PDA

View Full Version : Getting backstory and character development out of a reluctant player? (UPDATE)



WarKitty
2014-06-22, 05:28 PM
So I'm running a campaign where backstory is very important. The plots I'm running start from the PC's backstories and work towards goals the players specified for their characters. The trouble is I have one player who just doesn't seem to want to deal with it. So for example I asked about family and she just said "eh I don't like to think about things like that." I've played with her as a DM and I know the way she runs her games backstory is just sort of window dressing. It's not in my game. She plays very much like a stereotypical paladin, without as far as I can tell much motivation beyond "being good."

I'm getting a little frustrated because I feel like I'm ending up focusing all my attention on my other 3 players. But there's not much to do with my fourth player. And I'm worried that she's leaning too far towards a stereotypical paladin rather than a realistic character.

Any advice?

UPDATE: So after conferring with the forum for a bit, I think the problem is less the backstory and more that I feel like the character doesn't have enough development to mesh with the party well. The character seems to lack depth beyond "being a good guy" in ways the party doesn't always want to do - notably, most of the party is in favor of killing bad guys while this one wants to redeem the bad guys. I'm concerned that this is leading at best to a case of why would this party be together, and at worst spilling into PvP or the characters frustrating each other all the time. Player seems attached to this particular sort of character and not comfortable with not being able to "roleplay" the character she wants.

RustyArmor
2014-06-22, 05:47 PM
Just down right tell her she will be getting less attention then the others for not having a back story. If she is fine with that I suppose you can just go with it. Forcing her to write a story will just make her upset or they will only make a half assed story or extremely silly background that will make you tear your hair out. I have players in same boat, I will do a lot of back ground events and most villains are often going to be people from their past. They don't seem to care to much about it and just like rolling the dice and kicking butt when fights come around the corner. Your player might be same way.

And if anything else can always just get a stick and poke her with it till she caves and writes the story up.

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 05:58 PM
I'm a little worried because she seems to be somewhat bored and not really into the game. It's a setup that's really designed to interest and reward roleplayers. I'm worried that she's both playing her character in a not very interesting way (healer, though I'm trying to discourage that) and not really getting into the non-combat stuff we have available. And when she does RP she does it as the worst sort of paladin.

Mr Beer
2014-06-22, 06:18 PM
You've identified what you think is the problem i.e. she's not interested in an in-depth RPG. She seems a bit half-hearted about it. I guess you can chat to her and see what she wants in a game but it might be that she's just not that into it.

Given the way you like to run the game and the fact that others seem happy, I would run it my way for them and not worry about it. Up to you though.

nedz
2014-06-22, 06:19 PM
There's probably not much you can do "You can lead a horse to water ..."

It could be a play-style difference, in which case you're stuffed.

You could do things like introduce NPCs who know her in their backstories and just fill her in after the fact. "You recognise Tom from where you grew up ...". This might not go down too well though, especially if there is blow back.

Personally I'd just ignore it and just carry on — that's certainly what I've done in the past.

Rater202
2014-06-22, 06:26 PM
Okay, what do you mean by "the worst sort of Paladin?"

Do you mean the "Holier than thou" atitude paladin, or the "Smite First, never ask questions" paladin?

If it's the first ain't nothin wrong with that. If it's the second, ask her why her character acts like that. If she just gives a eneric "She's Good, they're evil asnwer" then early on, introduce an NPC Paladin whose more of the "Smite only those who can not be saed from themselves" types.

Maybe someone who knows the PC.

Show her what a proper paladin is like

If she won't give a backstory out of character, make her give one in character. Hopefully force some character development into it while you're at it.

If that doesn't work, then she's probably not the type of person your game caters to.

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 06:34 PM
Okay, what do you mean by "the worst sort of Paladin?"

Do you mean the "Holier than thou" atitude paladin, or the "Smite First, never ask questions" paladin?

If it's the first ain't nothin wrong with that. If it's the second, ask her why her character acts like that. If she just gives a eneric "She's Good, they're evil asnwer" then early on, introduce an NPC Paladin whose more of the "Smite only those who can not be saved from themselves" types.

Maybe someone who knows the PC.

Show her what a proper paladin is like

If she won't give a backstory out of character, make her give one in character. Hopefully force some character development into it while you're at it.

If that doesn't work, then she's probably not the type of person your game caters to.

The first, combined with a tendency to just expect the party to go along with her idea of how a good party should behave. And OOC complaints when they don't go along. That's the frustration - if she wants to play the try to save everyone possible type that's fine, but she doesn't seem interested in IC working it out with the party as much as expecting them to just fall in line.

Thrudd
2014-06-22, 06:36 PM
I'm a little worried because she seems to be somewhat bored and not really into the game. It's a setup that's really designed to interest and reward roleplayers. I'm worried that she's both playing her character in a not very interesting way (healer, though I'm trying to discourage that) and not really getting into the non-combat stuff we have available. And when she does RP she does it as the worst sort of paladin.

I don't think there is much you can do. Let her play the way she wants and don't worry about it. So she plays as a generic supporting character in your stories instead of a main character, some players are fine with that.

It is difficult sometimes to reconcile varying play preferences in a group, and there is no simple solution. The thing to ask is not how to force her to play the way you like, but find out what she finds fun about an RPG and try to incorporate some of that into your game. That should help get her into the game more. Certain types of players simply won't be interested in anything but the fighting/dice rolling parts, others are only interested when they can get treasure and magic items and make their character more powerful. Some just want to explore a fantasy world and find new places and creatures.
Some players just never really get into the game, they are always sort of peripheral to the action and are just there because they want to hang out with their friends. You need to remind them when it's their turn, they are never fully paying attention. That's ok, let it be. Don't try to force anything, just let her roll her attacks and move on.

valadil
2014-06-22, 07:19 PM
I think I run games similarly to you. I'm real big on backstory and using it in my games.

My first piece of advice is to take what you can get. Backstory is awesome because it lets you riff off of something the players create and put it back into the game, which lets them feel that much more involved and invested. But not everyone is able to sit down and write out a history. One of my players is mildly dyslexic and intimidated by writing, so he writes his adventures in comic form. Another didn't want to do homework but was happy to brainstorm while I took notes.

Anyway, it doesn't matter where the ideas come from or how much you get. Go fishing until you get something from the character you can put in the game. Then put it in the game. This delights most players, especially those who haven't gotten this treatment before. Those who don't like it probably aren't going to no matter how hard you try.


I'm getting a little frustrated because I feel like I'm ending up focusing all my attention on my other 3 players. But there's not much to do with my fourth player. And I'm worried that she's leaning too far towards a stereotypical paladin rather than a realistic character.


That's unfortunate but okay. Personally, I'm willing to cut players off in that situation. Last time I had a player like that, I spent half my prep time coming up for ideas for him and he ignored them all. The game went a lot better when I focused on the players who were participating. I felt bad about it, but I look at my prep time as an investment. I have to get some game play time out of each hour I spend prepping.

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 07:24 PM
My biggest worry right now is the combined lack of backstory and rigid morality straightjacket are leading to a very inflexible character. And I don't think that's going to work very well. I think the player is getting frustrated because she feels like she can't "roleplay" when her character doesn't get to do what she wants, and without backstory I have little recourse to bait her into doing things.

valadil
2014-06-22, 07:41 PM
My biggest worry right now is the combined lack of backstory and rigid morality straightjacket are leading to a very inflexible character. And I don't think that's going to work very well. I think the player is getting frustrated because she feels like she can't "roleplay" when her character doesn't get to do what she wants, and without backstory I have little recourse to bait her into doing things.

Here's a whacky idea. Would you consider writing a backstory for her and letting her play to it? I'd give her full veto power of course on that instead of striking something out of the story, she had to replace it with something equally compelling.

JusticeZero
2014-06-22, 07:48 PM
If you do not provide a history, a history will be provided to you - probably at ridiculous times and out of nowhere. =)

Someone had a character in one game I was playing in who did not want to describe anything about their background when that was discussed in party. After a bit, it got interpreted as being secretive about their background. Then all of a sudden the heavies stepped out of the shadows when we were restocking in town with "Guido was mad when you skipped out of town! You'se got obligations!" and all of a sudden we got to deal with half an hour of trying to deal with the deep dark secret that that character had been hiding from us - that the player wasn't even aware of until then. Then we ended up running around trying to make the horrible thing they'd done before becoming an adventurer right..

veti
2014-06-22, 07:56 PM
If you do not provide a history, a history will be provided to you - probably at ridiculous times and out of nowhere. =)

This. Have her long-lost brother turn up out of nowhere.

"But I don't have a long-lost brother!"
"Yeah, you didn't mention him, but you didn't mention anyone, so I took the liberty of making some up. Now..."

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 07:58 PM
Here's a whacky idea. Would you consider writing a backstory for her and letting her play to it? I'd give her full veto power of course on that instead of striking something out of the story, she had to replace it with something equally compelling.

I think I'd need to find a solution to the goodness straight-jacket first. The main problem is that the way she's playing is very inflexible, in a way that's making her feel like she's prevented from roleplaying or has to resort to destructive actions. I think we're having a hard time with her feeling like she can roleplay because it seems like she's limited roleplaying to a particular way of behaving and doesn't want to do much when it's not relevant, and gets frustrated when it's prevented.

Flashy
2014-06-22, 08:35 PM
This. Have her long-lost brother turn up out of nowhere.

"But I don't have a long-lost brother!"
"Yeah, you didn't mention him, but you didn't mention anyone, so I took the liberty of making some up. Now..."

As a player I would absolutely hate this. I hate writing backstories longer than one or two lines for my characters because I really enjoy the process of feeling the character out as they interact with the world around them. I wouldn't want to have to go beyond something along the lines of "Class from X, spent a few years bumming around the city of Y, wound up with Z reason to run into the rest of the party". I'm not interested in intricate histories or interacting with people from my character's personal background, because I frankly don't care very much what happened to my character before the start of play. If I were required to write a longer backstory I would leave it as deliberately boring as possible because I don't want my character to be anyone special except by virtue of what I have them do in the course of the game. Having a DM foist weird personal drama on me by fiat would irritate me to no end.

This doesn't mean I don't enjoy roleplaying, it just means I like to develop within the group and as a part of its dynamic with the world. I want my characters to grow as a part of the story of the entire party, not include the party in my character's story.

jiriku
2014-06-22, 09:10 PM
I think I'd need to find a solution to the goodness straight-jacket first. The main problem is that the way she's playing is very inflexible, in a way that's making her feel like she's prevented from roleplaying or has to resort to destructive actions. I think we're having a hard time with her feeling like she can roleplay because it seems like she's limited roleplaying to a particular way of behaving and doesn't want to do much when it's not relevant, and gets frustrated when it's prevented.

