Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 the_druid_darkwood Apr 29, 2011 8:57:31	I know there are probably a dozen threads somewhere in the backlogs of this forum on this, but I have an issue beyond just an irritating player. All in good time though. First, we have this player, we'll call him Bob. This is Bob's second campaign, and its with the same DM and two of the same players, myself being one of them. He wasnt a very good player (horrible metagamer and powergamer, out to "win DnD" as it were), and we werent exactly keen on letting him rejoin, but the DM talked us into it. It had been his first campaign after all. So Bob comes in, kills off his first character after 2 sessions because he "built it assuming the campaign would involve more social interactions" and proceeded to build a bard. An insult comic, no less. I am a strong roleplayer, and pride myself on that fact. So when he goes to insult someone, I expect an insult, not "my character insults his manhood". No, if you want to belittle a mans endowment, you come up with a joke! Plus his character antagonizes the party, to the point where rp is becoming a chore for me. And that stings. A lot.  But wait, there's more! Bob is very involved in his church's band, and does other sound stuff for them, and has missed more meetings than everyone else combined because of late-running rehearsals, emergency meetings, a play theyre putting on, etc. And rather than play without him, the DM opts to cancel the session. Our group of players is small, there are only 2 campaigns running right now and I'm the DM for the Ravenloft group, so when CNN (Chaotic Neutral Network) cancels, I don't get to play that week, and that's frustrating. DMing is fun, but in different ways, and sometimes a guy just wants to play, you know? To top this all off (the part where it becomes more than a player vs. player issue), the DM will not hear our complaints. We all talk to him, because we're all friends, but the DM brushes off our complaints (us being myself and the others who aren't Bob). We cancelled for this week again, because of Bob's Church's play rehearsals. When I said Bob's attendance was hurting the group, the DM said "he's been involved with his church for forever, why should that stop now?" It shouldn't. He should be the adult and drop out because we've been playing since November, we're all capable players, and we've only made it to level 5, when we could be at 10 if only we could meet regularly. I feel like the DM is afraid of hurting Bob's feelings, but everyone else in the party is fed up with Bob. What should we do? How do we get past the DM's defenses? This is a kind of encounter we weren't prepared for.
#2 Cohen95 Apr 29, 2011 9:18:40	You guys may need to vote with your feet. If the player is affecting your enjoyment of the game, and he obviously is, you should take that to the DM. You did that, and he brushed you off, and in so doing he became complicit in the problem. Now the player and the DM are affecting your enjoyment of the game. Walk. Specifically, talk to the other players, come to a unified front. As a group, bring the issue to the table before game, and make it clear that you're not out to get Bob, but that you guys don't like having your favorite hobby, that you look forward to all (week/frequency of game) long, and don't like having it pulled out from under you because Bob's other hobby's get in the way. Make it clear to Bob you guys don't mind he has other hobbies, but that you don't think it's fair for his other hobbies to affect your one hobby. If nothing is resolved, talk to the other players, and leave the group. If the group of you minus DM and Bob is too small to form a new group, see if you can incorporate the players from your other, Ravenloft, group, and just have a group that runs two games, and see if anybody else will be willing to DM the other sessions. Barring that, you may need to retire your Ravenloft game, and see if people would mind doing a rotating DM game. My group does that, rotating every 2-3 levels, and it kind of feels like the best of both worlds. You get to run the game when you're DMing, it's your story, but then you get to hand it off and have fun playing for a while, which also gives you plenty of time to work up a new story for when you DM again. Good luck.
