A lich is a hyper intelligent entity and shouldn't sit within 60 feet and get his good shit counterspelled, a lich knows what counterspell is, and how to avoid it happening to them
Yeah, I gotta figure out some reason why my lich was being such a dumbass here...
Hubris, maybe? He's so sure of himself that he thought he could curb stomp everyone. Plus the original party wizard had been gone for a bit and not only just reappeared through a gate but also brought a new wizard ally with him, so that could have blindsided him.
Either way, he's gonna be especially pissed at those wizards now and ready to fuck them over big time.
might wanna check out forbiddance!
I don't think you can get yourself out of this one.
You're just going to have to play this lich as a total derp :P
Thing is I actually ran another spellcaster enemy in the previous session to practice. However, the party didn't have any wizards present that session, so I didn't get a chance to see how debilitating counterspell is.
Not only that, but the fact that it eats your movement, action, and reaction on top of preventing any concentration buffs. It's not a great tactic, and before today when I read the rules in depth on it, I would absolutely have called BS the first time a DM tried it on me.
Hell, I researched the rules so I could call BS on Override367. I gladly admit that I was wrong on RAW and that is how it works. I still think it's BS.
It's absolutely not BS, it's giving up concentration to get around a spell that has precious few counters, and it even works mechanically, they're literally holding onto the spell (for a maximum of 6 seconds). They could trigger a greater invisibility contingency and then cast whatever they wanted, get out of range and just sit in a globe of darkness (which they can see through), sit in a globe of invulnerability, have mooks focus the wizard who counterspells them as they do not have shield
Another great option is for the lich's lair to have Glyph's of Warding.
Glyph: Spell Store
Spell Stored: Counterspell
Triggering condition: A living creature casts counterspell
A lich is a hyper intelligent entity and shouldn't sit within 60 feet and get his good shit counterspelled, a lich knows what counterspell is, and how to avoid it happening to them
I agree with everything you're saying except the "corner hopping" tactic. I find it gamist and a warping of the mechanical language to accomplish something that you've already solved in a bunch of totally awesome ways.
You disagree with that thought. That's cool!
I'm stealing your Glyph idea and expanding it to include any magic negating spells. I find Dispel Magic to be just as, if not more so annoying than Counterspell because it usually strips off several turns worth of buff spells in one shot.
Thing is I actually ran another spellcaster enemy in the previous session to practice. However, the party didn't have any wizards present that session, so I didn't get a chance to see how debilitating counterspell is.
Have the next macguffin the players encounter release a portion of the Lich’s power that had been sealed away by ancient heroes.
Then the Lich is smarter and more powerful when they run into it again with the added bonus of it being their fault!
don't forget feeblemind!
a drooling wizard isn't going to be not picking his nose any time soon!
Best story about feeblemind I have is the time a friend of mine got it to go off on Grazzt which was silly enough at first, since the demon prince of impulsive desire and lust was now a blitthering dumbass (intelligence set to 1), Moved into absurdly hilarious when we noted it also effected his charisma (so now he's a drooling moron trying to seduce everyone by just frantically pointing at his junk) and full on ROFLMAO when we noted the duration (1 month) which meant that concievably he was stuck like this after we banished him the old fashioned way (by killing him).
But with regards to running a lich (or any other caster really) as a boss fight: you need to have some meat between the party and them. Doesn't matter what it is, you need something that will split their attention long enough for the lich to get his proper arch villain on without all your melee characters getting their gank on.
Not only that, but the fact that it eats your movement, action, and reaction on top of preventing any concentration buffs. It's not a great tactic, and before today when I read the rules in depth on it, I would absolutely have called BS the first time a DM tried it on me.
Hell, I researched the rules so I could call BS on Override367. I gladly admit that I was wrong on RAW and that is how it works. I still think it's BS.
It's absolutely not BS, it's giving up concentration to get around a spell that has precious few counters, and it even works mechanically, they're literally holding onto the spell (for a maximum of 6 seconds). They could trigger a greater invisibility contingency and then cast whatever they wanted, get out of range and just sit in a globe of darkness (which they can see through), sit in a globe of invulnerability, have mooks focus the wizard who counterspells them as they do not have shield
Another great option is for the lich's lair to have Glyph's of Warding.
Glyph: Spell Store
Spell Stored: Counterspell
Triggering condition: A living creature casts counterspell
A lich is a hyper intelligent entity and shouldn't sit within 60 feet and get his good shit counterspelled, a lich knows what counterspell is, and how to avoid it happening to them
I agree with everything you're saying except the "corner hopping" tactic. I find it gamist and a warping of the mechanical language to accomplish something that you've already solved in a bunch of totally awesome ways.
You disagree with that thought. That's cool!
I'm stealing your Glyph idea and expanding it to include any magic negating spells. I find Dispel Magic to be just as, if not more so annoying than Counterspell because it usually strips off several turns worth of buff spells in one shot.
*shrug* I dont really see it as a lot different than an archer retreating behind cover.
This deprives the lich of its counterspell as well and is generally a poor tactic, it makes more sense for something less all powerful and calculating like a regular wizard
I mean, why does the lich have to have gone all derp?
