So, I've hit something of a brick wall with my longterm DnD group near the start of a new campaign. Apologies for the lengthy post, but I think the context is probably worth sharing.
A former player has taken the DM chair and the former DM is a player now. I outlined a character the new DM wrote into the backstory for a settlement, making them essentially loyal muscle for the lord there with the rest of the players largely being new arrivals, being hired to solve disappearances. In line with this scenario, my character is thrown into the role of party leader to keep everything on mission.
I haven't really played a party leader before so this is all new to me, but I've done my best to find a middle ground between driving things forward while also leaving room for other players to indulge character sub-plots and interactions. I've tried to limit hard orders, giving room for creativity and input from everyone else.
The problems started with the former DM joining this party as a chaotic wizard. I'm used to mischievous companions who have opposed agenda's which occasionally surface, but in this case he is 100% opposed to every decision I make as leader, makes no effort to hide insubordination and finally crossed a redline last session where I've no idea how to collaborate with him anymore.
After returning to the settlement with a mission update, he burst into a secret meeting using invisibility and grilled the lord (and his main employer) over his poor security. I tried to use this as a chance to turn the tone to something positive emphasising "he is capable, if disrespectful etc".
Following this, in an entirely private 1-to-1 meeting between the lord and my character, he used his familiar to eavesdrop. Leaving the chamber, my character is confronted by the wizard outside, directly informing me he intruded again, that he wasn’t sorry and spouting entirely baseless suspicions about the lord (with presently zero evidence of anything) and emphasising he has no intention to follow my leadership, but wants to continue with the party anyway.
This has really stumped me from a character standpoint; my character is 100% loyal to the lord of the settlement at present so why would he keep this person in the party when there is not even a pretence of collaboration? I feel like I can't say his character is "fired" as he's a part of our group (it feels like that's off the table) but how (and why) would he continue to work him? The DM hasn't produced a suitable carrot or stick to compel him to colour within the lines yet either.
I feel like the only other option on the table would be a show of power in direct combat, which I really don't want to do as I suspect it would turn the tone of the campaign very sour and result in genuine toxicity between us. I also honestly think he'd win due to his class having substantial advantages over mine and being MUCH more familiar with the rules and best strategies, in which case I'd just get stomped and be left at a low point I'm not sure I could come back from.
I talked it out privately, highlighting the issue and perhaps suggesting he tone down the chaotic side of his character just enough to allow the progression of the story, even if he only hides it from my character temporarily. However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy. Similarly, I don't see how mine could simply ignore an entirely uncooperative companion who constantly insults his lord and won't respond to orders, suggestions or even kind nods.
It's unfortunate, but right now I feel like one of these characters will inevitably be prematurely forced out of the campaign by death or plot retirement (maybe mine).
I'm talking it over with the DM this week too, but I'm curious what others might think? Am I missing an obvious solution here? Has anyone else run into this problem and overcome it?
As long as their insubordination only manifests as suspicion against the lord, I don't see why your character couldn't adopt a lofty, honorable mindset towards the wizard's behavior. "My lord is an honorable man, I welcome your scrutiny, he has nothing to hide." I wouldn't take their suspicion against your lord as an insult to the lord, but rather something to the wizard's shame, that they should suspect a wise and just leader of such crimes. Therefore, you're attitude towards the wizard wouldn't be one of conflict, but of pity.
As long as the wizard's "insubordination" is confined to the roleplay space and they are not doing anything to screw over you or any of the other players, I think this level of party conflict should be perfectly fine with the right attitudes. It might be nice to still have an out of game talk with the other player and let them know "this is how I've decided my character will react to your character's behavior, generally, here's how I imagine their dynamic together to be going forward, what are your thoughts?"
You could also ask the other player why their character is with the party to begin with? Why would you work for a lord you don't trust, with party members you don't respect? The answers they give you might help inform what the best way to approach this party dynamic is.
Sounds like you're both playing characters that have a fun personality on paper, but wouldn't play well with any group. "It's what my character would do" never needs to be said in a bad light if you make a character that will be a team player.
That being said, here's what jumps out: making a character whose loyalty is 100% tied to someone else doesn't seem like a great way to make an adventurer, lol. Are you able to tone back the loyalty aspect of the character? This would be a metagame decision but it'd be helpful for the game to flow properly.
Similarly, I feel like it should go without saying that at least one player doesn't trust the lord. It's a dnd game, the people in power are *always* corrupt, or possessed, or evil, or something.
Last point I want to bring up - full chaotic characters, in my experience, tend to suck. There's a way to do it tactfully and not derail everything that happens, but it sounds like it's not what's going on. Did your new DM have a session 0 to lay out the ground rules? Maybe this problem player has a different idea of what the tone of the game should be than you do. How do the other characters feel? Do they enjoy the chaos, or are they annoyed?
Overall this seems like something to be solved out of game. It probably won't be solved by one of you saying "change your character", but rather by coming to an understanding/agreement about the party moving forward. Apologies for any accusatory tone that might be here; I don't think any of this is your fault. Seems like it's just a lot of somewhat bad circumstances that added up to a big annoyance. I hope some of this helps!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Since you are asking for advice, I am not going to sugar coat it - your character, and, respectfully, possibly you as a player, is the bigger problem in this situation. I don’t mean that pejoratively; you note that this is a character archetype your are not experienced with, and it seems that inexperience is manifesting in a problematic manner.
This phrase stuck out to me: “I've tried to limit hard orders”.
“Limit” does not mean “eliminate” and no one really wants to feel like a single player is giving any “hard orders” at the table. One person acting like a “leader” rather than an equal can easily read of “main character syndrome”, feel like that person isn’t invested in others’ stories (“I get to dictate when you go on your personal journey and when we focus on the main story, not you” vibes in your post), and generally leads to an unpleasant experience for all involved.
I suspect that, if you had this character under the DM-turned-player, they specifically decided to play a chaotic wizard to undermine what they, as DM, saw as a problematic player.
