Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been DMing 4ed for a short time now. We only have 4 in our group (including me) so I run a char that cannot speak to fill out the party. Lately, however, my group has been becoming increasingly hostile toward each other (and not me strangely enough). Effectively what happens is as follows:

1. The group finishes an encounter and is trying to decide what to do
2. Someone (Call him "Rouge") will simply sprint off in a random direction and do something (in short order)
3. The self-proclaimed "party leader" (Call him "Captain") will get irritated and become hostile (I assume as Rouge didn't discuss the choice first).
4. The third (Call her "Shadow") will do what she usually does of shooting a bow at enemies or making perception checks. Not much else.
5. A fifth currently using my char (Call her "Cloth") will do nothing in the hopes rouge dies.
6. Captain will complain suggesting an alternate course of action after <player> had made his/her choice. ("You should have <fill in the blank>")

This has repeated enough times that Captain has started to drop "hints" to me to punish Rouge (last suggestion was to lock his char up for an entire session). I refuse to do such things however (this is actually why I demanded for me to be DM as the others lack attention span or tact or both). He also suggested Rouge was cheating with his abilities (we have only 1 Player's handbook between us so we write our abilities' text on note cards) as he has AC and HP on par with Captain's (the "tank/healer") but is doing more damage (he has the strongest weapon in the party currently). After checking them, I found only 1 major discrepancy with a single skill involving what it can target. I've since corrected it.

As far as I can tell, either rouge is indeed cheating (I've yet to see anything) or captain is getting jealous (read: butt-hurt) because someone is doing better. Before next session, I'll play auditor and check everyone's everything to make sure the numbers and letters crunch correctly (Just to be fair to Rouge) and report my findings to the group. However, if this in-fighting continues I'm fairly certain the group will fall apart. Anyone have any suggestions to stop such douche-baggery or is this group doomed to failure?

Some notes on the players:

Captain is the type that will refuse to help when rebuked or ignored.
Rouge is the type that will simply leave when rebuked.
Shadow is the type that gets terribly flustered when criticized in any way (to the point of making an excuse for every single action and then getting all depressed).
Cloth is the type that is willing to let others die for their stupidity (poor die rolls don't count as stupidity) even when they are in a position to help.

PS. If you are part of my DnD group, you know who you are and everything posted here is true and is supported by your past actions. Please be aware that my annoyance caused by your actions is quickly approaching my "feth this, I'm done." threshold.

EDIT: Fixed subject

Sounds like a painful group. Are they friends outside of the game?

Without knowing what the specifics are of the things your Rogue does on their own volition, are they distracting or detrimental to the game? For example, in the situation "we killed the goblins attacking the village", would the Rogue be more likely to:

A) loot the corpses before being instructed to,
B) literally sprint off in a random direction, or
C) pickpocket the townsfolk?

If the answer is A, then your Captain has control issues and has forgotten that there's other people playing the game.
If the answer is B, then you have to ask yourself if it's because things are boring at that point, and you need to keep the action going, or is Rogue just a flighty kind of person.
If the answer is C, and you're not playing that kind of game, then you should probably have something bad befall the Rogue so as to not propagate such behavior.

Are you saying in point number 4, that your "Shadow" player has things to fire at after you finish an encounter, or are you just simply saying that she doesn't get involved until told to do something?

My first impression is that you have in your group two people who are pretty strongly free-willed, and that's causing conflict, specifically because the first one seems bent to maintain control over the second one. As far as the allegations of cheating goes, that's uncalled for on both parts. Roleplaying games aren't supposed to be a dick-waving contest. They just don't work like that. You audit your player's sheets, well and fine, but that's not going to fix the issue.

The good thing to do would be to find some way to devise making 'party-leader' be an official thing, and give all the players some reason to respect it. Impress them into a town guard for a while or something, maybe. The better thing to do would be to call them out on this, and if they leave, well, then you have open slots with which to find a group who can act like adults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As an anecdote, I play a character in a game who does stupid stuff. His personal beliefs include a combination of never surrendering, and protecting the other members of the party as best he can. As a result, he's a constant pincushion, and the other players know they're going to have to literally drag me away from fights if they're not already carrying me away unconscious and dying. They know I like to play characters with personality flaws though, and Quixotic Hedge Knight came up this time around, so they're rolling with it. Even though it means that an extra healing spell or two gets wasted an encounter, it also makes for a compelling story.

