Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Fable Wright]

This thread has certainly gone in a bizarre direction.

For my two cents, Bob's player presents a beautiful opportunity. He's a known factor with clear motives and constantly throws unexpected hiccups in the party's direction. When he has a mood, they're either without spell support, or in a situation where diplomatic relations could go downhill in an instant. It's a source of challenge the asymmetry guy can't complain about, that the party has to compensate for. It's a prime hook for drama, challenge, daring feats and everything else you look for in an epic narrative.

All you need to do is start looking at Bob's antagonistic behavior as a feature, not a bug, and you get unscripted moments of glorious opportunity to generate fresh material on the fly. Keeps it fresh for players and GM alike. Just keep in mind the question of what to do if the jenga tower falls during a particular encounter when designing them, and you'll never be too far at a loss for how to proceed.

Catering to Bob AND the other players seems mutually exclusive, Takaleal prefers the roleplay of the other players, and Bob's not gonna quit while he is less than max level, so...

[Great Dragon]

@Quertus
Maybe I'm missing the Elephant because you're keeping it in the dark?

Things so far:

(1) Complaint about Legendary Actions.

Suggestions:
(A) explaining them to group.
Including their use, and limits,
step-by-step.

(B) (Temporarily) Remove L.A.s from games.

Talakeal was not happy with either, as near I can tell.

Bob

I'm not going to rewrite everything on this.

But, even with Talakeal working things out with Bob, things didn't improve.

Talakeal says "Game otherwise ok." and good enough to continue playing current campaign.

*****

Miss-matched expectations can be solved.
But not in game. This require everyone to be willing to sit down and actually know what their desires are, and be willing to make adjustments on other peoples behalf.

Changing Behavior/s are an even harder problem, because this can get very personal, and most people (including me) would rather adjust to accept that, or decide if I should leave the group.

****

Quertus, I am trying to understand what, exactly, your trying to get across, here.

The DM should always believe they are to blame? Doing their best to not get "Personally" involved?

The DM should make even more personal sacrifices? And keep doing so, until "everyone" is happy / having fun?
******
If not, can you explain how your "Zen" is different?

[Talakeal]

But, even with Talakeal working things out with Bob, things didn't improve.

To clarify, we haven't gamed again since Bob and I had our talk about trust and listening, somI don't yet know if itmhas improved or not. I am sure you guys will hear all about it one way or the other next weekend

[geppetto]

Just because the guys a roommate doesnt mean you cant boot him. Nor does being old friends. Sometimes people change over time and the same old things just dont work anymore, adapt or die.

I would sit Bob down with everyone and explain exactly what the problem is from YOUR point of view. Make the other players speak up and say their piece too and tell him he needs to shape up his behavior or ship out.

If he's actually a friend or even a decent roommate he will see he's causing stress and make some compromises. If not, well then you have your answer dont you? If he's not willing to budge an inch to work on problems that everyone is bothered by then why should you care what he thinks?

Friendship is a two way street and right now he's being a craptastic friend. Its not all on you to make things work. He's got to bend too.

When it comes to the trust, its like any other relationship that had trust broken. Doesnt matter if it was justified or not, one party feels it was broken so its broken. That only takes 1 to party.

As part of that conversation say you understand that he thinks he cant trust you, dont get into reasons, just acknowledge the idea. Then tell him the same thing you would tell a SO, coworker or anyone else "I apologize for that situation, I will not do it again. But YOU need to either move on and forgive me and drop it or we need to go our separate ways. Because you cannot keep punishing me forever for something in the past and think this is going to work. I dont deserve that and I wont live with it".

And the ball is entirely in his court. He's been made aware of the issues and knows what his choices are. He will decide what to do and you guys only need to react appropriately.

[OldTrees1]

@Quertus
Maybe I'm missing the Elephant because you're keeping it in the dark?

Perhaps I can shed some light on it.

1) Talakeal's group has some problems.
2) Those problems involve issues with communication.
3) So perhaps better communication can help diagnose how to move forward.
4) The best way to listen to Jane is often to have Jane start talking and Jacob stop talking.

