How to prevent one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories: PC Edition

[Quertus]

It was a modified chase scene. Normally those who fail would fall behind, but wouldn't Actively hold the rest of the group back.

You keep using those words. While they may answer my question from your perspective, they do not from mine.

So. Your system has a "chase" minigame, which operates similarly to this, except a) progress is measured individually, not cumulatively; b) your "chase" minigame includes a risk-free "run" option. Does that about cover it? Are we on the same page so far?

OK, fine, but… how do we get from there to here?

Is it, "my system has a 'combat' minigame, and the GM decided to give characters 'social AC & HP' based on their Wisdom, 'social attack bonus And damage based on their Charisma', and a maneuver list based on their skill ranks, and it was an abuse of the combat system that played nothing like combat or dialog"?

Is it, "my system only has one resolution mechanic, and the GM applied it to a scenario I had never imagined as best he could given the instructions in the rulebook"?

How do we get from your "chase minigame" to "(a travesty of) a sinking ship"?

It would be nice, but there just weren't enough skill points to go around, especially after the DM told me I needed crafting skills.

… what? So, after all that, you lowered your wisdom, and took crafting skills?

[NichG]

Well, let's poke at those assumptions.

-----

You are assuming x characters. I am not.

In the original system, the optimal choice was for Talakeal's character to sit out, so (x-1) characters.

With my proposed changes, x characters would be better than (x-1).

Further, there is no guarantee that all the PCs participate. The Necromancer was hidden; the passenger could have roleplayed being shell shocked or something.

The most likely fail state under the original system was "Talakeal's character participates, plus bad luck". The most likely fail case under my system was "one or more PCs sit this out".

The optimal answer under the old system was "Talakeal's character sits this out; other characters expend resources". The optimal answer under my system would have been… everyone participates, and increases the number of participants if able (animate dead, summoning, whatever).

-----

I'm assuming that once the challenge is in play, the characters involved aren't variable. So if the parameters are fixed (valid skill list, people's skill ratings, etc) then there is a single decision point of 'who does what' that is trivial to optimize.

In that case, we can take two systems A and B, make those choices, and then let them play out. While the specific choices can vary - if in one case I make the easiest way to get successes Athletics, while in another case it's Diplomacy - the actual sequence of resolution will still be the same in both cases.

The thing here is, rolling 25-50 times in order to resolve the outcome of a single set of decisions is bad game design independently of whether in one case the decision involves everyone participating, whereas in the other case people sit out. That's because there is no actual 'participation' after the initial static decision.

Removing the longwinded resolution can make non-participation less impactful. Compare 'I did nothing during this 1 hour sequence' to 'I did nothing when the DM called for one person to make a Survival check to follow these tracks'. In universe both are multi-hour activities. At the table, one takes an hour and the other takes 30 seconds.

You think it is optimal for there to be a risk of failure via the dice. I think it is optimal for there to be a risk of failure by player choices (and for that risk to map logically to in-game reality, rather than be a "gotcha").

Its more that, if the dice rolling or simulation mechanics can't change the outcome, it would be better not to actually play it out. E.g.:

"You need 10 successes before 10 failures. You have a 90% success rate on each of your rolls the way you have allocated people. That means you have only about a 1 in a billion chance of failure over all. So your plan succeeds, let's move on."

You believe in there being interesting decisions throughout. I… could go either way. Note that Talakeal lamented the lack of a generic option (for different reasons, granted). Still, some players enjoy choices, others enjoy the grind.

I generally feel that good game design means respecting the players' time. That means that it's questionable to make things take longer for sake of the illusion of extended, involved gameplay. Replacing that with actual gameplay (meaningful, consequential decisions) or reducing the time spent to resolve things are both solutions.

[Quertus]

I'm assuming that once the challenge is in play, the characters involved aren't variable. So if the parameters are fixed (valid skill list, people's skill ratings, etc) then there is a single decision point of 'who does what' that is trivial to optimize.

In that case, we can take two systems A and B, make those choices, and then let them play out. While the specific choices can vary - if in one case I make the easiest way to get successes Athletics, while in another case it's Diplomacy - the actual sequence of resolution will still be the same in both cases.