Perhaps everyone needs to sit down and make public the types of character they're actually trying to play in the interest of both reminding the rest of them that they're both, not the lead belle at the dance, and supposed to have to deal with these conflicting personalities in game in a way that isn't throwing a hissy fit or passive-aggressively trying to get your DM to kick the other guy in the balls.

When I first DMed 4E, I noticed the PCs were doing poorly with the encounters. When they started to work together, the encounters were not only more manageable for them but also more fun as everyone recognized the other's particular strengths so that everyone felt some measure of respect. My advice: do not be afraid of the TPK. The game is rules-heavy enough that they can blame no one but themselves if they don't get it together on a tougher EL.

Undeniably, the answer is A. But, that is the first thing they ask once they finish an encounter (Last mob dies. "What do we get?"). He doesn't harass the NPCs any more than they need to be. He'll let the group say between 3-4 sentences total before sprinting ahead.

The Shadow player simply goes through all the motions and is extremely predictable. Though she makes a bad move more often than the others one can't really be faulted for it. The reason I mention it is because it makes Captain pissy and thus makes things worse than they need to be.

I know auditing the sheets won't solve the immediate problem but it will remove any notion of players having padded a couple stats.

An example of what the rouge has done last session:

Immediately after the encounter where I introduced a new player (he will only be present for 2 sessions so I omitted him in my original post as this problem has been going on longer) the group had a choice of 2 paths. One down a hallway, the other into the room where the new player was (literally) thrown in. Before the group could respond or even make friends with the stranger, he ran down the hall into the next encounter. Thanks to his resist and the group rushing to save him, he didn't die. After he had figured his exp, he ran off again before the group could really do anything (again triggering the next encounter). This time, however, he was past a timed airlock and had to fight by his lonesome. He nearly died but the group (minus "Cloth") managed to break the doors down and save him.

Another time I presented them with a logic test (an out-of-game puzzle) instead of trying to solve like the rest of the group he simply started pulling chains and nearly killed the group.

He also rushes skill checks. As soon as someone declares they are making a skill check he says the same and literally attempts to roll before them -_-'.

I've no problem with making/playing odd characters. The character currently on lease to Cloth is a Goliath Warlock who can't speak common, is missing his right arm, and outright refuses to wear any armor heavier than cloth (Hence the name); but, when you keep doing something you know bothers the group (in a negative way) it is simply not a good idea.

Now that I think about it, I think the issue is I reward people based on what they do. Exp is split between anyone who at least attempted to do something to aid the group/solve the problem. He may be trying to find simple skill challenges by running ahead of the group so he can hog the exp. I think I'll stop doing this as the only other solutions are to omit such encounters or to adopt an "I got the conch!" system.

I'm not sure about making "team leader" an actual title. If I do it will simply give captain more incentive to complain about the others. For this I think i'm better off leaving the title transparent. If it persists I'll have to find some other way of reeling him in.

EDIT: The team has come close to wiping a couple times now but they manage to pull through. Most encounters go pretty well. In the earlier levels (where we are still at) I'll shave an enemy's critical hit down to a normal hit if it would have wiped the group as that close victory makes it more entertaining. But, captain's politicking and rouge's greediness are nothing short of childish. Maybe a Wipe will do them good. I won't force it though.

Sounds like a PLAYER issue, not a character issue.

Kick him out of the game if he's disruptive.

How about a level drain effect? I know they're not supposed to exist in 4E but you're the DM so whatever. Next time the rogue runs ahead, he gets in over his head and takes 1d4 level drain hits from some kind of magical ray trap. You can have them heal "naturally" over the course of several in-game days or, if he starts to work with the party as a result, reward that behavior by throwing in a potion or something that restores the levels in the loot of the next kill.

 Manchu wrote:
When I first DMed 4E, I noticed the PCs were doing poorly with the encounters. When they started to work together, the encounters were not only more manageable for them but also more fun as everyone recognized the other's particular strengths so that everyone felt some measure of respect. My advice: do not be afraid of the TPK. The game is rules-heavy enough that they can blame no one but themselves if they don't get it together on a tougher EL.

I completely agree with this.

I would also recommend killing off the GMPC. If someone takes it over, fine. (Although killing it off so they can have a more suitable/personalized replacement is always a valid idea...) D&D is often criticized for an 'us vs. them' playstyle where the GM is an adversary, but you may need a tiny bit of this. The players are a team, you're a team, don't mix the two for purposes of the game.