So Quertus was suggesting doing a diagnostic. Several one shots based on what the players said they wanted and then checking back in with them at the end of those one shots. This is about everyone in the group learning what the players would enjoy. I say everyone because Talakeal already knows what Talakeal enjoys and doubts the players know what they will enjoy. So the diagnostic Quertus describes focuses on the players communicating to themselves, eachother, and to Talakeal, what they find enjoyable BUT in a manner than can confirm the veracity of those statements to get past Talakeal's doubts about the player's self examination abilities.

After this exercise, Talakeal will know everyone's preferences (including Talakeal's because Talakeal can read Talakeal's mind) and know the players know their own preferences. Aka a perfect foundation for designing how the game will run forward. With a bonus of maybe repairing some of the distrust sown by past actions / interactions.

---End of Description---

You will note, that diagnostic plan said nothing about how DMs should run campaigns.
You will note, that diagnostic plan suggests something for Talakeal to do, because Talakeal is the one here. If Bob were here instead the advice would focus on what Bob could do to improve communication. Same goes for other people. The person we have access to is the one we will suggest do something.

Personally, I think it is a plausible diagnostic. It gets the players to communicate their preferences. It lets Talakeal update any misconceptions Talakeal has about the Players's preferences. It lets the players update any misconceptions they have about what they want vs what they actually enjoy.

---End of Explanation---

[Quertus]

@Quertus
Maybe I'm missing the Elephant because you're keeping it in the dark?

Things so far:

(1) Complaint about Legendary Actions.

Suggestions:
(A) explaining them to group.
Including their use, and limits,
step-by-step.

(B) (Temporarily) Remove L.A.s from games.

Talakeal was not happy with either, as near I can tell.

Bob

I'm not going to rewrite everything on this.

But, even with Talakeal working things out with Bob, things didn't improve.

Talakeal says "Game otherwise ok." and good enough to continue playing current campaign.

*****

Miss-matched expectations can be solved.
But not in game. This require everyone to be willing to sit down and actually know what their desires are, and be willing to make adjustments on other peoples behalf.

Changing Behavior/s are an even harder problem, because this can get very personal, and most people (including me) would rather adjust to accept that, or decide if I should leave the group.

****

Quertus, I am trying to understand what, exactly, your trying to get across, here.

The DM should always believe they are to blame? Doing their best to not get "Personally" involved?

The DM should make even more personal sacrifices? And keep doing so, until "everyone" is happy / having fun?
******
If not, can you explain how your "Zen" is different?

So, again, you need to throw away just about everything you've just said in order to see what I'm saying.

So, clear your mind of everything you think you know about the problem. Because that has roughly nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Ready?

-----

So, someone (mostly Bob) has claimed that there is a problem. Bob has made many claims about what would "fix" the game. To paraphrase another Playgrounder, Bob is probably right about there being a problem, but wrong about the nature of the problem and/or about the solution.

Talakeal had made numerous changes in his game. Many have failed, some rather predictably so. Bob has suggested changes to the game. Many would fail, often predictably so.

-----

But that's not what I'm saying. That's just the *foundation* you need to start with, that what I'm actually saying gets built upon.

When your head is in that space, let me know what parts of what I'm saying you still need explained.

EDIT: or just listen to the much better communicator right above me. Thanks, OldTrees1!

[Great Dragon]

Perhaps I can shed some light on it.

Yes, indeed.

[Blue] I can at least see the shape of an Elephant. [/Blue]

Very much appreciated.

*****

Now, maybe for some color:

Talakeal has stated that doing the Diagnosis (series of one shots) is not really something he wants to / can do, right now.

But, was something he was willing to try after the current campaign ended.

****

I can think of several reasons why, but won't speculate.

Which means that now, everyone (including Talakeal), is waiting for feedback from the next game session/s.

[Quertus]

Yes, indeed.

[Blue] I can at least see the shape of an Elephant. [/Blue]

Very much appreciated.

*****

Now, maybe for some color:

Talakeal has stated that doing the Diagnosis (series of one shots) is not really something he wants to / can do, right now.

But, was something he was willing to try after the current campaign ended.

****

I can think of several reasons why, but won't speculate.

Which means that now, everyone (including Talakeal), is waiting for feedback from the next game session/s.

