So, to set this up, last game session one of my players got himself killed, he decided to stand and fight when he should have run, but that's not the problem. The problem came when making his new character. So he makes a social heavy character when we're playing an exploration/dungeon crawl campaign, and when I reminded him of this he decides he wants to play almost the exact same character as another player, a Rogue (Scout). I asked why he couldn't play something different, to which he argued that the character was completely different and he didn't see the problem. The only difference between them being, he was a different race and used a different weapon, but other than that he was the same, even wanted a dog like the other player has.
When the original Rogue expressed that they were bothered by this, he just got more annoyed and started arguing again about how his character was completely different and couldn't understand how we couldn't see it. He has since started acting like this is all my fault and that I'm trying to force him to play a character he doesn't want to play.
So I'm stuck in this weird position, I can let him play the social character, which I'm sure he'll be unhappy with and with the way he's acting I'll get blamed for it, or I just give in and let him play the Rogue character, but I'll be making another player unhappy with their character, which I don't want to do. I would just kick him out of the group, but we live in a small town and play in a couple games together, and I don't want to screw up other peoples games. I've played this through my head a few thousand times and can't come up with a solution, so I'm here, hoping fresh eyes may see a solution I can't.
I probably don't have any good advice, but here goes:
Appeal to pathos: by attempting to play the character he is arguing for, he isn't just making the other player uncomfortable, he's making you and potentially the rest of the group uncomfortable by infringing on someone else's established original character.
Appeal to logos: by attempting to play a class another player is already using, he's causing a disruption in the group's balance and chances for success. If the niche he was filling before remains unfilled, it could become a weakness ripe for exploitation.
Appeal to ethos: by attempting to force his character choices on you as the DM and on the group, he is pushing against the established authority DMs have over their tables and against the collaborative nature of the game.
If appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos don't work, here's one option if you can get him on board:
Let the dice decide. There are 12-14 classes, depending on what you've allowed. If you're not including Artificers and Blood Hunters, you can just use a d12 to randomly generate a class. If you are including them, use a d100, dividing 100 by 14 so every block of seven numbers is a different class (1-7 rogue, 8-14 ranger, etc.) and 99 & 100 are rerolls. Invite him to solicit collaboration from the other players in the group in building other parts of the character.
I think the problem is not the character choices but the player. So I would separate the argument. A player that was thinking about the needs of the group would not of stood alone and fought, they would not pick an initial character that goes against the grain of both the established adventure type and the gap in the party, they would not insist on copying another players character when they know it is against the wishes of the DM and upsets the player.
these are not the problem, these are the symptoms of the players attitude. You can address these separately and find a way forward but it will probably not be the end of the issues with the player, because the real problem is not being addressed.
Agreed that the real problem is the player here. He has already shown inability to find creative solutions by picking a fight he should have run from, and I’m guessing the rest of the party was already running from. That tells me his idea of D&D is “if you can’t kill it, you don’t play against it. And I’m playing against it, so I must be able to kill it.” And that he’s a selfish player, forcing the party to choose to support or save his character, or play smart.
Then the rebuild, he’s unable to see the character concept through any eyes but his own, even when shown point by point. He gets an idea in his head and insists that if it brings him joy, it’s a good idea, and if other people point out a problem, they’re just being controlling. The easiest thing in the world to do for a player with any experience at all is to look at party composition and see where there’s a role to shine in. Asking to play a social character might fill a hole in the composition, but then you as the DM gave him the courtesy of saying “Hey, this campaign isn’t going to be very social. I think you’ll end up feeling useless with this build.”
I think in the end your choice will be between booting him and letting him play the rogue with the dog. If I were in your place, I’d let him play the rogue with a final warning that he’s going to be fighting for the spotlight in scouting skill checks, animal companion hijinx, sneak attack damaging, stealth missions and stuff, counting on the other player to be grown up enough to just keep playing their game even if they don’t appreciate the new arrangement. If the other player leaves, that’s the risk you run for not wanting to upset the several other games. But this would go into my notes on the original problem player, and I would not play in any new games with them. That’s how I’d respond in your shoes.