If necessary, remind Captain that you're running the game, not him/her. Maybe sit down individually with Captain and Rogue (I assume that's what you mean, not Rouge...) and discuss things. Make it casual: having a drink or lunch depending on your group dynamics and such. Ask that they go along with the storyline a bit, don't be overly confrontational at first.

Mechanically, if Rogue is a thiefy Striker that character should probably do the most damage, especially if they're playing smart. A rogue/thief almost always wants to have Combat Advantage as it takes damage from low to amazing, especially if the character has taken the options to upgrade the backstabbing abilities. Captain's class is less clear

If the numbers worry you and there's very little house-ruled stuff, consider popping for DDI for a month or two and re-build all characters in the character builder tool to get the numbers straightened out. 4e bonuses can get a little wacky at times, so the tool will generally prevent forgetting or double-applying them. If you play at a store and have internet access and a laptop, you can make them all there. If you play at a house, even easier.

if its 4th ed D&D the xp is shared amongst the players equally, so there can be no hogging. If it isn't I'd suggest changing how xp goes so that it can't be hogged and everyone shares.

Sharing in RPG games makes them less "competitive". Sounds like he's fighting to get as much xp as possible.

Either he's disruptive, in which case he has to go, or, he's been "cheated" out of his share of the xp (even if only in his own mind) and trying to make sure he gets his. Either way, it sounds like a problem.

You have people with different play styles and no one is compromising. You'll have to kick out the rogue, I'm afraid.

Hint to the rest of the group to let the rogue run off by himself. Let him get killed in a way that can't be raised.

When he does it again with a new character, let him get killed.

If he wants to do his own thing, he can stay home and play video games. If he wants to have fun with the party, he'll fall in line.

Roleplaying games are a communal event, a shared experience amongst friends or just acquaintances. If someone keeps making it "all about me", then they aren't the type of person I would play with. We have kicked three people out of our group over the years. Not because they were bad people, but because their style of play didn't mesh with the existing group to the point of constant arguments and wasted time.

Intentionally killing Rogue off seems a bit heavy handed, but, I haven't been shaving any dice rolls to save him either. The group always manages to save him despite his stupidity and how much he irritates the others.

He is probably trying to hog the skill-check exp goodness. I'll just standardize everyone's EXP levels (simple sum up then divide evenly) when I audit their sheets and note-card skills. They will whine a bit but no one is more than 200 exp ahead of any another.

If your wondering;

Rogue plays Deva Avenger
Shadow plays Elf Ranger
Cloth plays Goliath Warlock
Captain plays Human Warlord
Temporary player plays Dragonborn Paladin

The only house rules implemented are critical failures:

Critical Failures: On a natural roll of 1 and a failed subsequent save, melee weapons are thrown d6 squares in the direction determined by a d4 and ranged weapons hit a random ally in front of the player. Skill fail results depend on what was attempted.
If a player rolls a critical fail on their critical fail save (and fails to save again), their weapon/implement breaks (in a way it is repairable with proper equipment). (So far this has happened once)

I'll post how my change has helped/exacerbated the situation once Sunday rolls around and passes. thanks for the suggestions though.

EDIT: Typos

Standardizing experience points is a fantastic idea. I give out additional points for extreme levels of roleplaying (per case basis) or going above and beyond to flesh out a character (setting up a 'prequel' game, character portrait, building props), but otherwise, everyone gets the same experience, and everyone levels up at the same pace. To do otherwise gives people too much incentive to powergame, and hurts the people who don't.

 daedalus wrote:
Standardizing experience points is a fantastic idea. I give out additional points for extreme levels of roleplaying (per case basis) or going above and beyond to flesh out a character (setting up a 'prequel' game, character portrait, building props), but otherwise, everyone gets the same experience, and everyone levels up at the same pace. To do otherwise gives people too much incentive to powergame, and hurts the people who don't.

A LOT of people running 4e apparently just use the rubric of leveling whenever the GM says so. it makes a lot of sense in 4e: the system is complex enough that leveling can be involved, so if everyone does it at the same time it's an excuse for a food break while everyone picks feats/powers/etc. and recalculates stats.

The net result is the same.

I like 'individual' XP in some systems, though. My favorite technique, thought up when I was 14 or so, was to have the players nominate an MVP for an extra XP bump each session. They'll generally spread it around, GM retains veto. In games like (say) Deadlands or the various WW games, having a few extra XP to spend isn't a huge deal as characters progress in individual skills instead of D&D's levels, so advancement isn't as big of a deal to spread out a bit.