It's immortal. What does it care if they smash it once? It comes back. And now it knows their capabilities and can tailor tactics specifically against them.
As long as it's phylactery is safe it has nothing to fear from them.
Plus, fun fun side note, the lich now knows of at least two very powerful wizards who, when you think about it, aren't really using their bodies to their utmost potential, now are they?
I mean, why does the lich have to have gone all derp?
It's immortal. What does it care if they smash it once? It comes back. And now it knows their capabilities and can tailor tactics specifically against them.
As long as it's phylactery is safe it has nothing to fear from them.
2 reasons would be my guess.
1. Self respect: I'd imagine it would be more then a little annoying for them to get hacked/slashed/blasted to pieces by some murder hobo's who are so far beneath them, and odds are good that they're fucking up your shit (home/plans/minions) in the process.
2. After these boobs get done tossing your place you're going to probably be out your best stuff; your cash, your grimoir, your collection of magic items, your rare and exotic reagents... all of them just went out the door so whatever you were doing is again: fucked up by these jerks.
I'd imagine that whatever place the party managed to trash was a second- tier backup base at best. Maybe even put together specifically for the purpose of testing out would- be hero groups. All the good stuff will be in the main lair, while the <i>best</i> stuff will be hidden with the phylactery so it's to hand right when he reforms.
Now, if you want to be really devious, make your phylactery an intelligent magic item. The kind of thing that the players will want to take as treasure and be incredibly unlikely to try and destroy. With luck, it might take several cycles of the party wizard's awesome new staff showing back up in the hands of the newly-reformed lich for them to catch on.
I think I've figured out a great way for my lich to get revenge next session. It involves him ambushing the party while they're sailing along the River Styx in Stygia, where he can fly above water that will inflict Feeblemind on any PCs who so much as touch it (which could be difficult to avoid if he uses Control Water...).
I think I've figured out a great way for my lich to get revenge next session. It involves him ambushing the party while they're sailing along the River Styx in Stygia, where he can fly above water that will inflict Feeblemind on any PCs who so much as touch it (which could be difficult to avoid if he uses Control Water...).
I applaud that idea.
It does, however, sound like that will quickly turn into a fight they cannot win ..
I've been playing with a group for quite a few years. 4 of the members have been there since the beginning. 1 player, let's call him Jim, arrived about 1.5 year ago and another, let's call him Hank, joined 2 weeks ago.
Jim, as a player, often takes things personally and generally likes to hog the lime light. This behaviour, while sorta annoying, didn't really detract much from my enjoyment of the games I've been running.
2 weeks ago, my core players (the 4 of them, or rather 3.5 of them) told me they've had enough as Jim, once again, had taken an ingame sequence rather personally and the game had grinded to a halt due to meta discussions of what was going on. It was, in short, a clusterfuck. They did not speak to Jim, this is something I did to try and find a way for him to not take things so personally. We agreed upon terms and the last 2 weeks were, from my perspective, fine. Our last session ended fine, but after the game my core players, once again, complained about Jim's constant interrupting during other players' RP interactions (this is partially my fault, I've been trying to implement a "raise your hand, wait your turn" system so that everyone gets to do something but some people, primarily Jim, forget it at times). Apparently, they've hit peak boiling point and want Jim ejected from the group.
I'm at a loss what to do.
I wish they'd have approached me or Jim, themselves, sooner.
But as it is, Jim's offences have been festering for the better part of a year.
Jim isn't a bad person per se, and he's been receptive to trying to improve when spoken to but from the sounds of it it's just way too late for the other players.
What to do?
I've thought about telling Jim that the others are slowly turning against him (a lie) and that, if he left now of his own accord, he'd at least be able to save face.
On the other hand, I feel that the other players have been skirting around actually talking to Jim for long enough and that they owe it to him to, at least once, talk to him.
edit:
Hank is abstaining from any votes or opinions as he's new. He's said that he has noticed the behaviour the others complain about but it hasn't gotten to him (yet).
how invested are you in the game being able to continue under a happy table?
answering that question will inform your decision, because in this land of murky social interactions there's a lot of shades of gray as to what is "the right thing to do".
if you think from a social perspective Jim is owed an explanation from the group, then you may well run the risk of shattering your group entirely, because I get the impression all of them feel pretty strongly about Jim in a negative sense and maybe they've been keeping quiet about it. if things have festered and you push for a "let's air the dirty laundry" session you could potentially light a powder keg that will blow up the game and your place in that social circle. rightly or wrongly, your friends who have been there from day one may not feel they owe Jim an explanation, especially if they find him insufferable.
edit: i don't think there's gonna be a clean way to go about this. i personally have no problem ejecting people due to toxic behavior, and if you can recognize the behavior is problematic (even if it doesn't bother you, necessarily) you don't necessarily owe Jim shit purely from the perspective of how you spend your leisure time. there is something to be said for compassion though and helping people get better, but again, it depends more on how flexible the rest are. it's a rough situation, fren
I think I've figured out a great way for my lich to get revenge next session. It involves him ambushing the party while they're sailing along the River Styx in Stygia, where he can fly above water that will inflict Feeblemind on any PCs who so much as touch it (which could be difficult to avoid if he uses Control Water...).