1. As a rogue, why should he start with a dog? Unless the other player started with his/you gave them a choice of something they can ask for, don't give him a dog. I assume the dog was found in some adventure, and it's not like dogs are just everywhere waiting for people to follow (or maybe your campaign does, but if not...). 2. I don't know to what extent "exact same" means here, but maybe ask yourself again if they're actually the same? Having the same class twice isn't such a major issue and if they both have high dex and cha or dex and int that's just what the class needs to truly shine, it makes sense they both take it. The same thing applies for having similar proficiencies like stealth and deception which are just the obvious picks of any average rogue. Perception is a very powerful skill that many choose as well. Again I don't exactly know the details but be considerate... 3. "Come close and pull back" - Allow him to play what he wants but with a few small restrictions. These restrictions must be small enough to feel like it's for variation and not just control (must be a different subclass, at least one different proficiency etc. Choose what you feel is right). 4. Consider asking the other player to change class. I know, no one would like to do that, but maybe they will for the sake of the group. Surely if it's not a long campaign they will understand. Perhaps give them a bonus to compensate. 5. Just say no. In our times, people are reluctant to simply saying no, but sometimes it's necessary. Make sure it's not negotiable so that they don't argue. From that point, it's their choice how to act.
There's no right answer to this question. You can also try some of the options suggested in posts above me, I just tried to give a few different approaches than the normal ones.
I absolutely do not agree with asking the other player to change class. That is wildly unfair to the player who did nothing wrong and is now having someone else horn in on their chosen PC's focus.
I would suggest maybe telling the player making up the new character that being Rogue #2 is OK, but they need to pick a completely different subclass. And absolute no to the dog. That is another character's flavor trait, I assume -- you can't have the flavor trait of another character. It's like saying "Joe wears a jaunty top hat -- I want one too!" No. Make up your own flavor trait.
If he can't accept those 2 restrictions (completely different subclass, no dog), then either no to the rogue period, or boot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The other player should not have to change class, shouldn't be asked to change class and it shouldn't even be on the thoughts of the DM.
The problem player is the issue, not the original Rogue scout. Tell him no. He can play that next campaign. If he insists, kick him out of the group. If he is doing this in your campaign, he will try to do it in others as well.
For the sake of broader discussion, context, perspective, and offering a potential different satisfactory solution, I'll defend the player wanting this new character who is very similar to an existing one. Although the player does seem problematic to we outside observers based on the limited anectodotal information given, it's easier to jump to conclusions and easy to not want to extend the benefit of the doubt. Why not give some discussion to the "Okay, and/but" approach.
Cool, seems like something about Player A's character must be really interesting to you, Player B. But surely, Player B, if you were player A building that [original] character from scratch you'd have made slightly different choices? Surely there's something you dislike and would have made different? What ideas can you give me that'll demonstrate your proposed character and the other Player A character are pretty different? Maybe I'm only looking at this from a statblock perspective and I haven't given myself the opportunity to better more fully appreciate your character idea or how the new character can be played. I want your new character to still feel unique so I can be sure to give the new character personal moments to shine for your better enjoyment in a manner that would show only Your new character could do X because Player A's character wouldn't be able to. Similarly, I still have an obligation to Player A to do the same thing, and I wouldnt want you to get the wrong idea that I'm purposefully trying to ignore you because that wouldn't be my intentions at all. What am I missing here, Player B? Help me understand better.
I think that something along those lines makes a far less adversarial approach to consider. It also extends to the player the courtesy and benefit of the doubt that maybe there's been a bigger disconnect and misunderstanding altogether, either your's or their's or both. Or, maybe, the player really is just a problem, but at least you'd have more reliable information on which to make a final decision.
The thing is, Player B isn't just copying the statblock. He's trying to copy the quirks of the character.
I was fully prepared to say, "It's perfectly OK to have 2 elven rogues" (or whatever) in a party. It's super-fine, in fact. If my party had wanted to play ALL elven rogues, no problem. They'd probably all go different subclasses and it would be a super fun adventure, them all working for a local thief guild or something.