I would assume your assessment of the situation might differ, but self-evaluation can be difficult, and I feel the way you described the situation, which gives the above impression, might speak louder than your conscious evaluation.
That’s not to say the Wizard isn’t also partially responsible for the problems, but fixing problems starts at home, which means recognising your own issues and mitigating them. This should be done at both the character level and the player level.
At the character level, it’s as easy as allowing your character to have a realisation of some sort. Perhaps he discovers something that causes his loyalty to his lord to crack; perhaps he recognises the Wizard’s power as a useful tool and decides to accept the wizard as necessary; perhaps the wizard saves his life, so he feels some kind of loyalty or appreciation. You can work with your DM to set up these kinds of situations if you don’t think you can swing it without an outside catalyst.
Ar the player level, recognise that a D&D leader does not actually lead. They encourage a course of action and can serve as the party’s moral compass… but they don’t give orders, they don’t try and dictate, and they, the player, don’t get frustrated when someone wants to play differently from them.
Fixing your own character’s problematic portion of the party dynamic likely will go a long way toward mitigating what appears to be a reactionary character. If that fails, keep your own mitigation in place, and work with the wizard and your DM on resolving outstanding differences.
Thanks for the thoughts, and no; it's not accusatory. It all sounds fair. And useful.
That being said, here's what jumps out: making a character whose loyalty is 100% tied to someone else doesn't seem like a great way to make an adventurer, lol. Are you able to tone back the loyalty aspect of the character? This would be a metagame decision but it'd be helpful for the game to flow properly.
I think 100% loyalty might be overstating it. I suspose the real issue for me is that the wizard hasn't discovered any leads or noticed odd behaviour yet to justify suspicion in their lord and hasn't turned up any evidence either. Given a good reason, I'd absolutely reconsider loyalties and approach, but at this stage there's literally nothing to go on, it feels like he's trying to pre-emptively jump on a plot twist before it's happened, or if it even happens - perhaps a habit from being a longterm DM?
Did your new DM have a session 0 to lay out the ground rules? Maybe this problem player has a different idea of what the tone of the game should be than you do. How do the other characters feel? Do they enjoy the chaos, or are they annoyed?
We did have a session 0 with ground rules, but I'm not sure there was anything which fits this specifically. Perhaps I'm at fault at least a little tonally here, so far a lot of the clashes have largely been humorous and the mood has been good. My worry is that it'll get increasingly confrontational as we struggle to reconcile and find any common ground between characters.
I don't think "the wizard" is annoyed, just very uncompromising on how he acts his character the conversation we had about this was far from unpleasant, but it felt like neither of us would budge... that said, between causing genuine upset and just allowing some compromise, I think I'd rather dial my character back first if I can find a way which makes sense (perhaps the DM can give me a lead in). I don't want to spoil the positivity that has been largely unbroken at our table for a good few years now.
As long as their insubordination only manifests as suspicion against the lord, I don't see why your character couldn't adopt a lofty, honorable mindset towards the wizard's behavior. "My lord is an honorable man, I welcome your scrutiny, he has nothing to hide." I wouldn't take their suspicion against your lord as an insult to the lord, but rather something to the wizard's shame, that they should suspect a wise and just leader of such crimes. Therefore, you're attitude towards the wizard wouldn't be one of conflict, but of pity.
Pretty much how I've been spinning it so far, with the character just making an observation then moving on. I suppose the issue is that it extends to pretty much all areas of play.
You could also ask the other player why their character is with the party to begin with? Why would you work for a lord you don't trust, with party members you don't respect? The answers they give you might help inform what the best way to approach this party dynamic is.
I think this is at the heart of it for me; if they can offer some reason which allows basic co-operation for mutual benefit that would be fine. Not seeing eye-to-eye is often a lot of the fun for me in the game, I just need to have a hook to keep him in the team I guess and move forward.
Thanks for the thoughts anyhow, I think this will be a good one to raise when I talk with the DM.
A good question on leadership in general. The question as I understand it is how to motivate this chaotic character to be more cooperative. How you do this depends on how you personally define the word "motivation". How leaders define that word is "to give them the why to do some task." The why is the most important. Why inform decisions, decisions turn into actions, and leadership is about guiding actions.
Lets look at the behavior spying and insubordination. I don't know what language is being used but I'm assuming it is absolute language. The best solution for these behaviors is to focus on the positives. Like "Hey we need this information, you would be the hero here" or "if you do this you'll get the carrot.'' Or when they're being insubordinate ask for their ideas and listen. If their ideas are workable work them into the plan.
What chaotic means is prideful and selfish. Use these to get what you want. use praise and rewards to guide these behaviors.
Since you are asking for advice, I am not going to sugar coat it - your character, and, respectfully, possibly you as a player, is the bigger problem in this situation. I don’t mean that pejoratively; you note that this is a character archetype your are not experienced with, and it seems that inexperience is manifesting in a problematic manner.
This phrase stuck out to me: “I've tried to limit hard orders”.
“Limit” does not mean “eliminate” and no one really wants to feel like a single player is giving any “hard orders” at the table. One person acting like a “leader” rather than an equal can easily read of “main character syndrome”, feel like that person isn’t invested in others’ stories (“I get to dictate when you go on your personal journey and when we focus on the main story, not you” vibes in your post), and generally leads to an unpleasant experience for all involved.
I suspect that, if you had this character under the DM-turned-player, they specifically decided to play a chaotic wizard to undermine what they, as DM, saw as a problematic player.
I would assume your assessment of the situation might differ, but self-evaluation can be difficult, and I feel the way you described the situation, which gives the above impression, might speak louder than your conscious evaluation.
That’s not to say the Wizard isn’t also partially responsible for the problems, but fixing problems starts at home, which means recognising your own issues and mitigating them. This should be done at both the character level and the player level.
At the character level, it’s as easy as allowing your character to have a realisation of some sort. Perhaps he discovers something that causes his loyalty to his lord to crack; perhaps he recognises the Wizard’s power as a useful tool and decides to accept the wizard as necessary; perhaps the wizard saves his life, so he feels some kind of loyalty or appreciation. You can work with your DM to set up these kinds of situations if you don’t think you can swing it without an outside catalyst.
