| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1fitchfer518Nov 02, 2009 17:43:55 | So i have another post related to this here. The essence of our dilema is this: Our DM is starting a new campaign soon and we've a group of 5 players. The DM is expecting us to fill that standard roles of 1 defender, 1 leader, 1 controller, 2 strikers and has told us that if we all come from the same power source that we'd get a bonus. He hasn't told us what the bonus will be - he doesn't want us to metagame - but he has strongly encouraged us. We can make a minor exception for certain things, such as if we wanted to all be divine he'd allow a dragon magic sorcerer as long as it worshipped Bahamaut alongside the rest of the party. Now with that said here is where the problem comes in: We've a player who is hellbent on playing a human avenger who worships a unique forgotten god (Heir of the Forgotten Gods background). He wants to have a unique heraldry and doesn't want any of the players to know his character prior to starting our first adventure since he doesn't want to lose any originality or uniqueness from the rest of the group. I understand his desire to be unique but there is not really any way to obtain the bonus that the DM is offering with him being this way, even if we are all divine we can't all worship the same god or have come from the same school based on his character concept. This player's intention is not to be a jerk in any way, his intention is originality and uniqueness and so on (which I understand). But he has absolutely no problem having the group suffer to obtain it, which I have a problem with. We all want unique characters but we are all willing to do so within the paramaters set forth by the requirements to acquire the bonus(es), whereas he is not. The rest really want to fit together as a power source group even if we didn't get the bonus because we think it would have a cool effect on group social dynamics, but even still we also really want the bonus but this guy doesn't care. Could anyone give suggestions as to how to handle this situation?
edit: forgot to mention, all 5 of us have been friends for over 10 years and so are not surprised that this is coming from him but understand that we'd rather involve him and sacrifice the bonus that kick him out |
| #2QmarkNov 02, 2009 17:50:07 | If "Player A" wants to 'theatre-up' at the detriment of group cohesion, then go right ahead and give him what he wants. By this I mean role-play exactly how it would logically be - the rest of you are 'normal' and he is the blasphemous infedel outsider. Never fail to bring up the 'fact' that he's worshiping a 'false god' and simply does not, can not, and will not fit in with pious Bahamutists.
When he brings it up out-of-game, tell him in simple and direct terms that he is the one taking the 'amateur theater' aspect of D&D far too seriously, and the rest of the group is simply obliging in a way that points out how incredibly stupid it is. |
| #3Neutronium_DragonNov 02, 2009 18:40:53 | I'm not sure that I see what the problem is - if he's an avenger (divine), isn't playing a divine-source party viable? It's not like you all need to choose the same patron just to share a power source; given the polytheistic assumptions of the game, you could have all five characters belonging to different religions without any major problems unless you go out of your way to pick obvious bad matches (like putting a cleric of Ioun in the same party as a cleric of Vecna). Divine covers all four roles (the only power source that doesn't is martial, which has no controller), so that's not an issue either. It's also not quite the case that the 'standard' party is 2 strikers and 1 of everything else. 2 defenders and 1 of everything else is just as 'standard' - it's actually what the system expects you'll double up on first. I can't help but feel that the DM is making this situation a little more bothersome than it needs to be by not explaining what the 'common source' request is about. |
| #4AaronOfBarbariaNov 02, 2009 19:09:39 | This sounds like a case of plain ol' bad juju. One player is dead set on what he wants to play - that is excellent. I have a lot of players that get all wishy-washy, or tell me "I'll wait and see what everyone else is going to play," and that drives me up the wall... mostly because I am almost always the DM, and rarely get to play - but if you say "Hey Aaron, you get to play," I've got at least 3 characters that I can just pop open the books, jot down, and be ready to go. Then you have the other 4 players that are dead set on getting the "bonus," ...so long as they don't have to do anything for it. These 4 seem like they should be able to come up with 4 characters fitting the same power source as the first guy, and then the "bonus" could be had. ...and of course, you have the DM offering up some sort of bonus just for making your characters fit a theme... which is the cause of this whole "problem" to start with. My advice to the DM - take what your players make and work with it OR make the characters for them. Setting "bonus conditions," if they cater to what you want is just going to cause problems with your group because you have that one (at least) player that wants to use his own creative ideas if he is making the character. |