Just so we're clear, you have only just walked into the dark cave, felt the tusks / truck / whatever, and declared it the elephant.

That is, the whole of what I am getting at is even bigger than the small piece you're describing. But now, at least, you are in the right cave, and actually have a hand on the elephant!

[OldTrees1]

Just so we're clear, you have only just walked into the dark cave, felt the tusks / truck / whatever, and declared it the elephant.

That is, the whole of what I am getting at is even bigger than the small piece you're describing. But now, at least, you are in the right cave, and actually have a hand on the elephant!

Great Dragon has a good point about the present irrelevance of this elephant until we get more information and / or Talakeal gets to a position that they feel able / willing to try it.

Plus their concise summary is not indicative of anything. I too increased the conciseness, so Great Dragon might have been following that trajectory.

PS: I would feel better if you both dropped the elephant analogy. It is way too easy to accidentally be insulting (and I don't like risking accidentally insulting someone).

[Great Dragon]

Plus their concise summary is not indicative of anything. I too increased the conciseness, so Great Dragon might have been following that trajectory. (1)

PS: I would feel better if you both dropped the elephant analogy. (2)
It is way too easy to accidentally be insulting (and I don't like risking accidentally insulting someone).

(1) Yes.

(2) Ok. I'll do my best to do so.

Thanks, again.

[Quertus]

Great Dragon has a good point about the present irrelevance of this elephant until we get more information and / or Talakeal gets to a position that they feel able / willing to try it.

Plus their concise summary is not indicative of anything. I too increased the conciseness, so Great Dragon might have been following that trajectory.

PS: I would feel better if you both dropped the elephant analogy. It is way too easy to accidentally be insulting (and I don't like risking accidentally insulting someone).

So, here's the thing: only the "trunk" of the elephant is irrelevant at present; the *rest* of the elephant is still relevant. Or, at least, the rest of the elephant as I understand it

And this is why it seems to me a perfect analogy.

So, why do you consider it a dangerous beast? Oh, wait, mixing my metaphors - why is likening the act of understanding my poor description to seeing the elephant vs feeling it in a dark cave "way too easy to accidentally be insulting"? I've been up front about the fact that I'm not showing a picture of an elephant, because… well, aside from the fact that I'm not sure I've seen the *whole* elephant myself, even describing the most relevant parts is… nearly beyond my capabilities.

Now, *using* the elephant, OTOH, is easily within the capabilities of even a "mediocre at best communicator" like myself, so that should tell you something about just how good the elephant is.

What is the elephant? I don't know - I don't have a word for it… or, if I do, I don't relate that word to the elephant.

So, since I don't have a word for it, I could use a different metaphor, and say that I'm trying to explain Inductive Reasoning, and the Dragon has been asking how to alphabetize it. Or I've been trying to explain logic, and the Dragon has been asking what color or what emotion it is. But that feels less useful + potentially more insulting than simply calling it an elephant in a dark cave.

So, OT1, you have done an excellent job of seeing, understanding, explaining & describing the "trunk" - the particular piece / implementation of the "elephant" that I have pushed the hardest / that I think would be most useful/efficient for Talakeal. But how would you recommend I talk about the larger concept, that I don't have a name for, when it's huge (like an elephant), and I only plan on pushing Talakeal in its direction through pieces / individual implementations, rather than by trying to force-feed him the whole elephant?

And, retroactively, how would you recommend I could / should have tried to explain to the Dragon that he was barking up the wrong tree, and everything he said was not only utterly irrelevant but counterproductive to understanding what I was saying?

Because the elephant in a dark cave metaphor, of "it's something really big, and unseen" is by far the best I, personally, can come up with.

Since we've seen the difference between your communication skills and mine, what do you recommend?

[OldTrees1]

So, why do you consider it a dangerous beast?

The fable juxtaposes two stories. In one layer the blind men are described with a tone indicating they are obviously inferiors (they are blind but the father & son can both see). In the other layer the father is saying "knowing the blind men are a metaphor for yourself" is wisdom that he is giving his son. Likewise it juxtaposes knowledge of an elephant vs the totality of knowledge.

Even kept at these extremes it can be taken as extremely flattering or insulting depending on which layer the person perceives you as meaning. Note that is "their perception" not "your intent". I hope the negative feedback loop of their perception is also self evident.