Ar the player level, recognise that a D&D leader does not actually lead. They encourage a course of action and can serve as the party’s moral compass… but they don’t give orders, they don’t try and dictate, and they, the player, don’t get frustrated when someone wants to play differently from them.
Fixing your own character’s problematic portion of the party dynamic likely will go a long way toward mitigating what appears to be a reactionary character. If that fails, keep your own mitigation in place, and work with the wizard and your DM on resolving outstanding differences.
Fair game, I mentioned I've not played a 'leader' character before so this is all new to me and I'll happily take the blunt critique. That said, I am mindful of this kind of problem, so I think it's worth challenging some of this view.
When I mentioned hard orders; I literally mean ones the lord passed down that drive the story; mission directives, not attacking allies of the settlement etc. In terms of approach to situations, preparation, character time and such I can truthfully say I've left everyone as much breathing room as they want. Everyone feeds into strategy, I know when to shut up and let a character have a moment and am very careful not to hog time or narrative importance.
Right from the off, I've been self-conscious about not becoming power hungry of trying to dominate the narrative. In this case, the brickwall for me is simply why the wizard is with the party and why - being tasked on running this mission by the lord - I would keep him in it when the opposition is constant and intense?
Having spoken to him quite cordially, I don't think he's trying to send me a message or that we have axes to grind against each other. There was no anger in the conversation.
Perhaps rather than implying it's a problem with him as a person I should rewire this one slightly; how - narratively - can two such opposed characters co-exist on the same the side and find a common objective?
A good question on leadership in general. The question as I understand it is how to motivate this chaotic character to be more cooperative. How you do this depends on how you personally define the word "motivation". How leaders define that word is "to give them the why to do some task." The why is the most important. Why inform decisions, decisions turn into actions, and leadership is about guiding actions.
Lets look at the behavior spying and insubordination. I don't know what language is being used but I'm assuming it is absolute language. The best solution for these behaviors is to focus on the positives. Like "Hey we need this information, you would be the hero here" or "if you do this you'll get the carrot.'' Or when they're being insubordinate ask for their ideas and listen. If their ideas are workable work them into the plan.
What chaotic means is prideful and selfish. Use these to get what you want. use praise and rewards to guide these behaviors.
Thanks, that might be a better way of looking at it. Perhaps reframing it as getting the job done and finding a lure for them (while ignoring everything else) might take it down a more positive path. It's certainly worth a try.
I'm curious. Was your character being the de facto "leader" discussed and agreed upon in your session 0, or in a discussion with your teammates before the game began?
I agree with many of the points others have listed but as Caerwyn Glyndwyr mentioned, I found some of your phrasings... odd. The one they quoted as well as: "makes no effort to hide insubordination and finally crossed a redline last session where I've no idea how to collaborate with him anymore."
I think this may be more of a communication issue with players, rather than with the characters. I would recommend another "session 0" discussion with the entire group to get everything out in the open and get everyone's opinions, not just yourself, the wizard, and the DM.
Do you primarily want to explore the rich internal life of the characters?
If the answer is no, then you all may want to go back to a session zero and find a way to make all characters collaborate, even if that means changing their attitudes or ignoring them when it comes to the adventuring party.
You made the characters, they are not set in stone, you can also change them, even mid-game, if it is necessary to improve enjoyment of the game for everyone.
Maybe the chaotic character has to change, maybe the leader character has to, maybe both, but you players should talk and work it out.
I'm curious. Was your character being the de facto "leader" discussed and agreed upon in your session 0, or in a discussion with your teammates before the game began?
I agree with many of the points others have listed but as Caerwyn Glyndwyr mentioned, I found some of your phrasings... odd. The one they quoted as well as: "makes no effort to hide insubordination and finally crossed a redline last session where I've no idea how to collaborate with him anymore."
I think this may be more of a communication issue with players, rather than with the characters. I would recommend another "session 0" discussion with the entire group to get everything out in the open and get everyone's opinions, not just yourself, the wizard, and the DM.
In regards to "makes no effort to hide insubordination" I suppose I'm phrasing it from a character perspective for brevity (I didn't want to drop an essay). Within the narrative it just feels like self sabotage from his quarter. In context, I can't understand why a character - even if they are chaotic - would deliberately attempt to make it known to the direct connection with their main quest giver they are constantly opposed and don't trust them at all and still expect to remain in their employ?
I as a player don't crave loyalty, nor am I angry about this I'm just... stumped I guess? I feel like the opposition is so intense that it's basically detouring the story off into a PvP confrontation at every turn.
On a general note, thanks to everyone who gave honest feedback here. Becoming absorbed in a campaign can make it harder to see the bigger picture. I'll definitely be keeping it in mind when I meet with the DM and move forward. I'll also take my humble pie and admit that maybe I need to tailor my own approach to be more accomodating. I'm certain the DM will have plenty of ideas aswell.
Since you are asking for advice, I am not going to sugar coat it - your character, and, respectfully, possibly you as a player, is the bigger problem in this situation. I don’t mean that pejoratively; you note that this is a character archetype your are not experienced with, and it seems that inexperience is manifesting in a problematic manner.
This phrase stuck out to me: “I've tried to limit hard orders”.
“Limit” does not mean “eliminate” and no one really wants to feel like a single player is giving any “hard orders” at the table. One person acting like a “leader” rather than an equal can easily read of “main character syndrome”, feel like that person isn’t invested in others’ stories (“I get to dictate when you go on your personal journey and when we focus on the main story, not you” vibes in your post), and generally leads to an unpleasant experience for all involved.
I suspect that, if you had this character under the DM-turned-player, they specifically decided to play a chaotic wizard to undermine what they, as DM, saw as a problematic player.
I would assume your assessment of the situation might differ, but self-evaluation can be difficult, and I feel the way you described the situation, which gives the above impression, might speak louder than your conscious evaluation.