| #5i_roll_onesNov 02, 2009 19:18:35 | Comprimise. Tell him that he gets his thingymajiggy and doodads (Sorry, don't own the 4e FR books) BUT...In return, its HIS responsiblity to incorporate the PC into the group, and tell you which god he's planning on. Not the other stuff, just the god. And make it quite clear that HE needs to have some idea on how his PC will get from being a total stranger to incorporated into a tight knit group and trust each other with their lives. If he's not willing to divulge his god, then have him reccomend an ally. If he's unwilling to do THAT, then make your group defect from a god, and searching for a new patron for some reason, possibly something to do with betrayal. In comes this...Guy! And he does something awesome! And perhaps this convinces your group to learn more of this Awesome Guy and his Awesome Religion. As a back up, tell the DM to prepare some monsters to attack, and a way to have the PCs meet away from a town with plenty of guards. That way, if you don't think the Guy is awesome, you have some reason to travel with him, such as, surviving the monster attacks. Is anyone opposed to doing Divine Power Source? As has been said before, you get the bonus AND all roles. Win! And as an added bonus, if you all go divine, you can consider the Zombie Attack campaign idea from that Oakspar77777 thread. Unless this guy is a necromancer or evil. He should really tell you that before the game, as evil parties need a lot of OoC cooperation, or they lead to an awful lot of PvP. |
| #6MrCustomerNov 02, 2009 21:12:46 | I would talk to the DM and suggest a different player take his place, as he apparently isn't really interested in this particular campaign anyways. The group as a whole should say to this player "Hey, nothing personal, but we are going to be playing Bridge, so if you are looking for a poker game, then go have fun at the casino, good luck" and leave it at that. |
| #7sallaNov 02, 2009 22:19:11 | I'm wondering why the DM is so bent on the group being so homogenous. I can't recall the last time I saw a DM apply anything resembling those kinds of limitations on character creation. It helps that it says the DM 'expects' the 1 of all, 2 strikers party, but isn't saying he requires it; otherwise, obviously, you couldn't have a martial party. The party is not gaining a bonus, which is not the same thing as suffering a penalty. I say let every player play what he wants. |
| #8i_roll_onesNov 02, 2009 22:29:37 | Consider multiclassing to pick up other skills, IF you are okay with this theme bonus. I wonder if this is the best way to make a thematically sound party, but the DM should get some credit for encouraging the players to make up a shared backstory before the game. Seriously, missing skills like History, Insight, Thievery or Diplomacy can suck, and some people might get bored if they ONLY have what others in the party have. Will your DM allow PHBII backgrounds to pick up new skills? |
| #9fitchfer518Nov 02, 2009 22:52:09 | Thanks for the input that you guys have given, but I want to clarify a few things.
1. Our DM is not requiring us to have 2 strikers 1 of the rest. He explained that in his experience, with 5 people, he felt it worked the best and advised that group role composition. He is also not insisting that we fill the power source group, simply giving us incentive to do so because he feels it will have a cool effect on group social dynamics, provide better synergy and fit well with the campaign world. He explained that there will be a worthwhile bonus and won't tell us what it is because he says it can result in meta-gaming and he wants to avoid that. 2. Three of us specifically want something other than divine (but in our case, we are at least being somewhat flexible, offering three or four different classes that we're interested in) and one us doesn't care and is willing to play anything since his character concept is independent of class role. 3. It is possible that the DM will allow the bonus for simply being divine, but the RP essence of the power source incentive is that we will work together because we have common goals, methods, ideals and a history together. It will reduce one-up-manship, friendly fire, leaving people behind and stuff like that. So maybe if the 4 of us bend to the whim of the 1 guy who is being stubborn we might still get the 'bonus' but I feel that it is unfair to expect things to go that way. What's to say next campaign he doesn't simply do things in an uncompromising fashion expecting us all to go the same way just because he knows the rest are more interested in group success than ourselves. 4. All five of us are experienced RPers, we play a lot of World of Darkness (vampire, and hunter) and have all done a series of DnD adventures in our time as gamers. So the idea that he is dead set on a character concept being good is not necessarily in context for our group. We all have ideas that we're going to be happy with, and 4 of us are willing to work within the confines of the group's needs in order to make the group succesful. I guess it boils down to the fact that the rest of us want group success first, and uniqueness/individual effectiveness second whereas he wants to be unique/the top DPS first and group success takes a backseat to it.