The thing here is, rolling 25-50 times in order to resolve the outcome of a single set of decisions is bad game design independently of whether in one case the decision involves everyone participating, whereas in the other case people sit out. That's because there is no actual 'participation' after the initial static decision.

Removing the longwinded resolution can make non-participation less impactful. Compare 'I did nothing during this 1 hour sequence' to 'I did nothing when the DM called for one person to make a Survival check to follow these tracks'. In universe both are multi-hour activities. At the table, one takes an hour and the other takes 30 seconds.



Its more that, if the dice rolling or simulation mechanics can't change the outcome, it would be better not to actually play it out. E.g.:

"You need 10 successes before 10 failures. You have a 90% success rate on each of your rolls the way you have allocated people. That means you have only about a 1 in a billion chance of failure over all. So your plan succeeds, let's move on."



I generally feel that good game design means respecting the players' time. That means that it's questionable to make things take longer for sake of the illusion of extended, involved gameplay. Replacing that with actual gameplay (meaningful, consequential decisions) or reducing the time spent to resolve things are both solutions.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying your position. I struggle to split hairs properly to make this statement, but… I and my preferences do not personally disagree with your gameplay philosophy; however, a) I can envision others having BadWrongFun, and b) there is a larger picture than you are giving credit for.

A) imagine a system with no significant decisions (beyond initial optimization), but the actual outcome is uncertain, and the GM does a masterful job of painting the progress, narrating how the individual rolls affect the scenario and build towards the final outcome. Also, Candy Land and High Ho Cherry Oh. Regardless of our intellectual feelings towards these games, they produce "fun" for some players, so I hesitate to simply declare them "badly designed".

B) it isn't just saving the ship - there is a larger world, a bigger picture. Is it optimal to throw maximum resources at the problem early on, to limit the likelihood of the probability "walk" being bad? Or is it optimal to save as many resources as possible for potential other challenges? Those with resources to spend (usually spellcasters) can have decisions and tension even in a simple random "walk".

So, yes, while I personally would absolutely want my games designed with the mindset you described (and, as I said, were I designing a "sinking ship" scenario from scratch, it would be a lot different than a "random walk skill challenge", hinging primarily on player skills and decisions, and secondarily on random "did you make your carpentry roll to make a patch that will hold from your finite resources?"), I think your statements about the fitness of various styles of games are not necessarily universal truths.

Talakeal, do you have any commentary regarding your group's preferences, or your intentions regarding your system?

[kyoryu]

Forget game mechanics for a second. In the world situation as described, is there something that your character could have done? Again, in the world, not with the mechanics.

[Talakeal]

Forget game mechanics for a second. In the world situation as described, is there something that your character could have done? Again, in the world, not with the mechanics.

Sure. Man the pumps. Which is what I did.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying your position. I struggle to split hairs properly to make this statement, but… I and my preferences do not personally disagree with your gameplay philosophy; however, a) I can envision others having BadWrongFun, and b) there is a larger picture than you are giving credit for.

A) imagine a system with no significant decisions (beyond initial optimization), but the actual outcome is uncertain, and the GM does a masterful job of painting the progress, narrating how the individual rolls affect the scenario and build towards the final outcome. Also, Candy Land and High Ho Cherry Oh. Regardless of our intellectual feelings towards these games, they produce "fun" for some players, so I hesitate to simply declare them "badly designed".

B) it isn't just saving the ship - there is a larger world, a bigger picture. Is it optimal to throw maximum resources at the problem early on, to limit the likelihood of the probability "walk" being bad? Or is it optimal to save as many resources as possible for potential other challenges? Those with resources to spend (usually spellcasters) can have decisions and tension even in a simple random "walk".

So, yes, while I personally would absolutely want my games designed with the mindset you described (and, as I said, were I designing a "sinking ship" scenario from scratch, it would be a lot different than a "random walk skill challenge", hinging primarily on player skills and decisions, and secondarily on random "did you make your carpentry roll to make a patch that will hold from your finite resources?"), I think your statements about the fitness of various styles of games are not necessarily universal truths.