Then we get the 3rd layer. When applying it to a person and to a concrete missable idea, you insert a 3rd layer. How can one know which of the original 2 layers your 3rd layer will emphasize in the person's perspective?

Summary: It can far too easily be taken as "You are so ___ that you couldn't understand an elephant." or as "You are wise enough to understand the nature of knowledge". I do not trust my ability to reliably communicate tone while using the fable as an analogy for a 3rd layer.

PS: Also I was trying to subtly blunt some of the unintended but apparent abrasiveness of you previous post. In full transparency, all 3 sentences of that post were there to douse what I perceived as a spark that leapt on a dying flame. Please take that kindly.

Your other questions:
1) While concepts are connected in various ways, sometimes the concepts are talked about independently. The diagnostic can stand on its own merits without you needing to connect it to the rest of the concepts.
2) Don't bother to name the nameless. Concepts exist before they have names. You can talk about each concept (when it is the topic at hand) without needing to name it.
3) You will notice my concise summary was concise and a summary. Complex topics are more commonly mistake for each other than simple ones are. Sometimes that alone can cut through miscommunications.
4) When it can't, saying the same thing in another way can. Saying the same thing twice in two equivalent ways worked for the incomprehensible Kant, it can work for you too.
5) For now, we wait to see what Talakeal will do and what the others will do. I really hope they increase the amount of communication because I have my doubts about who knows who knows whose preferences.

[Great Dragon]

@OldTrees1: very nice.
A lot of what I was thinking, but not sure how best to effectively express.

@Quertus:

I am also not really great at "communication".

First, I tend to be very direct and rather blunt.
I will avoid fancy words, or complicated technical terms, defaulting to their "basic Explanation/s" as best I understand them at that time. (Note that both my understanding and Opinion/s on the subject can be changed)

(Especially in a D&D Debate, defaulting to Rules by looking them up and referring to them, often times either paraphrasing from memory - or I'm assuming that everyone reading already knows what I'm "talking about.")

This can be seen as being a little rude, or condescending. (Not my intention, but can still happen)

Next: I tend to think in what is usually called Linear Logic/thinking.
Fact 1 + Fact 2 (until all Facts are listed) equals Conclusion.

But Quertus (no offense intended, just making an example, here) was more "Starburst" Thinking.
Looking at the same list (possibly seeing more Facts), but jumping to the conclusion instantly, and not "showing the work".

***

Perhaps something like Radio Frequencies would work, instead of the Elephant.

Not only are there Hundreds of Radio Channels, divided between (at least) AM and FM Frequencies (both for Civilian and Military) - plus, there are also lots of TV Channels.

So, in this case, I'm listening on a single channel of, say AM Radio describe the Issue; and Quertus is watching live CNNBC News.

And then trying to explain the Debate to each other via (non-verbal/photo) Cell Phone Texting. Where, neither of us knows the "source" (Radio vs TV) the other is using.

Now, you (OldTrees1) are better at "seeing" the picture, and "Explaining" it to both parties, then either of us.
(Again, greatly appreciated)

****

@Quertus: Now, it is helpful in saying that you are not really able to list all the Facts. (Parts of the Elephant)

But, as OldTrees1 said, don't try naming the nameless, just try to figure out if there is a way to describe what it is about.

However, at least for me, without being able to "see" (even if only in Theater of the Mind) the situation, I'm not able to engage in a Debate about it. Hence my (probably indirect) asking about the Emotional State of Logic, etc.

*****

Ok, so Communication was the first Fact.
Now, this is a two way street.
Requires "taking turns" Talking and Not Talking / Listening.

But, I was seeing a conflict on Bob's part, since his "Spotlight Hogging" combined with his "mistrust of Talakeal" (to me) made the chances of him sitting down and calmly talking his way into a change of "better behavior" was highly unlikely.

The suggestion of Diagnosis of the Group (one-shots to figure out play style and game preference/s) is a possible solution: since that might be the better way to show Bob that Changing his behavior (in such a way that he comes to that conclusion, himself) really is a Good Idea.

It's just as possible that gathering the group around the table and "openly hashing this out" over pizza, will work better.