I feel like while the suggestion to let him be different and sacrifice the bonus to make him a group pariah will give us vindication it won't solve the problem. Lastly while it is true that not receiving the bonus isn't technically a loss, if he told us that the bonus was +2 to the stat of our choice rather than being a mystery, then we wouldn't have the perspective of "Oh well, no biggy it's just a bonus". |
| #10i_roll_onesNov 02, 2009 23:03:12 | Uh, no offense, but I start to wonder about how your party normally interacts. And I thought it was bad when people keep making fun of the elves. Have you considered...Asking your DM to ONLY give the bonus to those who DO cooperate? Yeah, if its +2 to a stat, he'll be less powerful, which many people will agree is bad. But as it stands, its less of an incentive to work together and more of an incentive to keep murdering his PC until he makes one everyone can stand, or keep OoCly arguing and never get anywhere, and might wind up with players resenting this guy, or people unhappy with their characters who will seek to kill them in boredom. It could make for OoC/IC disagreements either way, however, so this may not be wise. That, or ask the DM if you get points for the backstory and the backstory that leads to cooperation, not power source. Still may not work with the Avenger. |
| #11brassbaboonNov 02, 2009 23:09:38 | I'm with those who say "Hey, DM... wtf?" It would never occur to me to offer some sort of "influence" to my players to play the group I wanted them to play. As far as I'm concerned players can play what they like. If my players wanted to run five rogues through a campaign, I'd say "Let's do this!" It might not work, but I'd let them figure that out themselves. In general most groups have no problem settling on roles that work together. In my groups it has usually been "newest players get to pick first, most experienced players pick a role to fill any gaps." But if not, then that's cool too. My goal as a DM is to have my players invested in their characters, and that usually means letting them fully determine for themselves what they want to play. |
| #12Duke5150Nov 02, 2009 23:14:34 | I let players play what they want. If a group wants to play 6 leaders or 6 strikers or 5 controllers and a leader. "ok dudes." As it is right now, my main group has 3 defenders, 1 striker, 1 leader and 1 controller. All of which the players chose. So far, no problems at all. (the leader and controller are new additions) |
| #13koukNov 02, 2009 23:55:41 | I also think it's somewhat poor taste to offer a phantom "bonus" for PCs all being a certain way. Here's the DM secret though: Even if he gives you +10 in all stats, he's going to adjust the game difficulty to make it equal to "normal" anyway, making the numbers fairly meaningless in the end. There's no such thing as a bonus that gives you a real mechanical advantage without simultaneously making the game easier (and probably less fun for it). It's probably something like an empty garisson/church/mage tower/glade he has a story idea for, that your party will be granted. But another secret: If he wants to do something "roleplaying" like that, there's no reason you all have to be the same power source. Personally I'd turn down some unknown "bonus" in favor of people playing what they want to play. It's pointless having a badass character that you don't actually like. But, if you all pretty much knew the one guy would be an oddball, I think it's fair enough to just do whatever the DM was going to do anyway with the understanding that he shouldn't have demanded compliance from that paticular player and wouldn't have expected it. If none of the rest of you care that much about character choice though, and are very interested in the hidden carrot, go ahead and make an all divine party. |
| #14sallaNov 03, 2009 1:42:31 |
... what? A shared power source does none of those things. |
| #15howlofmemoriesNov 03, 2009 1:48:06 |
I think by 'shared power-source' he means more along the lines of a shared origin, background, or theme. For example, all of the group coming from the same monastery and sharing a similar belief system. |
| #16fitchfer518Nov 03, 2009 1:59:57 |
You are correct. Also I'd like to address what people keep mentioning as +2 to a stat, I said that just to point out that losing a bonus isn't nothing. Lastly I'll add that it wasn't the DM alone, many of the players talked about power sources and how things work together. There was a group consensus that we will do 2 strikers and 1 of each, the DM agrees and suggests we stay that way but it was by no means the DM's decision as far as that goes. The shared background is the most important thing, and again I want to stress to everyone that is flaming the DM: He is not trying to pigeon-hole us into playing particular things. He simply said that there will be a nice bonus if we do, and the reason for providing the bonus is because he thinks it will have a positive effect in the game so he provides incentive. I personally want the bonus but also want us to (more importantly) have similar backgrounds and all of us agree except the one Avenger player who insists on being different. Everyone is pointing fingers at the DM for trying to force our hands, that's not what is happening. All the players want it and the one guy is saying "I don't care what the group wants I'm doing what I like". I also think that it will be a continuing theme throughout the game. "I'm going now" "Dude, just wait for the others, they'll be here soon and I don't want to get ambushed by bandints." "Oh well he should've kept up!" etc. |