Talakeal, do you have any commentary regarding your group's preferences, or your intentions regarding your system?

Not exactly sure what you are asking.

I wouldn't have run it as a chase, I would have had the party nominate a helmsman and had in roll a pilot test. I would have had everyone else tell me what they were doing, and roll appropriate skills tests, and eould then determine the difficulty of the pilot’s roll based on their successes.

An actual chase wouldn't have dragged on forever like this because the participants would have been caught or escaped one by one.

[NichG]

Ah. Thank you for clarifying your position. I struggle to split hairs properly to make this statement, but… I and my preferences do not personally disagree with your gameplay philosophy; however, a) I can envision others having BadWrongFun, and b) there is a larger picture than you are giving credit for.

A) imagine a system with no significant decisions (beyond initial optimization), but the actual outcome is uncertain, and the GM does a masterful job of painting the progress, narrating how the individual rolls affect the scenario and build towards the final outcome. Also, Candy Land and High Ho Cherry Oh. Regardless of our intellectual feelings towards these games, they produce "fun" for some players, so I hesitate to simply declare them "badly designed".

We don't need to go to some kind of theorycraft of imagining how people might enjoy or not enjoy it, because we've actually been told in this case by one of the players involved that a thing they didn't like was that the game dragged on for an hour with the state of the progress track fluctuating back and forth around 50%. So we know that the time it took and the lack of driving progress towards conclusion were both elements of them having a bad time with this mechanic.

So a proposal that doesn't really alter that aspect, but makes it so that instead of them saying 'I bail out the bilge' they say 'I help mend the hull' doesn't resolve the problem. It was important to note this point because it might not be obvious to someone designing such mechanics (as it wasn't obvious to the DM, and as it appeared not to be obvious to you from your post) that this kind of slow resolution is a property of the formula 'roll dice until they add to X or -X', and doesn't have to do with e.g. whether or not you add on success/subject on failure, or just subtract each round but add on successes.

B) it isn't just saving the ship - there is a larger world, a bigger picture. Is it optimal to throw maximum resources at the problem early on, to limit the likelihood of the probability "walk" being bad? Or is it optimal to save as many resources as possible for potential other challenges? Those with resources to spend (usually spellcasters) can have decisions and tension even in a simple random "walk".

Well one, the problem in a skill challenge (if it's meant in e.g. the 4ed D&D sense) is that the bulk of the participation is siloed through things that don't consume resources - that is, you don't expend resources to choose to use one skill over another, or to choose to use a skill versus not using a skill. Moving out of the success/failure track model into something stateful (even if its just via using up 'cards' that can't be played again) does inject more actual gameplay choices, though different mechanisms for aggregating consequences will have an effect on how much the decisions do actually extend throughout the resolution rather than being front-loaded.

The other thing is that, if this was a single decision point resolved with one roll (rather than a sequence of rolls), that would also have the same 'bigger picture' relationship to other future challenges and the like. That is to say, the random walk isn't really adding more meaningful decisions, its just taking the same meaningful decision but diluting it over a longer interval of table time by making it appear to be multiple decisions.

[William M. Pail]

Forget game mechanics for a second. In the world situation as described, is there something that your character could have done? Again, in the world, not with the mechanics.

Not getting what i expected,sometimes even disappointed.

[zinycor]

Seems like everyone is focusing on just a particular skill challenge that could have been better... Which is ridiculous, even the greatest GM would have a boring poorly thought out challenge every once in a while.

Main problem here is the lack of cooperation between players. That's problematic and needs to be dressed. Personally I would just talk to the players and say that I am not interested on having to convince party members into behaving like party members.

[Quertus]

Seems like everyone is focusing on just a particular skill challenge that could have been better... Which is ridiculous, even the greatest GM would have a boring poorly thought out challenge every once in a while.

Main problem here is the lack of cooperation between players. That's problematic and needs to be dressed. Personally I would just talk to the players and say that I am not interested on having to convince party members into behaving like party members.

Personally, while I addressed several issues, I am spending more virtual ink on this particular issue because 1) I got pushback on my response that seemed worth exploring, and 2) this is something directly under Talakeal's control to address well - or poorly - in their system.