#3 Krusk Apr 29, 2011 9:33:48	So Bob comes in, kills off his first character after 2 sessions because he "built it assuming the campaign would involve more social interactions" annoying, but not the end of the world. I am a strong roleplayer, and pride myself on that fact. So when he goes to insult someone, I expect an insult, not "my character insults his manhood". No, if you want to belittle a mans endowment, you come up with a joke! Thats your issue. If he isn't that strong a roleplayer help him out, don't hold it against him. Plus his character antagonizes the party, to the point where rp is becoming a chore for me. And that stings. A lot. In game "Dude if you don't quit making fun of us we will kill you in the next dungeon we go in" or for a more good aligned party "Dude if you don't quit making fun of us, we will ditch you in the next town". AKA party is going to force you to make a new PC. has missed more meetings than everyone else Talk to him about commitments. This is a serious issue, and put it nicely that maybe he doesn't have time for DND.   And rather than play without him, the DM opts to cancel the session. This sucks. Tell the DM that this sucks. If nothing changes, take it upon yourself to run a backup campaign or one shots instead of canceling. To top this all off (the part where it becomes more than a player vs. player issue), the DM will not hear our complaints. Leave. Say "Dude I told you this is bothering me, and you ae refusing to do anything about it. I am leaving and not coming back." When I said Bob's attendance was hurting the group, the DM said "he's been involved with his church for forever, why should that stop now?" It shouldn't. He should be the adult and drop out Tell that to your DM.   I feel like the DM is afraid of hurting Bob's feelings, but everyone else in the party is fed up with Bob. What should we do? How do we get past the DM's defenses? This is a kind of encounter we weren't prepared for. Luckily the DM is not the only player, and honestly doesn't even have to be the "Head player". As a group confront Bob yourselves. "Hey Bob, the DM won't say anything but your inability to come to any sessions is pissing the rest of us off. Do you mind dropping from the game, or at least telling the DM to run the session without you?" I also would probably have just quit this game and looked for a new one by this point.
#4 Langrishe Apr 29, 2011 16:53:00	Is it the player or the player character you have a problem with? I know when I play as my super smart sorcerer I always roleplay as a jerk who isn't afraid to tell people just how stupid they (the PC's) are. But my friends know its all in good fun. Unless I'm Bob. Just tell the player to tone it down a little or stop insulting the adventuring group. If he continues, have your PC's tie him up with a sack on his head and throw him into a river. The other option is having your DM do a little "when the wind changes" and curse the Bard with some kind of ugly groth on his face. Suddenly he is on the other side of the jokes and all the NPC's will be making fun of him, maybe even run the freak out of town. This may force the player's PC to see the error of his ways and grow up. I love it when PC's change for the better it adds to the story and developes them into deeper characters. And when those characters die I believe even you will feel a little said to see the Bard you wanted gone lifeless and missing from your adventuring group. On the other hand, if the guy doesn't come to sessions you can always remove his character and give him premade guest PC's for him to play when he does come along. Problems solved.
#5 QuestorTelloc Apr 30, 2011 2:09:26	In-game mutiny. The non-Bob players: "I attack Bob." "I attack Bob." "I give the monsters a bonus whenever they attack Bob." "I pay the dragon to eat Bob." And then form a new group with all of the same players, minus Bob and the inflexible DM. Rotate DM duties, so nobody has to miss out on playing a character for long. Or, have one of you be both the DM and a PC. I regularly play both the DM and a PC, so I know it can be done- it's a bit tricky, but doable. Bob may one day be a good player, if he clears up his misconception of "winning" the game, his schedule gets more regular, and he finds a group that fits better with his style of roleplaying (which some people may be fine with, just not you). The DM, however, needs to go back to rule #1 of DMing: "Work with all of your players. It's their game just as much as it is yours." The DM is letting Bob dictate the rules. That is not a good D&D game. If the DM and Bob will not listen, play with those who will. Good luck.
#6 CCS Apr 30, 2011 10:02:10	(edit) Bob, a relitive new player, isn't the strongest RP amongst you.  In fact, Bob seems to exhibit all of the standard gaming issues virtually all new players work through. You know how they work through them & get better?  By playing.  It takes time. But you'd rather not grant that.  Instead you expect him to have come to the table already experienced, learn it all faster, whatever, etc. His RL schedule....  So he has an active life beyond playing D&D.  You hold that against him? Are you sure that you are running this game on the night best suited to the entire group? If this game can't run when Bob's not there....  Why don't you play something else on those nights? That's what we do if x # players can't make it.  And once a month there's a week where we know 1 member has another commitment.  So that week auto-defaults to "the other game". On the speed you lv vrs the speed you think you should be.  And blaming it on Bob.  (edit) There's no mandate that says you have to lv at a certain rate in relation to real-time.     If the entire group sans the DM really is this upset?  Why haven't you already adressed this?  Afterall, if I were to believe you?  You've barely played these past months.  Seriously, why haven't you simply all called a halt to this horrible game & disinvited Bob already??  Do you really need random people from around the world to give you their blessings to do whatever it is you want??