| #17MrCelsiusNov 03, 2009 2:05:31 | So the character is worshiping a totally unique deity to qualify for some mechanical benefit? Something of the Forgotten God, right? How about talking to the DM about reflavouring that thing that gives the benefit? Then the character could worship a god the other characters worship and you could all get your bonus on. |
| #18sallaNov 03, 2009 2:19:50 | I still really think there's some weird concepts floating around with all this that I don't get. A shared power source, or shared backgrounds isn't inherently going to prevent one-upsmanship, friendly fire, leaving people behind, or any of that, nor will varying backgrounds inherently promote it. There's no reason the group can't be as tightly knit as any other with the usual grab-bag of backgrounds, classes and power sources. Your speculation that he wants to play his own character means he'll be disruptive down the line is just that, speculation. You have no evidence; if it becomes a problem later, you can deal with it then. But at this point, with your DM dangling a fish in front of your party, it really seems to me that you're making a mountain out of a molehill because you're greedy for whatever reward the DM is offering. The title of the thread is wrong; the player refuses to change his character based on the desires of the other players, not the needs of the group. If the DM weren't dangling a shiny in front of you, would you care that he wants to play an Avenger if some dimly-remembered god? |
| #19johnnyslickNov 03, 2009 2:50:47 | So... what are the roles that are/aren't being filled? First up, you do *not* need 2 strikers in a group. Actually, if I was a player and wanted to double up on anything, it would be defenders. 2 defenders can basically shield the remainder of the party off from just about anything, especially if one or both is a straight up fighter (that attack of opportunity immobilizing the monster moving through his ZOC is huge). To more or less recap what the DMG says about player composition and also what I've experienced: No defenders: Everybody runs scared every single encounter. Usually the leader ends up acting like a de facto defender, at least until he is about to die and has used all of his healing abilities on himself (note: not such a great idea if you're a bard). I guess this could work if you never, ever go into a dungeon, but this could end up becoming a really tough situation otherwise. If there is a must-have position, it's defender. If. No controllers: Minions become a b and a half to take down because mostly you can only off them one or at most two at a time. Also, monsters are able to move around all they want so long as they keep clear of the defenders. A group I played in over the summer went without a controller and we did just fine. No leader: I hope nobody takes damage or brought a lot of healing potions with them! Also, Warlords and Bards can really help everyone else gain combat advantage through strategic manuvering. I'd probably go so far as to call the leader the 2nd most necessary character type. No striker: Probably the least challenging to do without, although IME the strikers are usually the coolest dudes to play so the spot always gets filled by somebody. All that happens when you don't have *any* strikers in a 5 person group is that combat takes longer. Which doesn't matter so much because a. the enemy isn't going anywhere thanks to the defenders, b. the enemy isn't attacking at all thanks to the controller, and c. if they ever do attack and actually damaging someone, your leaders are buffing you right back up as soon as that happens. So in a word, no, I don't think your DM knows exactly what he's talking about here. An all-martial party, for example, of 3 fighters, a warlord, and an archer ranger (also known as the class you give your younger brother who has never played DnD in his life) could do just fine. So could an all-arcane class of one swordmage, a wizard, a warlock, and two bards (although I don't know why you'd ever want two bards in one group; that would do a number on anybody's sanity). Four monks and a psionic! You just have to be creative. |
| #20fitchfer518Nov 03, 2009 3:13:31 |
Two things. #1 Though perhaps it is not unreasonable to change the thread name so that it doesn't say we 'need' the bonus, which seems to be what people are interpreting I think that there is more to the issue that may not be entirely obvious to others but relevant and I've not realized that it was necessary information. Our group has been plagued by one-upmanship and not working together in the past. Level 1: Everyone meets in the tavern at random, a bard tells a story about a treasure guarded by goblins nearby. This is a perfectly reasonable way to start an adventure for most groups. For us, two players will immediately agree to do it because they're a Lawful good paladin and cleric, the druid (unaligned) will think it has nothing to do with him and since he's all naturey he doesn't care about the gold, the wizard seeks some ultra powerful magical dragon orb as