A friend of mine is currently running a game for a rather large group of players (7 or 8 of them). Many of these characters are fairly new at this except for one. This player and the DM are constantly butting heads over characters. By this point the players are around level 3 and have had maybe 5 or 6 sessions. In these sessions the player has had to make 3 different characters due to disagreements over character creation (think this: the player creates a character, then the DM either encourages a different character or tries changing things about the character effectively changing the flavor).
I believe the player began as a Bard, then changed to a Blood Hunter after deciding he REALLY didn't want to play a bard, next in the most recent session he swapped over to a Cobalt Soul Monk. Since then the dm has encouraged him to do something else. He has run a few character concepts past me in the past few weeks since then (A Oath breaker Hex blade, a Swashbuckler, a Vengeance Paladin and most recently another Paladin/Warlock with a different backstory). Each time he comes to the DM with a new character concept the DM tells him about something that changes the flavor of the character so much it is unrecognizable (IE, in the instance of the Vengeance Paladin he was messing with Scourge Aasimar until the DM informed him that how he had written his character, essentially a tiefling but with angelic blood, isn't how Aasimar work in this universe. The player would have to change his backstory to fit this fact and it turns him off since its no longer the character he wanted to play).
What should I do? I hate seeing these two fight and I would like to find a solution where their both happy.
Firstly, why is the player changing characters so many times? And how? It sounds like the player is dissatisfied with whatever the current character is and changes between sessions? Does the character negotiation happen at the table or between sessions? If it's at the table, then I would highly advise that it happen between sessions, and that the DM and the player communicate extensively to ensure mutual satisfaction. It's hard to diagnose all this without knowing what's happening and when between these two.
Unless the DM have ruled out some classes and races from the beginning to fit the created world, I do think that the player should be able to create any class and race he wants without having the DM go in and change it. Its ok if the DM makes some minor suggestions but in the end its the players choice and the DM should respect that.
But once a player has chosen and the campaign started you cant just say ..oh I changed my mind, and now I changed it again.
The way I read the OP was that the experienced players makes a character. Conceptually it has the playstyle and flavor the player wants. Then he goes to the DM which then makes suggestions forcing the player to alter his character in fundamental ways.
So why does the DM do this? Does he think the character is OP? Does it have skills/spells the DM doesn't want in his game? Are there clear agreements made beforehand how characters should be made and what is/isn't allowed?
From the short description I get there is personal conflict between these two individuals. And one of them is being rather petty to the other.
I'm having an issue with a player wanting to play a cleric that uses daggers. I just didn't get it so kept giving him a mace and such. Apparently he tries to mimick the build that HighRollers Yogscast use. So watching several episodes there to figure out what the hell he wants to play as :P
Is he making characters that the DM has said aren't allowed or is it usually the back story the DM has the problem with? Because the backstory is just that, a back story. If the player wants it to be something special that should be fine, the DM should just go "Hey, that is awesome, but that doesn't apply to the world you are currently in so it can exist but it might not come up"
In my campaign I have a dragon born character who wants to tease direct parentage from a black dragon, this is not how dragon born work, but if it helps him have fun and find his character. Awesome. He is aware that that is not how Dragon born work and that Dragon Born are not indigenous to the continent my campaign takes place on and so his parentage may never come up, or he might find out through questing he is wrong.
Sounds like everyone needs to lighten up, maybe the Hobbit's leaf.
There is a power struggle going on between your DM and the player, the cause of this power struggle has yet to be addressed.
You, being the kind hearted soul who's done with the drama, don't have much that you can do about this situation. Stepping into the middle of the two of them butting heads is simply going to make you another target for the ire. I would take one of the two, the one you feel most comfortable being blunt with, and simply tell them to hash it out and get the drama worked out. I feel that the drama will only increase and evolve until the root of this issue is taken care of, communication is going to be the starting point.