#7 QuestorTelloc Apr 30, 2011 11:35:34	(edit) Bob, a  have any idea of how whiney & bitchy your post soundsrelitive new player, isn't the strongest RP amongst you.  In fact, Bob seems to exhibit all of the standard gaming issues virtually all new players work through. You know how they work through them & get better?  By playing.  It takes time. But you'd rather not grant that.  Instead you expect him to have come to the table already experienced, learn it all faster, whatever, etc. His RL schedule....  So he has an active life beyond playing D&D.  You hold that against him? Are you sure that you are running this game on the night best suited to the entire group? If this game can't run when Bob's not there....  Why don't you play something else on those nights? That's what we do if x # players can't make it.  And once a month there's a week where we know 1 member has another commitment.  So that week auto-defaults to "the other game". On the speed you lv vrs the speed you think you should be.  And blaming it on Bob.  (edit). There's no mandate that says you have to lv at a certain rate in relation to real-time.     If the entire group sans the DM really is this upset?  Why haven't you already adressed this?  Afterall, if I were to believe you?  You've barely played these past months.  Seriously, why haven't you simply all called a halt to this horrible game & disinvited Bob already??  Do you really need random people from around the world to give you their blessings to do whatever it is you want?? First of all, I'd like to "thank" you for lowering the bar on an otherwise mature thread. All responses up to yours were calm, well-thought-out opinions maturely expressed. Please note that this is a comment on the manner in which you presented your opinions, not the the opinions themselves. As for the opinions themselves, let's go one at a time: - Roleplaying expectations: I agree that not everyone roleplays the same way or to the same degree, but this is why I mentioned finding that Bob should find a group that fits better with his playing style. Bob seems, to me, to expect others to go with whatever he's doing, and it sounds like his choices aren't making that any easier to do (insult comic, antagonizing the group, etc.). There may be groups in which this would be appreciated &/or hilarious - the OP's group doesn't seem to be one of them. It's a matter of playing style. - His real-life schedule. Commitments are commitments. Bob is the one who decides which ones are most important to Bob, fair enough, BUT it isn't fair to the others if the DM interrupts the game for him. That's more of a DM issue, which the OP acknowledges. If Bob's more important commitments make him unable to commit to a regular game, he should do the right thing and bow out of the regular game, and the DM should be willing to work around him when he's not there. - Running another game on the same night: The DM cancels the session. There is no other game to play. If they do run another game anyway, one of them has to DM, which they don't want to do since they DM the rest of the time, at least, the OP does. They want to play D&D. - Level-up speed: I think the number he gave was more an indicator of lost time (i.e. had all sessions been played, they'd be at 10, not 5, so about half of the sessions are cancelled). And even then, that goes back to player style. Peope have certain expectations, and if the group's expectations are not being met, it's not fun. The DM really needs to remember that- again, not entirely Bob's issue. - Why haven't they already addressed it? Um, they have. The OP mentions that part of the problem is that the DM won't listen when they talk to him about it. Long story short:The OP talks about the Bob/DM combo being the problem, but your response only refers to the "Bob" angle, making more than a couple of your intented points invalid. Also: We're not "random people from around the world," as you put it. The fact that we've responded to threads like this one mean that we are thoughtful, intelligent people who have come together to see if our thoughts an input can help another player resolve an issue they have. And we are not giving anyone "blessings to do whatever." In fact, if you will notice the end of my initial response, I acknowledge that Bob is not the D&D devil, and that the DM is also largely to blame. My advice to you: read the OPs and responses a bit more carefully before posting your own, and keep it cool. Saying "I don't see this as a player issue" will get better reception that what essentially became a personal attack.
#8 purechance Apr 30, 2011 11:56:30	I think you should cut Bob some slack on the whole expecting him to come up with an insult everytime he uses Vicious Mockery thing.  He might not be very good at coming up with appropriate insults like that on the fly, and even a set list of 5 rotating will quickly become boring to everyone, and spoil the atmosphere.  Just because he is unable to be consistently witty shouldn't prevent him playing an entire class - it comes more naturally to some people than others...  there may be more problems with his roleplaying than just that, and I presume there is, but if not, moaning at him because he prefers to describe his characters actions in the 3rd person I think is a little harsh.  For example, I imagine my dwarven warden having a gruff demeanour and gravelly voice to go with it.  I cannot do a gravelly voice, and sound ridiculous if I do - should I not be allowed to play dwarves because I instead say "X responds gruffly"?