So, for instance, were Talakeal a **** like me, their system might call out "adjudicating things", and say, "this one time, a GM tried to run a sinking ship scenario, and failed like <this>, when they should have done <that> instead.". Now, that might be fine for some players/GMs; others would doubtless be upset. Heck, Talakeal changing his system in response to the adventure could itself be viewed as sour grapes. It's a larger issue I'll continue to focus on throughout this thread.

Further, this was an hour of unfun activity for Talakeal (did the other players enjoy playing candy land?) in the first session. If this continues, it'll definitely be worth dealing with - and therefore may be worth nipping in the bud.

However, as a spectator, yes, the lack of party cohesion is concerning - or would be, if this weren't just the first session of "events threw you together - make it work". Granted, choosing that plan for Talakeal's dysfunctional group is itself highly concerning. That, plus the botched skill challenge, plus the questionable plot hook(s) for a seemingly singular plotline, plus the potential plot hole, really make this GM sound well out of his depth.

[zinycor]

Personally, while I addressed several issues, I am spending more virtual ink on this particular issue because 1) I got pushback on my response that seemed worth exploring, and 2) this is something directly under Talakeal's control to address well - or poorly - in their system.

So, for instance, were Talakeal a **** like me, their system might call out "adjudicating things", and say, "this one time, a GM tried to run a sinking ship scenario, and failed like <this>, when they should have done <that> instead.". Now, that might be fine for some players/GMs; others would doubtless be upset. Heck, Talakeal changing his system in response to the adventure could itself be viewed as sour grapes. It's a larger issue I'll continue to focus on throughout this thread.

Further, this was an hour of unfun activity for Talakeal (did the other players enjoy playing candy land?) in the first session. If this continues, it'll definitely be worth dealing with - and therefore may be worth nipping in the bud.

However, as a spectator, yes, the lack of party cohesion is concerning - or would be, if this weren't just the first session of "events threw you together - make it work". Granted, choosing that plan for Talakeal's dysfunctional group is itself highly concerning. That, plus the botched skill challenge, plus the questionable plot hook(s) for a seemingly singular plotline, plus the potential plot hole, really make this GM sound well out of his depth.

Isn't this a first time DM? If so I wouldn't worry too much about plot holes or whatever, those are to be expected. A party not willing to work together is a problem, no matter the context, Specially in dysfunctional groups such as Tal's.

[NichG]

I think it's worth saying, in comparison to other issues that have been discussed in this thread, I wouldn't describe this as a GM out of their depth or any sort of disastrous session. This is a group that had a player storm off in a rage over having a spell slot used during a session they weren't present in. So I wouldn't expect of a new GM to instantly make the group have excellent teamwork. That's unrealistic. At this point I don't really think further discussion of the group's internal frictions is all that productive - most things have been said already, and there's not much in the way of new information.

When I comment on the skill challenge, it's because it is something that does seem to have been an error, and is easily fixable in the future.

[Quertus]

When I comment on the skill challenge, it's because it is something that does seem to have been an error, and is easily fixable in the future.

Also, the skill challenge is something where Talakeal has the option and opportunity to make social errors in addressing it, both as a player, and as a system designer.

In that regard, IMO, the first step should be to determine whether the other players enjoyed playing Candy Land; ie, enjoyed spending an hour narrating their actions while the GM narrated the results, with a mechanically and tactically uninteresting (and unrealistic) system. This will help us understand what the players value, and give Talakeal a better basis from which to make choices - as a player, a GM, and a system designer - in the future.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so it looks like we have another serious issue.

I was told that while Bob and Dave were able to table their arguments for the sake of the new players, that I need to give them a damn good reason to be in the party at the start of the next session or they are just going to kill my character and take the boat by force.

Basically, both of them created characters with charisma as a dump stat and no social skills, and told me OOC that they do not want to be the party leader or the party face. Yet at the same time, they both want to be the "Captain", with all the respect and authority that comes with it.