One nice thing 4e got rid of is the need to burn XP to create magic items that was a 3e innovation I never really liked.

I audited the sheets and standardized the exp. Doing both seems to have eliminated Rogue wanting to run ahead and Captain's complaining.

On auditing the character sheets, there were errors with every sheet. Everyone save Captain had forgotten to upgrade their skills by 1 after hitting level 4. Captain had taken Weapon Prof - Longswords on a warlord which is already proficient with them (he changed it to weapon expertize which I allowed). Shadow had miscalculated her health to be lower than it really was and her number of healing surges to be higher than it really was. Rogue had been using both Censure of Retribution and Censure of Pursuit (he was unaware he only got to use one). Both Captain and Rogue had done quite a bad job of copying down skills as both managed to leave out key words or lines (typically associated with damage type, targets, and restrictions on effects).

Despite these changes, the last session was quite enjoyable as no one was complaining about game mechanics/ exp imbalances/ characters being too OP. They actually functioned quite well as the group of 5 managed to beat an encounter of 4 Evistro's (Carnage Demons) with resistances to their most common damage types and immediately after beat the boss of the campaign so badly I had to increase its life-total by 1/3 just to make the fight more climactic (the group was at the tail end of level 4 and was fighting a Fire-Eye Beholder toned down to level 9).

As a side note, after the boss fight, the 5th's character (Dragonborn Paladin) ran off in some general direction screaming "EVIL! EEEEVIIIIIILLLLL!" as only Mermaid-Man can properly do.

Nice. Good to hear that you had a successful session! It's always nice to have someone go over the character sheet, and it's great that EVERYONE had something wrong, so there were no accusations to level against any particular player. I had to 'upgrade' my duskblade to a magus when UM was released and I somehow ended up having about 20 hit points less than i should have and a couple other stats screwed up. We didn't catch it until I got one-shotted by an Ice Drake.

Now I always look forward to audits of my character sheet.

I would've suggested dropping them into the Tomb of Horrors. Maybe once they've lost several of their limbs they'll start to work together.

Glad to hear they've started to work together a bit more.

If Rogue starts running off ahead again then I would suggest you do an Aeofel on him and drop him into an acid pit with a very hard DC to climb out of.

After he's dissolved you give the party the option, in the next session, to go on a quest to raise him through some ancient ritual which requires them to sacrifice an item of great power. Roll up a new character for The Player Formerly Known As Rogue to use for the session. When they get the artifact it is up to the players if they wish to keep it or to use it to resurrect Rogue.

If they keep it then have TPFKAR roll up a new character for use in the next session and have the other players explain why they chose not to resurrect him. If they do resurrect him then explain that this ritual can never be repeated as the artifact they sacrificed was the last of its kind. This warns Rogue that if he runs off again and is killed in a way which makes normal resurrection impossible he will be dead permanently, with no choice but to make a new character.

Have you got a DMG? Because your players read like archetypes from that (or Robin's Laws). The idea being that there are some types of players that re-occur.
The Tactician: Wants to maximise strategy and win combats with the minimum expenditure of resources- plays D'n'D like a Wargame and may treat other players as chess pieces. (Could be your Captain)
The Instigator: Will always be trying to cause SOMETHING to happen. If there is a big red button, the instigator will push it. (Your Rogue sounds like a classic instigator)
The Casual Player: Sits in the background, content to just hang out and sometimes use their characters abilities to do something, but not always engaged in the game. Mostly plays for social reasons. (Sounds like Shadow)
Other archetypes:
The Storyteller: Really wants to be in an epic fantasy story. Can be a bit obsessive about keeping track of NPCs and events. May get bored by combat or logistics.
The Method Actor/Diva: Wants to play their character to the hilt, probably with an involved backstory. Doesn't "get" that other players may tire of a plot focused on them. Can be excellent for roleplaying sections however.
The Slayer: Likes to kill stuff, not much else.
The Power Gamer: Likes to increase in power in whatever way possible.
The Specialist: Always plays similar classes in different games. Always a mage/rogue/ninja/whatever.

I don't think I left any of them out. All of them have their upsides and their downsides, the Dn'D 4th DMG actually has some good advice on how to handle them.

The players must have failed their animosity check.