I applaud that idea.
It does, however, sound like that will quickly turn into a fight they cannot win ..
In that case I'd give them some kind of out, such as a denizen of the Styx or a devil attacking the lich, or maybe if the ship gets capsized and everyone gets feebleminded they regain their senses in some mysterious place.
maybe if the ship gets capsized and everyone gets feebleminded they regain their senses in some mysterious place.
This creates so many hooks about what happened in the last 30 days or longer. They wake up in a strange land, strange circumstances, no idea what the lich has been up to, what they've been up to, etc.
I think I've figured out a great way for my lich to get revenge next session. It involves him ambushing the party while they're sailing along the River Styx in Stygia, where he can fly above water that will inflict Feeblemind on any PCs who so much as touch it (which could be difficult to avoid if he uses Control Water...).
I applaud that idea.
It does, however, sound like that will quickly turn into a fight they cannot win ..
In that case I'd give them some kind of out, such as a denizen of the Styx or a devil attacking the lich, or maybe if the ship gets capsized and everyone gets feebleminded they regain their senses in some mysterious place.
I mean, you're assuming that "dead party", not "captive party, ready for fun experiments" is the lich's goal here.
maybe if the ship gets capsized and everyone gets feebleminded they regain their senses in some mysterious place.
This creates so many hooks about what happened in the last 30 days or longer. They wake up in a strange land, strange circumstances, no idea what the lich has been up to, what they've been up to, etc.
"Hail! We are strangers to this land, can you tell us anything about where we find ourse-"
"It's them! The Scourge! The personal guard of <Lich's name> the Terrible! Run! RUN!"
"...the what now? With the who? ...oh boy."
If they fall off into the Styx they might end up in a random fiendish plane. I'm looking for obscure Abyssal layers to use now. Driller's Hives (where parasitoid wasp demons inject eggs into their victims) and Twelvetrees (where ritually-sacrificed angels scream in pain forever) both sound pretty interesting...
EDIT: Oh holy shit, the Scalding Sea is awesome. It's an ocean of acid with obsidian islands. There's exactly one abandoned town whose main feature is that the central fountain sprays acid while emitting a screaming sound.
maybe if the ship gets capsized and everyone gets feebleminded they regain their senses in some mysterious place.
This creates so many hooks about what happened in the last 30 days or longer. They wake up in a strange land, strange circumstances, no idea what the lich has been up to, what they've been up to, etc.
The styx is a river. Pick an outer plane further downstream.
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
If they demand Jim be ejected, one of them should explain that to Jim. You're the storyteller, but you didn't sign up to be camp counselor. You don't have to break their bad news to him.
There's been a lot of discussion around how to work around the tools players have and yeah, having your encounters consistently bypassed would suck for all involved.
That said, as a player? The encounters that our party managed to trivialise due to clever use of tools are the encounters I actually remember. Unless there was some drama or heavy story involved one fight bleeds into the next, but that one time our party was on a cart, pursued by a huge gladiator riding a horse-drawn chariot, and my bard slept the horses, which promptly got crushed under said chariot that then flipped and crushed its rider? That I remember, we still make jokes about it.
+4
Options
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
I thought that was the fight where your Bard flew back and insulted the crippled chariot rider to death? Eeeeevil bard.
To be honest, I haven't had a group get this bad before. I've had a few players that haven't meshed well, and they've all left on their own accord. When I was a younger DM I used to let the players resolve their conflicts in-game, which I wouldn't recommend, and now as an older DM I'm very proactive with managing player expectations and social contracts. I also tend to be older than most of my players which lends me a little air of authority, and (this might be a little controversial) I'm not shy about trying to correct anti-social behaviors as I see them. I think most people are pretty on board with correcting things like overt bigotry (which I've dealt with in the past), but I also do things like "You should call ahead if you're not planning on being here or showing up late" or "don't be on your phone in the middle of the game" etc. One player I had a few years ago just wasn't meshing with the group: he really wanted to play a light-hearted One Piece style of play when everyone else was going for a more serious Skyrim tone, and his actions constantly clashed with the narrative. He just had a hard time understanding that, and as a whole the group was pretty patient with him and I kept trying to explain the differences to him (in private), but he eventually left on his own and I don't think that he was missed very much. Actually, small side story about that: he left without saying anything and just totally went dark online, so we were pretty worried that maybe something had happened to him and went so far as to try to track him down to make sure he was still alive (he was).
Now on to your situation. I've never had it get so bad, which isn't a condemnation of you but rather me admitting I might be out of my depth. I'm generally suspicious of a group that takes a hard-line against a single player; I worry that they've poisoned themselves and are angry or upset about other things that they might be projecting onto Jim. If that's the case a strong heart-to-heart (without Jim present) may be required. You might have a situation where Jim is on the Autism spectrum and once aware of that your players might be more sympathetic. On the other hand your players might be totally in the right and you simply don't see the situation as clearly because running a game takes a lot of concentration. If Jim is doing his best but he's still not meshing with your group, and a year is a long time to put up with someone who's just not getting it, then it may be time to just let him go.