Bob told me that his character is a sociopath and a narcissist who hates and distrusts everyone, and that all he wants in the world is respect. Keep in mind, that he is a poor, outcast, half-breed, fugitive, child necromancer. During the last game I offered to protect his character, and give him equal input and an equal voice in all decision; and I told him that if any outsiders asked about him I would pretend he was just our cabin boy to allay suspicion, but apparently this was a tremendous insult to his pride and he is now demanding to be in charge of the boat and given the highest rank of any of us to make up for it.

I told them that I have already remade my character twice for them, and I won't be doing it again.

So, it looks like, if someone doesn't have a brilliant plan, the next session is just going to devolve into a PvP scrum.

[Quertus]

Ok, so it looks like we have another serious issue.

I was told that while Bob and Dave were able to table their arguments for the sake of the new players, that I need to give them a damn good reason to be in the party at the start of the next session or they are just going to kill my character and take the boat by force.

Basically, both of them created characters with charisma as a dump stat and no social skills, and told me OOC that they do not want to be the party leader or the party face. Yet at the same time, they both want to be the "Captain", with all the respect and authority that comes with it.

Bob told me that his character is a sociopath and a narcissist who hates and distrusts everyone, and that all he wants in the world is respect. Keep in mind, that he is a poor, outcast, half-breed, fugitive, child necromancer. During the last game I offered to protect his character, and give him equal input and an equal voice in all decision; and I told him that if any outsiders asked about him I would pretend he was just our cabin boy to allay suspicion, but apparently this was a tremendous insult to his pride and he is now demanding to be in charge of the boat and given the highest rank of any of us to make up for it.

I told them that I have already remade my character twice for them, and I won't be doing it again.

So, it looks like, if someone doesn't have a brilliant plan, the next session is just going to devolve into a PvP scrum.

Tell the GM, have the GM force them both to remake their characters. Period. No wiggle room here. If they cannot make characters who can work with the party, kick them from the group.

EDIT: also, take this opportunity to go back to your original character - the one you actually wanted to play.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Your group is bad.

[zinycor]

Weird, so your problematic player continues to be problematic despite the fact that nobody makes an effort to correct his behaviour? Who could have seen this coming?

Honestly, kick Bob out of the gaming group or leave yourself. No sense on keep going through this session after session. This would be hard to tolerate on kids, but on actual adults... Is unbelievable your group even tolerates him.

So yeah, as I said before, no sense on discussing the mechanics that a new GM should have used for a particular challenge if the social standing within the group is so disfunctional.

[Lord of Shadows]

Ok, so it looks like we have another serious issue.

I was told that while Bob and Dave were able to table their arguments for the sake of the new players, that I need to give them a damn good reason to be in the party at the start of the next session or they are just going to kill my character and take the boat by force.

Step one: pull the pin on the grende...

Basically, both of them created characters with charisma as a dump stat and no social skills, and told me OOC that they do not want to be the party leader or the party face. Yet at the same time, they both want to be the "Captain", with all the respect and authority that comes with it.

Step two: toss the grenade and duck for cover...

Bob told me that his character is a sociopath and a narcissist who hates and distrusts everyone, and that all he wants in the world is respect. Keep in mind, that he is a poor, outcast, half-breed, fugitive, child necromancer. During the last game I offered to protect his character, and give him equal input and an equal voice in all decision; and I told him that if any outsiders asked about him I would pretend he was just our cabin boy to allay suspicion, but apparently this was a tremendous insult to his pride and he is now demanding to be in charge of the boat and given the highest rank of any of us to make up for it.

But, Dave wants to be Captain... Bob should rename his character HAL: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."

I told them that I have already remade my character twice for them, and I won't be doing it again.

So, it looks like, if someone doesn't have a brilliant plan, the next session is just going to devolve into a PvP scrum.

This group needs more than a brilliant plan. They need a miracle... or a Wish. I officially see no way "to prevent another one of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories." I hope Brian has enjoyed his brief tenure as a DM.

Ya know, it's sad, because a lot of really good gamers have tried their darndest to give the best advice they can think of on how to make this group work. Not just in this forum, but also elsewhere.

Final thought...