part of his character concept and thinks it couldn't possibly be taken by goblins and since he just met these people he doesn't care about them so stays back and the rogue goes only because the cleric bribes him since he's desperate to help. Before our group gets flamed this came from our original idea of realism: if I am genuinely a neutral druid with vow of poverty (old 3.5 stuff) and someone I just met asks me to risk my life for them in an unaturally constructed building and offers only gold as a reward I would realistically say 'No thanks'. It eventually became a running gag and now old habits die hard and we've gotten 4/5 people to turn it around. Point #2 - because of this tendency our group has we recently tried a game I ran in which I required to all have a sort of shared background. Essentially they knew each other before hand and were from the same area, though their roles and stuff were not restricted. It worked beatifully, they worked together from the start and rarely had teamworking problems because their concepts were based on the idea that they work together since before the game even started. The problem I'm focused on is how to get the 5th player to work with us. I don't think this bonus loss is where this will end, and if the other 4 of us are all arcane, from the same school, all worship Ioun he'll be an outcast. |
| #21slobo777aNov 03, 2009 3:24:24 |
It's the 5th character that needs to work with the other characters. As players, you need to engineer that. The mechanic bonus, and restricted backgrounds are not always going to be the best tools to achieve that. The DM is probably inspired by your success, but I cannot see that working as a long term solution. Focus on that result (the characters working together) and not the mechanism which worked last time. If you are concerned about the specific player doing too much their own thing: 1) Mention this to the DM and ask for his assistance (i.e. plot options which can appeal to all characters - this could be easy if the player has put in background hooks to his religion, all he needs is a rumour about some lost relic and he'll be looking to join the group just so he can find it). 2) Talk about it as players. Work on it as players, offering reasons to each other why the group knows each other or works together. . . . if the fifth player still wants to play a maverick, well a group can usually handle one maverick as long as he's not disruptive. It's a pretty standard role in fact. The player might need a slap if he also wants this character to be special, better or have more attention than the rest of the group (which sadly, is often a motivation for this kind of play when it is disruptive). However, given that you don't know whether he's being deliberately disruptive yet, hold your fire!
|
| #22Madfox11Nov 03, 2009 3:42:37 | One of the best campaigns I run was when the group decided to all play dwarves from the same near-extinct clan. They made that decision, because the previous campaign had fallen apart due to having too much freedom in character creation which resulted in such wildly different personalities that it eventually ruined the fun of the game. So in that regards the players' sollution, lets all create characters with a similar background, is really not a bad sollution, especially since I get the impression it is a group decision. After all, it provides a good reason for the group to be together, to stick together and to work towards a common goal (also making the life of the DM easier). Besides, limiting choices can actually increase one's creativity. In any event, why focus so much on a power source? It is background you want, so why not pick something much more generous then a temple or wizard school? Why not pick something like a mercenary company? The military (avoid giving PCs a higher rank than other PCs)? Serving the same ruler? Merchant organization? Or a goal? Those are much more open to a wider selection of character concepts while still providing a common theme. Another sollution is to ignore the fluff of a class. It really does not take much work to change a swordmage into an aestic sword-fighting monk who gets his powers from the gods or a dragonborn barbarian multiclassed into a druid who is a polymorphed young dragon. Having said that, the fact that even when as a group you do decide to do so, you still get a clash is not a good sign. Having a common background might not help you. It seems you have a bigger issue in compromizing and communicating. Talk with your DM. If 4 out of 5 of the players want to stick to a theme, do so. If you feel the need for a bonus, only give it to those 4 (but personally I am against any additional bonus beyond the obvious that you are bound to get more attention to the game). If you really want to keep playing with that player, be careful in this case though that you do not accidently exclude the other player unless you don't care and use it as an additional tool to get him to comply. |