But, once again, only Talakeal is "on the ground", and might better understand his friend then us.

My, I can be Long-winded!
Hope this helps.

[Quertus]

So, the exchange between the Dragon and myself is a great metaphor for Talakeal's table. And the intervention of OT1 makes a great metaphor for the underlying concept that I'm pushing.

Now, you could mislabel that concept "diagnostics", or "listening", or "changing your perspective", or "growth", or "breakthrough / eureka / starburst thinking", or any number of other sometimes seemingly unrelated words.

The most concise explanation I can give is, I'm trying to put Talakeal and his table in the best position* from which to understand their problems themselves. Running dedicated diagnostics is the most efficient, effective technique for this, but it is not the only one. I am concerned that Talakeal had rejected or ignored every single suggestion I have put forth to better enable his table to understand themselves. Thus, I feel that sitting down for pizza will be unlikely to produce any better results than the past 8 years, because they're all still on the wrong frequency to hear their problems, let alone the solutions for them. Bob's suggestions for fixing the game being just more evidence of that fact.

Of course, "Eureka!" originated in the bath, so who knows what random stimulus might spark the change Talakeal's table needs to choose a better path.

I might have continued trying to hand Talakeal successively worse torches until he accepted one but, honestly, I'm tired. Talakeal needs to both want to find a better path, and to be able to distinguish better from worse. And my communication skills may simply discourage him, may give him an aversion to what's needed so that he rejects his own Eureka moment, rejects the path if he finds it.

* I couldn't resist the metaphor here - I'm suggesting mapmaking, standing on the mountain, getting closer, stepping back, using color filters. Which may at times sound contradictory, but they're all about changing your vantage point / changing what you are seeing, to try to get a better perspective on the situation.

[Great Dragon]

@Quertus:
Disclaimer: Rudeness not intended.

The "Final Layer" of the "Elephant" story is: Wisdom.

That, no matter how (mis)interpreted - the "Elephant" does not change.
And that it takes Wisdom to "truly understand" Knowledge.

The main thing that I saw OldTrees1 trying to politely convey, was that by using the "Elephant" metaphor, you were placing yourself in at least the "seeing son's" position.
"Noticing how the different parts connected."

If not the position of the "Seeing Father".
"Understanding how all the parts are truly related."

Which could lead to mis-interpreted (insulted) meanings.

******

But - "the Elephant" doesn't really apply to RPGs (and especially not RL relationships) because there are too many variables, and are in motion to boot.

*****

I return to patiently waiting for Talakeal to return with updates.

[Psikerlord]

My players absolutely hate it when a monster has an ability that they cannot replicate. If it is an ability out of the monster manual, they will usually grumble and tolerate it, but if it is a custom ability they absolutely read my the riot act. I assume this is just my players being crazy and not normal, right? Anyone else have experience with that?


But one of my players absolutely loathes legendary / lair actions*. He is normally one of my more reasonable players, but every time legendary actions come up in game or merely in discussion he immediately goes into a bad mood and starts grumbling and complaining or quietly sulking.


This came to a head yesterday when they were fighting a dragon. He complained loudly the entire fight about how BS legendary actions were, and at one point there was an unclear rule involving a monster's legendary action and I needed to make a ruling and we were discussing it and the player but in and said, "No point in discussing this. Talakeal always rules in the monster's favor when legendary actions are concerned. We might as well just write a house rule that states: Change description of all legendary actions to "The monster does whatever Talakeal wants it to do."

Then, when his character hit zero HP (not dead, just disabled and fully heal-able) the player got up, pulled out his phone, and went into the other room to surf the net rather than pay attention to the game.


So yeah, for some reason, this player really really hates legendary actions. I try to explain that they are necessary to keep the action moving and to counteract the advantages provided by action economy, but the player simply doesn't see it and just gets mad and turns the discussion into a fight any time I bring it up. At this point I am legitimately considered house ruling legendary actions out of the game and just giving boss monsters extra HP and damage to compensate because I am tired of fighting about it.

Anyone have any advice? Either how to socially disarm the situation or mechanically change the rules? Anyone have any similar opinions or experiences with legendary actions?