That’s not to say the Wizard isn’t also partially responsible for the problems, but fixing problems starts at home, which means recognising your own issues and mitigating them. This should be done at both the character level and the player level.
At the character level, it’s as easy as allowing your character to have a realisation of some sort. Perhaps he discovers something that causes his loyalty to his lord to crack; perhaps he recognises the Wizard’s power as a useful tool and decides to accept the wizard as necessary; perhaps the wizard saves his life, so he feels some kind of loyalty or appreciation. You can work with your DM to set up these kinds of situations if you don’t think you can swing it without an outside catalyst.
Ar the player level, recognise that a D&D leader does not actually lead. They encourage a course of action and can serve as the party’s moral compass… but they don’t give orders, they don’t try and dictate, and they, the player, don’t get frustrated when someone wants to play differently from them.
Fixing your own character’s problematic portion of the party dynamic likely will go a long way toward mitigating what appears to be a reactionary character. If that fails, keep your own mitigation in place, and work with the wizard and your DM on resolving outstanding differences.
Fair game, I mentioned I've not played a 'leader' character before so this is all new to me and I'll happily take the blunt critique. That said, I am mindful of this kind of problem, so I think it's worth challenging some of this view.
When I mentioned hard orders; I literally mean ones the lord passed down that drive the story; mission directives, not attacking allies of the settlement etc. In terms of approach to situations, preparation, character time and such I can truthfully say I've left everyone as much breathing room as they want. Everyone feeds into strategy, I know when to shut up and let a character have a moment and am very careful not to hog time or narrative importance.
Right from the off, I've been self-conscious about not becoming power hungry of trying to dominate the narrative. In this case, the brickwall for me is simply why the wizard is with the party and why - being tasked on running this mission by the lord - I would keep him in it when the opposition is constant and intense?
Having spoken to him quite cordially, I don't think he's trying to send me a message or that we have axes to grind against each other. There was no anger in the conversation.
Perhaps rather than implying it's a problem with him as a person I should rewire this one slightly; how - narratively - can two such opposed characters co-exist on the same the side and find a common objective?
So if you are not willing to step out of character and deal with the real issue, which is a former DM now a bad player, then you can deal with this in character by killing his char of. Your char has the full backing of the local NPC authorities. Make use of those tools, and kill the wizard.
Killing him really would be a last resort and one I suspect would create a foul mood in an otherwise fun game. I also feel that entirely uncooperative doesn't necessarily equate to an enemy who deserves death.
In line with Caerwyn_Glyndwr's criticism I feel it would just come across as me pushing down on him because his RP created a roadblock for me personally which I struggled with. I have a suspicion the DM is mulling over some kind of fair repurcussion, but I wouldn't want him knocked out of the game without a good story reason or a fair set of circumstances.
If I possibly can, I still want to talk this out and find a middleground where everyone gets a fulfilling experience.
Leveraging the settlement guard against him - in a non-lethal fashion - could actually be entertaining for the group however so if it works and doesn't feel too meanspirited I might play that card. I'll just have to see what the lay of the land is next session.
Let's be clear. This is a problem player issue, not a "problem char" issue. The former DM is being an ass. Stop with the RP nonsense, and tell him to fall in line. Actually, the current DM should be telling him that.
This. Not necessarily the current DM reining him in, but somebody should.
In the OP you wrote: “However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy.“
The other player is pulling a “but that’s what my character would do.” This is a huge red flag. Try another OoC discussion with him and tell him his character needs to change that philosophy. The player is not a passive observer, the player is making the character do those things, he can choose to make them do something different. He’s not the DM anymore, he’s part of a team now and he needs to be a good teammate.
And if he refuses again, you can point out that your character, in the interests of “remaining true to his philosophy,” will be firing his character from the team. Since your character doesn’t stand for insubordination. Unfortunately, it’s just the way your character is, nothing to be done about it.
Let's be clear. This is a problem player issue, not a "problem char" issue. The former DM is being an ass. Stop with the RP nonsense, and tell him to fall in line. Actually, the current DM should be telling him that.
This. Not necessarily the current DM reining him in, but somebody should.
In the OP you wrote: “However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy.“
The other player is pulling a “but that’s what my character would do.” This is a huge red flag. Try another OoC discussion with him and tell him his character needs to change that philosophy. The player is not a passive observer, the player is making the character do those things, he can choose to make them do something different. He’s not the DM anymore, he’s part of a team now and he needs to be a good teammate.
And if he refuses again, you can point out that your character, in the interests of “remaining true to his philosophy,” will be firing his character from the team. Since your character doesn’t stand for insubordination. Unfortunately, it’s just the way your character is, nothing to be done about it.
Being fair to him as a friend; I do genuinely believe he is simply completely absorbed in his own character; make of that what you will. He's never half-hearted I'll give him that. In some places it's been quite entertaining even and has resulted in some great laughs at the table. It's only at this juncture it seems to have turned into a wall.
I can't help but think of something we discussed; speaking to him, he emphasised the point about his characters philosophy and being unwilling to adjust it. However, he was also seemed remarkably happy to jump to a new character even though that wasn't something I suggested (or wanted at all). Bizarre as it sounds, is he simply unhappy with how his character worked out and wants a do over?
I'm starting to wonder if all of this was a stealth effort to kamikaze his wizard and provide and opening for a fresh start. It seems very early in the campaign to be making that kind of move - hence why I didn't consider the angle - but maybe I should just ask him directly if that was his real intent?
Let's be clear. This is a problem player issue, not a "problem char" issue. The former DM is being an ass. Stop with the RP nonsense, and tell him to fall in line. Actually, the current DM should be telling him that.
This. Not necessarily the current DM reining him in, but somebody should.
In the OP you wrote: “However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy.“
The other player is pulling a “but that’s what my character would do.” This is a huge red flag. Try another OoC discussion with him and tell him his character needs to change that philosophy. The player is not a passive observer, the player is making the character do those things, he can choose to make them do something different. He’s not the DM anymore, he’s part of a team now and he needs to be a good teammate.
