I'm a fairly experienced player. I still get rules wrong from time to time but that's pretty natural i feel. I'm curranty in a campaign and I need some advice as it's starting to become VERY frustrating.
First, the important back ground.
Session zero for the campaign layout we needed a Face, or Leader was needed as an actual title in game.
I was "voted" the Face of the party. I AM playing a CHA based character so that part works as I'm also the most experienced within the group.
We have a few loose cannons which so far, has been entertaining to a point. There's a particular player/character (it's actually started to effect us as players outside our characters even). Who are pretty much playing Chaotic Stupid. There have been times where i've specifically said we should NOT do X because of Y. They almost immediately do X. This has happened MULTIPLE times and has lead up to being very frustrating. I typically, in the past have played more on the serious side of things and play more serious type characters (another reason why i was "nominated" to play the Face as I've more leader-like thinking).
He has several times spoke up on why can't he lead the party and feels the stuff he does isn't "stupid" where as situations have come up and I think more so long term for the best result of the party where his thought process has been more immediate and more so "selfish". This clash of playstyles has worked ok but has been boiling up until our last session where we obviously got more emotional from both sides that either of us (or the group) would care to like.
A minor example. I explain a strategy where we want to try and do some recon on a specific area. We have a decent stealth plan as i want to sneak into the area as i feel it would give us the best advantage in an encounter we are honestly not "up for" This character literally the next thing they do, is go tell a guard hello we want to do this... Basically blowing our cover.
I also would like to point out as i had a talk with the DM and he and I will do some brainstorming on how we can help the situation but i explained to him that i feel i can't role play this correctly because of what is needed and being asked. I explained to him, I and my character feel that he is intentionally doing these things to piss me off. You/they asked me to be the Face yet, do nothing that I ask of the party at times. I told the DM if I actually play my character how she (I play a female character) would honestly play her then this person would be kicked out for the things they have done. Obviously, I don't want to do this but my frustration is mounting.
I get that people have different play styles and sometimes people want to do stupid things. I really do not have an issue with that. It's when I specifically ask of something and it's blatantly ignored. In the military, orders are followed. While we aren't in the military but it's a very "similar" situation.
I would like some advice on how i can go forward while keeping it fun for both of us without derailing the group or the campaign before it gets worse.
Any ideas both in and out of game would be greatly appreciated. I'm intentionally trying to be somewhat vague about our real situation but this is close enuf to get the main concept on what i would like help with.
Thanks!
PS if there is a better forum/thread to post this please feel free to direct me to said place!
Right off the top of the bat, I don't support the idea of assigning individual characters specific roles in the game that they MUST follow. I think most groups eventually end up with a "face" of the group... whether it's because they've got the best stats or features for social functions, or even if they're just the player who is most open to speaking in social situations. Your character probably will end up being the face of the party in most situations, but assigning you a non-negotiable leadership position feels weird.
That all said... this is definitely something that the DM should address with the other player. Especially if the entire group has spent a decent amount of time planning how to execute a challenge and this player just decides to screw it as a gag. That's not cool... not to the other players, not to the DM... I don't think every player is obligated to always do the "right thing" and never create trouble through their actions, but deliberately subverting a complex plan that everyone has spent the time to organize and implement is just being a troll. I'm sure some tables enjoy that, but it's one of those playstyles where every single player at the table has to agree that they're hopping into a silly, chaotic game from session zero.
The question I have for you is do you, as a player, want to be the leader of the group of players? If not or if you don't particularly care, there's not really an issue. Your character may get frustrated by being the leader of a group of characters that don't follow orders, but you as a player can be in on the joke.
The first thing I will say is the "Face" does not equate to the de facto leader. There are plenty of examples where a the "Face" of the organization or group is not the "Leader". Being the "Face" of the party means you take lead in negotiations, interactions with NPC, and delivering messages of significant important to the party. Another character can be "Leader" or the party can make decisions via democratic processes.
I bring this up because if your desire is not to be in charge then you can still take on the responsibilities of the "Face" role by working off the direction of other party members.