In restrospect, paladin was probably a poor class choice for her. It's challenging for many people to roleplay, and the effects of doing it wrong are usually obnoxious to others.

When I have players who don't give me backstory, I give it to them, in a subtle way. The villain remembers you from a chance encounter years ago, one you had forgotten. The bard knows your hometown and thinks you must be just like stereotypical members of that town. A shopkeeper knew your father way back when, cuts you a special deal on prices, and wants to be your best friend. Basically, just have various NPCs latch onto the character like lampreys, until she's sufficiently dug into the world.

It might also be useful to introduce her to moral quandries. Put her in a situation where she has to choose between two evils, like saving the populace of either town A or town B, or needing to grant a pardon to one guilty criminal in order to obtain the testimony necessary to convict another one guilty of a different but equal crime. Reassure her that so long as her paladin tries to choose the best available option and acts with good intent, she's not going to fall. In fact, if she can surprise you and find a third, better way, she'll get bonus experience. Once she's had to make some difficult moral choices in character, introduce her to some NPCs who are doing ill... but doing so because they've had to make their own difficult moral choices. She might take the opportunity to grow her character into a deeper and more complex individual. And if not, then she's at least consistently roleplaying an individual who lacks the subtlety and judgment to make nuanced decisions or handle complex situations. And that's a type of personality too.

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 09:21 PM
In restrospect, paladin was probably a poor class choice for her. It's challenging for many people to roleplay, and the effects of doing it wrong are usually obnoxious to others.

When I have players who don't give me backstory, I give it to them, in a subtle way. The villain remembers you from a chance encounter years ago, one you had forgotten. The bard knows your hometown and thinks you must be just like stereotypical members of that town. A shopkeeper knew your father way back when, cuts you a special deal on prices, and wants to be your best friend. Basically, just have various NPCs latch onto the character like lampreys, until she's sufficiently dug into the world.

It might also be useful to introduce her to moral quandries. Put her in a situation where she has to choose between two evils, like saving the populace of either town A or town B, or needing to grant a pardon to one guilty criminal in order to obtain the testimony necessary to convict another one guilty of a different but equal crime. Reassure her that so long as her paladin tries to choose the best available option and acts with good intent, she's not going to fall. In fact, if she can surprise you and find a third, better way, she'll get bonus experience. Once she's had to make some difficult moral choices in character, introduce her to some NPCs who are doing ill... but doing so because they've had to make their own difficult moral choices. She might take the opportunity to grow her character into a deeper and more complex individual. And if not, then she's at least consistently roleplaying an individual who lacks the subtlety and judgment to make nuanced decisions or handle complex situations. And that's a type of personality too.

She's not a paladin, and alignment doesn't even exist. And the main problem there is not her roleplaying that sort of character per se, but that she's complaining OOC and threatening to resort to PVP when other characters don't go along. So it's becoming a group dynamic problem where one character can't get along with other PC's who don't live up to her moral standards.

She's actually playing almost a vow of peace character, one who wants to save everyone she can. Trouble is not everyone else is on board with just letting bad guys go and hoping they repent (and don't come after the party), and she's resorting to then seeing them as evils to be opposed.

Thrudd
2014-06-22, 10:11 PM
She's not a paladin, and alignment doesn't even exist. And the main problem there is not her roleplaying that sort of character per se, but that she's complaining OOC and threatening to resort to PVP when other characters don't go along. So it's becoming a group dynamic problem where one character can't get along with other PC's who don't live up to her moral standards.

She's actually playing almost a vow of peace character, one who wants to save everyone she can. Trouble is not everyone else is on board with just letting bad guys go and hoping they repent (and don't come after the party), and she's resorting to then seeing them as evils to be opposed.

Talk to her about having a character that can cooperate with the rest of the group. If she doesn't think her current character can compromise on these ideals, suggest retiring that character and let her make a new character which fits better with the group and is amenable to adventuring (which should have been a requirement in the first place). She certainly must be reminded not to take it personally OOC when the other players roleplay their characters and do not follow her characters' orders.

If her behavior is truly a disruption, making the game not enjoyable for the rest of you, then you need to give her an ultimatum. Role play this character differently, or she will be forced to leave the group and become an NPC.

Coidzor
2014-06-22, 10:35 PM
The first, combined with a tendency to just expect the party to go along with her idea of how a good party should behave. And OOC complaints when they don't go along. That's the frustration - if she wants to play the try to save everyone possible type that's fine, but she doesn't seem interested in IC working it out with the party as much as expecting them to just fall in line.

That's pretty much exactly why you have a conversation with the players of Paladins before play starts. :/

I should hope that you and the others have made it abundantly clear that they're not going to kowtow to her because she decided to play a Pally.


She's not a paladin, and alignment doesn't even exist. And the main problem there is not her roleplaying that sort of character per se, but that she's complaining OOC and threatening to resort to PVP when other characters don't go along. So it's becoming a group dynamic problem where one character can't get along with other PC's who don't live up to her moral standards.

Yeah, if you can't get her to settle down by talking to her, she's in "last ditch effort before getting kicked" territory.

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 10:57 PM
That's pretty much exactly why you have a conversation with the players of Paladins before play starts. :/

I should hope that you and the others have made it abundantly clear that they're not going to kowtow to her because she decided to play a Pally.



Yeah, if you can't get her to settle down by talking to her, she's in "last ditch effort before getting kicked" territory.

Again, not actually a paladin. At all. And alignment isn't even in play.

I think...the trouble I'm feeling is that I have a player who isn't very good at roleplaying. So I want her to tone it down, but I don't want to discourage her. I feel like she tried to adapt by picking a simple character concept and sticking to it. The trouble is that particular concept doesn't fit very well in a group dynamic, and she's having a hard time figuring out how to roleplay in a way that both works with the group and isn't a pushover.

It might also be interesting because the player is both threatening PvP and thinks her character is a *lot* better than it is...so I may just let that solve itself.

Jay R
2014-06-22, 11:13 PM
"OK, I like the part of the character design you've done, but the character can't play until you finish. As soon as you send me the backstory, and tell me how it will affect your play, you can rejoin the game."

Am I serious? That depends. Are you serious about wanting a backstory from her? Because this is the only way you will get one.

Yes - it's pretty severe. But nothing else will work.

So is it worth doing this to you?

WarKitty
2014-06-22, 11:28 PM
"OK, I like the part of the character design you've done, but the character can't play until you finish. As soon as you send me the backstory, and tell me how it will affect your play, you can rejoin the game."

Am I serious? That depends. Are you serious about wanting a backstory from her? Because this is the only way you will get one.

Yes - it's pretty severe. But nothing else will work.

So is it worth doing this to you?

It's a tradeoff deal. I can live without a backstory - but no backstory means the character is less integral to the game, and no complaining when other PC's get the focus. Also, I do want her to roleplay better at least in getting along, but I'm not sure how to communicate that exactly to a player who really does seem to think what she's doing is good roleplay.

Edit: I think that's my main concern. I feel like my trying to get the player to roleplay is resulting in a bad caricature rather than a well-developed character. But I also feel like the player is convinced she's just roleplaying her character, and I don't want to push back too hard because I'm worried what's going to come across is "don't roleplay" and just end up starting a big fuss because the player feels like she's not being given a chance.

I'm also worried that this may be a case of a player who puts too much of herself into her characters. I know it's a natural roleplaying move, but I feel like she doesn't want to see her character as "compromising her morals" by killing people. But it's not helpful in this setup.

Coidzor
2014-06-23, 01:01 AM
Again, not actually a paladin. At all. And alignment isn't even in play.

I think...the trouble I'm feeling is that I have a player who isn't very good at roleplaying. So I want her to tone it down, but I don't want to discourage her. I feel like she tried to adapt by picking a simple character concept and sticking to it. The trouble is that particular concept doesn't fit very well in a group dynamic, and she's having a hard time figuring out how to roleplay in a way that both works with the group and isn't a pushover.

It might also be interesting because the player is both threatening PvP and thinks her character is a *lot* better than it is...so I may just let that solve itself.

Yeah, I saw that and didn't care to edit it in with the other edits. :smalltongue: Sounds unfortunate that she didn't pick a Pally so that you could've had that talk sooner and nipped it in the bud. Ah well.

Nah, this is more than just being bad at roleplaying, this is acting like a primadonna from how you've described her behavior, what with expecting everyone to go along with her all the time without even having to convince the other players that her ideas are entertaining or good.

Yeah, that's not going to really solve the problem. Getting rid of that character or heavily rewriting it is almost certainly part of the overall solution, but if you just have the rest of the party kill her character she's just going to try to get revenge IC for an OOC issue.

Edit: Have you shown her "decide to react differently" in this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)by The Giant?

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 01:21 AM
Yeah, I saw that and didn't care to edit it in with the other edits. :smalltongue: Sounds unfortunate that she didn't pick a Pally so that you could've had that talk sooner and nipped it in the bud. Ah well.

Nah, this is more than just being bad at roleplaying, this is acting like a primadonna from how you've described her behavior, what with expecting everyone to go along with her all the time without even having to convince the other players that her ideas are entertaining or good.

Yeah, that's not going to really solve the problem. Getting rid of that character or heavily rewriting it is almost certainly part of the overall solution, but if you just have the rest of the party kill her character she's just going to try to get revenge IC for an OOC issue.

Edit: Have you shown her "decide to react differently" in this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)by The Giant?

I don't think it's really a primadonna problem. It's more, well, she sort of has one "thing" that's her character's schtick - healing. That's what her character is about. Trouble is the rest of the party doesn't really like her throwing around heals all the time, and without it she's just sort of got nothing going. Plus I think it's mixed up with her OOC sense of morality and conviction that she's playing a good character and this is the good thing to do so she has to stick to it at all costs. But then she's frustrated because all her roleplaying was doing that one thing and if she can't do it there's no roleplaying going on.

Coidzor
2014-06-23, 02:22 AM
I don't think it's really a primadonna problem. It's more, well, she sort of has one "thing" that's her character's schtick - healing. That's what her character is about. Trouble is the rest of the party doesn't really like her throwing around heals all the time, and without it she's just sort of got nothing going. Plus I think it's mixed up with her OOC sense of morality and conviction that she's playing a good character and this is the good thing to do so she has to stick to it at all costs. But then she's frustrated because all her roleplaying was doing that one thing and if she can't do it there's no roleplaying going on.