[Pelle]

It is perfectly understandable that Bob's sociopath character is insulted and would like to start pvp conflict, that's ok. You need to tell him that you as a player don't enjoy the game when he plays such characters, and ask him to please help make the game more enjoyable. If he wants to play a sociopath narcissist who hates and distrusts everone, ask him to do it in a way that makes it fun for the rest of the table...

but to be a little fair, needing a party face/leader is something you have taken upon yourself, noone else has asked you to do that. You don't need every party role covered to have a fun game, so you should try toning down the bossing. Few people like having another player be the the boss in rpgs. Not that this party is going to play well by commitee either, though.

[Talakeal]

but to be a little fair, needing a party face/leader is something you have taken upon yourself, noone else has asked you to do that. You don't need every party role covered to have a fun game, so you should try toning down the bossing. Few people like having another player be the the boss in rpgs. Not that this party is going to play well by commitee either, though.

Currently my “bossing” has come down to talking to an NPC innkeeper to get a plot hook, and then asking the party to go on the adventure for an equal share of the treasure. If I tone it down anymore, there literally won’t be a game.

I absolutely do not enjoy playing the party face, but I feel like if I don’t do it the game just won’t happen.

[Pelle]

Currently my “bossing” has come down to talking to an NPC innkeeper to get a plot hook, and then asking the party to go on the adventure for an equal share of the treasure. If I tone it down anymore, there literally won’t be a game.

I absolutely do not enjoy playing the party face, but I feel like if I don’t do it the game just won’t happen.

Probably yes, but it's not like you need a high charisma to say yes to a plot hook. You can all play grumpy charisma-dumped characters, and still engage with the game. If the other players resent you for taking initative, try letting your character join the others in the negativity, and instead facilitate an out-of-character discussion of what you all want to do. Try push the other players to do something themselves and join them, instead of doing yourself something the others won't like.

[zinycor]

Just ask Bob, as a fellow player, to please tone his bitching down, explain to him that you aren't trying to offend him or taking control of the party. If he doesn't agree, bring this issue to the whole table, and how it makes you feel, If that doesn't work, just leave.

[Frozenstep]

Sociopath? Sure. They can still be intelligent and work with a group purely for their own gain, in character always ready to jump on a bigger opportunity but out of character always finding a reason for their character to stick with the group (the protection of a likely higher then average level group, monetary gain, denying offers by villians to join them because they think they'll just be betrayed by them). Why piss off a group of people that are relatively strong when you could use them instead?

Narcissist? Sure. A self-superior attitude can be anything from entertaining to annoying, but it's something parties can work with.

Both? Bad sign. It's one thing to be delusional, another to be willing to kill for coldly logical reasons. It's quite another to be willing to kill for delusional reasons. You're dealing with a madman who fundamentally cannot work with others. Any insult, real or half-imagined like this one, could result in death. A group of actual sociopaths wouldn't work with this guy, they still need to be able to trust eachother with something at least as much as "You'd be stupid to betray me at this point considering all the benefits me being alive and on your side confers".

If I were you, I'd ask Bob (and Dave?), with the DM there, what their goal is, out of character. Do they just want control of what the group is doing? Are they just trying to "play true to their character"? Ask what they imagine things look like if everything goes their way and they get what they want at every turn, and potentially how they'd feel if someone else got those things at every turn instead and how that'd make them feel. How is this supposed to be fun for the entire group?

Even if it's an evil campaign, it's still a group game. Pirates can betray each other, but for a story it's more entertaining if they do it over an artifact or map to some ancient treasure or just some object of real temptation. Your characters could fight each other over a broken ship and keep sabotaging and backstabbing eachother, but does that really sound more entertaining then grumbling and working together long enough to go out and find some actual treasure? At least fight on top of a pile of gold coins, it's a cooler place to die.

Your character doesn't need to be "Captain" or whatever of this group just because you have the highest social skills, so normally I'd say you could just let them have the captain title and offer your social skills as a tool for them, but in this case why would you work for a guy that's this delusional and violent? Who'd willingly get on a ship with a lit powder keg like that?