If the player wants to take lead then let them. It sounds like your character could conceivable offer to step down and allow the individual to run things (and maybe make contingency plans to ensure that she can escape if the new leadership has issues with their execution of plans). Step away from the role and let it play out. Ultimately the DM has to manage this. If this player (and other party members) seem to want to go down a certain path then the DM's adjudication will serve as either justification or lesson to the player(s)' style of play. It is just not worth the stress for you as a person. Focus on finding different ways to enjoy the campaign you are in and how to interact with the world. If the problem persists with this player, then talk to you DM about how you are adjusting but there is no respect for any boundaries you are requesting, and if needed, exit the game and find a new one.
Regardless how it plays out, I think eventually the party should move away form a single source of leadership and work as cooperative. This alleviates the stress on a single person to manage and make decisions, and if a player is consistently going off script then it will help to DM to address the issue as they can present examples of how this behavior is affecting the majority of the table.
I also recommend the approach of stepping away form the "Leader" position since you stated it is impacted your relationship as players. If you do feel there is some conflict there, then I would strongly suggest to find character motivation to give up this role, as the game may be use as a means to heighten or express the conflict. Position yourself so the table can be grounded and game play takes priority. Again, if you are making the gestures and you don't feel it is being reciprocated, then you should talk to you DM and do what is best for your mental health.
Hope this helps, and best wishes in finding a solution. Conflicts in relationships are never fun and being the game is meant for recreation; it is not worth the aggravation. Take care. Cheers!
Face character just means you do the talking because your CHA skills are better. It doesn't mean you are the leader or that every group needs a leader. Yes, there is often a player who is chaotic and will mess up your plans...it happens....so plan for that to happen.
Understood. Every campaign and setting is different. I'm in a spelljammer campaign, where we have two ships, so two captains, and they operate (move) the ships and can give orders to NPC sailors, but do not make other decisions for the party. And neither is the face character. We only had 3 options for captain (it had to be a spellcaster to operate the helm) and I wasn't interested.
Assuming other players don't find the other player's style "Charming", then the DM should speak to them about it. If that doesn't yield fruit, then you should have a calm, adult conversation with all the players (not the DM) discussing how this could be fixed for everyone's enjoyment. If the players can't come to a mutual agreement everyone can live with, then you have to decide if the campaign will continue. If this campaign doesn't continue, then the next one doesn't have to include the troublesome player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Yeah this is something to discuss with the whole group, I think. Set the "tone" of the campaign - is it supposed to be serious, or silly? How realistic?
Sounds like you think you're playing in a serious game and the other player thinks they're in a silly game. I was in the exact same boat in a campaign with some good friends that I had to leave because I just couldn't get onboard with their silliness. It was a little too much for me. We're still good friends, though.
How do all the other players feel? If you all get on the same boat (nautical campaign pun intended) in terms of tone, it should help smooth over the roughness somewhat.
But also know that sometimes the best thing to do is to just leave - if you're not having fun, then it's not good DND for you.
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?
Agree with the above. It's not possible to just "manage" a problem player without talking to them about what the problem is. In general disruptive players are not very aware of other people's feelings which is often why they are disruptive in the first place. There are many possible causes for disruptive behaviour:
- they are getting bored during prolonged planning sessions, so are instigating stuff just so something exciting happens. -> in this case consider involving that player's character in the plans, and pushing the party to just go do it and work out the details on the fly (make sure you talk with the DM to make sure they are on board with letting you guys pause to plan during the infiltration or whatever in the interests of speeding up the pre-planning)
- they are combat-oriented players and just want to hack & slash, they aren't interested in being 'strategic' -> this would require the DM to adjust the campaign slightly to be more combat-focused,
- they are using D&D as a stress reliever and don't want to take it seriously, they just want some escapism lols -> in this case you might want to leave and find another group if you want a serious game and they don't
- they resent being told what to do, so act out in 'rebellion' -> in this case simply start delegating leadership to that player's character. Pirate ships were mainly run by the quartermaster or by democratic vote rather than dictated by the captain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello there! First time poster.
I'm a fairly experienced player. I still get rules wrong from time to time but that's pretty natural i feel. I'm curranty in a campaign and I need some advice as it's starting to become VERY frustrating.