| #23Neutronium_DragonNov 03, 2009 13:58:39 | It sounds as though the 'bonus for being the same power source' is creating more strife rather than less; it really ought to go. By the sounds of it, the problems that you've had in the past are due to the "five random people in the tavern" opener. There's no connection of any kind between those PCs. That's something you need to address, but the PCs all using the same power source probably won't do it. Several other examples have been given, and any of those are more likely to work. That's still only half the battle though. Having a common background doesn't establish the PCs' individual relationships, which is the critical part of forming a group that will work well together. Do any of you have access to the DMG2? There's a section in there that seems like it would help your group: P12 (Cooperative Arcs) and P13-15 (Your Cast of Characters). Everyone ought to have a read of that section and then see what you can come up with using it. |
| #24sallaNov 03, 2009 14:20:14 | The 5th character will only be an outcast if you choose to treat him as an outcast. |
| #25DwarfFighterNov 03, 2009 14:29:22 |
It may be my 4e knowledge fails me, but: If you make your entire group reliant on one power source, wouldn't that mean that the entire group has a shared vulnerability? As such it is a cost of sorts and I could see something like that being worth balancing out with a bonus from a group-vs-world-balance perspective. However, if one or more characters step off the plate and pick a different power source then that group vulnerability ceases to be an issue. There is no cost to the group that needs to be paid off by awarding the group a bonus. That being said, I can't say I fault the guy on doing something different. The player wants a specific type of character and this type of character is allowed by the GM. You guys have just failed to sell him the idea. The offered bonus isn't what the player wants. What else can you offer? -DF |
| #26_jayne_cobb_Nov 03, 2009 14:43:55 | A player should be free to make whatever type of PC he wishes. Your DM can "suggest" or "encourage" all he wants, it really doesn't matter. Unless the player refuses to abide by paramaters for character creation set by the DM he is doing nothing wrong, and it is a little selfish of the other players to expect otherwise. That said, it seems to me that you have a different problem entirely. Specifically, it seems like the player in question is setting himself up to be the centre of attention and main spotlight resident. Be wary. |
| #27Janx_14Nov 03, 2009 14:53:49 | Nah, powersources really have no pros or con's to them, unless your GM is running Divine Classes like they did in previous editions (*shivers*). If characters are built as actual characters, and not blocks of stats that are 100% stereotypical, having players all of 1 power source is no different than any normal mix. Whenever a DM WANTS to run a 'themed' campaign, he should offer his idea to the players, knowing well they might not like it. Its something everyone needs to decide on as a group, and if a consensus is impossible, just have play play what they like. I once ran a campaign loosely based on the universe from the game Myst. In it, i wanted players to be humans. I of course asked if people were cool with it first. I ran it as a side-campaign to our main one which has 10 people. I know that if i had had another race in mind, i may not have had as many people up to it. In the end though, the DM should work with his players on what everyone wants. Enticing a bonus to doing things the DM's way is having a train infront of the player's with a carrot on it. |
| #28defcon_1Nov 03, 2009 15:06:06 |
So all five of you are the type of roleplayers who have to have characters behave "realistically"... even to the detriment of the adventure and the game. The only way you will work for common goals is if you all decide during character creation that you have common goals. Well, there's your problem right there. I don't blame this fifth guy any more than I blame anyone else in your group, because it sounds as though all five of you could be in the exact same position. Any one of you could have chosen to be the "odd man out"... and if that had happened... you'd have played your character "realistically", and basically said "No, I don't want to do that..." for any plot thread thrown out there that didn't align to your beliefs of what your character would want to do. You know what I say? I say all five of you choose whatever characters you want to play, regardless of whether they have common goals, common power sources, common themes, or common anything... and then after that... get over yourselves. If you have five disparate characters, then just accept the metagame assumption that all five of you have to adventure together if you five players actually want to play D&D. You need to learn to get past the fact that you can't always play your character "realistically" and sometimes have to go on quests that aren't directly beneficial to your character "beliefs" right there and then. You players choose to play D&D together... and thus you each need to find reasons in your own minds why your characters all stay together. |
| #29KruskNov 03, 2009 15:30:35 | I have two solutions for you. 1- Ask the player to skip the first session, and introduce his character in the second or third as story permits. Tell the DM you are doing this and explain the whole thing to the DM. The rest of the party can roleplay "Priests of ____", "A military squad" or "A primal tribe" and he will be the different guy they meet up with who they decide to keep around for whatever reason. (see strider in LoTR. "OK everyone play hobbits" "No I wanna play a mysterious ranger man" "ok fine, but they are doing X, Y, and Z, before I can work you in, you can do some other stuff off screen") 2- Ask the DM to give the benefits to all players who meet the requirements but this guy. "Hey DM, we are all trying, but ___ is being stubborn and won't go along with it. Can we just get it, and not him?" |