#9 sweetbearcub May 08, 2011 6:04:01	Just Googled for the forums here tonight (for an unrelated isue), but I saw this thread and thought I'd add my 2 copper. My DM handles no-show players by putting them into a "cacoon of irrelevancy". It is understood among the group that this means that the players loses out on XP and loot (if any), but otherwise they suffer no penalties other than the fact that frequent no-shows will result in a PC falling behind other party members in terms of level. When they rejoin the group, the DM gives them a quick recap of events they missed, and they appear (magically, of course!) with the party at their current location. That is.. If the party proper still exists. Last week I was the only PC to survive a trapped room, so I suppose the cacoon does have the advantage of avoiding a possible untimely death. Also, if the no-show player and DM are amenable to it, offer to play his character in proxy while he is away.
#10 Cohen95 May 08, 2011 16:10:08	My DM handles no-show players by putting them into a "cacoon of irrelevancy". It is understood among the group that this means that the players loses out on XP and loot (if any), but otherwise they suffer no penalties other than the fact that frequent no-shows will result in a PC falling behind other party members in terms of level. When they rejoin the group, the DM gives them a quick recap of events they missed, and they appear (magically, of course!) with the party at their current location. This is, honestly, a pretty bad idea in 4th edition. If PCs are not acquiring XP and items at the same rate, then what will usually happen is one or more PCs will end up falling behind, becoming a liability, and being relatively useless in combat. If your primary strikers is two levels behind the rest of the group, his ability to do his job suffers, and the whole group suffers because of it. In our group, encounters are scaled for 4-6 PCs (we have 7 total players, counting the DM). If less than 3 people can't make it, we soldier on. Those PCs who weren't there don't magically disappear or anything, they're just "off camera" fighting the monsters that weren't used in that encounter as a result of not having full party strength. They still get full XP and monetary rewards, and while they still do get their item rewards, they only receive magic items when they're there. This way the group stays balanced, people aren't overly punished in-game for their out-of-game inability to attend, and if attendance becomes a frequent, recurring problem (where someone mised half a level or more or so) without there being a major event in their life, we address that issue out of game, because it's an out of game issue.
#11 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi May 08, 2011 21:12:02	My DM handles no-show players by putting them into a "cacoon of irrelevancy". It is understood among the group that this means that the players loses out on XP and loot (if any), but otherwise they suffer no penalties other than the fact that frequent no-shows will result in a PC falling behind other party members in terms of level. When they rejoin the group, the DM gives them a quick recap of events they missed, and they appear (magically, of course!) with the party at their current location. This is, honestly, a pretty bad idea in 4th edition. If PCs are not acquiring XP and items at the same rate, then what will usually happen is one or more PCs will end up falling behind, becoming a liability, and being relatively useless in combat. If your primary strikers is two levels behind the rest of the group, his ability to do his job suffers, and the whole group suffers because of it. In our group, encounters are scaled for 4-6 PCs (we have 7 total players, counting the DM). If less than 3 people can't make it, we soldier on. Those PCs who weren't there don't magically disappear or anything, they're just "off camera" fighting the monsters that weren't used in that encounter as a result of not having full party strength. They still get full XP and monetary rewards, and while they still do get their item rewards, they only receive magic items when they're there. This way the group stays balanced, people aren't overly punished in-game for their out-of-game inability to attend, and if attendance becomes a frequent, recurring problem (where someone mised half a level or more or so) without there being a major event in their life, we address that issue out of game, because it's an out of game issue. Agreed whole-heartedly.  I normally hate to claim any way of doing D&D is wrong, but that other way is wrong.
#12 salla May 08, 2011 22:11:10	I think you should cut Bob some slack on the whole expecting him to come up with an insult everytime he uses Vicious Mockery thing. Heck, it's not even necessary, if you think about it.  Vicious Mockery is a spell; its effect isn't just a result of the bard lipping off, it's a magical compulsion (notice that the victim doesn't need to understand the bard to be affected).  Perhaps the target hears something incredibly insulting that bubbled up from his subconscious, brewed from his own personal insecurities.