In my situation, I tend to move around a lot so I'm always the newcomer into an area, and so it's often easiest for me to be the bearer of bad news. That's sort of colored my opinion which is I think it needs to be the DM to break up with the player. When I give players feedback (or if I were to hypothetically let one go) I'd frame it as "You're just not compatible with the game I'm running." If further details are required then you can elaborate on the problematic behavior and how it affects the game. "When you interrupt another player who's in the middle of roleplaying, it's really annoying for them and it breaks their immersion. That negative feeling can persist for awhile and it makes the game less fun." I always try to frame it as a sort of group activity where I strive to maintain the greatest amount of fun over the course of a game, and like a gardener must sometimes clip unruly stems to help the whole bush. What I wouldn't do under any circumstances is make it about the other players v. him. Never start a sentence with "The other players..." it's always "When you do this, this is the effect on the game." This doesn't mean you need to make it a you versus him though. You can begin and end the feedback/breakup with some complements about his play style or person, and whether you'd invite him to other games or hope to still be friends. Just be honest about the whole thing and don't be afraid to bring up problems or call out behaviors or even feelings that are problematic. It's never about the individual being good or bad, just the behaviors and why they are problems.
Lastly, whichever route you go, make sure not to get bogged down in minutia, especially about specific behaviors or examples. There is a problem, everyone (except maybe Jim) recognizes that, but often people are just not very good at determining the cause of the problem and get bogged down or stuck on what they consider to be the answer. It's an overall table experience that you want to improve, and a simple checklist of good/bad behaviors on its own isn't going to solve that.
To summarize:
Determine if it's the group not being tolerant enough of Jim,
If they're not, then determine if this is something that you can fix through careful persuasion,
If it isn't, or if Jim truly is the problem, then schedule some one-on-one time with Jim in a neutral location (like the FLGS when the others aren't around or at a nearby coffee shop) and tell Jim that unfortunately he's not invited back to the game because it's just not working out and
if required, explain to him what behaviors are problematic, and why that creates an undesirable situation at the table.
Game group dynamics are so interesting to me. I still struggle to wrap my head around the idea of summarily booting someone. I completely understand the logic.... a bad fit at the table is good for no one.
But at the same time I, like many others around here I suppose, came up in an age where playing RPG's was not something to openly advertise. Any group of nerds you could find to even play was the real treasure all along. The options were so few, we had to just swallow the bullshit and move on, or otherwise deal with it because the alternative was to have no game at all. And if your group did blow up, not only was your one chance at game gone but probably also a friendship too. And if you were that much of a nerd, being ostracized not only from the cool kids, but also the nerds? Devastating!
These days of randos meeting every week at comic book stores is foreign to me. The idea that being able to say, "Fuck that Jim guy. He's outta here. Next week, we'll pick some kid off the streets who is peering through windows with a dice bag in his hand to take his place." is astounding to me. These truly are the glory days of tabletop gaming.
a) the core players are people I hang out with outside of the game. Jim is someone we picked up via a local flyer. If I kick anyone then it's going to be Jim.
b) had everyone just acted like goddamned adults and talked about their problems as they arose then we/I wouldn't be in this mess.
I think Jim could change his playstyle. But given how the others are talking about it it seems way too late.
And it isn't just his playstyle; the core players seem to really dislike Jim. They rarely ever try making plays with his character.
Even if we "fixed" Jim, I don't think they'd ever like him as a person.
I dunno. They're pretty much all saying "Jim is killing my drive to play the game" and while some of that is their fault, it feels like I'm going to have to sacrifice a goat to save the herd
a) the core players are people I hang out with outside of the game. Jim is someone we picked up via a local flyer. If I kick anyone then it's going to be Jim.
b) had everyone just acted like goddamned adults and talked about their problems as they arose then we/I wouldn't be in this mess.
I think Jim could change his playstyle. But given how the others are talking about it it seems way too late.
And it isn't just his playstyle; the core players seem to really dislike Jim. They rarely ever try making plays with his character.
Even if we "fixed" Jim, I don't think they'd ever like him as a person.
I dunno. They're pretty much all saying "Jim is killing my drive to play the game" and while some of that is their fault, it feels like I'm going to have to sacrifice a goat to save the herd
Why do you think your "core players" are obligated to spend their recreation time teaching Jim how to properly socialize?
Like, it sounds like you're trying to pitch Jim's side in your write up but Jim clearly comes across as a selfish jerk from your description. Monopolizing the conversation and interrupting folks are not RPG negatives, they are human being negatives.
a) the core players are people I hang out with outside of the game. Jim is someone we picked up via a local flyer. If I kick anyone then it's going to be Jim.
b) had everyone just acted like goddamned adults and talked about their problems as they arose then we/I wouldn't be in this mess.
I think Jim could change his playstyle. But given how the others are talking about it it seems way too late.
And it isn't just his playstyle; the core players seem to really dislike Jim. They rarely ever try making plays with his character.