And if he refuses again, you can point out that your character, in the interests of “remaining true to his philosophy,” will be firing his character from the team. Since your character doesn’t stand for insubordination. Unfortunately, it’s just the way your character is, nothing to be done about it.
This is all terrible, antagonistic advice that presumes only the other person is at fault. I think it is pretty clear you recognise that the issues are likely a two-way street, which is why part of your question was figuring out how to adjust your own character to theirs. Problem solving starts at home, after all, and one shouldn’t start throwing stones until they’ve made sure their own glass house is secure. Based on what you have said about your party thus far—is more likely to destroy a campaign rather than solve the problems.
Just reading your continued responses, part of the problem seems to be conceptualising how your character and the other character can come together. There are plenty of stories where diametrically opposed individuals work together, they just need to find a common ground.
I listed a few potentials above - realising you need him in spite of the flaws, owing him a debt and realising he’s not so bad, etc. - but wanted to provide a few others I thought of.
First off, what does your character want? They serve their lord, sure, but why? What gives them the drive to do so. Loyalty is rarely without expecting something - be it a safe retirement, paying down a debt, or trying to protect something you care about. Think about what your character wants and see if there’s a way the wizard serves that end - the wizard might be antagonistic to your lord, but your lord is only part of a fleshed out character’s identity.
Or you can try to bond over a shared experience. This can be done with in-game role playing pretty easily - just ask them some questions sitting around a fire or in the inn.
It also sounds like he might know what his character wants, so he just does “chaos for the sake of chaos”. Talking about shared desires, history, etc. can help him flesh out his character as well as yours and might be able to move both of you closer to an understanding.
The other alternative is to roll with it - embrace your character being frustrated and make it a point of amusement. This can be really hard to pull off without being condescending at the player level, so I wouldn’t do it unless you’re very clear with the other person it’s a joke… and that you always make sure to convey it as a joke.
Let's be clear. This is a problem player issue, not a "problem char" issue. The former DM is being an ass. Stop with the RP nonsense, and tell him to fall in line. Actually, the current DM should be telling him that.
This. Not necessarily the current DM reining him in, but somebody should.
In the OP you wrote: “However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy.“
The other player is pulling a “but that’s what my character would do.” This is a huge red flag. Try another OoC discussion with him and tell him his character needs to change that philosophy. The player is not a passive observer, the player is making the character do those things, he can choose to make them do something different. He’s not the DM anymore, he’s part of a team now and he needs to be a good teammate.
And if he refuses again, you can point out that your character, in the interests of “remaining true to his philosophy,” will be firing his character from the team. Since your character doesn’t stand for insubordination. Unfortunately, it’s just the way your character is, nothing to be done about it.
While I agree, another solution could be to let him be the leader FOR ONE DAY, and you could act like he does. See if he likes it.
However, as he is a former DM, you MIGHT want to consider his hypothesis, as he knows how story building works.
This and ghoststalker1's comment have really re-aligned my thinking on the whole issue.
Putting the shoe on the other foot could be a really fun switcheroo, taking the pressure off the confrontational angle and surprising everyone. I like it.
I'm definitely going to see if I can work some of these ideas into my future approach.
Just reading your continued responses, part of the problem seems to be conceptualising how your character and the other character can come together. There are plenty of stories where diametrically opposed individuals work together, they just need to find a common ground.
I listed a few potentials above - realising you need him in spite of the flaws, owing him a debt and realising he’s not so bad, etc. - but wanted to provide a few others I thought of.
First off, what does your character want? They serve their lord, sure, but why? What gives them the drive to do so. Loyalty is rarely without expecting something - be it a safe retirement, paying down a debt, or trying to protect something you care about. Think about what your character wants and see if there’s a way the wizard serves that end - the wizard might be antagonistic to your lord, but your lord is only part of a fleshed out character’s identity.
Or you can try to bond over a shared experience. This can be done with in-game role playing pretty easily - just ask them some questions sitting around a fire or in the inn.
It also sounds like he might know what his character wants, so he just does “chaos for the sake of chaos”. Talking about shared desires, history, etc. can help him flesh out his character as well as yours and might be able to move both of you closer to an understanding.
The other alternative is to roll with it - embrace your character being frustrated and make it a point of amusement. This can be really hard to pull off without being condescending at the player level, so I wouldn’t do it unless you’re very clear with the other person it’s a joke… and that you always make sure to convey it as a joke.
This approach has merit and very slowly started to happen in some tunnels as they collaborated on exploration (another detail I left out so I didn't drop an essay). I do have backstory with the settlement and lord, but I wouldn't say it's unbreakable loyalty, rather that the wizard pushed against their established trusted order too soon without any particular reason why or a reason the leader character should trust him more.
At least part of my frustration is the feeling this is only a roadblock and that if we get by it common ground will inevitably emerge.
People have posted a lot of advice - again, thanks - but my main take away is that I need to talk it out with him and DM and adjust my own approach at least a little. Ideas like channeling his chaotic aspects or giving him more authority within the group could open up interesting avenues which result in enjoyable outcomes.
In the end, anything which breaks the deadlock and gets things moving in the direction of fun is going to be for the better.
So, I've hit something of a brick wall with my longterm DnD group near the start of a new campaign. Apologies for the lengthy post, but I think the context is probably worth sharing.
A former player has taken the DM chair and the former DM is a player now. I outlined a character the new DM wrote into the backstory for a settlement, making them essentially loyal muscle for the lord there with the rest of the players largely being new arrivals, being hired to solve disappearances. In line with this scenario, my character is thrown into the role of party leader to keep everything on mission.
I haven't really played a party leader before so this is all new to me, but I've done my best to find a middle ground between driving things forward while also leaving room for other players to indulge character sub-plots and interactions. I've tried to limit hard orders, giving room for creativity and input from everyone else.