#13 sweetbearcub May 09, 2011 1:49:12	Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but this system has worked for my group, so I thought I'd suggest it. No one is under any compulsion to use the advice. Next - This is not intended as a personal attack, so please forgive how I phrased this  - Where you (or anyone) come off saying how my group's methods are outright wrong? It works for us, and keeps our table running week after week. It keeps the DM sane and the rest of the group is happy. I was under the impression that DM's inventing house rules was their choice, and that the published rules are simly there to serve as a general guide.   My DM handles no-show players by putting them into a "cacoon of irrelevancy". It is understood among the group that this means that the players loses out on XP and loot (if any), but otherwise they suffer no penalties other than the fact that frequent no-shows will result in a PC falling behind other party members in terms of level. When they rejoin the group, the DM gives them a quick recap of events they missed, and they appear (magically, of course!) with the party at their current location. This is, honestly, a pretty bad idea in 4th edition. If PCs are not acquiring XP and items at the same rate, then what will usually happen is one or more PCs will end up falling behind, becoming a liability, and being relatively useless in combat. If your primary strikers is two levels behind the rest of the group, his ability to do his job suffers, and the whole group suffers because of it. In our group, encounters are scaled for 4-6 PCs (we have 7 total players, counting the DM). If less than 3 people can't make it, we soldier on. Those PCs who weren't there don't magically disappear or anything, they're just "off camera" fighting the monsters that weren't used in that encounter as a result of not having full party strength. They still get full XP and monetary rewards, and while they still do get their item rewards, they only receive magic items when they're there. This way the group stays balanced, people aren't overly punished in-game for their out-of-game inability to attend, and if attendance becomes a frequent, recurring problem (where someone mised half a level or more or so) without there being a major event in their life, we address that issue out of game, because it's an out of game issue. Agreed whole-heartedly.  I normally hate to claim any way of doing D&D is wrong, but that other way is wrong.
#14 SpacyRicochet May 09, 2011 8:15:44	Cohen95 delivers a fine opinion. I handle my absences pretty much in the same way. The character in question is somehow out of combat. Our preferred method is him finding a keg of ale and being dead drunk out of harm's way. Effectively, he's ignored, but doesn't suffer any penalties. He missed out on the fun, punishment enough. Omnirahk_MarySue on the other hand should learn about the difference between opinions and fact. Basically, don't deliver your opinion as fact, especially if by doing so you accuse someone else of doing something 'wrong'. That said, the 'cocoon of irrelevancy' seems like a good way to handle things as well. There are lots of topics that have DM and players stating they're playing with individual XP and being perfectly happy about it. Only thing to watch out for is that the gap shouldn't turn out too big. Adventures and encounters are generally doable when designed for the average party level (APL), taking into account that the levels shouldn't be more than 4 apart. Consider the LFR level ranges for a module or the newly (re)introduced APL system, which is exactly what I state above.  That said, this is hopelessly off-topic, I just noticed. On-topic, I agree with most of the previous posters. Talk to Bob and your DM about Bob's absences affecting play. It's not a crime not having time to play, but he should indeed man up and say so. Likewise, the DM is to be commended for wanting entire parties to be present, but sometimes it's just not doable. Perhaps some kind of other solution can be presented. Bob becoming a minor PC instead of a full-fledged party member for example. He's normally the torchbearer or keg-carrier (absent), but sometimes he comes to the fray and helps the party immensely (not absent). Storywise, the DM should be able to ignore him mostly, which might take a load of his shoulders as well. And the conversation above then suddenly applies again.   On the opposite end of the spectrum, don't be afraid to walk. D&D is something for your enjoyment and if you don't enjoy it, you probably have better ways to spend your four hours a week. Perhaps you can start up another group with rotating DMs? Or join another group. D&Ders are a pretty social bunch once you get past all that arcane jibberish we tend to spout, so finding out if there are other games in your area might be worth it.