But saying "I want my character to have the same exact unique IC quirk that your character has" is wildly different from just "I want to play a rogue too." It's not OK, and the player needs to understand that it's not (and why).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I’d let them play the social character...you warned them, and if they still like the PC, and there’s nothing wrong with the concept from a balance perspective (ie Banned UA, homebrew, etc), then what’s the harm..if they end up unhappy, that’s on them 100%
The thing is, Player B isn't just copying the statblock. He's trying to copy the quirks of the character.
I was fully prepared to say, "It's perfectly OK to have 2 elven rogues" (or whatever) in a party. It's super-fine, in fact. If my party had wanted to play ALL elven rogues, no problem. They'd probably all go different subclasses and it would be a super fun adventure, them all working for a local thief guild or something.
But saying "I want my character to have the same exact unique IC quirk that your character has" is wildly different from just "I want to play a rogue too." It's not OK, and the player needs to understand that it's not (and why).
With respect, you and I are both making our own informed interpretations of the problem presented by the original poster of the limited information available (nothing was added at the time). And, as part of my own personal interpretation for considering problems presented, I feel a discussion is bettered by providing multiple perspectives and approaches for the original poster's consideration. A good variety of potential other concerns had also been raised by other posts (including your own), which adds to the value of the overall discussion for consideration.
I introduced my original post with, "For the sake of broader discussion, context, perspective, and offering a potential different satisfactory solution," I agreed generally that this may ultimately be a problem player, but I wanted to make sure I (and hopefully others) can appreciate that keeping an open mind to different frames of reference can be beneficial. Without knowing more, and seeing the original poster indicate that despite voicing misgivings to this new Player B character concept in relation to the Player A already in existence, "he just got more annoyed and started arguing again about how his character was completely different and couldn't understand how we couldn't see." So something's either not being said, or heard, between the DM and player.
Based on our very limited knowledge of Player A's dog, which was only mentioned as an aside, we have no idea how (or if?) Player B also suddenly havijg one would conflict with Player A's perception of fun. So that I hope you don't think otherwise, I fully agree that one character already having a dog for RP reasons, then another player wanting to do that as well later on, strikes me as odd (especially given wanting same class, etc.) and i'd also want to push back on the idea initially. But, I'd also like to know more Why? from Player B. Is player A's dog a husky brute of a beast vicious attack dog, and Player B's dog a retired prize show dog small princess type? I don't know right now, no one does except for Player B... so Player B, who has internalized that this character is entirely different, should (hopefully) be more than happy to better explain himself. I'd be in full agreeance with you that it would be a disservice to Player A if Player B wanted the exact same dog, breed, color, etc. with no distinguishable difference, if Player B outright said it.
That's why I finished out with "maybe, the player really is just a problem, but at least you'd have more reliable information on which to make a final decision."
Again, emphasizing the benefit of the doubt, rather than eliminating discussion altogether. A so-called quirk, of any variety, is going to leave an impression. For all I know, Player B is taking imitation=flattery to the extreme without realizing the consequences. But as mentioned above, player B's vision/interpretation of this potential character is not the same as the DM's. Either the player is thick headed (very likely), or also hasn't fully explained how the new character really is entirely different aside from a very similar statblock. After all, you and I could take the same pre-gen character sheet, and end up playing the character completely differently despite (for all intents and purposes) we have literally the same character.
Judging from my own experience, I would guess the duplicate rogue character was passive-aggressive blowback after being told not to run the social character which is probably what the player really wanted to do (as it was their first choice).
Is the social character still an option? Who's to say that might not come in handy? Have your player's ever tried just talking to that big angry ogre? Perhaps a friend can be made. Perhaps more than friendship? Player-Player-Ogre-Player love quadrangle? Who knows? And that's the fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM -(Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown *Red Dead Annihilation: ToA *Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
I agree with others who have said, let him play the social character. If the choice is between him being miserable (and blaming you, the DM, for it) and making another player miserable, let him be the miserable one, and as DM, be willing to take the heat of his dislike.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thanks everybody, being a newer DM I haven't had to deal with any of this, at least not from this side of the screen. I've been able to finally get him to actually talk, instead of just argue about everything. Apparently he took me reminding him of the campaign theme, as me telling him he couldn't play the social character, which was never my intent. So I've told him I never had a problem with him playing the social character, and it looks like he's going to play the social character. It still seems to be all my fault, so I assume this won't be my last issue with him, but at least I've got this one figured out. Thanks again everybody.