So, wait, her head would explode if you Helm of Opposite Alignment'd her character? :smallconfused:

JusticeZero
2014-06-23, 03:29 AM
Yet another reason I wish the iconic medic would curl up and die. Is there a religious order that sort've dovetails into their general focus of preserving lives in the world? Regardless of how well it fits, that's a fairly interesting chunk of RP that you are describing mixed up with your complaining about not RPing. Have one of them turn up talking about their common ties and suck them into a crazy subplot of the order. Justify it, codify it, tie it to the setting. Then offer up some role models within the order. Don't just complain that it's not the kind of RP you are used to.

BWR
2014-06-23, 06:14 AM
Step 1: Talk to her. Explain that roleplaying is a group effort and one player sabotaging everything because "it's what my character would do" is not conducive to a good gaming experience.
Step 2: talk to the group. See if they are willing to modify their characters and stuff to accomodate the problem player. If you can't get her to go along with you in one go, try doing it incrementally. Start off with what she's comfortable with and slowly try to coax her off the beaten path.
Step 3: 'pretty please'. Explain why a backstory will help you and the others. Make it seem as though she's doing you a favor, not that you are pushing her to do something she isn't interested in. (basically, the bigger deal you make of your gratitude and the more you exaggerate amount of inconvenience you are putting the other to compared to the 'size' of the favor, the more someone is willing to help you).
Step 4. Carrot(cake). Don't just say you need a backstory for some nebulous reasons, give her obvious gains. Something like "bonus to social rolls with Group X" or "automatic success on some important task with Group Y" or "bonus in situations X gained when background is used actively and creatively"

As for writing/adjusting background for her, some players are OK with that, some aren't. It's important to know what type your player is before you try this.

prufock
2014-06-23, 06:59 AM
Any advice?

1 - This may not be her style of game. TALK TO HER. Ask her why she seems disinterested, what she likes about the game, what she doesn't like about the game. Get specific. If she's content being a background player, let her do so as long as she's having fun. Tell her you'd like her to argue with the party IN CHARACTER rather than out, because it actually gives her character some focus.

2 - Get specific about backstory. Not everyone wants to write a 10-page opus of how their character came to be. Not every adventurer has to have a tragic past; some just wake up one day and decide "I think I'd like to be an adventurer."

What you need to do for this person, I think, is have a simple questionnaire with 10-12 questions that can be answered in one or two lines. "What event made you become an adventurer?" "How did you get your abilities?" etc. Keep it simple so that a couple lines are all that are needed.

tensai_oni
2014-06-23, 08:03 AM
This sounds like the problem is the player, not the character. I love roleplaying scenarios with moral conflict or inflexibility, but such conflict happens IC, not OOC. Out of character the whole party is in and having fun with it. Here it sounds like the player wants to boss the rest of the party around.

But here's the thing, you provided us with very scarce detail on that. Maybe the player really is being a stick in the mud paladin-like type while the rest of the party is more flexible. Or maybe she wrote her character with the assumption that it will be a heroic campaign, while the rest of the player characters are more morally questionable or even outright villainous - in which case I can't blame her for being irritated. Provide us with more details and examples of what caused friction in the group, please.

Sounds like lack of backstory is least of concerns here. I wouldn't force a backstory on her (as several other people said in the thread, I'd HATE that if done to me), but I'd ask her for one, even if just a very minimalistic one. But it doesn't matter in the long go because player characters should be defined by their actions in the present, not the past (though the past may offer interesting plot hooks). Her problem is that the character doesn't do enough in the present, just heal. Ask her if she's okay with that, and does she want a rebuild that will allow her to do that AND also contribute to the game in some other way. I don't know what mechanics you use but I assume that is possible.

And once again, I ask for examples of what situations caused conflict in the party.

The Mormegil
2014-06-23, 08:21 AM
Getting backstory and character development out of a reluctant player?
[...]
Any advice?

Don't.

Seriously, don't. You don't want to pressure her or force her to play a way she doesn't want to play. Let it go. I made that mistake in the past, just... let it be. If she has a problem, hopefully she'll come up to you and talk about it, and then you can figure out a solution together. But until she says she has a problem, don't do anything. Roll with it.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-23, 08:27 AM
Not much you can do beyond talking to her. Maybe give her some advice on how to flash out her character more? Like, asking her if there are any particular characters from works of fiction she likes and if there are, maybe suggest she makes similar character.
An unoriginal but playable character is still better than what she is currently playing I would think.

Jay R
2014-06-23, 09:33 AM
It's a tradeoff deal. I can live without a backstory - but no backstory means the character is less integral to the game, and no complaining when other PC's get the focus.

Then tell her this, and nothing more.

Nothing about how you feel about her role-playing.
Nothing about how much of herself she puts into the character.
Nothing about "character schtick".

If she has a backstory, she gets more focus. If she doesn't, no complaining about lack of focus.

This is the objective trade-off, stripped of all emotional side-issues

Leon
2014-06-23, 09:40 AM
Ask for a 3x3.

3 Friends, 3 Foe's and 3 Important Events.

I can well understand her reluctance for a backstory ~ some my best Characters have had no back story at all, its what you make of them that matters rather than where they came from. Have found that the 3x3 is a good way for a GM to get some useful info without needless filler.

Airk
2014-06-23, 10:38 AM
Sounds like you have two completely unrelated issues here:

#1: Annoying inflexible character. For this, I suggest you have the player read this: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html and maybe http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/; This is basic roleplaying-failure_02. "My guy wouldn't..." sort of syndrome. The answer is for the player to understand that NO ONE CARES what their guy "wouldn't do" and it's their responsibility to find a reason why their guy WOULD do it, because they're not allowed to hold the game hostage.

#2: Player doesn't want to provide backstory. Well, A) You've botched this already. If you want backstory to be mandatory, backstory needs to be MANDATORY. As in "You don't start playing until you have one." B) Honestly, it sounds like this player isn't interested, and you've lost most of your leverage to force the issue, so your options are down to "Suck it up" or "Tell them, 'Look, if you don't have something by next session, you're out.'" You can TRY using Leon's suggestion - a 'here is what I need in concrete terms' request is almost always easier to get an answer for than 'I need a backstory'. And it's way more likely to produce something that is useful to you as well. So distill what you need for your "backstory" into a bullet point list and try to get them to fill it out. It can be Leon's 3x method, or any random questionaire, or whatever, but if you're serious, be serious.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 11:22 AM
This sounds like the problem is the player, not the character. I love roleplaying scenarios with moral conflict or inflexibility, but such conflict happens IC, not OOC. Out of character the whole party is in and having fun with it. Here it sounds like the player wants to boss the rest of the party around.

But here's the thing, you provided us with very scarce detail on that. Maybe the player really is being a stick in the mud paladin-like type while the rest of the party is more flexible. Or maybe she wrote her character with the assumption that it will be a heroic campaign, while the rest of the player characters are more morally questionable or even outright villainous - in which case I can't blame her for being irritated. Provide us with more details and examples of what caused friction in the group, please.

Sounds like lack of backstory is least of concerns here. I wouldn't force a backstory on her (as several other people said in the thread, I'd HATE that if done to me), but I'd ask her for one, even if just a very minimalistic one. But it doesn't matter in the long go because player characters should be defined by their actions in the present, not the past (though the past may offer interesting plot hooks). Her problem is that the character doesn't do enough in the present, just heal. Ask her if she's okay with that, and does she want a rebuild that will allow her to do that AND also contribute to the game in some other way. I don't know what mechanics you use but I assume that is possible.

And once again, I ask for examples of what situations caused conflict in the party.

Well, the biggest issue is that she really is trying to play don't kill anyone at all unless you absolutely have to. The rest of the party is still good but they're not going that far. So we're not talking about murdering or not murdering innocent people - we're talking about coup de gracing the bandit that attacked you versus healing him and wanting to wait for him to wake up so you can see him off safely. Her version of good is what the other PC's see as just plain dumb, and she's threatening to jump straight to PvP because they're being "evil" on matters that most people would see as open to legitimate debate.

The other issue is that she has expressed boredom with long roleplay sessions, and the other players have expressed frustration with her being uninvolved. And I don't feel comfortable DMing for the character she has - that's a lot of it honestly, I feel constantly frustrated when I design an in-depth immersive world and one player just sorta tunes out and tells me at the end she's want to do different stuff. And I'm frustrated that I really did say several times I needed a backstory and she basically outright refused to give me even answers to direct questions. So for example, I asked directly if she had any family and she just said she doesn't want to think about it. Basically, the backstory problem is less backstory and more I feel like I have a player who's not willing to work with people.

Edit: An example of how backstory works here
Our current plotlines are:
(1) Get the cursed slave marks off the PC's
(2) Find PC A's parents that she never knew
(3) Rescue PC B's clan that he grew up with
(4) Capture the fortress that PC C considers her rightful property

So you see I wasn't kidding in having a backstory-centered campaign. It's not just backstory either - I had each player tell me goals for their character that they want in the story and I haven't been able to get that out of this one player.

kyoryu
2014-06-23, 11:39 AM
Then tell her this, and nothing more.

Nothing about how you feel about her role-playing.
Nothing about how much of herself she puts into the character.
Nothing about "character schtick".

If she has a backstory, she gets more focus. If she doesn't, no complaining about lack of focus.

This is the objective trade-off, stripped of all emotional side-issues

This.



#1: Annoying inflexible character. For this, I suggest you have the player read this: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html and maybe http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/; This is basic roleplaying-failure_02. "My guy wouldn't..." sort of syndrome. The answer is for the player to understand that NO ONE CARES what their guy "wouldn't do" and it's their responsibility to find a reason why their guy WOULD do it, because they're not allowed to hold the game hostage.

And this.

I mean, you're free to put down your foot on the backstory thing, but really, it doesn't sound like that's actually causing *problems* as much as the "annoying inflexible character" bit. Explaining that they won't get as much spotlight time (because you don't have anything to work with) without a backstory is a great idea, as that way when they see other PCs getting that time they'll both understand *why*, as well as *how* to fix it. Just make sure you make it obvious that they're more than free to come up with backstory at some point in the future, and that you're happy to help them with it.


Well, the biggest issue is that she really is trying to play don't kill anyone at all unless you absolutely have to. The rest of the party is still good but they're not going that far. So we're not talking about murdering or not murdering innocent people - we're talking about coup de gracing the bandit that attacked you versus healing him and wanting to wait for him to wake up so you can see him off safely. Her version of good is what the other PC's see as just plain dumb, and she's threatening to jump straight to PvP because they're being "evil" on matters that most people would see as open to legitimate debate.