#15 RyndarLocke May 09, 2011 9:20:56	I know there are probably a dozen threads somewhere in the backlogs of this forum on this, but I have an issue beyond just an irritating player. All in good time though. Each thread has it's own unique pieces that make it worth posting. First, we have this player, we'll call him Bob. This is Bob's second campaign, and its with the same DM and two of the same players, myself being one of them. He wasnt a very good player (horrible metagamer and powergamer, out to "win DnD" as it were), and we werent exactly keen on letting him rejoin, but the DM talked us into it. It had been his first campaign after all. It sounds like this player does indeed need a stable group to assist in his learning the group co-op playstyle D&D requires.  Kudos for your DM allowing him to continue to play. So Bob comes in, kills off his first character after 2 sessions because he "built it assuming the campaign would involve more social interactions" and proceeded to build a bard. An insult comic, no less. I am a strong roleplayer, and pride myself on that fact. So when he goes to insult someone, I expect an insult, not "my character insults his manhood". No, if you want to belittle a mans endowment, you come up with a joke! Plus his character antagonizes the party, to the point where rp is becoming a chore for me. And that stings. A lot. OK, this happens sometimes people build a character expecting it to play one way and dislike the concept once they see how it works.  He should be able to reroll as long as it doesn't become a weekly thing. You being a roleplayer has nothing to do with third person roleplaying.  He's not doing it incorrectly.  Your way is not the only way.  His character a bard in this instance is a very charismatic, sharp witted person.  Bob in his real life persona may not be as quick witted, slick with his tongue or since he's heavely a church goer comfortable with creating and saying his own insulting jokes.  I know this is not the help you wanted, but the 4th edition D&D game as well as 3.0 have rules to cover social interactions with die rolls for the third person roleplayer.  I think this is the least important issue you have so I'll stop commenting on it.  In conclusion get over yourself.   But wait, there's more! Bob is very involved in his church's band, and does other sound stuff for them, and has missed more meetings than everyone else combined because of late-running rehearsals, emergency meetings, a play theyre putting on, etc. And rather than play without him, the DM opts to cancel the session. Our group of players is small, there are only 2 campaigns running right now and I'm the DM for the Ravenloft group, so when CNN (Chaotic Neutral Network) cancels, I don't get to play that week, and that's frustrating. DMing is fun, but in different ways, and sometimes a guy just wants to play, you know? This is a real issue.  You need to talk to the GM about maybe running two games one when Bob can play and one when he can't.  Or think of other solutions beyond "playing without him" as it seems to me the DM doesn't want to count this guy out.  To top this all off (the part where it becomes more than a player vs. player issue), the DM will not hear our complaints. We all talk to him, because we're all friends, but the DM brushes off our complaints (us being myself and the others who aren't Bob). We cancelled for this week again, because of Bob's Church's play rehearsals. When I said Bob's attendance was hurting the group, the DM said "he's been involved with his church for forever, why should that stop now?" It shouldn't. He should be the adult and drop out because we've been playing since November, we're all capable players, and we've only made it to level 5, when we could be at 10 if only we could meet regularly. Well if all you do is dog poor Bob when you talk to the DM I'd ignore you as well.  I could say your piss-poor attitude is hurting the group just from reading your rant.  Your DM is correct Bob's faith shouldn't be a reason for his occlusion.  I think you need to think of more solutions than just dropping Bob or playing without him. I feel like the DM is afraid of hurting Bob's feelings, but everyone else in the party is fed up with Bob. What should we do? How do we get past the DM's defenses? This is a kind of encounter we weren't prepared for. I feel like the DM is afraid to hurt your feelings by calling you out on being a self-centered, egotistical know it all.  That's right.  Your "my way is the only way to rp" attitude, coupled with your "lets just drop the guy I don't like" mentality has made me consider you the problem of your group.  I'm sure you didn't think this was the case but hello and wake up. It's a game.  Both of this issues are easily remidied.  hell one of this isn't an issue except you seem to want to dictate how another person roleplays. Good luck I guess.
#16 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi May 09, 2011 9:21:40	Ok, I apologize for my wording - I clearly came across more harshly than I meant.  I did say I hate to claim a way of doing D&D is wrong.  But to punish somebody's lack of appearances in-game by penalizing XP and items received makes it so that the character falls behind and cannot contribute the way it's meant to in combat.  The design of D&D doesn't work that way, and barring a whole lot of house ruling to fix it (or the problem being rare enough to not come into play), it punishes the player in-game for an out-of-game problem.  And since 4e places so much emphasis on roles, it gimps the whole party.  Basically, XP and item penalty punishments throw a monkey wrench into the basic system of D&D, and from what I've heard, it always causes problems.  Also, that general type of response (though not always, and I don't claim it's true in this case) is a passive-aggressive way of dealing with a problem. So I apologize for calling your way of doing things bad-wrong-fun, but from what I've seen, it generally does prevent someone from having fun, which is the one thing I will call bad-wrong-fun.  It's a game - the only way of doing it wrong it making somebody unhappy. EDIT: And looking back, I realize that since you're not having fun now, that's a bit of a problem too.  Well, SpaceyRicchochet sounds like he has good advice on handling the sometimes-player's absences.  As for the player's trouble making one-liners on the fly, maybe suggest one or two when the time comes.  Not everyone can come up with something in just a few seconds - I certainly can't.  Or suggest to the player that he prepare a few lines before game and have them on hand.