I do have brilliant solutions that could work, but all of them require Bob to act reasonably. Like if this guy states calmly, but firmly, that he should be captain because he's the most powerful, and that your character, sensing a longing for respect and prestige with his social skills, lets him have it, but still goes and finds the plot hooks and tries to tell the captain about it like "There's rumor of treasure at X! Can we go steal it, Captain?". But with Bob, that could be taken as trying to take control or something (which it is, but it's supposed to be subtle control that the in-character isn't aware of). If the out-of-character person isn't ok with a group dynamic that makes sense and isn't unbalanced, then I can't help.

[Arbane]

If they both want to be captain, let them fight over it.

Then, as captain, have the winner keelhauled.

[GrayDeath]

If they both want to be captain, let them fight over it.

Then, as captain, have the winner keelhauled.

As your groups have never managed to solve anything out of Game, this might be the best solution.

if they bitch afterwards, you can simply say Yous tarted it, I finished it. Quit your bitching!". ^^

[zinycor]

Only thing I don't get is: If both Dave and Bob's characters want to captain, why do they want to kill your character?

[Arbane]

This won't help with your players, but it might help with your game design: a post on 'difficulty' in RPGs.

[Talakeal]

Sociopath? Sure. They can still be intelligent and work with a group purely for their own gain, in character always ready to jump on a bigger opportunity but out of character always finding a reason for their character to stick with the group (the protection of a likely higher then average level group, monetary gain, denying offers by villians to join them because they think they'll just be betrayed by them). Why piss off a group of people that are relatively strong when you could use them instead?

Narcissist? Sure. A self-superior attitude can be anything from entertaining to annoying, but it's something parties can work with.

Both? Bad sign. It's one thing to be delusional, another to be willing to kill for coldly logical reasons. It's quite another to be willing to kill for delusional reasons. You're dealing with a madman who fundamentally cannot work with others. Any insult, real or half-imagined like this one, could result in death. A group of actual sociopaths wouldn't work with this guy, they still need to be able to trust eachother with something at least as much as "You'd be stupid to betray me at this point considering all the benefits me being alive and on your side confers".

If I were you, I'd ask Bob (and Dave?), with the DM there, what their goal is, out of character. Do they just want control of what the group is doing? Are they just trying to "play true to their character"? Ask what they imagine things look like if everything goes their way and they get what they want at every turn, and potentially how they'd feel if someone else got those things at every turn instead and how that'd make them feel. How is this supposed to be fun for the entire group?

Even if it's an evil campaign, it's still a group game. Pirates can betray each other, but for a story it's more entertaining if they do it over an artifact or map to some ancient treasure or just some object of real temptation. Your characters could fight each other over a broken ship and keep sabotaging and backstabbing eachother, but does that really sound more entertaining then grumbling and working together long enough to go out and find some actual treasure? At least fight on top of a pile of gold coins, it's a cooler place to die.

Your character doesn't need to be "Captain" or whatever of this group just because you have the highest social skills, so normally I'd say you could just let them have the captain title and offer your social skills as a tool for them, but in this case why would you work for a guy that's this delusional and violent? Who'd willingly get on a ship with a lit powder keg like that?

I do have brilliant solutions that could work, but all of them require Bob to act reasonably. Like if this guy states calmly, but firmly, that he should be captain because he's the most powerful, and that your character, sensing a longing for respect and prestige with his social skills, lets him have it, but still goes and finds the plot hooks and tries to tell the captain about it like "There's rumor of treasure at X! Can we go steal it, Captain?". But with Bob, that could be taken as trying to take control or something (which it is, but it's supposed to be subtle control that the in-character isn't aware of). If the out-of-character person isn't ok with a group dynamic that makes sense and isn't unbalanced, then I can't help.

Pretty much how I feel.

It isn't that they want to control the group OOC, its that they are “just playing their characters” which happen to be a dumb thug who thinks himself entitled to whatever he can take and a sociopath with trust issues and delusions of grandeur.

As your groups have never managed to solve anything out of Game, this might be the best solution.

if they bitch afterwards, you can simply say Yous tarted it, I finished it. Quit your bitching!". ^^

Thats how it looks to be going.

Only thing I don't get is: If both Dave and Bob's characters want to captain, why do they want to kill your character?