Even if we "fixed" Jim, I don't think they'd ever like him as a person.
I dunno. They're pretty much all saying "Jim is killing my drive to play the game" and while some of that is their fault, it feels like I'm going to have to sacrifice a goat to save the herd
I think you are, unfortunately. You're going to have to be that dick you don't want to be and keep your friends and ditch the newer guy.
Can you at manage to finish the campaign and then just not invite him to the next one?
a) the core players are people I hang out with outside of the game. Jim is someone we picked up via a local flyer. If I kick anyone then it's going to be Jim.
b) had everyone just acted like goddamned adults and talked about their problems as they arose then we/I wouldn't be in this mess.
I think Jim could change his playstyle. But given how the others are talking about it it seems way too late.
And it isn't just his playstyle; the core players seem to really dislike Jim. They rarely ever try making plays with his character.
Even if we "fixed" Jim, I don't think they'd ever like him as a person.
I dunno. They're pretty much all saying "Jim is killing my drive to play the game" and while some of that is their fault, it feels like I'm going to have to sacrifice a goat to save the herd
I think you are, unfortunately. You're going to have to be that dick you don't want to be and keep your friends and ditch the newer guy.
Can you at manage to finish the campaign and then just not invite him to the next one?
fwiw @evilthecat when I read your initial post what sort of set me in the "Against Jim" camp is you mentioned that Hank, who has been there all of two weeks, saw the behavior as problematic
if there's someone as close to a "neutral" party, it's probably Hank
I think there's immense value in expanding your friend group, in fact I'm making a new addition to my group this week, and I think if your friends don't like Jim as a person, it was cowardly for them not to talk about it sooner, but thinking about what might have beens isn't going to help our problem now, and sometimes people aren't going to mesh well and may need to go later
i agree 110% with @italianranma 's post. as DMs maybe we're not Camp Counselors, but there is merit in being the shepherd of the group, and taking a laissez-faire stance is going to just poison the well. i spoke about your situation with some of my own group last night and they agreed with the scenario as you've laid it out--Jim prolly has to go
Game group dynamics are so interesting to me. I still struggle to wrap my head around the idea of summarily booting someone. I completely understand the logic.... a bad fit at the table is good for no one.
But at the same time I, like many others around here I suppose, came up in an age where playing RPG's was not something to openly advertise. Any group of nerds you could find to even play was the real treasure all along. The options were so few, we had to just swallow the bullshit and move on, or otherwise deal with it because the alternative was to have no game at all. And if your group did blow up, not only was your one chance at game gone but probably also a friendship too. And if you were that much of a nerd, being ostracized not only from the cool kids, but also the nerds? Devastating!
These days of randos meeting every week at comic book stores is foreign to me. The idea that being able to say, "Fuck that Jim guy. He's outta here. Next week, we'll pick some kid off the streets who is peering through windows with a dice bag in his hand to take his place." is astounding to me. These truly are the glory days of tabletop gaming.
speaking as someone who started in 2003, which may be outside the "old days", i have often followed two simple maxims:
no gaming is better than bad gaming
and
don't game with someone you wouldn't hang out with outside the table
the best game groups are forged out of an existing friend group imo, and no one is immune to the joys of gaming i've found
a) the core players are people I hang out with outside of the game. Jim is someone we picked up via a local flyer. If I kick anyone then it's going to be Jim.
b) had everyone just acted like goddamned adults and talked about their problems as they arose then we/I wouldn't be in this mess.
I think Jim could change his playstyle. But given how the others are talking about it it seems way too late.
And it isn't just his playstyle; the core players seem to really dislike Jim. They rarely ever try making plays with his character.
Even if we "fixed" Jim, I don't think they'd ever like him as a person.
I dunno. They're pretty much all saying "Jim is killing my drive to play the game" and while some of that is their fault, it feels like I'm going to have to sacrifice a goat to save the herd
Why do you think your "core players" are obligated to spend their recreation time teaching Jim how to properly socialize?
Like, it sounds like you're trying to pitch Jim's side in your write up but Jim clearly comes across as a selfish jerk from your description. Monopolizing the conversation and interrupting folks are not RPG negatives, they are human being negatives.
This may be unique to me situation where I fully relocate every 2-3 years, but often everyone is a stranger to me and there are no perfect players. I think a lot of established groups are just super insular and that can make it difficult/intimidating to bring new players into the hobby. I also play a bunch of war games and insular groups or unsociable players will kill off their own community in a heartbeat. It may not be my place to socialize people or make groups more welcoming, but if not me as a DM or event organizer, then who will? I recognize that not everyone is suited for that kind of work, but if you are I almost feel like you have an obligation to do so. With great Charisma comes great responsibility I guess.
Edit: well, until it hurts I guess. When you get to Evilthecat’s situation here and it’s become intolerable then you’ve got to cull the player for the good of the group and take any lessons you’ve learned from it.
Why do you think your "core players" are obligated to spend their recreation time teaching Jim how to properly socialize?
Like, it sounds like you're trying to pitch Jim's side in your write up but Jim clearly comes across as a selfish jerk from your description. Monopolizing the conversation and interrupting folks are not RPG negatives, they are human being negatives.