Coup de grace-ing a helpless prisoner is certainly sketchy as far as being a "good" action. Neutral I'd buy.

But she's willing to PvP her own party, but isn't willing to kill a bandit? That seems odd.


The other issue is that she has expressed boredom with long roleplay sessions, and the other players have expressed frustration with her being uninvolved.

Any specifics on why this is?

It might just be that this game isn't for her. And that's fine. I have friends that play boardgames, and I wouldn't go over if they were playing Monopoly.


And I don't feel comfortable DMing for the character she has - that's a lot of it honestly, I feel constantly frustrated when I design an in-depth immersive world and one player just sorta tunes out and tells me at the end she's want to do different stuff.

So, what kind of stuff does she want to do? It might be worth while listening to that and seeing if you can integrate that into the game in some way.


And I'm frustrated that I really did say several times I needed a backstory and she basically outright refused to give me even answers to direct questions. So for example, I asked directly if she had any family and she just said she doesn't want to think about it. Basically, the backstory problem is less backstory and more I feel like I have a player who's not willing to work with people.

That seems pretty likely based on what you've said. The biggest problem with RPGs is that many people have very, very different expectations of what "playing an RPG" means, even within the same system. It might be worth sitting down with her and asking her "okay, what do you expect to get out of playing an RPG", and making sure that she's aware of what you plan on delivering.

It seems like that's a lot of her issues. She expected certain things from "playing an RPG", and that's not what you're delivering. Maybe she's used to a more "organized play" style where there's more constant combats and focus on getting the ph4t lewtz. Sometimes just calling out the difference in style is sufficient - if people are *aware* of what they're getting, and aren't *expecting* something else, often they can tolerate it better than if they're expecting a certain need to get met and it's *not*.

See if there's a compromise to be had. And if not, well, that's fine too - not every game is for every person.


So you see I wasn't kidding in having a backstory-centered campaign. It's not just backstory either - I had each player tell me goals for their character that they want in the story and I haven't been able to get that out of this one player.

Makes sense. Her *not* having a backstory doesn't negatively impact the game, though, it just means that she gets less spotlight time. But it seems like a pretty good indication that your game isn't matching her expectations.

JusticeZero
2014-06-23, 11:49 AM
Well, the biggest issue is that she really is trying to play don't kill anyone at all unless you absolutely have to. The rest of the party is still good but they're not going that far.Needs to remove the stick. That can actually be a legitimate RP point, and that sounds like RP to me. But it needs to be tempered by recognizing what is feasible. You can't just arrest criminals and let the court take care of it; there isn't one.

she has expressed boredom with long roleplay sessions, and the other players have expressed frustration with her being uninvolved.. just sorta tunes out and tells me at the end she's want to do different stuff."You know, there's nothing forcing you to show up to games. You obviously aren't enjoying yourself. I don't think this game is a good fit."

outright refused to give me even answers to direct questions.
If you still want them there, they get a backstory created for them and slammed onto them out of nowhere without warning. But it sounds like they don't enjoy the parts that everyone else does. Needs to have it pointed out that those bits are not going to be going away or even being cut back on. If anything, they're likely to become even more long and drawn out.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 12:10 PM
Coup de grace-ing a helpless prisoner is certainly sketchy as far as being a "good" action. Neutral I'd buy.

But she's willing to PvP her own party, but isn't willing to kill a bandit? That seems odd.

Am not sure where the "prisoner" thing came from? We're not talking about stabbing the guy who surrendered. We're talking about the guy that mugged us and got knocked into negatives and stabbing him so he doesn't wake back up. There's no courts to take people into, so it's a choice between killing the guy or letting him go on his own. It''s at least arguably better to stab the guy than let him continue preying on innocents. Not saying it's the only option but it's logical enough to be a good character that does that. But in any case the main issue is that she's whining OOC about the party doing it but not saying anything IC.

kyoryu
2014-06-23, 12:25 PM
Am not sure where the "prisoner" thing came from? We're not talking about stabbing the guy who surrendered. We're talking about the guy that mugged us and got knocked into negatives and stabbing him so he doesn't wake back up. There's no courts to take people into, so it's a choice between killing the guy or letting him go on his own. It''s at least arguably better to stab the guy than let him continue preying on innocents. Not saying it's the only option but it's logical enough to be a good character that does that. But in any case the main issue is that she's whining OOC about the party doing it but not saying anything IC.

Well, if someone is unconscious and helpless, I think they qualify roughly as a "prisoner".

I tend to view 'good' as being about actively seeking to help others, usually at cost to one's self, so killing a helpless person, regardless of what they did, doesn't strike me as high on that scale. I don't think I'd change someone's alignment for it or anything, but it seems much more in the Neutral camp than the Good one. Which is cool. Good people perform Neutral acts *all the time*.

The whining OOC and not dealing with it IC is... a problem. It means that they're not keeping the game "in the game", and not actually dealing with things where they have that opportunity.

Again, the fact that they're apparently willing to PvP on the party, while being unwilling to kill a bandit, strikes me as strange.

Apart from "they're in the party," why would this person continue to journey with this party, anyway? Maybe they should make a character that, you know, actually fits with what the group is doing?

Winter_Wolf
2014-06-23, 12:57 PM
Threatening to PVP because one can't have one's way seems childish, and I don't know if I'd bother to even try to stop the inevitable "kill that player's PC" fallout that would result. But probably better to lay some groundwork to the effect of, "if you're willing to ruin everyone else's fun because you can't make your character concept work within the framework of the group, maybe this just isn't the group for you."

Or maybe just the player is just being passive-aggressive about not being in the DM chair. Dunno about that particular individual, but I sure know a whole lot of people IRL who only avoid getting a beat down for being petty because they are in a position to make life unusually difficult for the people who want to kick the crap out of them. I feel it needs to be said that I'm NOT the type to beat down that kind of person, but I feel no obligation to help them get out of their graves once they've dug 'em.

kyoryu
2014-06-23, 01:03 PM
Threatening to PVP because one can't have one's way seems childish, and I don't know if I'd bother to even try to stop the inevitable "kill that player's PC" fallout that would result.

Eh, I dunno. I was in a situation in a game where some of the fellow PCs wanted to go and "likely" murder a bunch of hippie priestesses in exchange for a nifty power from the Goddess of Night. My character had been pretty well established as being about "justice" (quotes mine).

As a player, I actually gave them every opportunity for me to *not* know that this was going down, but I still found out. I even rolled to randomly see if I showed up at the right location :) My character wasn't going to let that happen. As a player, I was perfectly fine if that meant my character died, and I was also willing to make a new character that would fit the party better if that was the direction we were headed as a group (we were always morally grey, which my character certainly was - the quotes around the word justice weren't just for show).

But still, that was handled (mostly) IN-CHARACTER, and was left at the table. And I was completely willing to retire that character and make one more fitting, if that was the direction we were going to go.

WarKitty
2014-06-23, 01:04 PM
I think it's a case where I'm sort of caught between two things. On one hand, I want to encourage the player to roleplay her character more. On the other hand, the way she actually is roleplaying, while mostly internally consistent, doesn't work with the party well. And I have the feeling OOC she's inflexible enough in her view of how a good character acts to make it hard for her to make a more flexible character. I want to push for more roleplaying but at the same time I want to push for roleplaying in a direction that works with the party better.

tensai_oni
2014-06-23, 01:46 PM
Okay, thank you for providing a good example.

Sounds like a case of good ol' stick up the player's ass after all. Also a childish stance of sitting there, demanding to be entertained, but giving nothing that allows the DM to actually help entertain you.

A kneejerk reaction is to just kick the player out, but I don't think it's necessary. Are other players bothered by her behaviour or are they having fun in general? If it's just her, I'd just let her sit on sidelines and be uninvolved, and if she confronts you about it, tell her that you gave her options, asked for a backstory and hooks, but she rebuffed those.

If other players are bothered by her behaviour, which is more likely, then tell her that. She is not being a team player, she is not being reasonable about it either. So she needs to either shape up or go.

Garimeth
2014-06-23, 02:14 PM
Then tell her this, and nothing more.

Nothing about how you feel about her role-playing.
Nothing about how much of herself she puts into the character.
Nothing about "character schtick".

If she has a backstory, she gets more focus. If she doesn't, no complaining about lack of focus.

This is the objective trade-off, stripped of all emotional side-issues

I agree with Jay R.

I'm a fan of "bog boy rules". I.E. This is how it is, you can choose to participate or not. You don't have to be rude or confrontational about it, but at the end of the day this is supposed to be fun, not a volunteer project. I have no patience for people who place their enjoyment above the rest of the groups', and I'm not going to plead or cajole a player into changing, even if they are a good friend - I will just share hobbies other than gaming with them.

All this in game manipulation and OOC drama is just unnecessary. I'm a grown man, and I play with other grown men, if you can't act like a mature adult, then I don't want to spend my free time with you. Just cut all the hand-wringing and have an honest peer to peer conversation with this person. AGAIN I am not saying you have to be rude or confrontational about this. I know how blunt and maybe even abrasive my tone sounds on here, but its because its text only - you can very much have a down to earth mature conversation about this in person that is not hostile. And if the other person wants to make it hostile, then that's on them and your group is probably better off without them anyway.

Just my 2cp.

Garimeth
2014-06-23, 02:15 PM
Okay, thank you for providing a good example.

Sounds like a case of good ol' stick up the player's ass after all. Also a childish stance of sitting there, demanding to be entertained, but giving nothing that allows the DM to actually help entertain you.

A kneejerk reaction is to just kick the player out, but I don't think it's necessary. Are other players bothered by her behaviour or are they having fun in general? If it's just her, I'd just let her sit on sidelines and be uninvolved, and if she confronts you about it, tell her that you gave her options, asked for a backstory and hooks, but she rebuffed those.

If other players are bothered by her behaviour, which is more likely, then tell her that. She is not being a team player, she is not being reasonable about it either. So she needs to either shape up or go.

So much this. This is a PLAYER issue, not a CHARACTER issue. Any attempts to beat around the bush or solve it IC will fail.

JusticeZero
2014-06-23, 02:27 PM
The history isn't an issue. Like I said, if she won't give you history, give her one. End of problem.

The not meshing with the party is an issue. Introduce some role models of an order like her - this is her people, and she should see how they act. Make her argue in character. If she disagrees, make all the debate be in character. Give her the background and words to voice her character tendencies better.