There hasn't been enough communication/negotiation between the DM and the party as the type of game is being run here: what is the world background like, what kind of game does the DM want to run, what kind of characters and adventures do the players enjoy and want to play
The DM seems to want to meddle in the internals of the characters, and mold them to match the image they have for the world/game.
I would suggest conducting a "session 0" - get everyone's expectations out on the table, and hammer out a middle ground that can work for everyone. There's a thread on what needs to be covered off in the player group ( even if it's not a formal "session 0" )here.
Also - have the DM and the player sit down ( probably with a 3rd party mediator at this point :p ), figure out the kind of character the player wants to play, figure out the kind of campaign world the DM wants, and have everyone work collaboratively to find a solution with which everyone's content.
And the DM needs to agree that so long as the character is legal, and possible within the campaign world, then the internals on the character are off limits.
Might not work if this has devolved into a personal grudge between DM and Player - in which case one of them should probably withdraw from the group - but it's at least a path to a compromise.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm generally pretty hands off with character creation, other than telling players they must use the standard array or point buy. I also tell them that they're going to need a damn good explanation as to how the character is going to work if they decide to be a bugbear or something similarly monstrous.
Beyond that, with backstory, I might say something like "I really like where you're going with [x], but I can't really think of a way to work that in to the campaign. However, I have some ideas about [y], which is pretty similar. Would that be cool?"
Thanks to everyone for their feedback. I talked to both of them and gave them some suggestions and criticism about the issue. I told the DM to relax a little and to allow the player to add his own spice to his character. I also told the player to try and adhere to the DMs strict universe a little better. As it is I think the two of them are getting closer to an agreement (something about Robin Hood and Blood Hunter, I cant wait to see what comes of this).
I'm having an issue with a player wanting to play a cleric that uses daggers. I just didn't get it so kept giving him a mace and such. Apparently he tries to mimick the build that HighRollers Yogscast use. So watching several episodes there to figure out what the hell he wants to play as :P
Clerics get proficiency with simple weapons, and can choose a simple weapon during character creation. Daggers are simple weapons so....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I'm having an issue with a player wanting to play a cleric that uses daggers. I just didn't get it so kept giving him a mace and such. Apparently he tries to mimick the build that HighRollers Yogscast use. So watching several episodes there to figure out what the hell he wants to play as :P
Clerics get proficiency with simple weapons, and can choose a simple weapon during character creation. Daggers are simple weapons so....
that's not the point at all, but thanks for the input i guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A friend of mine is currently running a game for a rather large group of players (7 or 8 of them). Many of these characters are fairly new at this except for one. This player and the DM are constantly butting heads over characters. By this point the players are around level 3 and have had maybe 5 or 6 sessions. In these sessions the player has had to make 3 different characters due to disagreements over character creation (think this: the player creates a character, then the DM either encourages a different character or tries changing things about the character effectively changing the flavor).
I believe the player began as a Bard, then changed to a Blood Hunter after deciding he REALLY didn't want to play a bard, next in the most recent session he swapped over to a Cobalt Soul Monk. Since then the dm has encouraged him to do something else. He has run a few character concepts past me in the past few weeks since then (A Oath breaker Hex blade, a Swashbuckler, a Vengeance Paladin and most recently another Paladin/Warlock with a different backstory). Each time he comes to the DM with a new character concept the DM tells him about something that changes the flavor of the character so much it is unrecognizable (IE, in the instance of the Vengeance Paladin he was messing with Scourge Aasimar until the DM informed him that how he had written his character, essentially a tiefling but with angelic blood, isn't how Aasimar work in this universe. The player would have to change his backstory to fit this fact and it turns him off since its no longer the character he wanted to play).
What should I do? I hate seeing these two fight and I would like to find a solution where their both happy.
Sounds like it goes deeper than just character choice...
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Firstly, why is the player changing characters so many times? And how? It sounds like the player is dissatisfied with whatever the current character is and changes between sessions? Does the character negotiation happen at the table or between sessions? If it's at the table, then I would highly advise that it happen between sessions, and that the DM and the player communicate extensively to ensure mutual satisfaction. It's hard to diagnose all this without knowing what's happening and when between these two.