The problems started with the former DM joining this party as a chaotic wizard. I'm used to mischievous companions who have opposed agenda's which occasionally surface, but in this case he is 100% opposed to every decision I make as leader, makes no effort to hide insubordination and finally crossed a redline last session where I've no idea how to collaborate with him anymore.
After returning to the settlement with a mission update, he burst into a secret meeting using invisibility and grilled the lord (and his main employer) over his poor security. I tried to use this as a chance to turn the tone to something positive emphasising "he is capable, if disrespectful etc".
Following this, in an entirely private 1-to-1 meeting between the lord and my character, he used his familiar to eavesdrop. Leaving the chamber, my character is confronted by the wizard outside, directly informing me he intruded again, that he wasn’t sorry and spouting entirely baseless suspicions about the lord (with presently zero evidence of anything) and emphasising he has no intention to follow my leadership, but wants to continue with the party anyway.
This has really stumped me from a character standpoint; my character is 100% loyal to the lord of the settlement at present so why would he keep this person in the party when there is not even a pretence of collaboration? I feel like I can't say his character is "fired" as he's a part of our group (it feels like that's off the table) but how (and why) would he continue to work him? The DM hasn't produced a suitable carrot or stick to compel him to colour within the lines yet either.
I feel like the only other option on the table would be a show of power in direct combat, which I really don't want to do as I suspect it would turn the tone of the campaign very sour and result in genuine toxicity between us. I also honestly think he'd win due to his class having substantial advantages over mine and being MUCH more familiar with the rules and best strategies, in which case I'd just get stomped and be left at a low point I'm not sure I could come back from.
I talked it out privately, highlighting the issue and perhaps suggesting he tone down the chaotic side of his character just enough to allow the progression of the story, even if he only hides it from my character temporarily. However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy. Similarly, I don't see how mine could simply ignore an entirely uncooperative companion who constantly insults his lord and won't respond to orders, suggestions or even kind nods.
It's unfortunate, but right now I feel like one of these characters will inevitably be prematurely forced out of the campaign by death or plot retirement (maybe mine).
I'm talking it over with the DM this week too, but I'm curious what others might think? Am I missing an obvious solution here? Has anyone else run into this problem and overcome it?
As long as their insubordination only manifests as suspicion against the lord, I don't see why your character couldn't adopt a lofty, honorable mindset towards the wizard's behavior. "My lord is an honorable man, I welcome your scrutiny, he has nothing to hide." I wouldn't take their suspicion against your lord as an insult to the lord, but rather something to the wizard's shame, that they should suspect a wise and just leader of such crimes. Therefore, you're attitude towards the wizard wouldn't be one of conflict, but of pity.
As long as the wizard's "insubordination" is confined to the roleplay space and they are not doing anything to screw over you or any of the other players, I think this level of party conflict should be perfectly fine with the right attitudes. It might be nice to still have an out of game talk with the other player and let them know "this is how I've decided my character will react to your character's behavior, generally, here's how I imagine their dynamic together to be going forward, what are your thoughts?"
You could also ask the other player why their character is with the party to begin with? Why would you work for a lord you don't trust, with party members you don't respect? The answers they give you might help inform what the best way to approach this party dynamic is.
Sounds like you're both playing characters that have a fun personality on paper, but wouldn't play well with any group. "It's what my character would do" never needs to be said in a bad light if you make a character that will be a team player.
That being said, here's what jumps out: making a character whose loyalty is 100% tied to someone else doesn't seem like a great way to make an adventurer, lol. Are you able to tone back the loyalty aspect of the character? This would be a metagame decision but it'd be helpful for the game to flow properly.
Similarly, I feel like it should go without saying that at least one player doesn't trust the lord. It's a dnd game, the people in power are *always* corrupt, or possessed, or evil, or something.
Last point I want to bring up - full chaotic characters, in my experience, tend to suck. There's a way to do it tactfully and not derail everything that happens, but it sounds like it's not what's going on. Did your new DM have a session 0 to lay out the ground rules? Maybe this problem player has a different idea of what the tone of the game should be than you do. How do the other characters feel? Do they enjoy the chaos, or are they annoyed?
Overall this seems like something to be solved out of game. It probably won't be solved by one of you saying "change your character", but rather by coming to an understanding/agreement about the party moving forward. Apologies for any accusatory tone that might be here; I don't think any of this is your fault. Seems like it's just a lot of somewhat bad circumstances that added up to a big annoyance. I hope some of this helps!
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Since you are asking for advice, I am not going to sugar coat it - your character, and, respectfully, possibly you as a player, is the bigger problem in this situation. I don’t mean that pejoratively; you note that this is a character archetype your are not experienced with, and it seems that inexperience is manifesting in a problematic manner.
This phrase stuck out to me: “I've tried to limit hard orders”.
“Limit” does not mean “eliminate” and no one really wants to feel like a single player is giving any “hard orders” at the table. One person acting like a “leader” rather than an equal can easily read of “main character syndrome”, feel like that person isn’t invested in others’ stories (“I get to dictate when you go on your personal journey and when we focus on the main story, not you” vibes in your post), and generally leads to an unpleasant experience for all involved.
I suspect that, if you had this character under the DM-turned-player, they specifically decided to play a chaotic wizard to undermine what they, as DM, saw as a problematic player.
I would assume your assessment of the situation might differ, but self-evaluation can be difficult, and I feel the way you described the situation, which gives the above impression, might speak louder than your conscious evaluation.
That’s not to say the Wizard isn’t also partially responsible for the problems, but fixing problems starts at home, which means recognising your own issues and mitigating them. This should be done at both the character level and the player level.
At the character level, it’s as easy as allowing your character to have a realisation of some sort. Perhaps he discovers something that causes his loyalty to his lord to crack; perhaps he recognises the Wizard’s power as a useful tool and decides to accept the wizard as necessary; perhaps the wizard saves his life, so he feels some kind of loyalty or appreciation. You can work with your DM to set up these kinds of situations if you don’t think you can swing it without an outside catalyst.