And really, CdGing a helpless human enemy is something that's worth arguing about. It's an argument about 'attempting to convert an evildoer to good'. Bandits aren't inherently villainous. They're hungry and amoral. They can be brought to the light, and not necessarily through an epic act. A near death experience and some talking to might set them on the right path.

nedz
2014-06-23, 03:12 PM
Am not sure where the "prisoner" thing came from? We're not talking about stabbing the guy who surrendered. We're talking about the guy that mugged us and got knocked into negatives and stabbing him so he doesn't wake back up. There's no courts to take people into, so it's a choice between killing the guy or letting him go on his own. It''s at least arguably better to stab the guy than let him continue preying on innocents. Not saying it's the only option but it's logical enough to be a good character that does that. But in any case the main issue is that she's whining OOC about the party doing it but not saying anything IC.

Sounds like standard exalted play. Is she aiming for Vow of Nonviolence perhaps ? She certainly seems to be living up to it's standards. VoNV is hard to integrate in your standard party of murder-hobos, but it is possible. It should all be IC though, and ideally have the group's acceptance OOC.

9mm
2014-06-23, 03:35 PM
Honestly I can relate to the player, when you go in hoping to be capital G Good and get stuck inside a sea of morally grey to black, the only time you can even bring your character into the world is to yell "don't kill the bandits, turn them in to the city guard."

Personally? Have a long talk with the player, specifically what they want to be getting out of the game. I'd bet the player was expecting more of "go out and do good works" than what has been happening. Hell even say the back story can help you deliver on what they want out of the game. However, if what they want cannot be delivered in the game, let them know NOW and work to write them out ASAP. Afterward I'd let the pvp happen, straight up. Mostly to see what happens, if the player is consistent with any party member they beat as they are with the bandits, all the OOC fighting has actually been in IC. As many have pointed out, you are reaching the point where the character would not be traveling with the rest of the party anymore out side of player fiat.

If the player loses/dies (as would be expected) enforce what I refer to as "The Rock Rule": New class, new alignment, NEW CHARACTER in every way shape and form. If the same problem of "Follow my version of GOOD!" (or evil) crops up, its time to boot the player.

Tengu_temp
2014-06-23, 03:53 PM
Honestly I can relate to the player, when you go in hoping to be capital G Good and get stuck inside a sea of morally grey to black, the only time you can even bring your character into the world is to yell "don't kill the bandits, turn them in to the city guard."

The other players aren't playing morally grey characters. They play characters who actually kill bad guys, instead of letting them go and hoping that they repent thanks to their shining example.

kyoryu
2014-06-23, 04:11 PM
The other players aren't playing morally grey characters. They play characters who actually kill bad guys, instead of letting them go and hoping that they repent thanks to their shining example.

Some people might consider that morally grey.

That's why it's important to have this discussions when it's clear that there's two different sets of expectations going on.

9mm
2014-06-23, 04:11 PM
The other players aren't playing morally grey characters. They play characters who actually kill bad guys, instead of letting them go and hoping that they repent thanks to their shining example.

Which is why Hitman and Superman can have a nice chat over a roof top, and Hitman feeling bad when he fulfills the contract shortly after.

The problem wants to be Superman, the party (and most players ever) wants to be Wolverine.

So long as Superman doesn't need to be constantly distracted by fine rustic architecture for anything to happen, all the player needs is a greater evil to focus on. "I know it has to be done, doesn't mean I have to like, or approve of, it." are what we are shooting for here.

Tengu_temp
2014-06-23, 04:47 PM
Fantasy is a very different setting than superhero comics. The way I see it, "we're playing good guys, but we're not afraid to kill bad guys" is default assumption for most fantasy-style games. It's exceptions from this assumption that have to be discussed.

Also, a character who spares the lives of bandits in order to bring them to legitimate authority is fine - I play this kind of character a lot, myself! But a character who spares the lives of bandits, and then simply lets them go, is a fool. Unless you have a way to make these bandits repent or a good reason to believe they have truly repented, most of them will simply continue with their trade. All the travelers they have robbed and killed after you let them go have suffered because of you.

Finally, I'd like to point out the player's self-righteous hypocrisy; she lets murderous bandits go without as much as a slap on the wrist, but she threatens to kill her party members because they kill bandits in self-defense.

9mm
2014-06-23, 10:19 PM
Fantasy is a very different setting than superhero comics. The way I see it, "we're playing good guys, but we're not afraid to kill bad guys" is default assumption for most fantasy-style games. It's exceptions from this assumption that have to be discussed. It isn't.


Also, a character who spares the lives of bandits in order to bring them to legitimate authority is fine - I play this kind of character a lot, myself! But a character who spares the lives of bandits, and then simply lets them go, is a fool. Unless you have a way to make these bandits repent or a good reason to believe they have truly repented, most of them will simply continue with their trade. All the travelers they have robbed and killed after you let them go have suffered because of you.
Not all characters are Dangerously Genre Savvy, hell, some are dumber than rocks but that is a players prerogative (or a REAALLLY bad stat roll).


Finally, I'd like to point out the player's self-righteous hypocrisy; she lets murderous bandits go without as much as a slap on the wrist, but she threatens to kill her party members because they kill bandits in self-defense.
No, she's threatened to FIGHT the party. From all accounts the DM has squashed pvp when it starts looking like its going to happen.

WarKitty
2014-06-24, 01:10 PM
So, on the plus side player has agreed to let me write backstory. So that problem is solved (and don't worry I'm not in the habit of abusing it). On the downside, I talked to the player who's played with her before and it seems like she's one of the people who always makes the same character, rp-wise. Which is a bit worrisome because I don't feel like that character fits well with the party - and I feel like I did say plenty up front. My exact words were "imagine you're in game of thrones..."

LibraryOgre
2014-06-24, 01:58 PM
There's also the option of simply making it up. Someone shows up looking for the character, claiming to be from their past. Their friend? Their mother? In Mass Effect, you got to set broad parameters for your character, but you were still surprised to get a call from your Mom or get hailed by an old shipmate.

WarKitty
2014-06-24, 02:05 PM
There's also the option of simply making it up. Someone shows up looking for the character, claiming to be from their past. Their friend? Their mother? In Mass Effect, you got to set broad parameters for your character, but you were still surprised to get a call from your Mom or get hailed by an old shipmate.

I think the problem has shifted less to getting backstory and more to getting constructive roleplay.

LibraryOgre
2014-06-24, 03:23 PM
I think the problem has shifted less to getting backstory and more to getting constructive roleplay.

"Some men... you just can't reach."

Segev
2014-06-24, 03:24 PM
Ask her if she minds if you make her backstory mysterious and fill in gaps she doesn't define, herself. If she's okay with this, start to weave a mystery of lies and half-truths and even "why don't I remember...?" into it.

Alternatively, have her be the spitting image of somebody whose backstory you HAVE written, and have cases of mistaken identity keep dragging her in.

WarKitty
2014-06-24, 03:57 PM
"Some men... you just can't reach."

She's not being outright destructive, though. It's just that she's got a somewhat exalted style, very modernistic morality, in a game where not all players are on board with that sort of play. You're getting "I want to redeem everyone" in a game where not everyone feels that's an acceptable risk for their character to take.

nedz
2014-06-24, 04:21 PM
I suppose that shifts her character's development paradyme: An exalted type character who faces discovering her disappointment that the world doesn't live up to her standards. Could make for some angsty roleplay, or some other reaction perhaps ? Would the player be onboard for something like this ? PvP isn't the only outcome, in fact it should be the last thing on an exalted's mind. She could play it like Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan amongst a band of adventurers.

WarKitty
2014-06-24, 04:41 PM
I suppose that shifts her character's development paradyme: An exalted type character who faces discovering her disappointment that the world doesn't live up to her standards. Could make for some angsty roleplay, or some other reaction perhaps ? Would the player be onboard for something like this ? PvP isn't the only outcome, in fact it should be the last thing on an exalted's mind. She could play it like Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan amongst a band of adventurers.

I'm not sure. The frustration right now is that the player feels like she can't play her character because other party members don't go along, and seems to feel the obligation to get the rest of the party to be good according to her standards. It's gotten to a situation where she'll heal people and the rest of the party will kill them because they don't want to keep them alive. I'm also concerned that it seems like there's a wish-fulfillment going on. I am talking to other players to trigger a party convo but we'll see.

kyoryu
2014-06-24, 05:25 PM
Maybe something like:

"Hey, so the game we're playing now is a bit more on the 'shades-of-grey' scale. So, it'd probably be best if your character worked with that. Doesn't mean that they have to be total murderhobos, or can't be good, but they should probably at least be willing to nod to necessity at times.

"I know that's not what you had in mind. If you can go along with this, we can talk about running the next game where this character idea would fit in better."

THough, honestly, if she doesn't want to play in a shades-of-grey game, then she's not a good fit for that game. Sometimes I go see movies without certain friends of mine that aren't interested in that type of movie, too!

nedz
2014-06-24, 06:13 PM
I'm not sure. The frustration right now is that the player feels like she can't play her character because other party members don't go along, and seems to feel the obligation to get the rest of the party to be good according to her standards. It's gotten to a situation where she'll heal people and the rest of the party will kill them because they don't want to keep them alive. I'm also concerned that it seems like there's a wish-fulfillment going on. I am talking to other players to trigger a party convo but we'll see.

Hmm, this is tricky.

Has she had the "Why are you helping our enemies ?" or "Why are you on the side of evil ?" comebacks yet ?

I'd suggest retiring the character and trying again, but from what you've said previously it would likely turn out much the same.

Obviously you have talked to the player ?

Thrudd
2014-06-24, 06:47 PM
I'm not sure. The frustration right now is that the player feels like she can't play her character because other party members don't go along, and seems to feel the obligation to get the rest of the party to be good according to her standards. It's gotten to a situation where she'll heal people and the rest of the party will kill them because they don't want to keep them alive. I'm also concerned that it seems like there's a wish-fulfillment going on. I am talking to other players to trigger a party convo but we'll see.

What if they went along with her plan to heal and release a bad guy once in a while, and you let the game decide whether her philosophy works out? Do you have a method of determining morale do decide what the bad guys do? If it was just a nobody mook bandit or orc, they probably wouldn't come back looking for trouble. At worst, they will rejoin the gang and be seen again attacking you in a later battle, very little chance of them turning right around and trying to stab you in the back (they must have very good/fanatical morale for that to happen). If that happens more than once, perhaps she will start rethinking her philosophy. If it was the leader of the bandit gang, that is a different thing. You let the leaders go, and they will probably regroup their gang and come after you again in a bad way. Or maybe there's a small chance they won't.