First, the important back ground.
Session zero for the campaign layout we needed a Face, or Leader was needed as an actual title in game.
I was "voted" the Face of the party. I AM playing a CHA based character so that part works as I'm also the most experienced within the group.
We have a few loose cannons which so far, has been entertaining to a point. There's a particular player/character (it's actually started to effect us as players outside our characters even). Who are pretty much playing Chaotic Stupid. There have been times where i've specifically said we should NOT do X because of Y. They almost immediately do X. This has happened MULTIPLE times and has lead up to being very frustrating. I typically, in the past have played more on the serious side of things and play more serious type characters (another reason why i was "nominated" to play the Face as I've more leader-like thinking).
He has several times spoke up on why can't he lead the party and feels the stuff he does isn't "stupid" where as situations have come up and I think more so long term for the best result of the party where his thought process has been more immediate and more so "selfish". This clash of playstyles has worked ok but has been boiling up until our last session where we obviously got more emotional from both sides that either of us (or the group) would care to like.
A minor example. I explain a strategy where we want to try and do some recon on a specific area. We have a decent stealth plan as i want to sneak into the area as i feel it would give us the best advantage in an encounter we are honestly not "up for" This character literally the next thing they do, is go tell a guard hello we want to do this... Basically blowing our cover.
I also would like to point out as i had a talk with the DM and he and I will do some brainstorming on how we can help the situation but i explained to him that i feel i can't role play this correctly because of what is needed and being asked. I explained to him, I and my character feel that he is intentionally doing these things to piss me off. You/they asked me to be the Face yet, do nothing that I ask of the party at times. I told the DM if I actually play my character how she (I play a female character) would honestly play her then this person would be kicked out for the things they have done. Obviously, I don't want to do this but my frustration is mounting.
I get that people have different play styles and sometimes people want to do stupid things. I really do not have an issue with that. It's when I specifically ask of something and it's blatantly ignored. In the military, orders are followed. While we aren't in the military but it's a very "similar" situation.
I would like some advice on how i can go forward while keeping it fun for both of us without derailing the group or the campaign before it gets worse.
Any ideas both in and out of game would be greatly appreciated. I'm intentionally trying to be somewhat vague about our real situation but this is close enuf to get the main concept on what i would like help with.
Thanks!
PS if there is a better forum/thread to post this please feel free to direct me to said place!
Right off the top of the bat, I don't support the idea of assigning individual characters specific roles in the game that they MUST follow. I think most groups eventually end up with a "face" of the group... whether it's because they've got the best stats or features for social functions, or even if they're just the player who is most open to speaking in social situations. Your character probably will end up being the face of the party in most situations, but assigning you a non-negotiable leadership position feels weird.
That all said... this is definitely something that the DM should address with the other player. Especially if the entire group has spent a decent amount of time planning how to execute a challenge and this player just decides to screw it as a gag. That's not cool... not to the other players, not to the DM... I don't think every player is obligated to always do the "right thing" and never create trouble through their actions, but deliberately subverting a complex plan that everyone has spent the time to organize and implement is just being a troll. I'm sure some tables enjoy that, but it's one of those playstyles where every single player at the table has to agree that they're hopping into a silly, chaotic game from session zero.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The question I have for you is do you, as a player, want to be the leader of the group of players? If not or if you don't particularly care, there's not really an issue. Your character may get frustrated by being the leader of a group of characters that don't follow orders, but you as a player can be in on the joke.
The first thing I will say is the "Face" does not equate to the de facto leader. There are plenty of examples where a the "Face" of the organization or group is not the "Leader". Being the "Face" of the party means you take lead in negotiations, interactions with NPC, and delivering messages of significant important to the party. Another character can be "Leader" or the party can make decisions via democratic processes.
I bring this up because if your desire is not to be in charge then you can still take on the responsibilities of the "Face" role by working off the direction of other party members.