*: For anyone not familiar with this concept, it is basically a concept introduced in recent editions of D&D where certain "boss" monsters have a few special abilities that they can only use as bonus actions during the player's turn.

First, your player is a baby. Second, legendary actions arent even strong enough to properly turn your BBEG into a true solo. They need more than that to actually challenge the PCs HP and action pool. Third, just explain to players that boss monsters dont follow the same rules as PCs or most normal mosnters. They are special coz the're bosses. No further explanation required.

[Quertus]

@Quertus:
Disclaimer: Rudeness not intended.

The "Final Layer" of the "Elephant" story is: Wisdom.

That, no matter how (mis)interpreted - the "Elephant" does not change.
And that it takes Wisdom to "truly understand" Knowledge.

The main thing that I saw OldTrees1 trying to politely convey, was that by using the "Elephant" metaphor, you were placing yourself in at least the "seeing son's" position.
"Noticing how the different parts connected."

If not the position of the "Seeing Father".
"Understanding how all the parts are truly related."

Which could lead to mis-interpreted (insulted) meanings.

******

But - "the Elephant" doesn't really apply to RPGs (and especially not RL relationships) because there are too many variables, and are in motion to boot.

*****

I return to patiently waiting for Talakeal to return with updates.

Oh, I think I get it now! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

So, when I was talking about "seeing the elephant", y'all thought I was talking about Talakeal's game? I wasn't. I was talking about understanding what I was talking about. Which, you know, you'd expect me to have the tone of the one who could see the elephant, because you'd expect me to know what I'm talking about… except I was actually taking the role of a blind man who had been around the cave a few times, and gotten a feel for several pieces of the elephant, even if he wasn't sure how much of the elephant that represented.

For Talakeal's game, my point was that we aren't there, we're just hearing what Talakeal reports. So the "trunk" of the elephant was diagnostics. The elephant itself is, I think, best described by yet another metaphor: "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". Except even that is wrong, as if that's only one side of the elephant, while another side of the elephant is "many hands make light work". Yeah, I still haven't seen the elephant myself.

Apologies for the miscommunication, making it sound like I was saying you don't know what's going on in Talakeal's game. Although, technically, I suppose that, independently of this conversation, I *am* actually saying that of all of us, to a degree, as none of us are there. However, with the elephant metaphor, I was only saying, "that's not what *I* am talking about". What I am talking about is (IMO) best instantiated as "diagnostics", but is a… larger underlying philosophy?

I'm a ****, but apologies for coming off as even more of a **** than I am.

Any chance I'm finally barking up the right tree?

[OldTrees1]

Oh, I think I get it now! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

So, when I was talking about "seeing the elephant", y'all thought I was talking about Talakeal's game?

I'm a ****, but apologies for coming off as even more of a **** than I am.

Any chance I'm finally barking up the right tree?

No. You just got sidetracked.

Great Dragon and I perfectly understood that "the elephant" was being used as a metaphor for "that specific unnamed concept you were trying to communicate".

The reason I want to avoid using "the elephant" is rather simple. Using "the elephant" as a metaphor for a concept you have been trying to explain can result in loudly saying:

"You missed my point and thus must be a blind fool."

I will refer to this usage as "the metaphor" below.

That sentence is not the only intended meaning of the metaphor, but the metaphor allows the other person to infer that meaning even when (especially when) it is not the intended meaning.

Since the metaphor has such a dangerous unintended inference, I do not consider myself skilled enough to use the metaphor without provocation.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. You just got sidetracked.

Great Dragon and I perfectly understood that "the elephant" was being used as a metaphor for "that specific unnamed concept you were trying to communicate".

The reason I want to avoid using "the elephant" is rather simple. Using "the elephant" as a metaphor for a concept you have been trying to explain can result in loudly saying:

"You missed my point and thus must be a blind fool."

I will refer to this usage as "the metaphor" below.

That sentence is not the only intended meaning of the metaphor, but the metaphor allows the other person to infer that meaning even when (especially when) it is not the intended meaning.

Since the metaphor has such a dangerous unintended inference, I do not consider myself skilled enough to use the metaphor without provocation.

Sort of like how one can use a loaded pistol as a hammer, but it's... contraindicated.