Has she tried diplomacy and charisma to adjust the bad guy's opinion of the party, once they have been defeated, healed, and surrendered? Do defeated bad guys ever surrender or run away, or is it always a fight to the death? Do you let the dice decide whether her philosophy works? I would assume most of the time it won't, and the rest of the party will be vindicated in their pragmatism. But you never know...I would give her a chance. Although she will need to convince the other players to give it a chance as well.

WarKitty
2014-06-24, 06:55 PM
Hmm, this is tricky.

Has she had the "Why are you helping our enemies ?" or "Why are you on the side of evil ?" comebacks yet ?

I'd suggest retiring the character and trying again, but from what you've said previously it would likely turn out much the same.

Obviously you have talked to the player ?

No, I kind of don't want to...I know she was really upset that she wasn't getting to play her character her way. I think trying to talk about it directly would be counterproductive; she seems to feel like she's being attacked already because other players are undoing her heal checks. Note that so far it's not been healing people up, but stabilizing them and moving on.

jiriku
2014-06-24, 07:37 PM
I think you've got a fit issue, really.

1) She's doesn't want to play the kind of game you're running
2) She wants to play in a way that specifically doesn't fit the game you're running
3) She's inflexible and uncooperative
4) She's unapproachable enough that you don't feel comfortable just talking it out with her

Now, there's a lot of interpersonal and history stuff between her and you and the rest of the group that we know nothing about... but it's sounds like she's a poor fit for the group, and it's approaching time to have The Talk and explain that she needs to become a better fit if she wants to continue.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-25, 03:16 AM
She's not being outright destructive, though. It's just that she's got a somewhat exalted style, very modernistic morality, in a game where not all players are on board with that sort of play. You're getting "I want to redeem everyone" in a game where not everyone feels that's an acceptable risk for their character to take.

So she wants to redeem people, ok... How? Does she think that simply letting the enemy go is enough to make him understand the error of his ways?
If she wants to redeem someone she would have to really work for it, take responsability. Basically become a counselor

Have someone point this out to her, that she likes the idea of redeeming people but she doesn't want to work for it.

nedz
2014-06-25, 06:37 AM
No, I kind of don't want to...I know she was really upset that she wasn't getting to play her character her way. I think trying to talk about it directly would be counterproductive; she seems to feel like she's being attacked already because other players are undoing her heal checks. Note that so far it's not been healing people up, but stabilizing them and moving on.

Can you get someone else in the group to talk to her ?

This is the sort of thing you want to do informally, and indirectly perhaps, in another setting (i.e. not during a game session).

Is she friends with another player ?

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 11:04 AM
So she wants to redeem people, ok... How? Does she think that simply letting the enemy go is enough to make him understand the error of his ways?
If she wants to redeem someone she would have to really work for it, take responsability. Basically become a counselor

Have someone point this out to her, that she likes the idea of redeeming people but she doesn't want to work for it.

I think she does, it's just that no one else does. We're low enough level that they'd have to wait for enemies to wake up after being stabilized, or if not spend healing resources that the party needs on them. And then it would take time and effort to sit around and talk to the bad guy.

There's also some OOC tension between her and the player who's done more of the killing, and I'm worried that's infecting the game and contributing to her feeling picked on.

JusticeZero
2014-06-25, 12:22 PM
Well, make sure that the arguing is pushed IC. Put your foot down on "But my character is like this!" and make it so it has to be "I, Quigley the light, cannot stand this!"

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 01:13 PM
Well, make sure that the arguing is pushed IC. Put your foot down on "But my character is like this!" and make it so it has to be "I, Quigley the light, cannot stand this!"

I think I'm trying to balance that with the fact that no one really wants to play at cross-purposes. On one hand a bit of IC arguing would be fine; on the other hand I'd like to avoid "That's enough, evildoer! ATTACK!" or even keeping on going "I heal this guy and slip him out", "I attack him again", "I heal him again and try to talk to him", "I shove her aside and execute him", even if it's all perfectly consistent with what their characters would do.

JusticeZero
2014-06-25, 07:30 PM
Realize that if you are having a situation like that, you have two disruptive players, not one.You've only talked about one of the players, the light side one. The one who RPs but has a hard time coming up with a backstory, a not uncommon trait. I HATE coming up with a background before the first session sometimes.
You haven't told us anything about your other problem player or players.

WarKitty
2014-06-25, 09:03 PM
Realize that if you are having a situation like that, you have two disruptive players, not one.You've only talked about one of the players, the light side one. The one who RPs but has a hard time coming up with a backstory, a not uncommon trait. I HATE coming up with a background before the first session sometimes.
You haven't told us anything about your other problem player or players.

Well the other one can (and probably is) reading this thread himself, so I'll let him deal with that if he wants to. Not sure "light side" is exactly a great description - his reasoning was basically "the guy shot a child in the back." I think there may have been some cases of confusion going on as well, where one player was trying to heal at the same time another was getting ready to stab.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 02:52 PM
The basic trouble in any case seems to be that I have two different PC's each of whom views their way of doing things as good and the other's way of doing things as evil. Other members of the party view the one PC's healing bad guys as contributing to them killing more people in the future, and thus as an evil act. The one PC views killing a helpless person you could save as an evil act. I thought these were the sort of irreconcilable alignment differences an all-good party was supposed to avoid!

GolemsVoice
2014-06-26, 03:36 PM
Without reading the whole thread, isn't the fact that one of your PCs (the paladin, right?) wants to redeem bad guys while the rest of the party wants to kill them already some roleplaying? Obviously, that's something the paladin believe in, and, given all the cases of stupid good murderpaladins not even that common. That's a hook for you! Ask your player why she thinks so, have it create conflict. Because that's what you'll have to accept. You can't ask a player to do more roleplaying and then be annoyed at the choices the player makes. And going against the group when it comes to killing persons is a strong stance! Maybe naive, but if the player really didn't care, she would just go "whatever" and do what creates the least hassle in the group.

So encourage the player, but maybe also talk to her. A naive paladin who thinks that they can make the world a better place all by themselves, that people can be redeemed by good words and kind actions and all that jazz maybe isn't the most innovative character ever, but it sure is a good character.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 03:58 PM
Without reading the whole thread, isn't the fact that one of your PCs (the paladin, right?) wants to redeem bad guys while the rest of the party wants to kill them already some roleplaying? Obviously, that's something the paladin believe in, and, given all the cases of stupid good murderpaladins not even that common. That's a hook for you! Ask your player why she thinks so, have it create conflict. Because that's what you'll have to accept. You can't ask a player to do more roleplaying and then be annoyed at the choices the player makes. And going against the group when it comes to killing persons is a strong stance! Maybe naive, but if the player really didn't care, she would just go "whatever" and do what creates the least hassle in the group.

So encourage the player, but maybe also talk to her. A naive paladin who thinks that they can make the world a better place all by themselves, that people can be redeemed by good words and kind actions and all that jazz maybe isn't the most innovative character ever, but it sure is a good character.

The trouble is, while it is roleplaying, it's roleplaying in a way that's threatening to end up tearing the party apart. The cleric (she's not a paladin) wants to redeem people and is willing to threaten the party in order to do so. The rest of the party isn't willing to take the risks of just letting people go and is willing to override the cleric, who then seems to think it's her duty to beat some sense into the party.

I want roleplaying, but I also want to not end up with a situation where I have to deal with "but that's what my character would do" is a reason for the party to be fighting each other.

GolemsVoice
2014-06-26, 04:05 PM
Then you'd also have to talk to your group, because otherwise, you're only punishing the one player for acting consistently with how she envisions her character. From my experience, people who are actually willing to stand up for what their character believes are rare, and I feel it would be unjust to make it all one player's fault.

Not that I don't feel your pain, this situation is quite vexing. However, in the end I'd probably accept IC conflict IF you are sure that all players can handle it and it will stay IC. Some of our greatest roleplaying moments have been party conflicts.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 04:09 PM
Then you'd also have to talk to your group, because otherwise, you're only punishing the one player for acting consistently with how she envisions her character. From my experience, people who are actually willing to stand up for what their character believes are rare, and I feel it would be unjust to make it all one player's fault.

Not that I don't feel your pain, this situation is quite vexing. However, in the end I'd probably accept IC conflict IF you are sure that all players can handle it and it will stay IC. Some of our greatest roleplaying moments have been party conflicts.

That's the trouble...it's been popping out OOC into "I can't roleplay my character because the rest of the party won't go along." And the first player went straight to "my character is going to attack the party if they don't go along next time" instead of trying to talk to them. And I'm worried that I've got a case of I don't want my character to do anything I'm not comfortable with going on, which complicates things...

Kalmageddon
2014-06-26, 04:49 PM
The rest of the party isn't willing to take the risks of just letting people go and is willing to override the cleric, who then seems to think it's her duty to beat some sense into the party..

And are they justified in this? Are we talking antagonists that are actively hunting down the PCs or are we talking random bandits on the road? Either way, I can't help but feel that you are sort of biased against the cleric player, which is nothing to be ashamed of, her style of roleplaying is obviously different from yours.
I mean, wanting to redeem bad guys should be a fairly good source of roleplaying, I had one character do exactly the same in what is probably an even worst setting for good guys, Fallout. If she's actually willing to roleplay the whole thing and her idea of redeeming bad guys goes beyond "I give him a stern look and tell him not to do it again", why not?

Are you sure the rest of the party isn't being paranoid about killing every single person that opposes them? After all, even if your inspiration was A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones, even there they sometimes let enemies go or eliminate them with means other than violence. And if an enemy is defeated you don't usually see the "good guys" pursue and kill them.
Plus, have you considered that some antagonists might actually become allies to the PCs after being not only spared but also healed? Expecially if you are not using the alignment system a bad guy isn't necessarely an Evil guy. Maybe he's just desperate or doing his job.

Sort of throwing ideas around here, if I'm saying something wrong just point it out. But what I'm basically saying is that if her style of roleplaying is leaning towards trying to make friends out of former enemies, why not indulge her? Why not having a chat with the rest of the pary (which you seem more familiar with) and ask them to not be as ruthless?