It's tough as a DM to provide that gentle advice to players warning them of consequences, and not have it seem like you are smiting them with blue lightning from the sky saying, "THOU SHALT NOT DO THAT WHICH DISPLEASES ME!"
I have had this situation recently with a good friend who has an idea for RP for his character that is, in my opinion, highly ill-advised. I suspect the RP is going to veer off into a direction he's going to end up not liking, and he's going to regret what he asked me to have done to his character "for RP purposes." I have advised him against it, not on the basis that it isn't allowed (because it's his character, and if he wants me to do this to his character, I'll do it), but as a friend and a fellow player. I would hate RPing this, and I can't imagine he's going to actually like it. I also think he's asked to do this to solve what he perceives is a RP problem that is not, actually, a problem. And finally I don't think his proposed solution is going to actually do anything to solve the problem that I don't think is a problem, but he does. Because of all these things, I tried to talk him out of it -- not because I don't like it (though honestly, I don't), but because I don't think it's going to give him what he wants, and has a very high probability of actually making things worse.
When we finally got to the point where I thought in the upcoming session I would be able to make this happen to his character IC (it turns out it didn't happen yet, but I thought it might), I confirmed with him ahead of time, are you sure you want me to do this to your character? He said, "Yes, unless there are going to be a whole bunch of penalties." I said no, it's just RP -- that's what he asked for. I then said why do you think there would be a bunch of penalties? And his answer was that I keep trying to talk him out of it so he started thinking that I would assign some kind of stat penalties to his character in addition to the RP. All because I was trying to be his friend, and advise him against something I thought would make him less happy than he expects.
So we have to be careful, even with people we know well, when as DM we provide advice to players. They often think of it as a mandate, as commandments chiseled in stone onto tablets, even when we don't mean it to be anything like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, to set this up, last game session one of my players got himself killed, he decided to stand and fight when he should have run, but that's not the problem. The problem came when making his new character. So he makes a social heavy character when we're playing an exploration/dungeon crawl campaign, and when I reminded him of this he decides he wants to play almost the exact same character as another player, a Rogue (Scout). I asked why he couldn't play something different, to which he argued that the character was completely different and he didn't see the problem. The only difference between them being, he was a different race and used a different weapon, but other than that he was the same, even wanted a dog like the other player has.
When the original Rogue expressed that they were bothered by this, he just got more annoyed and started arguing again about how his character was completely different and couldn't understand how we couldn't see it. He has since started acting like this is all my fault and that I'm trying to force him to play a character he doesn't want to play.
So I'm stuck in this weird position, I can let him play the social character, which I'm sure he'll be unhappy with and with the way he's acting I'll get blamed for it, or I just give in and let him play the Rogue character, but I'll be making another player unhappy with their character, which I don't want to do. I would just kick him out of the group, but we live in a small town and play in a couple games together, and I don't want to screw up other peoples games. I've played this through my head a few thousand times and can't come up with a solution, so I'm here, hoping fresh eyes may see a solution I can't.
What was his social character, a Bard, I guess? What level and how is it built?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I probably don't have any good advice, but here goes:
Appeal to pathos: by attempting to play the character he is arguing for, he isn't just making the other player uncomfortable, he's making you and potentially the rest of the group uncomfortable by infringing on someone else's established original character.
Appeal to logos: by attempting to play a class another player is already using, he's causing a disruption in the group's balance and chances for success. If the niche he was filling before remains unfilled, it could become a weakness ripe for exploitation.
Appeal to ethos: by attempting to force his character choices on you as the DM and on the group, he is pushing against the established authority DMs have over their tables and against the collaborative nature of the game.
If appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos don't work, here's one option if you can get him on board:
Let the dice decide. There are 12-14 classes, depending on what you've allowed. If you're not including Artificers and Blood Hunters, you can just use a d12 to randomly generate a class. If you are including them, use a d100, dividing 100 by 14 so every block of seven numbers is a different class (1-7 rogue, 8-14 ranger, etc.) and 99 & 100 are rerolls. Invite him to solicit collaboration from the other players in the group in building other parts of the character.