[OldTrees1]

Sort of like how one can use a loaded pistol as a hammer, but it's... contraindicated.

Either that or the reverse.

I could be using a scrimshaw knife to carve scrimshaw. However a scrimshaw knife can be seen as a dangerous combat knife. Regardless of my intended usage of the scrimshaw knife, I can expect the possibility of someone being terrified. Since I am not able to control that reaction, I don't scrimshaw in public.

(I don't scrimshaw in private either, nor do I own a scrimshaw knife. Examples are sometimes just examples.)

[Great Dragon]

So, when I was talking about "seeing the elephant", y'all thought I was talking about Talakeal's game? I wasn't. I was talking about understanding what I was talking about. Which, you know, you'd expect me to have the tone of the one who could see the elephant, because you'd expect me to know what I'm talking about… except I was actually taking the role of a blind man who had been around the cave a few times, and gotten a feel for several pieces of the elephant, even if he wasn't sure how much of the elephant that represented.

The elephant itself is, I think, best described by yet another metaphor: "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime". Except even that is wrong, as if that's only one side of the elephant, while another side of the elephant is "many hands make light work". Yeah, I still haven't seen the elephant myself.

Couple of things, here.
1) Your advice to Talakeal for a possible solution: "Diagnosis", was something that could have helped. (And still might)

2) Since this Thread was focused on "helping" with Talakeal's request for aid;
Your search to define and overcome "the problem" really should have been put into another Thread. (Most likely here, in the Roleplaying Forum) Stating as much of what you currently understand about "the problem" as possible.

Spoiler: examples

Show

I tend to use references to things that are already established (Like: Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and X-Men: and readers are likely to already know about them, and how they "act") as examples. I do my best to relay that my doing this are only examples.

[Talakeal]

Well, we played again. Nothing really to report, no conflict over the game, and nobody else had any complaints.

Session went OK, it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.

I think I will start posting my campaign journal either next weekend or the weekend after, so if you are interested keep a lookout for that.

[Segev]

Glad to hear it went smoothly. That’s always a plus.

[Talakeal]

Well, we played again, and while the games are going all right, I have to say the level of bitching is really starting to stress me out.

First, they were talking to an NPC sage and "Bob" was bored. I told him that he could talk to, that the sage knew the answers to several mysteries about his own character's personal backstory, and Bob flat-out told me that unless it is going to power up his character it isn't worth his time to care about things like that. So, I guess that's ok for him, but the problem is that I have set up the campaign so that everyone's personal story ties together to form the overall metaplot, which means there are going to be a lot of chunks missing for the other characters.


Now, Bob always plays mages. Long ago he complained that I put too many mage NPCs into my supposedly low-magic world, so he doesn't feel special. So I have made a conscious decision to limit the number of NPC spellcasters they face. As a result, the PCs don't invest heavily into defenses against magic. So this session they came up against an NPC with mind control powers, and the group got its but kicked hard, and then I had to listen to a rant about how its no fair that NPCs can somewhat reliably resist Bobs spells, but his party members rarely resist enemy spells and that I need to tone down my NPCs.


Bob had to leave early, so we were trying to finish before he left, but we didn't quite make it. The party, who was in very bad shape after the previous incident, made their way through the dungeon and encountered the "end boss". He is an intelligent and somewhat sympathetic villain, and there was a decent chance the party could have talked him down without a fight or even recruited him to their side. The group talks to him for about a minute, and then Bob decided to fireball the villain (in accordance with his "no monologues" rule) and then leave.

Now, the party was in a very bad way, but nobody wanted to take control of Bob's PC, even people whose own PCs were unconscious and they had nothing to do, because of how the last time someone played his character (see a previous thread) he got extremely pissed off OOC and threatened them with IC retribution if I didn't retcon it. So, Bob's character, who was down to two spell slots anyway, just sat in the corner. The fight played out and came right down to the wire, with the end boss at only a few HP, but still enough able to TPK the party on his next turn or two. So, I declared that Bob's mage would use his last two spells to nuke the boss. He saved against the first spell, but the second landed and took him down, the enemy was dead, the party was saved, XP for everyone, play again in two weeks.

But, just now, I got a text from Bob saying that he heard about how I "Pissed away all of his character's resources the instant he left," and how he is really pissed off at me about it.