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 05:45 PM
And are they justified in this? Are we talking antagonists that are actively hunting down the PCs or are we talking random bandits on the road? Either way, I can't help but feel that you are sort of biased against the cleric player, which is nothing to be ashamed of, her style of roleplaying is obviously different from yours.
I mean, wanting to redeem bad guys should be a fairly good source of roleplaying, I had one character do exactly the same in what is probably an even worst setting for good guys, Fallout. If she's actually willing to roleplay the whole thing and her idea of redeeming bad guys goes beyond "I give him a stern look and tell him not to do it again", why not?

Are you sure the rest of the party isn't being paranoid about killing every single person that opposes them? After all, even if your inspiration was A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones, even there they sometimes let enemies go or eliminate them with means other than violence. And if an enemy is defeated you don't usually see the "good guys" pursue and kill them.
Plus, have you considered that some antagonists might actually become allies to the PCs after being not only spared but also healed? Expecially if you are not using the alignment system a bad guy isn't necessarely an Evil guy. Maybe he's just desperate or doing his job.

Sort of throwing ideas around here, if I'm saying something wrong just point it out. But what I'm basically saying is that if her style of roleplaying is leaning towards trying to make friends out of former enemies, why not indulge her? Why not having a chat with the rest of the pary (which you seem more familiar with) and ask them to not be as ruthless?

We're talking random bandits and the players don't have the resources to be spending heal spells, so they're just stabilizing them and walking off. And I'm kinda biased because her first action when things went wrong was to rant about how awful my other players were, especially given that I sort of feel like she's been fighting me the whole way. I feel like I tried to say "don't make this sort of character" and got a character that pretty much ignores everything I said.

I'd work with it if she didn't go straight to "I'm going to beat up the rest of the party" when it doesn't happen her way - even though I think it was an accident that time!!!

JusticeZero
2014-06-26, 06:07 PM
It still sounds a lot like you have one character who wants to RP as a step above murder hobo, frustrated because they're trying to RP and everyone else just wants to murder hobo it up, and you are putting the blame on the party member who wants to be consistent with their character and try to find more creative and peaceful options that create more interaction and story, IE, trying to redeem criminals who are probably only there because they're hungry or something instead of just killing them and walking away.
While not necessarily a great match with your party, I'd love to have more good RPers like that. Give her some appreciation and look at the issue again.
The aggressive hard line is likely at least partly because even the GM is acting like she should stop playing her character and just roll some more dice.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 06:25 PM
It still sounds a lot like you have one character who wants to RP as a step above murder hobo, frustrated because they're trying to RP and everyone else just wants to murder hobo it up, and you are putting the blame on the party member who wants to be consistent with their character and try to find more creative and peaceful options that create more interaction and story, IE, trying to redeem criminals who are probably only there because they're hungry or something instead of just killing them and walking away.
While not necessarily a great match with your party, I'd love to have more good RPers like that. Give her some appreciation and look at the issue again.
The aggressive hard line is likely at least partly because even the GM is acting like she should stop playing her character and just roll some more dice.

I guess I feel like "one step above a murderhobo" is a BIG assumption and not at all anything I've said in here, nor something I'd even remotely use to describe them. None of them are particularly murderous, all of them have depth and reasons and more to their characters than killing bad guys. Whereas the one I'm not liking seems to have nothing to her character EXCEPT that she doesn't want to kill people and wants to be the healer. She's more like a freaking mary sue than an actual character.

cobaltstarfire
2014-06-26, 06:41 PM
How is she supposed to add depth to something when you're obviously completely against her character and you let the rest of the party kill everything she tries to save out of spite?

It sounds like everyone involved here from the DM to the entire party is at fault, and you guys need to have a sit down and sort these things out. Sure it's a little bit too much for her to expect them to just "go along" with whatever she wants to do, but it doesn't sound like you or her party are really helping any at all and just making things worse.

kyoryu
2014-06-26, 06:45 PM
None of them are particularly murderous, all of them have depth and reasons and more to their characters than killing bad guys.

Caveat: I always believe in trying to find the "reasonable" explanation for peoples' behavior. If you're really looking for people to pile on this player and tell you how wrong she is, I'm probably not going to help.

You say "killing bad guys" above. And I think that's part of the disconnect. To you, it seems like these bandits are exactly that - "bad guys". Nameless, faceless. Piles of hit points to be reduced to zero before they do the same to the "good guys".

And there's nothing wrong with that.

But to her, I think she's trying to view these "bad guys" as *people*. People with families, loved ones. Moms and dads. People who have been possibly driven to this life of banditry by circumstances. At worst, people that have the possibility of redemption inside of them.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

The *problem* here is that the two styles of play *just aren't compatible*. I think that if you really want to resolve this, it would be super beneficial to try and understand what she's doing in a compassionate manner and figure out how she's viewing things. Once you've got that, you'll probably be in a better place to approach her and have an honest, compassionate discussion about the conflict in the game.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 06:46 PM
How is she supposed to add depth to something when you're obviously completely against her character and you let the rest of the party kill everything she tries to save out of spite?

It sounds like everyone involved here from the DM to the entire party is at fault, and you guys need to have a sit down and sort these things out. Sure it's a little bit too much for her to expect them to just "go along" with whatever she wants to do, but it doesn't sound like you or her party are really helping any at all and just making things worse.

Yeah, you're right. I don't like this character. As far as I can tell it's a cardboard cutout mary sue rather than an actual character. If there was anything that I thought was actual DEPTH I'd be ok, or if she'd actually take any of my suggestions after insisting on dragging in a character I strongly discouraged for making it work with the party. But frankly I think this character has as much RP value as the guy who thinks making a character whose sole goal is to sleep with everything that moves is good RP. Just because it's not a typical murderhobo doesn't mean it's a character.

Edit: Basically, I feel like the problem is that it's a mary sue character combined with a rather inflexible player. I feel like the player hasn't been willing to discuss or work things out and has instead been trying to make everyone else go along with how she wants to play. I also feel like because the character really does seem like a mary sue it's inhibiting developing a well roleplayed character and ending up being a fantastic author avatar mixed with a group of characters who debate decisions and have flaws, and I don't want to encourage the character to go in that direction.

SiuiS
2014-06-26, 06:57 PM
So I'm running a campaign where backstory is very important. The plots I'm running start from the PC's backstories and work towards goals the players specified for their characters. The trouble is I have one player who just doesn't seem to want to deal with it. So for example I asked about family and she just said "eh I don't like to think about things like that." I've played with her as a DM and I know the way she runs her games backstory is just sort of window dressing. It's not in my game. She plays very much like a stereotypical paladin, without as far as I can tell much motivation beyond "being good."

I'm getting a little frustrated because I feel like I'm ending up focusing all my attention on my other 3 players. But there's not much to do with my fourth player. And I'm worried that she's leaning too far towards a stereotypical paladin rather than a realistic character.

Any advice?

UPDATE: So after conferring with the forum for a bit, I think the problem is less the backstory and more that I feel like the character doesn't have enough development to mesh with the party well. The character seems to lack depth beyond "being a good guy" in ways the party doesn't always want to do - notably, most of the party is in favor of killing bad guys while this one wants to redeem the bad guys. I'm concerned that this is leading at best to a case of why would this party be together, and at worst spilling into PvP or the characters frustrating each other all the time. Player seems attached to this particular sort of character and not comfortable with not being able to "roleplay" the character she wants.

I seem late to the party, but your edit gives me an idea;


The party is this PCs "backstory".

If you and your group are willig, you can spin all drama for this particular player from the other PCs, who effectively become the NPCs they are supposed to care about and deal with. It will take some balancing between their stories and the other players' stories, but it seems eminently doable.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 07:12 PM
Commenting just to be clear:

It's not the playstyle per se that's an issue. A redemption storyline would be great, and in fact I think the other PC's would mostly be happy to go along with it so long as they felt they had the time and resources. It's the player stubbornly clinging to her playstyle and expecting people to go along, and not being particularly open to discussion. It's also that the clinging seems to be related to the character being an avatar of the hero the author wants to be, in a way that she isn't terribly flexible in rl for people having different ethical standards than she does. As well as there's been some OOC trouble on other issues with the player generally being stubborn and intolerant of disagreement.

Cobra_Ikari
2014-06-26, 07:18 PM
Mmm. I'm one of the players in this game, though not any of the players previously mentioned. Here's my explanation/interpretation of events.

Player A has created a very one-dimensional Good-type character. So far, this has been mostly made manifest in the attempt to stabilize downed humanoid enemies. We were working on a pretty tight clock and had no real means of taking them with us, so redemption is not really an option at this point, anyway. This is basically the entirety of RP-type stuff to come out of this character; every other action has been a mechanics type thing.

The first time she healed an enemy, nothing noteworthy happened. The second time, Player B then immediately cut the guy's throat and threw him into the sea. We have yet to have another encounter with humanoid enemies (which is probably the DM's way of minimizing the problem until we can OOC talk out a solution), but neither player really seems willing to compromise on this front. I think Kat tends to side a little more towards Player B because 1, the environment isn't really designed to support the existence of people that cardboard good, and 2, Player B's approach is to simply take action, whereas Player A spends most of her time complaining to the DM and doing things like threatening to attack the party. The other players don't seem to have chosen a side (as far as I can tell), though I'm finding it a bit hard to go along with someone who cuts someone's throat and then casually speaks of another murder she committed in her past.

My conclusions are along the lines of Player B's character being the less reasonable, but Player A's responses and inability to separate IC and OOC (she's equally black-and-white in real life as you'd expect that kind of character) being more disruptive to the game, especially since she doesn't display any real passion or interest for it.

Airk
2014-06-26, 08:12 PM
I'm just gonna link this (http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/) again. Particularly relevant this time is point number three. Though it's probably time to link this one too (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

Roleplay is a two way street. Be creative. On the spur of the moment. And don't just thwart something someone else does. S/he heals a wounded enemy? Great "Okay, hotshot, now he's your problem. You have to watch him, feed him, and if there's any trouble, he's done."

Basically, what you have here is two people who are fundamentally not roleplaying very well - B no less than A. Until and unless they understand that that is hurting the game and they should try to do better, there's not much option.

WarKitty
2014-06-26, 08:42 PM
I'm just gonna link this (http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/20/11-ways-to-be-a-better-roleplayer/) again. Particularly relevant this time is point number three. Though it's probably time to link this one too (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html).

Roleplay is a two way street. Be creative. On the spur of the moment. And don't just thwart something someone else does. S/he heals a wounded enemy? Great "Okay, hotshot, now he's your problem. You have to watch him, feed him, and if there's any trouble, he's done."

Basically, what you have here is two people who are fundamentally not roleplaying very well - B no less than A. Until and unless they understand that that is hurting the game and they should try to do better, there's not much option.