This may be unique to me situation where I fully relocate every 2-3 years, but often everyone is a stranger to me and there are no perfect players. I think a lot of established groups are just super insular and that can make it difficult/intimidating to bring new players into the hobby. I also play a bunch of war games and insular groups or unsociable players will kill off their own community in a heartbeat. It may not be my place to socialize people or make groups more welcoming, but if not me as a DM or event organizer, then who will? I recognize that not everyone is suited for that kind of work, but if you are I almost feel like you have an obligation to do so. With great Charisma comes great responsibility I guess.
Edit: well, until it hurts I guess. When you get to Evilthecat’s situation here and it’s become intolerable then you’ve got to cull the player for the good of the group and take any lessons you’ve learned from it.
i actually think this is good behavior--there's a shit ton of value in being willing to take on that role. part of being an ambassador to the hobby i think is shepherding the baby nerdlings and helping them bust out of their shells
honestly, if we analyze the situation end to end, and evilthecat saw it: it was a communication breakdown. if his players weren't also engaging in some social obliviousness and had talked about it earlier, in some alternate universe Jim might not have gotten to this point, but we'll never know.
i do agree, the functional groups are basically hidden islands because they see no reason to add people. the last two players i've added (am adding) are basically borne out of a desire to expand my friendship with them and give them a place to have a good time and do some storytelling, but i could have kept my original number and been perfectly happy. but these are people i scouted / knew out as compatible long before i ever pitched them a seat at my table. i've never had any luck at all with random people coming together to only game and then do nothing else together.
but your statement about great charisma resonates a lot with me. in your situation, having to make a pillar out of nothing every few years, i think you're doing good work and that's a hell of a thing
hopefully Jim will understand that he really upset those people with bad behavior and that he needs to have a think about it. who knows, maybe you can start hanging out with jim in other faculties and help him overcome that? a heart to heart with the guy may effect some positive change, and he could become someone you want at your table.
I love Jerry's sense of humour. I don't know if Jerry actually wrote those Conditions, but it sure sounds like it. So ridiculous. So awesome.
Speaking of ridiculous.... my next session of LMoP is tomorrow night with my Murder Hubbies group, and its the coda session where we return to Phandalin and have a party and figure out what Doop the house goblin has been upto in Tresdenar Manor after the PC's claimed it as their own. More importantly, this was the session where I need to plant the seeds for the next adventure and send the characters on their way....Except I have no idea what we are doing next! I have 5 players, and given them a vote for which official adventure to do next. Only one of them came out and voted (SKT or Mad Mage equally) and another player said, "I agree with him!".... I was waiting for other votes to come in, and now I realize that I have no time to prepare for tomorrow. Oh well! Tomorrow will be a shit show, laughs will be had and eventually they'll head to either Triboar or Waterdeep.
(Once ToA is done, I'm doing a custom campaign world with my core group. The Murder Hubbies get to play along with official adventures.)
These days of randos meeting every week at comic book stores is foreign to me. The idea that being able to say, "Fuck that Jim guy. He's outta here. Next week, we'll pick some kid off the streets who is peering through windows with a dice bag in his hand to take his place." is astounding to me. These truly are the glory days of tabletop gaming.
One of my gaming groups met this way and we're all good friends now. (it is indeed the glory days)
Doing this however, does take weeding out the Jims(I have had 3 or 4 players that we're more or less removed from various tables for various reasons). Though do note that not all Jim's are lost causes and you should identify players with issues and also make sure your players come to you with any issues they have early so they can be addressed before things go 1.5 years without fixing them.
Posts
might wanna check out forbiddance!
I don't think you can get yourself out of this one.
You're just going to have to play this lich as a total derp :P
I agree with everything you're saying except the "corner hopping" tactic. I find it gamist and a warping of the mechanical language to accomplish something that you've already solved in a bunch of totally awesome ways.
You disagree with that thought. That's cool!
I'm stealing your Glyph idea and expanding it to include any magic negating spells. I find Dispel Magic to be just as, if not more so annoying than Counterspell because it usually strips off several turns worth of buff spells in one shot.
a drooling wizard isn't going to be not picking his nose any time soon!
Have the next macguffin the players encounter release a portion of the Lich’s power that had been sealed away by ancient heroes.
Then the Lich is smarter and more powerful when they run into it again with the added bonus of it being their fault!
Comics, Games, Booze
Best story about feeblemind I have is the time a friend of mine got it to go off on Grazzt which was silly enough at first, since the demon prince of impulsive desire and lust was now a blitthering dumbass (intelligence set to 1), Moved into absurdly hilarious when we noted it also effected his charisma (so now he's a drooling moron trying to seduce everyone by just frantically pointing at his junk) and full on ROFLMAO when we noted the duration (1 month) which meant that concievably he was stuck like this after we banished him the old fashioned way (by killing him).
But with regards to running a lich (or any other caster really) as a boss fight: you need to have some meat between the party and them. Doesn't matter what it is, you need something that will split their attention long enough for the lich to get his proper arch villain on without all your melee characters getting their gank on.