[MrSandman]

Tell him that if he doesn't like it he can start rolling a new character because his died while he was sitting in a corner.

On a more serious note, if people were talking to the bad guy and Bob literally fireballed him and left, I would just ignore his last action and return to the others actually deciding whether they want to fight the guy or not, instead of letting Bob impose such decision on them.

[Max_Killjoy]

Either Bob is a total d-bag, and you should not game with him, or there's something about gaming that brings out the very worst in Bob, and you should not game with him.

Every behavior related to gaming that you've related regarding Bob is deeply negative.

[Great Dragon]

@Talakeal
I'm inclined to agree that you may need to simply stop playing with Bob.

Send him a text (or email) and tell him that you can't run the game both ways, where he leaves the group, but also doesn't want anyone playing his character - or you "wasting" his Resources while he's away, even to make a >big< difference in a Boss fight.

I'd talk to the group when Bob wasn't around, and politely ask them if they would want to keep playing in your game, and if so proceed to find a new Place to have your games.

If not, well - only you can decide if you want to continue letting Bob (seemingly) control your games and effectively run your group.
**********
Maybe now that the Boss is dead, (but, it sounds like the Campaign is still trucking on)
just run Murder-Hobo Dungeon Crawls whenever Bob is in the group.

Bob doesn't care enough to actually participate with the other players?
Take his PC out of the Mega Plot and Adjust the game as needed.

Keep the "Talking RP" (for the rest of group) to when he finally gets bored and storms/wanders off?

[Lord of Shadows]

But, just now, I got a text from Bob saying that he heard about how I "Pissed away all of his character's resources the instant he left," and how he is really pissed off at me about it.

It's funny Bob would complain about his character insuring the success of the party (and thereby, his character), when all he wants is success for his character... Actually no, it's not funny. It's... strange.

Some points to ponder, Talakeal. No need to answer any of these here, just things for you to think about, long and hard:

• After his mage threw the fireball and Bob left, what was the reaction of the other players? Was there a big, collective sigh of relief?
• When the idea came up for Bob's character to throw his final spells, was everyone on pins and needles worried what Bob would do when he found out?
• How enjoyable was the session without Bob?
• How do your other players feel about "Bob"? Have any complained in private?
• Has Bob always been like this?

Depending on your answers, maybe you should tell Bob the next session is cancelled, then go ahead with everyone else like normal. Chances are you will have a lot more fun and get alot more accomplished. It may show yourself and the others it's time for Bob to move on. You should have taken advantage of the time together without Bob there to talk to everyone about it, but my guess is that at least some discussion occurred, even if only slightly.

You can bring in an NPC caster if they need one, and even give the NPC the background you gave Bob's character if it's integral to the campaign. I did this once with an NPC Cleric when the party needed help, and everyone's background was woven together. Over the course of the campaign they discovered she was a distant relative of the dead Emperor and next in line for the throne, but had gone into hiding as an "adventurer" to avoid the court intrigue. The session they found that out simply amazed the players. They ended up convincing the NPC to take the crown and helped her get it. Classic swords and sorcery. Plus having an NPC be the plot element prevented the perception of any player being favored over any other. In the end, everyone got a position in the new empire. The campaign took almost 2 years real time.

So, why are you torturing yourself and the others? Players like Bob can destroy everyone's enjoyment of the game, including yours, and is that really worth keeping Bob around? You can try talking to Bob out-of-game, but I doubt it really will go anywhere.

One resource that might help you with this is an old archive at WotC called "Save My Game"

@Talakeal
I'm inclined to agree that you may need to simply stop playing with Bob.

And ditto everything Great Dragon and Max_Killjoy said....
.

[Koo Rehtorb]

This thread is now twelve pages of you posting stories complaining about how playing with Bob is not fun and getting told that you should stop playing with Bob. What exactly are you looking for here?

[Cluedrew]

I'm going to say this: If Bob is actually a good friend and we are just seeing a bad side of him because of some various factors, stop playing the game. Finishing this campaign is not worth losing a friend over so just kill it. Play board games (preferably ones without inter-player politics) instead. The way things are going I don't think this is just going to get better so just cut it off and reset.