If the player wants to take lead then let them. It sounds like your character could conceivable offer to step down and allow the individual to run things (and maybe make contingency plans to ensure that she can escape if the new leadership has issues with their execution of plans). Step away from the role and let it play out. Ultimately the DM has to manage this. If this player (and other party members) seem to want to go down a certain path then the DM's adjudication will serve as either justification or lesson to the player(s)' style of play. It is just not worth the stress for you as a person. Focus on finding different ways to enjoy the campaign you are in and how to interact with the world. If the problem persists with this player, then talk to you DM about how you are adjusting but there is no respect for any boundaries you are requesting, and if needed, exit the game and find a new one.
Regardless how it plays out, I think eventually the party should move away form a single source of leadership and work as cooperative. This alleviates the stress on a single person to manage and make decisions, and if a player is consistently going off script then it will help to DM to address the issue as they can present examples of how this behavior is affecting the majority of the table.
I also recommend the approach of stepping away form the "Leader" position since you stated it is impacted your relationship as players. If you do feel there is some conflict there, then I would strongly suggest to find character motivation to give up this role, as the game may be use as a means to heighten or express the conflict. Position yourself so the table can be grounded and game play takes priority. Again, if you are making the gestures and you don't feel it is being reciprocated, then you should talk to you DM and do what is best for your mental health.
Hope this helps, and best wishes in finding a solution. Conflicts in relationships are never fun and being the game is meant for recreation; it is not worth the aggravation. Take care. Cheers!
Face character just means you do the talking because your CHA skills are better. It doesn't mean you are the leader or that every group needs a leader. Yes, there is often a player who is chaotic and will mess up your plans...it happens....so plan for that to happen.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E/RPG geek.
Actually in our case yes it is the leader... but thank you for the reply's.
Since it seems there has been confusion as to my terminology. I was trying to be as vague which I guess is more of a big deal it seems.
Our campaign is sea based so there for I was named Captain for the campaign. Thank you for the reply's so far. I really appreciate them.
Understood. Every campaign and setting is different. I'm in a spelljammer campaign, where we have two ships, so two captains, and they operate (move) the ships and can give orders to NPC sailors, but do not make other decisions for the party. And neither is the face character. We only had 3 options for captain (it had to be a spellcaster to operate the helm) and I wasn't interested.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E/RPG geek.
Assuming other players don't find the other player's style "Charming", then the DM should speak to them about it. If that doesn't yield fruit, then you should have a calm, adult conversation with all the players (not the DM) discussing how this could be fixed for everyone's enjoyment. If the players can't come to a mutual agreement everyone can live with, then you have to decide if the campaign will continue. If this campaign doesn't continue, then the next one doesn't have to include the troublesome player.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Yeah this is something to discuss with the whole group, I think. Set the "tone" of the campaign - is it supposed to be serious, or silly? How realistic?
Sounds like you think you're playing in a serious game and the other player thinks they're in a silly game. I was in the exact same boat in a campaign with some good friends that I had to leave because I just couldn't get onboard with their silliness. It was a little too much for me. We're still good friends, though.
How do all the other players feel? If you all get on the same boat (nautical campaign pun intended) in terms of tone, it should help smooth over the roughness somewhat.
But also know that sometimes the best thing to do is to just leave - if you're not having fun, then it's not good DND for you.
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?
Agree with the above. It's not possible to just "manage" a problem player without talking to them about what the problem is. In general disruptive players are not very aware of other people's feelings which is often why they are disruptive in the first place. There are many possible causes for disruptive behaviour:
- they are getting bored during prolonged planning sessions, so are instigating stuff just so something exciting happens.
-> in this case consider involving that player's character in the plans, and pushing the party to just go do it and work out the details on the fly (make sure you talk with the DM to make sure they are on board with letting you guys pause to plan during the infiltration or whatever in the interests of speeding up the pre-planning)
- they are combat-oriented players and just want to hack & slash, they aren't interested in being 'strategic'
-> this would require the DM to adjust the campaign slightly to be more combat-focused,
- they are using D&D as a stress reliever and don't want to take it seriously, they just want some escapism lols
-> in this case you might want to leave and find another group if you want a serious game and they don't
- they resent being told what to do, so act out in 'rebellion'
-> in this case simply start delegating leadership to that player's character. Pirate ships were mainly run by the quartermaster or by democratic vote rather than dictated by the captain.