Because I am currently the Captain. Bob flat out said he is waiting for Dave and I to kill one another before he uses the opportunity to defeat the winner while they are wounded.

[zinycor]

OH! I didn't know you were the captain, that's weird, I imagined that if someone was the captain it would be the Ogre.

[Frozenstep]

Pretty much how I feel.

It isn't that they want to control the group OOC, its that they are “just playing their characters” which happen to be a dumb thug who thinks himself entitled to whatever he can take and a sociopath with trust issues and delusions of grandeur.

Because I am currently the Captain. Bob flat out said he is waiting for Dave and I to kill one another before he uses the opportunity to defeat the winner while they are wounded.

Ask them if, out of character, they really want to play a group of characters that just collapses into infighting before they even do anything interesting? If they made their characters just a smidge more manipulative and patient, they could instead betray you after at least using you to find some treasure and disarm whatever traps are on the way. They're in control of their characters, they can write them to at least fit into some sort of story.

Is your DM aware of all of this? How do they feel about this?

[patchyman]

I was told that while Bob and Dave were able to table their arguments for the sake of the new players, that I need to give them a damn good reason to be in the party at the start of the next session or they are just going to kill my character and take the boat by force.

Bob and Dave are bullying you. You are being bullied.

Look at it this way. Imagine you are in high school. You drop your pen and a classmate picks it up. When you ask for your pen back, the classmate responds that you have to do what he says or he will break it.

Your character has value to you. You have clearly spent time on the character and her backstory, including two rewrites. If they kill your character, that character is gone and you won’t just roll up the same character again.

So how do you deal with this?

Step 1: Recognize the situation.

You are being bullied by people you have described as your friends. That sucks. But to address a problem, you have to call it by its actual name.

People hate being called bullies. They love saying “I was just joking”, “You’re being overly sensitive” or, my favorite in RPG circles, “I’m just playing my character”. Don’t let them minimize or ignore the situation, and don’t minimize or ignore the situation yourself before they have a chance.

Step 2: Speak to your DM
You should speak with your DM. You should not expect the DM to solve the situation for you: as much as I wish that I was imbued with legendary interpersonal skills by donning the DM mantle, that doesn’t happen, and most DMs are just as clueless in dealing with other people as you are.

But you should still run the situation by your DM to confirm that you haven’t misread anything. If the DM offers to help, take him up on it (but manage your expectations). If the DM tells you you misinterpreted the situation, give his opinion due consideration. If the DM confirms your impressions, use him as a sounding board for ideas for the next steps.

Honestly, if this was the first time you described something like this, I would say just talk it over with Bob and Dave. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt the first time. You can try talking to them. It may even work. However, you have described a pattern of behaviour that goes back years, so I would proceed to Step 3.

Step 3: YMMV

Take my step 3 with a grain of salt. I tend to be of the opinion that “Thou shalt not suffer a bully to live”, but there are less extreme options that may also be successful.

That being said, Kill the necromancer before he kills your character. Surprise attack BAB full action, necromancer doesn’t get a chance to react.

It is currently a little unclear what you know that your character doesn’t, but what follows is my impression of what your character knows about the necromancer:
- the necromancer is very dangerous: he brings dead people back to life and if he sent his minions to attack you, he could probably kill you without your being able to effectively retaliate;
- the necromancer is unstable: he overreacts to non-existent slights;
-the necromancer is a sociopath who intends to become a supervillain;

Most damning of all, the necromancer isn’t charming enough to pull it off, so the party doesn’t really have a reason to want him around.

Meanwhile, your character doesn’t seem like the sort who would stick with a child in the unlikely hope of redeeming him.

Based on the forgoing, killing the necromancer before he kills you is the most reasonable course of action. This is the case even if the necromancer hasn’t threatened to kill you in-game: unstable budding supervillains are notorious for considering everyone else expendable and killing people who annoy them.

To put it a different way, Bob cannot invoke “give my character a good reason not to kill your character” without dealing with the flipside: “my character does not adventure with people that don’t have her back. You have created a character that is super untrustworthy”.

But overall, I echo what zincycor said: until Bob and Dave have a reason to change their ways, they won’t.