Ar the player level, recognise that a D&D leader does not actually lead. They encourage a course of action and can serve as the party’s moral compass… but they don’t give orders, they don’t try and dictate, and they, the player, don’t get frustrated when someone wants to play differently from them.
Fixing your own character’s problematic portion of the party dynamic likely will go a long way toward mitigating what appears to be a reactionary character. If that fails, keep your own mitigation in place, and work with the wizard and your DM on resolving outstanding differences.
Thanks for the thoughts, and no; it's not accusatory. It all sounds fair. And useful.
That being said, here's what jumps out: making a character whose loyalty is 100% tied to someone else doesn't seem like a great way to make an adventurer, lol. Are you able to tone back the loyalty aspect of the character? This would be a metagame decision but it'd be helpful for the game to flow properly.
I think 100% loyalty might be overstating it. I suspose the real issue for me is that the wizard hasn't discovered any leads or noticed odd behaviour yet to justify suspicion in their lord and hasn't turned up any evidence either. Given a good reason, I'd absolutely reconsider loyalties and approach, but at this stage there's literally nothing to go on, it feels like he's trying to pre-emptively jump on a plot twist before it's happened, or if it even happens - perhaps a habit from being a longterm DM?
Did your new DM have a session 0 to lay out the ground rules? Maybe this problem player has a different idea of what the tone of the game should be than you do. How do the other characters feel? Do they enjoy the chaos, or are they annoyed?
We did have a session 0 with ground rules, but I'm not sure there was anything which fits this specifically. Perhaps I'm at fault at least a little tonally here, so far a lot of the clashes have largely been humorous and the mood has been good. My worry is that it'll get increasingly confrontational as we struggle to reconcile and find any common ground between characters.
I don't think "the wizard" is annoyed, just very uncompromising on how he acts his character the conversation we had about this was far from unpleasant, but it felt like neither of us would budge... that said, between causing genuine upset and just allowing some compromise, I think I'd rather dial my character back first if I can find a way which makes sense (perhaps the DM can give me a lead in). I don't want to spoil the positivity that has been largely unbroken at our table for a good few years now.
As long as their insubordination only manifests as suspicion against the lord, I don't see why your character couldn't adopt a lofty, honorable mindset towards the wizard's behavior. "My lord is an honorable man, I welcome your scrutiny, he has nothing to hide." I wouldn't take their suspicion against your lord as an insult to the lord, but rather something to the wizard's shame, that they should suspect a wise and just leader of such crimes. Therefore, you're attitude towards the wizard wouldn't be one of conflict, but of pity.
Pretty much how I've been spinning it so far, with the character just making an observation then moving on. I suppose the issue is that it extends to pretty much all areas of play.
You could also ask the other player why their character is with the party to begin with? Why would you work for a lord you don't trust, with party members you don't respect? The answers they give you might help inform what the best way to approach this party dynamic is.
I think this is at the heart of it for me; if they can offer some reason which allows basic co-operation for mutual benefit that would be fine. Not seeing eye-to-eye is often a lot of the fun for me in the game, I just need to have a hook to keep him in the team I guess and move forward.
Thanks for the thoughts anyhow, I think this will be a good one to raise when I talk with the DM.
A good question on leadership in general. The question as I understand it is how to motivate this chaotic character to be more cooperative. How you do this depends on how you personally define the word "motivation". How leaders define that word is "to give them the why to do some task." The why is the most important. Why inform decisions, decisions turn into actions, and leadership is about guiding actions.
Lets look at the behavior spying and insubordination. I don't know what language is being used but I'm assuming it is absolute language. The best solution for these behaviors is to focus on the positives. Like "Hey we need this information, you would be the hero here" or "if you do this you'll get the carrot.'' Or when they're being insubordinate ask for their ideas and listen. If their ideas are workable work them into the plan.
What chaotic means is prideful and selfish. Use these to get what you want. use praise and rewards to guide these behaviors.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
Fair game, I mentioned I've not played a 'leader' character before so this is all new to me and I'll happily take the blunt critique. That said, I am mindful of this kind of problem, so I think it's worth challenging some of this view.
When I mentioned hard orders; I literally mean ones the lord passed down that drive the story; mission directives, not attacking allies of the settlement etc. In terms of approach to situations, preparation, character time and such I can truthfully say I've left everyone as much breathing room as they want. Everyone feeds into strategy, I know when to shut up and let a character have a moment and am very careful not to hog time or narrative importance.
Right from the off, I've been self-conscious about not becoming power hungry of trying to dominate the narrative. In this case, the brickwall for me is simply why the wizard is with the party and why - being tasked on running this mission by the lord - I would keep him in it when the opposition is constant and intense?
Having spoken to him quite cordially, I don't think he's trying to send me a message or that we have axes to grind against each other. There was no anger in the conversation.
Perhaps rather than implying it's a problem with him as a person I should rewire this one slightly; how - narratively - can two such opposed characters co-exist on the same the side and find a common objective?
Thanks, that might be a better way of looking at it. Perhaps reframing it as getting the job done and finding a lure for them (while ignoring everything else) might take it down a more positive path. It's certainly worth a try.
I'm curious. Was your character being the de facto "leader" discussed and agreed upon in your session 0, or in a discussion with your teammates before the game began?
I agree with many of the points others have listed but as Caerwyn Glyndwyr mentioned, I found some of your phrasings... odd. The one they quoted as well as:
"makes no effort to hide insubordination and finally crossed a redline last session where I've no idea how to collaborate with him anymore."
I think this may be more of a communication issue with players, rather than with the characters. I would recommend another "session 0" discussion with the entire group to get everything out in the open and get everyone's opinions, not just yourself, the wizard, and the DM.
Do you primarily want to explore the rich internal life of the characters?
If the answer is no, then you all may want to go back to a session zero and find a way to make all characters collaborate, even if that means changing their attitudes or ignoring them when it comes to the adventuring party.
You made the characters, they are not set in stone, you can also change them, even mid-game, if it is necessary to improve enjoyment of the game for everyone.