| #30DragoncatNov 03, 2009 18:20:40 | Either run a themed game, or don't. The entire problem comes from a bad idea from the DM, mixed with different levels of enthusiasm by the players. If the DM wants a group game where you are all connected, he should have stated so, and made it the foundation of the campaign. Offering this idea as a bonus invites player conflict; if someone doesn't want to jump through his hoop, then the rest of the party feels cheated out of some mysterious bonus. A player might not care one iota about the bonus itself, and simply want to play his character...but the other players might be more attached to the unknown reward, and therefore create dischord. As is, apparently, the case. Honestly, my advice is this: to hell with the bonus. If you all, or at least the majority, want to play a themed game, play a themed game because you want to, not because you will be rewarded for it. If one guy isn't playing ball, you need to make it clear that this is a special game, he can reserve his cool concept for the next campaign, but right now all of you want to do something unique. Or, ask yourself in all seriousness: how much do you care about a themed party? Is it worth the current trouble for you all to have a similar backstory? Do you really give a damn about all having the same power source? And further, does everyone at the table really want to play such a game? And finally....what do the four of you want to play? You've said you have a few ideas, throw them out here. Perhaps there is a way to actually work everything together in an interesting manner. A wizard may be a sage researching lost empires, a paladin might be a scion of a forgotten household, a rogue might be a temple raider skilled in the art of avoiding ancient traps, etc. |
| #31mistwolfNov 03, 2009 19:05:40 | You have two ways to work with this. get together with the other players and the DM and hammer out a way that you can get your bonus and your friend can pay his character OR Work out a way with the DM that those with characters who fit the criteria will get their bonus. The Avenger will not. The Avenger will be an outsider, but part of the story arc could be working the Avenger into the group or converting them
As a DM, that's how I would handle it |
| #32Man_in_the_Funny_HatNov 04, 2009 10:25:41 | A player should be free to make whatever type of PC he wishes. Your DM can "suggest" or "encourage" all he wants, it really doesn't matter. Unless the player refuses to abide by paramaters for character creation set by the DM he is doing nothing wrong, and it is a little selfish of the other players to expect otherwise. To this I would only add that if the DM wants to give bonuses for this that or the other then just do it. There should never be a need to dangle carrots like this. If you want the party to have common backgrounds or other elements then just make it a requirement don't be trying to bribe the players into it. Okay, maybe that's not what his intent was, but clearly that is the appearance and the result. End the foolishness. This entire group needs to start communicating. Now. Lack of proper communication within groups is responsible for more problems than rules issues could ever hope to be. |
| #33GelatinousOctahedronNov 04, 2009 11:27:56 | Either run a themed game, or don't. +1 The 2 other people in our group who DM 4E both really like to run themed campaigns. They generally ask us what theme to pick from a short list and then let one person be an odd man out in case someone does not want to do it. In one 3.5 campaign where the DM wanted us to be elves I had just finished playing an elf in the previous long campaign and wanted to try something else so I go to be a half giant. But if they run with a theme they either declare that we will all be elves for this campaign or they give us a list of races, classes, or race class combos that they are ok with us playing. DM fiat works better than bribery in these cases. |
| #34greygrendelNov 04, 2009 16:24:24 | Maybe I'm missing something. The Dm claims to want to avoid metagaming, yet offers a "substantial reward" for playing X. The main objection to the outcast character isn't "oh he's chaotic evil" or "he killed my character's father in a lover's spat" but that you won't get the reward. Does that about sum it up? Okay then. |
| #35absimiliardNov 06, 2009 10:22:00 | Am I misunderstanding things because I don't see a problem. The lot of you choose a power source other than divine, the avenger is your odd-man-out. You all get the bonus, and the only hard part is making the rest of you have a connection to the avenger so that you get your bonus. Maybe you're all worshippers of this lost god, all martial worshippers of the god, or maybe his god sends him into the wilderness to join a group of Primal heroes and play out some secret destiny. Suffice it to say, if you're DM is allowing an exception I'm pretty sure you should be able to work it out.