The death of the PC wasn't your fault. He decided to stay in a dangerous situation and paid the price.
This might help:
"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
I think the problem is not the character choices but the player. So I would separate the argument. A player that was thinking about the needs of the group would not of stood alone and fought, they would not pick an initial character that goes against the grain of both the established adventure type and the gap in the party, they would not insist on copying another players character when they know it is against the wishes of the DM and upsets the player.
these are not the problem, these are the symptoms of the players attitude. You can address these separately and find a way forward but it will probably not be the end of the issues with the player, because the real problem is not being addressed.
What was the true reason for him fighting his character until death?
edit: typo
playing since 1986
Agreed that the real problem is the player here. He has already shown inability to find creative solutions by picking a fight he should have run from, and I’m guessing the rest of the party was already running from. That tells me his idea of D&D is “if you can’t kill it, you don’t play against it. And I’m playing against it, so I must be able to kill it.” And that he’s a selfish player, forcing the party to choose to support or save his character, or play smart.
Then the rebuild, he’s unable to see the character concept through any eyes but his own, even when shown point by point. He gets an idea in his head and insists that if it brings him joy, it’s a good idea, and if other people point out a problem, they’re just being controlling. The easiest thing in the world to do for a player with any experience at all is to look at party composition and see where there’s a role to shine in. Asking to play a social character might fill a hole in the composition, but then you as the DM gave him the courtesy of saying “Hey, this campaign isn’t going to be very social. I think you’ll end up feeling useless with this build.”
I think in the end your choice will be between booting him and letting him play the rogue with the dog. If I were in your place, I’d let him play the rogue with a final warning that he’s going to be fighting for the spotlight in scouting skill checks, animal companion hijinx, sneak attack damaging, stealth missions and stuff, counting on the other player to be grown up enough to just keep playing their game even if they don’t appreciate the new arrangement. If the other player leaves, that’s the risk you run for not wanting to upset the several other games. But this would go into my notes on the original problem player, and I would not play in any new games with them. That’s how I’d respond in your shoes.
I disagree that letting him play puppy power rogue is a better solution than asking him to leave.
1. As a rogue, why should he start with a dog? Unless the other player started with his/you gave them a choice of something they can ask for, don't give him a dog. I assume the dog was found in some adventure, and it's not like dogs are just everywhere waiting for people to follow (or maybe your campaign does, but if not...).
2. I don't know to what extent "exact same" means here, but maybe ask yourself again if they're actually the same? Having the same class twice isn't such a major issue and if they both have high dex and cha or dex and int that's just what the class needs to truly shine, it makes sense they both take it. The same thing applies for having similar proficiencies like stealth and deception which are just the obvious picks of any average rogue. Perception is a very powerful skill that many choose as well. Again I don't exactly know the details but be considerate...
3. "Come close and pull back" - Allow him to play what he wants but with a few small restrictions. These restrictions must be small enough to feel like it's for variation and not just control (must be a different subclass, at least one different proficiency etc. Choose what you feel is right).
4. Consider asking the other player to change class. I know, no one would like to do that, but maybe they will for the sake of the group. Surely if it's not a long campaign they will understand. Perhaps give them a bonus to compensate.
5. Just say no. In our times, people are reluctant to simply saying no, but sometimes it's necessary. Make sure it's not negotiable so that they don't argue. From that point, it's their choice how to act.
There's no right answer to this question. You can also try some of the options suggested in posts above me, I just tried to give a few different approaches than the normal ones.
Varielky
I absolutely do not agree with asking the other player to change class. That is wildly unfair to the player who did nothing wrong and is now having someone else horn in on their chosen PC's focus.
I would suggest maybe telling the player making up the new character that being Rogue #2 is OK, but they need to pick a completely different subclass. And absolute no to the dog. That is another character's flavor trait, I assume -- you can't have the flavor trait of another character. It's like saying "Joe wears a jaunty top hat -- I want one too!" No. Make up your own flavor trait.