Maybe the chaotic character has to change, maybe the leader character has to, maybe both, but you players should talk and work it out.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
In regards to "makes no effort to hide insubordination" I suppose I'm phrasing it from a character perspective for brevity (I didn't want to drop an essay). Within the narrative it just feels like self sabotage from his quarter. In context, I can't understand why a character - even if they are chaotic - would deliberately attempt to make it known to the direct connection with their main quest giver they are constantly opposed and don't trust them at all and still expect to remain in their employ?
I as a player don't crave loyalty, nor am I angry about this I'm just... stumped I guess? I feel like the opposition is so intense that it's basically detouring the story off into a PvP confrontation at every turn.
On a general note, thanks to everyone who gave honest feedback here. Becoming absorbed in a campaign can make it harder to see the bigger picture. I'll definitely be keeping it in mind when I meet with the DM and move forward. I'll also take my humble pie and admit that maybe I need to tailor my own approach to be more accomodating. I'm certain the DM will have plenty of ideas aswell.
Killing him really would be a last resort and one I suspect would create a foul mood in an otherwise fun game. I also feel that entirely uncooperative doesn't necessarily equate to an enemy who deserves death.
In line with Caerwyn_Glyndwr's criticism I feel it would just come across as me pushing down on him because his RP created a roadblock for me personally which I struggled with. I have a suspicion the DM is mulling over some kind of fair repurcussion, but I wouldn't want him knocked out of the game without a good story reason or a fair set of circumstances.
If I possibly can, I still want to talk this out and find a middleground where everyone gets a fulfilling experience.
Leveraging the settlement guard against him - in a non-lethal fashion - could actually be entertaining for the group however so if it works and doesn't feel too meanspirited I might play that card. I'll just have to see what the lay of the land is next session.
This. Not necessarily the current DM reining him in, but somebody should.
In the OP you wrote: “However, he responded that this would undermine the very nature of said character and wouldn't be true to their philosophy.“
The other player is pulling a “but that’s what my character would do.” This is a huge red flag. Try another OoC discussion with him and tell him his character needs to change that philosophy. The player is not a passive observer, the player is making the character do those things, he can choose to make them do something different. He’s not the DM anymore, he’s part of a team now and he needs to be a good teammate.
And if he refuses again, you can point out that your character, in the interests of “remaining true to his philosophy,” will be firing his character from the team. Since your character doesn’t stand for insubordination. Unfortunately, it’s just the way your character is, nothing to be done about it.
Being fair to him as a friend; I do genuinely believe he is simply completely absorbed in his own character; make of that what you will. He's never half-hearted I'll give him that. In some places it's been quite entertaining even and has resulted in some great laughs at the table. It's only at this juncture it seems to have turned into a wall.
I can't help but think of something we discussed; speaking to him, he emphasised the point about his characters philosophy and being unwilling to adjust it. However, he was also seemed remarkably happy to jump to a new character even though that wasn't something I suggested (or wanted at all). Bizarre as it sounds, is he simply unhappy with how his character worked out and wants a do over?
I'm starting to wonder if all of this was a stealth effort to kamikaze his wizard and provide and opening for a fresh start. It seems very early in the campaign to be making that kind of move - hence why I didn't consider the angle - but maybe I should just ask him directly if that was his real intent?
This is all terrible, antagonistic advice that presumes only the other person is at fault. I think it is pretty clear you recognise that the issues are likely a two-way street, which is why part of your question was figuring out how to adjust your own character to theirs. Problem solving starts at home, after all, and one shouldn’t start throwing stones until they’ve made sure their own glass house is secure. Based on what you have said about your party thus far—is more likely to destroy a campaign rather than solve the problems.
Just reading your continued responses, part of the problem seems to be conceptualising how your character and the other character can come together. There are plenty of stories where diametrically opposed individuals work together, they just need to find a common ground.
I listed a few potentials above - realising you need him in spite of the flaws, owing him a debt and realising he’s not so bad, etc. - but wanted to provide a few others I thought of.
First off, what does your character want? They serve their lord, sure, but why? What gives them the drive to do so. Loyalty is rarely without expecting something - be it a safe retirement, paying down a debt, or trying to protect something you care about. Think about what your character wants and see if there’s a way the wizard serves that end - the wizard might be antagonistic to your lord, but your lord is only part of a fleshed out character’s identity.
Or you can try to bond over a shared experience. This can be done with in-game role playing pretty easily - just ask them some questions sitting around a fire or in the inn.
It also sounds like he might know what his character wants, so he just does “chaos for the sake of chaos”. Talking about shared desires, history, etc. can help him flesh out his character as well as yours and might be able to move both of you closer to an understanding.
The other alternative is to roll with it - embrace your character being frustrated and make it a point of amusement. This can be really hard to pull off without being condescending at the player level, so I wouldn’t do it unless you’re very clear with the other person it’s a joke… and that you always make sure to convey it as a joke.
This and ghoststalker1's comment have really re-aligned my thinking on the whole issue.
Putting the shoe on the other foot could be a really fun switcheroo, taking the pressure off the confrontational angle and surprising everyone. I like it.
I'm definitely going to see if I can work some of these ideas into my future approach.
This approach has merit and very slowly started to happen in some tunnels as they collaborated on exploration (another detail I left out so I didn't drop an essay). I do have backstory with the settlement and lord, but I wouldn't say it's unbreakable loyalty, rather that the wizard pushed against their established trusted order too soon without any particular reason why or a reason the leader character should trust him more.
At least part of my frustration is the feeling this is only a roadblock and that if we get by it common ground will inevitably emerge.
People have posted a lot of advice - again, thanks - but my main take away is that I need to talk it out with him and DM and adjust my own approach at least a little. Ideas like channeling his chaotic aspects or giving him more authority within the group could open up interesting avenues which result in enjoyable outcomes.
In the end, anything which breaks the deadlock and gets things moving in the direction of fun is going to be for the better.
What level/class/subclass are you and he playing as? (I know he is a wizard that’s all)
I can give you some tips on killing his character if you need to PvP him