Yeah. I'm more concerned about Player A because of OOC ability to talk to them. I told Player B next time that he should talk IC rather than just killing someone. I'm also in general thinking I need to maintain more control over the talking - I did not realize that Player A had done anything until several minutes later, and if I had I'd probably have slowed things down. We have some players that are louder and faster and some who are quieter or slower, and player A is admittedly quieter.

Kalmageddon
2014-06-27, 03:39 AM
Mmm. I'm one of the players in this game, though not any of the players previously mentioned. Here's my explanation/interpretation of events.

Player A has created a very one-dimensional Good-type character. So far, this has been mostly made manifest in the attempt to stabilize downed humanoid enemies. We were working on a pretty tight clock and had no real means of taking them with us, so redemption is not really an option at this point, anyway. This is basically the entirety of RP-type stuff to come out of this character; every other action has been a mechanics type thing.

The first time she healed an enemy, nothing noteworthy happened. The second time, Player B then immediately cut the guy's throat and threw him into the sea. We have yet to have another encounter with humanoid enemies (which is probably the DM's way of minimizing the problem until we can OOC talk out a solution), but neither player really seems willing to compromise on this front. I think Kat tends to side a little more towards Player B because 1, the environment isn't really designed to support the existence of people that cardboard good, and 2, Player B's approach is to simply take action, whereas Player A spends most of her time complaining to the DM and doing things like threatening to attack the party. The other players don't seem to have chosen a side (as far as I can tell), though I'm finding it a bit hard to go along with someone who cuts someone's throat and then casually speaks of another murder she committed in her past.

My conclusions are along the lines of Player B's character being the less reasonable, but Player A's responses and inability to separate IC and OOC (she's equally black-and-white in real life as you'd expect that kind of character) being more disruptive to the game, especially since she doesn't display any real passion or interest for it.

Is there any particular reason why kicking either one of the players out isn't an option at this point?
It's clearly a matter of incompatibility. Maybe in other circumstances the GM would be able to mediate and accomodate both playing styles, but since the GM is into the bashing of player A as well (it happens, not blaming her for it) I think the only solution would be to find someone else least you make everybody miserable with OOC arguing and bitterness. Geek Fallacies and all that stuff.

I can testify that it can work very well sometimes.

WarKitty
2014-06-27, 04:38 AM
Is there any particular reason why kicking either one of the players out isn't an option at this point?
It's clearly a matter of incompatibility. Maybe in other circumstances the GM would be able to mediate and accomodate both playing styles, but since the GM is into the bashing of player A as well (it happens, not blaming her for it) I think the only solution would be to find someone else least you make everybody miserable with OOC arguing and bitterness. Geek Fallacies and all that stuff.

I can testify that it can work very well sometimes.

For all the ranty stuff I've said here...cobra's probably got better judgement than I do. It's been 3 sessions with her, and only one of them's been a problem. I'd like a reason that I was sure was less composed of my own impatience and snap reactions before someone gets kicked, especially given that I've got plenty of stuff that has nothing to do with the game probably making me irritable. I'd like to provide a better chance than that.

GolemsVoice
2014-06-28, 09:11 AM
As always with such final steps, I'd have a big, open talk with all of the goup, or at least the problem cleric, to make sure it doesn't come as a surprise, it doesn't seem like a punishment, and to avoid hurt feelings in general as best as possible. Who knows, maybe the issue can be resolved without resorting to such drastic measures?

Just make sure to not turn your talk into a show trial, and give your player the time to explain herself.

cobaltstarfire
2014-06-28, 10:22 AM
I don't think the character being one dimensional or flat, or sueish or anything else should be treated like a problem to be honest. Some people just aren't very good at character building, and if you are as rude trying to talk her into adding depth to her character, as you are talking about her in this thread, well it's of no surprise that she's buckling down and fighting it. Especially given that she's known to be stubborn.


I love role playing and such but I know I've occasionally been that character (the flatish sort) who's sort of just along for the ride. The DM didn't mind though because much of the games XP was handed out based on role playing. I didn't mind missing out on xp either because I was having fun in my own way.

In a KIND manner, not this rude way you talk about her in this thread, ask her why she she expects the other players to play along with her. Let her know that her character hasn't given the party any reason to want to go along with her. And "It's the right thing to do" may be her reasoning, but not everyone see's the world like her/here character.

The cleric needs to be addressed too, their behavior sounds just as "bad" depth wise as the paladin. The only difference is that you as the DM are biased against the paladin. The party shouldn't be expected to just go along with the paladin, but they also shouldn't be expected to just go along with the cleric either.

This really does sound like mostly an OOC problem. The game could probably go on just fine with some of the characters being...not up to your standards, not everyone is a masterful character creator or story teller, and they shouldn't be punished for it. If you just don't want to tolerate characters like that don't allow them unless the player is willing to let you manufacture a backstory for them over the course of the campaign. Or let the player know that they need to find a new home.

Cobra_Ikari
2014-06-28, 12:00 PM
I don't think the character being one dimensional or flat, or sueish or anything else should be treated like a problem to be honest. Some people just aren't very good at character building, and if you are as rude trying to talk her into adding depth to her character, as you are talking about her in this thread, well it's of no surprise that she's buckling down and fighting it. Especially given that she's known to be stubborn.


I love role playing and such but I know I've occasionally been that character (the flatish sort) who's sort of just along for the ride. The DM didn't mind though because much of the games XP was handed out based on role playing. I didn't mind missing out on xp either because I was having fun in my own way.

In a KIND manner, not this rude way you talk about her in this thread, ask her why she she expects the other players to play along with her. Let her know that her character hasn't given the party any reason to want to go along with her. And "It's the right thing to do" may be her reasoning, but not everyone see's the world like her/here character.

The cleric needs to be addressed too, their behavior sounds just as "bad" depth wise as the paladin. The only difference is that you as the DM are biased against the paladin. The party shouldn't be expected to just go along with the paladin, but they also shouldn't be expected to just go along with the cleric either.

This really does sound like mostly an OOC problem. The game could probably go on just fine with some of the characters being...not up to your standards, not everyone is a masterful character creator or story teller, and they shouldn't be punished for it. If you just don't want to tolerate characters like that don't allow them unless the player is willing to let you manufacture a backstory for them over the course of the campaign. Or let the player know that they need to find a new home.

For clarification, there is no paladin. Player A is playing a cleric with the sort of paragon of goodness that people usually associate with paladins. Player B is a rogue/wizard.

I think, to be honest, there's probably three problems that are interacting here. Kat is unable to draw Player A fully into the game, and her attempts to do so by encouraging more backstory or RP time have been met with indifference at best or resistance at worst, so it's difficult for the rest of the party to engage with the character (and playing with someone who seems to not enjoy/be interested at all, but resists your attempts to draw them in/have fun, is difficult). Player B's character, in my opinion, is a bit over the top and is tending towards Sue-ish-ness in the expectation that everyone will go along with/approve of her actions (I'll admit bias here, because it's very difficult for my character, personally, to not run screaming from her/denounce these actions, I'm just a bit more flexible than Player A in rolling with it). And third and probably most importantly, Player A and Player B don't seem to get along very well. This seems odd to me, as someone who barely knows them, because one introduced the other to the group, but most of the time, they seem to be resorting to passive-aggressive snipes at one another behind each other's back, which has made things pretty awkward, in my opinion. That's probably the part that needs solving most, but they're both extremely stubborn people, so I'm at a loss as to how to fix that when they don't really seem willing to come to the table.

SiuiS
2014-06-28, 09:39 PM
Commenting just to be clear:

It's not the playstyle per se that's an issue. A redemption storyline would be great, and in fact I think the other PC's would mostly be happy to go along with it so long as they felt they had the time and resources. It's the player stubbornly clinging to her playstyle and expecting people to go along, and not being particularly open to discussion. It's also that the clinging seems to be related to the character being an avatar of the hero the author wants to be, in a way that she isn't terribly flexible in rl for people having different ethical standards than she does. As well as there's been some OOC trouble on other issues with the player generally being stubborn and intolerant of disagreement.

Yeah. I was actually editing something in about that back when but my browser tanked.

She wants to play a Mary Sue. Maybe that's not a bad thing? Some people grow up slower than others. Character differentiation and flawed characters and moral shades of grey are lofty things. Maybe she's just not into those and should be weaned. I do think that this is something you should roll with; next time the two argue in game about it, compliment them both for their RP!
Take the sting out of the disagreement by making the disagreement a good thing.

WarKitty
2014-06-29, 12:20 AM
Yeah. I was actually editing something in about that back when but my browser tanked.

She wants to play a Mary Sue. Maybe that's not a bad thing? Some people grow up slower than others. Character differentiation and flawed characters and moral shades of grey are lofty things. Maybe she's just not into those and should be weaned. I do think that this is something you should roll with; next time the two argue in game about it, compliment them both for their RP!
Take the sting out of the disagreement by making the disagreement a good thing.

The main worry about mary sueishness is that it leads to undesirable stubbornness, especially when combined with a very inflexible moral code causing the player to view a different one as evil.

But in any case, getting them to disagree IN CHARACTER would be great. The trouble is when they just do different things and then whine at me out of character.

SiuiS
2014-06-29, 04:16 AM
The main worry about mary sueishness is that it leads to undesirable stubbornness, especially when combined with a very inflexible moral code causing the player to view a different one as evil.

Aye. I'm very wishywashy on it. Hold on a moment, s'il vous plaît?

Here we are. (http://tatterdemalionvulpine.tumblr.com/post/82420289574/the-importance-of-mary-sue)

Gist: sometimes, people need these types of characters. It's a transitional step. It can be good for them in the long run. Or even the medium run.

Other side: this is a grown-up person playing with other grown-up persons in a grown-up way and being childish about it. They are likely experienced in the hobby, and have no real reason other than obstinance or lack of exposure to blame for why they are playing this way outside of the acceptable frames for playing this way. They may be a budding child at heart finally opening up. But they may also be a prat.

I've gone back and forth on my opinion every time I post so I haven't really said anything valuable, so there's both sides. Either let her have her run, work it out and shepherd her spirit to new heights, or crush this bad habit now before it gets out of hand and she thinks it's okay to actually be like this all the time, every time without any remorse and without anyone expecting her to be accountable for her lack of development.

I don't envy you the choice. I just know you've got more data to work with than I do. :smalltongue:


But in any case, getting them to disagree IN CHARACTER would be great. The trouble is when they just do different things and then whine at me out of character.

My advice is trick them into it. But that's admittedly bad advice.