If he can't accept those 2 restrictions (completely different subclass, no dog), then either no to the rogue period, or boot.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The other player should not have to change class, shouldn't be asked to change class and it shouldn't even be on the thoughts of the DM.
The problem player is the issue, not the original Rogue scout. Tell him no. He can play that next campaign. If he insists, kick him out of the group. If he is doing this in your campaign, he will try to do it in others as well.
For the sake of broader discussion, context, perspective, and offering a potential different satisfactory solution, I'll defend the player wanting this new character who is very similar to an existing one. Although the player does seem problematic to we outside observers based on the limited anectodotal information given, it's easier to jump to conclusions and easy to not want to extend the benefit of the doubt. Why not give some discussion to the "Okay, and/but" approach.
Cool, seems like something about Player A's character must be really interesting to you, Player B. But surely, Player B, if you were player A building that [original] character from scratch you'd have made slightly different choices? Surely there's something you dislike and would have made different? What ideas can you give me that'll demonstrate your proposed character and the other Player A character are pretty different? Maybe I'm only looking at this from a statblock perspective and I haven't given myself the opportunity to better more fully appreciate your character idea or how the new character can be played. I want your new character to still feel unique so I can be sure to give the new character personal moments to shine for your better enjoyment in a manner that would show only Your new character could do X because Player A's character wouldn't be able to. Similarly, I still have an obligation to Player A to do the same thing, and I wouldnt want you to get the wrong idea that I'm purposefully trying to ignore you because that wouldn't be my intentions at all. What am I missing here, Player B? Help me understand better.
I think that something along those lines makes a far less adversarial approach to consider. It also extends to the player the courtesy and benefit of the doubt that maybe there's been a bigger disconnect and misunderstanding altogether, either your's or their's or both. Or, maybe, the player really is just a problem, but at least you'd have more reliable information on which to make a final decision.
Boldly go
The thing is, Player B isn't just copying the statblock. He's trying to copy the quirks of the character.
I was fully prepared to say, "It's perfectly OK to have 2 elven rogues" (or whatever) in a party. It's super-fine, in fact. If my party had wanted to play ALL elven rogues, no problem. They'd probably all go different subclasses and it would be a super fun adventure, them all working for a local thief guild or something.
But saying "I want my character to have the same exact unique IC quirk that your character has" is wildly different from just "I want to play a rogue too." It's not OK, and the player needs to understand that it's not (and why).
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I’d let them play the social character...you warned them, and if they still like the PC, and there’s nothing wrong with the concept from a balance perspective (ie Banned UA, homebrew, etc), then what’s the harm..if they end up unhappy, that’s on them 100%
With respect, you and I are both making our own informed interpretations of the problem presented by the original poster of the limited information available (nothing was added at the time). And, as part of my own personal interpretation for considering problems presented, I feel a discussion is bettered by providing multiple perspectives and approaches for the original poster's consideration. A good variety of potential other concerns had also been raised by other posts (including your own), which adds to the value of the overall discussion for consideration.
I introduced my original post with, "For the sake of broader discussion, context, perspective, and offering a potential different satisfactory solution," I agreed generally that this may ultimately be a problem player, but I wanted to make sure I (and hopefully others) can appreciate that keeping an open mind to different frames of reference can be beneficial. Without knowing more, and seeing the original poster indicate that despite voicing misgivings to this new Player B character concept in relation to the Player A already in existence, "he just got more annoyed and started arguing again about how his character was completely different and couldn't understand how we couldn't see." So something's either not being said, or heard, between the DM and player.
Based on our very limited knowledge of Player A's dog, which was only mentioned as an aside, we have no idea how (or if?) Player B also suddenly havijg one would conflict with Player A's perception of fun. So that I hope you don't think otherwise, I fully agree that one character already having a dog for RP reasons, then another player wanting to do that as well later on, strikes me as odd (especially given wanting same class, etc.) and i'd also want to push back on the idea initially. But, I'd also like to know more Why? from Player B. Is player A's dog a husky brute of a beast vicious attack dog, and Player B's dog a retired prize show dog small princess type? I don't know right now, no one does except for Player B... so Player B, who has internalized that this character is entirely different, should (hopefully) be more than happy to better explain himself. I'd be in full agreeance with you that it would be a disservice to Player A if Player B wanted the exact same dog, breed, color, etc. with no distinguishable difference, if Player B outright said it.