*shrug* I dont really see it as a lot different than an archer retreating behind cover.
This deprives the lich of its counterspell as well and is generally a poor tactic, it makes more sense for something less all powerful and calculating like a regular wizard
It's immortal. What does it care if they smash it once? It comes back. And now it knows their capabilities and can tailor tactics specifically against them.
As long as it's phylactery is safe it has nothing to fear from them.
2 reasons would be my guess.
1. Self respect: I'd imagine it would be more then a little annoying for them to get hacked/slashed/blasted to pieces by some murder hobo's who are so far beneath them, and odds are good that they're fucking up your shit (home/plans/minions) in the process.
2. After these boobs get done tossing your place you're going to probably be out your best stuff; your cash, your grimoir, your collection of magic items, your rare and exotic reagents... all of them just went out the door so whatever you were doing is again: fucked up by these jerks.
Now, if you want to be really devious, make your phylactery an intelligent magic item. The kind of thing that the players will want to take as treasure and be incredibly unlikely to try and destroy. With luck, it might take several cycles of the party wizard's awesome new staff showing back up in the hands of the newly-reformed lich for them to catch on.
I applaud that idea.
It does, however, sound like that will quickly turn into a fight they cannot win ..
I've been playing with a group for quite a few years. 4 of the members have been there since the beginning. 1 player, let's call him Jim, arrived about 1.5 year ago and another, let's call him Hank, joined 2 weeks ago.
Jim, as a player, often takes things personally and generally likes to hog the lime light. This behaviour, while sorta annoying, didn't really detract much from my enjoyment of the games I've been running.
2 weeks ago, my core players (the 4 of them, or rather 3.5 of them) told me they've had enough as Jim, once again, had taken an ingame sequence rather personally and the game had grinded to a halt due to meta discussions of what was going on. It was, in short, a clusterfuck. They did not speak to Jim, this is something I did to try and find a way for him to not take things so personally. We agreed upon terms and the last 2 weeks were, from my perspective, fine. Our last session ended fine, but after the game my core players, once again, complained about Jim's constant interrupting during other players' RP interactions (this is partially my fault, I've been trying to implement a "raise your hand, wait your turn" system so that everyone gets to do something but some people, primarily Jim, forget it at times). Apparently, they've hit peak boiling point and want Jim ejected from the group.
I'm at a loss what to do.
I wish they'd have approached me or Jim, themselves, sooner.
But as it is, Jim's offences have been festering for the better part of a year.
Jim isn't a bad person per se, and he's been receptive to trying to improve when spoken to but from the sounds of it it's just way too late for the other players.
What to do?
I've thought about telling Jim that the others are slowly turning against him (a lie) and that, if he left now of his own accord, he'd at least be able to save face.
On the other hand, I feel that the other players have been skirting around actually talking to Jim for long enough and that they owe it to him to, at least once, talk to him.
edit:
Hank is abstaining from any votes or opinions as he's new. He's said that he has noticed the behaviour the others complain about but it hasn't gotten to him (yet).
how invested are you in the game being able to continue under a happy table?
answering that question will inform your decision, because in this land of murky social interactions there's a lot of shades of gray as to what is "the right thing to do".
if you think from a social perspective Jim is owed an explanation from the group, then you may well run the risk of shattering your group entirely, because I get the impression all of them feel pretty strongly about Jim in a negative sense and maybe they've been keeping quiet about it. if things have festered and you push for a "let's air the dirty laundry" session you could potentially light a powder keg that will blow up the game and your place in that social circle. rightly or wrongly, your friends who have been there from day one may not feel they owe Jim an explanation, especially if they find him insufferable.
edit: i don't think there's gonna be a clean way to go about this. i personally have no problem ejecting people due to toxic behavior, and if you can recognize the behavior is problematic (even if it doesn't bother you, necessarily) you don't necessarily owe Jim shit purely from the perspective of how you spend your leisure time. there is something to be said for compassion though and helping people get better, but again, it depends more on how flexible the rest are. it's a rough situation, fren
In that case I'd give them some kind of out, such as a denizen of the Styx or a devil attacking the lich, or maybe if the ship gets capsized and everyone gets feebleminded they regain their senses in some mysterious place.
This creates so many hooks about what happened in the last 30 days or longer. They wake up in a strange land, strange circumstances, no idea what the lich has been up to, what they've been up to, etc.
I mean, you're assuming that "dead party", not "captive party, ready for fun experiments" is the lich's goal here.
"Hail! We are strangers to this land, can you tell us anything about where we find ourse-"
"It's them! The Scourge! The personal guard of <Lich's name> the Terrible! Run! RUN!"
"...the what now? With the who? ...oh boy."
Your Ad Here! Reasonable Rates!
EDIT: Oh holy shit, the Scalding Sea is awesome. It's an ocean of acid with obsidian islands. There's exactly one abandoned town whose main feature is that the central fountain sprays acid while emitting a screaming sound.
The styx is a river. Pick an outer plane further downstream.