Perhaps that player should play a multiclass ;)
Unless the DM have ruled out some classes and races from the beginning to fit the created world, I do think that the player should be able to create any class and race he wants without having the DM go in and change it. Its ok if the DM makes some minor suggestions but in the end its the players choice and the DM should respect that.
But once a player has chosen and the campaign started you cant just say ..oh I changed my mind, and now I changed it again.
The way I read the OP was that the experienced players makes a character. Conceptually it has the playstyle and flavor the player wants. Then he goes to the DM which then makes suggestions forcing the player to alter his character in fundamental ways.
So why does the DM do this? Does he think the character is OP? Does it have skills/spells the DM doesn't want in his game? Are there clear agreements made beforehand how characters should be made and what is/isn't allowed?
From the short description I get there is personal conflict between these two individuals. And one of them is being rather petty to the other.
I'm having an issue with a player wanting to play a cleric that uses daggers. I just didn't get it so kept giving him a mace and such. Apparently he tries to mimick the build that HighRollers Yogscast use. So watching several episodes there to figure out what the hell he wants to play as :P
Is he making characters that the DM has said aren't allowed or is it usually the back story the DM has the problem with? Because the backstory is just that, a back story. If the player wants it to be something special that should be fine, the DM should just go "Hey, that is awesome, but that doesn't apply to the world you are currently in so it can exist but it might not come up"
In my campaign I have a dragon born character who wants to tease direct parentage from a black dragon, this is not how dragon born work, but if it helps him have fun and find his character. Awesome. He is aware that that is not how Dragon born work and that Dragon Born are not indigenous to the continent my campaign takes place on and so his parentage may never come up, or he might find out through questing he is wrong.
Sounds like everyone needs to lighten up, maybe the Hobbit's leaf.
There is a power struggle going on between your DM and the player, the cause of this power struggle has yet to be addressed.
You, being the kind hearted soul who's done with the drama, don't have much that you can do about this situation. Stepping into the middle of the two of them butting heads is simply going to make you another target for the ire. I would take one of the two, the one you feel most comfortable being blunt with, and simply tell them to hash it out and get the drama worked out. I feel that the drama will only increase and evolve until the root of this issue is taken care of, communication is going to be the starting point.
Sounds like two issues here:
I would suggest conducting a "session 0" - get everyone's expectations out on the table, and hammer out a middle ground that can work for everyone. There's a thread on what needs to be covered off in the player group ( even if it's not a formal "session 0" ) here.
Also - have the DM and the player sit down ( probably with a 3rd party mediator at this point :p ), figure out the kind of character the player wants to play, figure out the kind of campaign world the DM wants, and have everyone work collaboratively to find a solution with which everyone's content.
And the DM needs to agree that so long as the character is legal, and possible within the campaign world, then the internals on the character are off limits.
Might not work if this has devolved into a personal grudge between DM and Player - in which case one of them should probably withdraw from the group - but it's at least a path to a compromise.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm generally pretty hands off with character creation, other than telling players they must use the standard array or point buy. I also tell them that they're going to need a damn good explanation as to how the character is going to work if they decide to be a bugbear or something similarly monstrous.
Beyond that, with backstory, I might say something like "I really like where you're going with [x], but I can't really think of a way to work that in to the campaign. However, I have some ideas about [y], which is pretty similar. Would that be cool?"
Thanks to everyone for their feedback. I talked to both of them and gave them some suggestions and criticism about the issue. I told the DM to relax a little and to allow the player to add his own spice to his character. I also told the player to try and adhere to the DMs strict universe a little better. As it is I think the two of them are getting closer to an agreement (something about Robin Hood and Blood Hunter, I cant wait to see what comes of this).
Clerics get proficiency with simple weapons, and can choose a simple weapon during character creation. Daggers are simple weapons so....
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
that's not the point at all, but thanks for the input i guess.