That's why I finished out with "maybe, the player really is just a problem, but at least you'd have more reliable information on which to make a final decision."
Again, emphasizing the benefit of the doubt, rather than eliminating discussion altogether. A so-called quirk, of any variety, is going to leave an impression. For all I know, Player B is taking imitation=flattery to the extreme without realizing the consequences. But as mentioned above, player B's vision/interpretation of this potential character is not the same as the DM's. Either the player is thick headed (very likely), or also hasn't fully explained how the new character really is entirely different aside from a very similar statblock. After all, you and I could take the same pre-gen character sheet, and end up playing the character completely differently despite (for all intents and purposes) we have literally the same character.
Boldly go
Judging from my own experience, I would guess the duplicate rogue character was passive-aggressive blowback after being told not to run the social character which is probably what the player really wanted to do (as it was their first choice).
Is the social character still an option? Who's to say that might not come in handy? Have your player's ever tried just talking to that big angry ogre? Perhaps a friend can be made. Perhaps more than friendship? Player-Player-Ogre-Player love quadrangle? Who knows? And that's the fun.
PC - Ethel - Human - Lvl 4 Necromancer - Undying Dragons * Serge Marshblade - Human - Lvl 5 Eldritch Knight - Hoard of the Dragon Queen
DM - (Homebrew) Heroes of Bardstown * Red Dead Annihilation: ToA * Where the Cold Winds Blow : DoIP * Covetous, Dragonish Thoughts: HotDQ * Red Wine, Black Rose: CoS * Greyhawk: Tides of War
I agree with others who have said, let him play the social character. If the choice is between him being miserable (and blaming you, the DM, for it) and making another player miserable, let him be the miserable one, and as DM, be willing to take the heat of his dislike.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thanks everybody, being a newer DM I haven't had to deal with any of this, at least not from this side of the screen. I've been able to finally get him to actually talk, instead of just argue about everything. Apparently he took me reminding him of the campaign theme, as me telling him he couldn't play the social character, which was never my intent. So I've told him I never had a problem with him playing the social character, and it looks like he's going to play the social character. It still seems to be all my fault, so I assume this won't be my last issue with him, but at least I've got this one figured out. Thanks again everybody.
Glad you have solved this.
It's tough as a DM to provide that gentle advice to players warning them of consequences, and not have it seem like you are smiting them with blue lightning from the sky saying, "THOU SHALT NOT DO THAT WHICH DISPLEASES ME!"
I have had this situation recently with a good friend who has an idea for RP for his character that is, in my opinion, highly ill-advised. I suspect the RP is going to veer off into a direction he's going to end up not liking, and he's going to regret what he asked me to have done to his character "for RP purposes." I have advised him against it, not on the basis that it isn't allowed (because it's his character, and if he wants me to do this to his character, I'll do it), but as a friend and a fellow player. I would hate RPing this, and I can't imagine he's going to actually like it. I also think he's asked to do this to solve what he perceives is a RP problem that is not, actually, a problem. And finally I don't think his proposed solution is going to actually do anything to solve the problem that I don't think is a problem, but he does. Because of all these things, I tried to talk him out of it -- not because I don't like it (though honestly, I don't), but because I don't think it's going to give him what he wants, and has a very high probability of actually making things worse.
When we finally got to the point where I thought in the upcoming session I would be able to make this happen to his character IC (it turns out it didn't happen yet, but I thought it might), I confirmed with him ahead of time, are you sure you want me to do this to your character? He said, "Yes, unless there are going to be a whole bunch of penalties." I said no, it's just RP -- that's what he asked for. I then said why do you think there would be a bunch of penalties? And his answer was that I keep trying to talk him out of it so he started thinking that I would assign some kind of stat penalties to his character in addition to the RP. All because I was trying to be his friend, and advise him against something I thought would make him less happy than he expects.
So we have to be careful, even with people we know well, when as DM we provide advice to players. They often think of it as a mandate, as commandments chiseled in stone onto tablets, even when we don't mean it to be anything like that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.