#17 Baphogoat May 09, 2011 10:11:08	I feel for you man.  If someone's (in this case, Bob's) outside activities start to affect your ability to even play the game, something I'm sure you look forward to every week, something definitely needs to be done to deal with this situation. It sounds like Bob is not necessarily liked within the group both for his in game shenanigans and his out of game attitude.  Having tried to speak with the DM, to little effect, I see that this continues to be an issue.  If you feel that you still wish to game with this Bob and the DM then have one of the other players switch to being DM and tell Bob and the current DM that they are welcome to play but that you will be playing every week unless arrangments have been made ahead of time to cancel (and that this will not happen because Bob has church group or whatever else he might have going on), if you miss a game that is your own thing.  Just let it be clear that this game is your "church group" and you do not want to miss it because of someone else's outside commitments.  They will either go along with this or not, if not just find yourself a few new players, or play with a smaller group to start. If Bob is not making any attempt to change the situation and the DM is not listening to your concerns then there is nothing wrong with hijacking the game for yourselves.  I know you said this is your chance to play and so you do not want to DM but is there another player who would be willing?  And maybe this only needs to happen on the weeks that the other (current) DM tries to cancel games in the name of Bob.
#18 orin_skullcrusher May 12, 2011 1:42:56	Ive always thought this was an odd expectation of D&D.... making a player exhibit certain characteristics of the character, while other characteristics are just assumed. If a character attempts to break down a door, the player is not expected to then break down an actual door to be true to RP. You just roll the dice and see if he succeeds. A magician does not need to actually come up with a convincingly worded spell in order to cast it... you just assume the character does it and you move on. Why should coming up with insults be different? D&D wouldn't be much fun if a player's character was capped by the abilities of the player himself. If a player wants to play a character that is supposed to be wittier than the player himself, there should be room for that just like someone should be able to play a character that is stronger than the player actually is. Of course, the game is improved if he could come up with cool insults, but a person's personal talents shouldn't restrict which characters they are allowed to play.
#19 rrpearcy4791 May 28, 2011 13:07:46	When a group gets together and decides to play, they are, in essence, entering into a social contract with each other. If a person does not have the time to meet the obligations of that contract, due to other obligations that take priority, then they should remove themselves from that game for the good of the rest of the players. That being said, there is nothing wrong with having other obligations. We all have a life outside of gaming. Matters such as work, family, spiritual, personal, medical, etc all have varying priorities to different people. Someone should be able to recognize this and remove themselves if this is the case. Especially if they miss more sessions than they are actually playing. I have been the person who had to remove myself from a game because other priorities arose. Though it pained me to do so, I knew that it was not fair to others if I held the game up in any way. Imagine if, instead of D&D, this was a softball team. If everyone showed up on Saturday to play, but they were missing their pitcher because he had other obligations, they might be unable to play that day and have to forfeit. I imagine that everyone would be pretty upset that they were unable to play and have fun. Not to mention forfeiting because a player could not meet the obligation that he had agreed to. I know that I hate it when I've been looking forward to killing monsters all week then find out an hour before we are supposed to play that it was cancelled. The players should talk to the player that cannot meet the obligation and come to some sort of arrangement. As a DM, I would have already spoken to the individual and expressed my concerns, as well as the concerns of the group to let him know the affect he is having. There is always the chance that he doesn't realize it. Perhaps the DM and all the players need to work together to come up with a solution that everyone can agree on. If the player still wants to play, then the DM could come up with a way to explain away the character's absence yet allow him to re enter the story when the player is there. It doesn't really hurt the other players if his character gets leveled up to keep up with them. The player who isn't there is already suffering by missing out on the fun. At least allow him to continue to play and learn when he can. The other players should be able to continue to have fun in his absence. It can always be a lot of fun telling him what he missed out on. The proper solution is the one where everyone can have fun.
