your character is repulsive, sumbles all over his words and couldn't woo a member of the opposite sex if it were required to save the entire race.
You make these choices at character creation and certainly choosing crappy Dexterity or Consitution is a choice that is rigidly enforced.
When your character has reached 0HP and is dying can you keep fighting because you don't feel like rolpleplaying your character down and dying because itsaps all the fun for you and you don't feel like being all vulnerable like that and don't think that others should get that sort of control over your character?
Again, it is EXACTLY as valid as ignoring a successful bluff check against you for the same reason. Either way it is dice dictating the general effect that the world, NPCs and PCS have on your character. The same is to accept that these things will affect your character in a myriad of ways. Play it up!
But generally, in the same vein, I wouldn't recommend using intimidate against fellow PCS any more than I'd recommend throwing a lesser magic missle swarm in the face of a PC. Diplomacy or bluff might be acceptable when determine what path the party should take, who will be deferred to as the leader or sent out to talk to the king so long as these effects are within reason (indecissive PCs shouldn't take much to beat, but if you are trying to convince the PC to do something out of their nature or against their alignment they ought to get a huge bonus just like an NPC would). I guess an intimidate check might be acceptible if it were something like... you have an evil party member who is about to slit the throat of the king so your party can take over the kingdom and one of the party wants to intimidate them into standing down... but even in that case, intimidate ought to blow up in their ace eventually.
But this is akin to doing the same thing using a grapple check or casting a hold person spell.
If you ignore a potentially good social skill role then it is exactly like ignoring the minus to your HP when you are hit by a fellow PC's attack. If the attack beats your defences your hp goes down (or your subject to a status effect), if a strength test beats your defences your grabbed, if a thievery check beats your perception your item is stolen, if diplomacy beats (say your will defence or some D20 assited roll) then you have bean convinced or at least calmed down enough to stop and rethink the foolish raid into clearly deadly enemy terrain. I really dont, logically, see a difference.
I understand the apprehension towards such rolls and such character manipulation, but if you want a fair, balenced and logical game i dont see why you should allow a fellow pc to steal and then allow those same pcs companions to gang up on and kill the forementioned pc, and not allow such similar "character manipulation" as a pc's good diplomacy roll influencing another pc's actions.
Let me stress i dont believe PC's should Attack PC's at all (whether it be through attack rolls or skill roles) but if you as a dm or player are going to allow PC's to "manipulate" each other by attacking, killing and stealing from each other you should allow a PC to "manipulate" another PC through diplomacy, bluff and intimidate, but all ways let the resipricant defend themselves with a roll of some discription of there own.
Just my opinon, i know its controversial and sorry to get off topic.
My post was precisely helpful because I've now twice explained full in-depth how to handle the situation-- which is to to stop ignoring a third of the game for reasons that make absolutely no sense.
Yep, helpful.
OP, here is a resource that you might have been asking for:
Dungeon Master's Guide, page 32:
PRIMA DONNA PLAYERS
"Some players feel that the game should center on them, even if they'd never say it in those words. They hog the spotlight, tell other players what their characters should do, claim the best magic items for themselves, and verbally bully the other players. Away from the game, point out that the player's behaviour is spoiling the fun..."
This pretty much describes the OP's problem player. I'd say that an Intimidate roll is an infringement on another player's character.
It's ok to describe someone as big, mean, and intimidating, but it is not ok to tell a PLAYER that he is intimidated and that he needs to act like it.
My suggestion still stands. It is my opinion that the OP should stand up for himself and stop the problem player in his tracks, since the DM won't do it. He isn't having fun as is, and he needs to change things so that he can.
Yep, helpful.
OP, here is a resource that you might have been asking for:
Dungeon Master's Guide, page 32:
PRIMA DONNA PLAYERS
"Some players feel that the game should center on them, even if they'd never say it in those words. They hog the spotlight, tell other players what their characters should do, claim the best magic items for themselves, and verbally bully the other players. Away from the game, point out that the player's behaviour is spoiling the fun..."
This pretty much describes the OP's problem player. I'd say that an Intimidate roll is an infringement on another player's character.
It's ok to describe someone as big, mean, and intimidating, but it is not ok to tell a PLAYER that he is intimidated and that he needs to act like it.
My suggestion still stands. It is my opinion that the OP should stand up for himself and stop the problem player in his tracks, since the DM won't do it. He isn't having fun as is, and he needs to change things so that he can.
Would you apply the same notion to a grapple check?
It's okay to describe someone as big, strong and grabbing, it is not ok to tell the player that he is grappled and he needs to act like it.
Do you understand it is exactly the same thing, putting exactly the same limitations on the player's choices of character action?
Would you apply the same notion to a grapple check?
It's okay to describe someone as big, strong and grabbing, it is not ok to tell the player that he is grappled and he needs to act like it.
Do you understand it is exactly the same thing, putting exactly the same limitations on the player's choices of character action?
I understand - completely - your point of view.
I understand - completely - that your suggestion is the exact opposite of what help the OP has asked for.
I understand - completley - that combat and skill checks are not to be used as player against player.
Yes, I understand - completely - that in your game, players can Intimidate and grapple other players. That is not something that will ever happen in my game, unless both players just wanted to have a little fun. That is not the case with the OP. He is looking for ways to deal with this problem, not accept it. Do you have any suggetions on how he can deal with his negative situation, without telling him that he is wrong?
I understand - completely - your point of view.
I understand - completely - that your suggestion is the exact opposite of what help the OP has asked for.
I understand - completley - that combat and skill checks are not to be used as player against player.
Yes, I understand - completely - that in your game, players can Intimidate and grapple other players. That is not something that will ever happen in my game, unless both players just wanted to have a little fun. That is not the case with the OP. He is looking for ways to deal with this problem, not accept it. Do you have any suggetions on how he can deal with his negative situation, without telling him that he is wrong?
Nope.
Your game has to have some sort of legal avenues for you take just to get him to behave like a person.
Win.
I will never understand why anybody would want to play a 'every-man-for-himself, quasi-party-enemy characters - sneaking around, stealing from the party'.
Because it's fun. It has to be set up entirely different though. Playing it like a regular D&D game is just asking for problems.
We did but it wasn't a game of party meets decide to work together for common goal of crashing a dungeon and killing monster for experience.
It was a game set in location where our backgrounds had to have vested interest in it. The DM gave us a set of influence points that we could spread around or focus in particular areas. Off memory I seem to remember it being stuff like Underworld influence, Nobility Influence, Merchant influence, Clergy Influence, and Arcane influence. Each area had sub groups specific to the location. For example specific noble house, rival thieves guilds, different churches and so on.
The characters really didn't know each other but all existed in the same locations. Events the occurred and the players reacted, ploted, proceeded towards individual goals.
The game was run via solo and full game session on alternate nights. So we'd have regular session where individuals actions and roleplaying occurred. The next session consisted of 1 solo for each player. Off the start we all had 1 solo session each and then the solo game night was restricted to 1 hour per player. On those nights we'd play a board game while the players did their solo.
It turned out to be quite an interesting game with a lot of political intrigues and backstabbing. Alliances were made and broken. We played about 4 times a week back and the game lasted about 3 months. Only thing we thought would improve the game is having 2 DMs running it so the Solo day could be more and on full game day they could two groups going.
So he makes an intimidate check against you, so what? Bob: "I want to intimidate Cindy. I roll and get a total of +32." DM: "Cindy, Bob looks really scary right now. You feel in intimidated." Cindy: "OK, wow, I'm scared. I stab him."
Nice!