-abs |
| #36PlulopNov 07, 2009 20:27:46 | Screw the bonus. The game is balanced around the point-buy system, so not receiving an extra +2 ability points won't gimp you, it'll just make you balanced. As a DM I'd never discourage someone from playing a character they're actually excited to play. If it's legal, go for it! Very little is as immersive as a character you love the concept of. If the other 4 of you can't come up with characters that will at least have SEMI-compatible motivations in the majority of situations, I'd be very surprised. Consider your friend's avenger the benchmark, and go from there. While I laud your DM's decision to give you the choice of whether to conform or not, he's made it more difficult than it needs to be. How ironic that an attempt to make sure your characters can get along has led to you turning on each other in real life... |
| #37warrlNov 09, 2009 4:34:33 | Thanks for the input that you guys have given, but I want to clarify a few things. I'm afraid your DM blew that one. Here you are meta-gaming to get the unknown bonus. 4. All five of us are experienced RPers, we play a lot of World of Darkness (vampire, and hunter) and have all done a series of DnD adventures in our time as gamers. So the idea that he is dead set on a character concept being good is not necessarily in context for our group. I'm having trouble with the notion of the guy being that dead set on one concept. I have one I'm playing and several more I'm interested in. |
| #38khopesh122Nov 15, 2009 12:44:44 | I'm sure this is moot at this point, but I'll throw out the idea. Rather than be critical of the scenario, I'll instead look at what can be done to achieve the desired result for the party (a linked background) and also obtain the 'bonus', whatever it happens to be. First, see if the odd-man is willing to compromise in any fashion. Since the rest of the group isn't interested in a divine background, or an all divine background won't create the common background you want, see if the odd-man will take a multiclass feat for a class that matches the rest of the party. Then, the avenger could have undergone training in secret, and uses the multiclass as a cover until they're ready to act more openly (retraining out of the feat). If that doesn't work, you could do the all divine background, and have the avenger be a heretic who secretly worships the forgotten god. Once an avenger (like a paladin, in 4E) is imbued with their powers, they cannot lose them. Perhaps they were trained as an avenger for the same Deity the party serves, but has been swayed to worship the forgotten god instead. How will the party react if they discover how the odd-man is misusing the divine gifts given to him. If he already has his character made and is unwilling to change anything, then write off this 'bonus' and make whatever characters you all want. At that point, it's up to the players to find a reason to participate. If the DM presents the adventure hook and 4 of the 5 take the bait, simply tell the holdout 'OK, maybe the next adventure will interest you, see you next week'. It's not the DMs job to bribe everyone into participating. |
| #39frostwolfNov 16, 2009 8:03:10 |
I agree!If he will not conform, then make him. Strong arm tactics and bullying will work wonders! ^_^ Honestly, He wants to play something diffrent than the party and he has that right, so suck it up and deal with not having the bonus, or you'll be dealing with someone who doesn't care about the character at the table and that way leads to a misserable player, and that always bogs down a game. |
| #40RankoNov 20, 2009 8:59:52 | I'll have to chime in with the crowd that doesn't see the problem. Regarding your example of the tavern, that's a prime example of a problem with the players, not the characters. Y'see, in my experience its not the DM that has to find a reason for your characters to go on an adventure... it's you, as the players, who have to find a reason for your characters to go. Wizard searching for the uber-powerful dragonorb hears of a nearby kobold menace? Well, not only are kobolds known servitors of dragonkind, but also usually really really weak - so for those to be a threat... I dunno, maybe they have an uber-powerful dragonorb making them that powerful? As for not gaining some promised bonus... get over yourselves. The main goal of this hobby is to have fun - not just yours, not just the fun of the other three who'll go with the concept, but the odd-man-out's fun too. So he wants to play something that doesn't seem to fit in? Find a way for it to fit in anyways. |