#20 Man_in_the_Funny_Hat May 29, 2011 19:00:14	He wasnt a very good player (horrible metagamer and powergamer, out to "win DnD" as it were), and we werent exactly keen on letting him rejoin, but the DM talked us into it. It had been his first campaign after all. This can be difficult.  If a new player doesn't "adapt" quickly to the gameplay of D&D as well as the other players at the table there simply is not definitive line to be pointed at where people can say, "We tolerate THIS much from newbies, but no further."  However, there ARE just going to be some players who need to be cut loose before it drags the rest of the group down with him.  Generally, this assessment is supposed to be up to the DM but when you have ALL the other players actively complaining and the DM refuses to take action for whatever reason there WILL be blood before it's all over with. So Bob comes in, kills off his first character after 2 sessions because he "built it assuming the campaign would involve more social interactions" and proceeded to build a bard. An insult comic, no less. I am a strong roleplayer, and pride myself on that fact. So when he goes to insult someone, I expect an insult, not "my character insults his manhood". No, if you want to belittle a mans endowment, you come up with a joke! Plus his character antagonizes the party, to the point where rp is becoming a chore for me. And that stings. A lot. It, of course, goes without saying that nobody has a right to be a jerk as a player.  What also goes unsaid, however, is that nobody has a RIGHT to play a character that ANTAGONIZES other players, or other characters.  Such characters CAN exist, but all the variables of the particular character, HOW the player plays the character, how the other players already feel towards the player... just because it's possible doesn't mean that anyone/everyone gets to do so at their own whim.  It doesn't matter if the insults are even all in-game and in-character - it DOES spill over to the player.  And even in-character it DOES make a difference.  There MUST be a logical, sensible limit to what CHARACTERS will tolerate from those they CHOOSE to associate with.  PLAYERS thus have to be allowed to say, "We've had enough of this," and have their voices HEARD by the DM. But wait, there's more! Bob is very involved in his church's band, and does other sound stuff for them, and has missed more meetings than everyone else combined because of late-running rehearsals, emergency meetings, a play theyre putting on, etc. And rather than play without him, the DM opts to cancel the session. I think it's safe to say that nobody agreed to participate in this campaign under the stipulation that, "We only meet when BOB'S schedule allows him to be there."  This is a SIGNIFICANT issue with the DM and the question should be put to him in no uncertain terms. To top this all off (the part where it becomes more than a player vs. player issue), the DM will not hear our complaints. We all talk to him, because we're all friends, but the DM brushes off our complaints (us being myself and the others who aren't Bob). Yeah.  If true this is grossly objectionable behavior on the part of the DM. Either the DM agrees that the game can and WILL take place even if Bob can't be there, whereupon Bob gets to be an ADULT (as well as the DM) and accepts the limitations that BOB'S participation in the game will have to suffer due to BOB'S other commitments, and arrangements are made to accomodate Bob's limited, intermittent participation in an agreeable manner, - OR - the DM declares flat out that Bob MUST be present for all future game sessions and then the rest of the players either agree (and the subject then ENDS THERE), or the other players REJECT the DM's declaration and the entire group disbands... hopefully rebanding immediately with improved communication and understandings about how this sort of thing is generally supposed to work. I feel like the DM is afraid of hurting Bob's feelings, but everyone else in the party is fed up with Bob. What should we do? How do we get past the DM's defenses? This is a kind of encounter we weren't prepared for. This isn't about Bob's feelings so much at this point - it's about yours and the those of the other players.  But this doesn't have to be done so that anybody's feelings should be endangered anyway (no moreso than has obviously been done already given YOUR state of mind), unless we're dealing with a reduced level of maturity here on top of everything else.  The DM simply tells Bob: "Dude, everybody's complaining.  We've I've gone quite far to accomodate your participation while maintaining an unbroken narrative in the game, but it's NOT fair to the others to keep cancelling so many game sessions just because YOU can't make it.  That's not what THEY signed on for and I've been quite rudely unfair to them by letting things get to this point.  I, being the DM, still have final say on who I want to participate in MY games so I'd still like for you to be there when you can, but you WILL have to accept that your character will not be able to participate in the ongoing adventures like the others will." See?  How hard would that be?  Not hard at all.  Nobody's feelings are hurt, and a large chunk of the problem is solved.  Next issue... "Speaking of your participation, an insult-comic bard IS a viable character concept, but you must understand that it can get annoying both in-game and out of game.  Well, apparantly it HAS gotten annoying.  The game is still new to you so it really would be better if you were to run a character that is NON-antagonistic towards his own party members, and it seems that I'll have to insist on that.  It's either that or the other characters are going to wind up getting rid of your PC one way or another and you'll be creating a new PC ANYWAY, while simultaneously having needless further irritated everyone." See?  Again, not hard to do and the other half of the issue is solved.  The DM CANNOT use, "I just don't want to hurt his feelings," as an excuse. Really, you do seem to be at the point where the DM gets an ultimatum.  If there's blame to be assigned I say the DM gets to accept the largest chunk for having studiously brushed aside the issue and allowing it to come to a head.  So, speak with the other complaining players, RESPECTFULLY present your DM with the ultimatum and see what happens.