That said, as a player? The encounters that our party managed to trivialise due to clever use of tools are the encounters I actually remember. Unless there was some drama or heavy story involved one fight bleeds into the next, but that one time our party was on a cart, pursued by a huge gladiator riding a horse-drawn chariot, and my bard slept the horses, which promptly got crushed under said chariot that then flipped and crushed its rider? That I remember, we still make jokes about it.
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
To be honest, I haven't had a group get this bad before. I've had a few players that haven't meshed well, and they've all left on their own accord. When I was a younger DM I used to let the players resolve their conflicts in-game, which I wouldn't recommend, and now as an older DM I'm very proactive with managing player expectations and social contracts. I also tend to be older than most of my players which lends me a little air of authority, and (this might be a little controversial) I'm not shy about trying to correct anti-social behaviors as I see them. I think most people are pretty on board with correcting things like overt bigotry (which I've dealt with in the past), but I also do things like "You should call ahead if you're not planning on being here or showing up late" or "don't be on your phone in the middle of the game" etc. One player I had a few years ago just wasn't meshing with the group: he really wanted to play a light-hearted One Piece style of play when everyone else was going for a more serious Skyrim tone, and his actions constantly clashed with the narrative. He just had a hard time understanding that, and as a whole the group was pretty patient with him and I kept trying to explain the differences to him (in private), but he eventually left on his own and I don't think that he was missed very much. Actually, small side story about that: he left without saying anything and just totally went dark online, so we were pretty worried that maybe something had happened to him and went so far as to try to track him down to make sure he was still alive (he was).
Now on to your situation. I've never had it get so bad, which isn't a condemnation of you but rather me admitting I might be out of my depth. I'm generally suspicious of a group that takes a hard-line against a single player; I worry that they've poisoned themselves and are angry or upset about other things that they might be projecting onto Jim. If that's the case a strong heart-to-heart (without Jim present) may be required. You might have a situation where Jim is on the Autism spectrum and once aware of that your players might be more sympathetic. On the other hand your players might be totally in the right and you simply don't see the situation as clearly because running a game takes a lot of concentration. If Jim is doing his best but he's still not meshing with your group, and a year is a long time to put up with someone who's just not getting it, then it may be time to just let him go.
In my situation, I tend to move around a lot so I'm always the newcomer into an area, and so it's often easiest for me to be the bearer of bad news. That's sort of colored my opinion which is I think it needs to be the DM to break up with the player. When I give players feedback (or if I were to hypothetically let one go) I'd frame it as "You're just not compatible with the game I'm running." If further details are required then you can elaborate on the problematic behavior and how it affects the game. "When you interrupt another player who's in the middle of roleplaying, it's really annoying for them and it breaks their immersion. That negative feeling can persist for awhile and it makes the game less fun." I always try to frame it as a sort of group activity where I strive to maintain the greatest amount of fun over the course of a game, and like a gardener must sometimes clip unruly stems to help the whole bush. What I wouldn't do under any circumstances is make it about the other players v. him. Never start a sentence with "The other players..." it's always "When you do this, this is the effect on the game." This doesn't mean you need to make it a you versus him though. You can begin and end the feedback/breakup with some complements about his play style or person, and whether you'd invite him to other games or hope to still be friends. Just be honest about the whole thing and don't be afraid to bring up problems or call out behaviors or even feelings that are problematic. It's never about the individual being good or bad, just the behaviors and why they are problems.
Lastly, whichever route you go, make sure not to get bogged down in minutia, especially about specific behaviors or examples. There is a problem, everyone (except maybe Jim) recognizes that, but often people are just not very good at determining the cause of the problem and get bogged down or stuck on what they consider to be the answer. It's an overall table experience that you want to improve, and a simple checklist of good/bad behaviors on its own isn't going to solve that.
To summarize:
But at the same time I, like many others around here I suppose, came up in an age where playing RPG's was not something to openly advertise. Any group of nerds you could find to even play was the real treasure all along. The options were so few, we had to just swallow the bullshit and move on, or otherwise deal with it because the alternative was to have no game at all. And if your group did blow up, not only was your one chance at game gone but probably also a friendship too. And if you were that much of a nerd, being ostracized not only from the cool kids, but also the nerds? Devastating!
These days of randos meeting every week at comic book stores is foreign to me. The idea that being able to say, "Fuck that Jim guy. He's outta here. Next week, we'll pick some kid off the streets who is peering through windows with a dice bag in his hand to take his place." is astounding to me. These truly are the glory days of tabletop gaming.
a) the core players are people I hang out with outside of the game. Jim is someone we picked up via a local flyer. If I kick anyone then it's going to be Jim.
b) had everyone just acted like goddamned adults and talked about their problems as they arose then we/I wouldn't be in this mess.
I think Jim could change his playstyle. But given how the others are talking about it it seems way too late.
And it isn't just his playstyle; the core players seem to really dislike Jim. They rarely ever try making plays with his character.
Even if we "fixed" Jim, I don't think they'd ever like him as a person.
I dunno. They're pretty much all saying "Jim is killing my drive to play the game" and while some of that is their fault, it feels like I'm going to have to sacrifice a goat to save the herd
Why do you think your "core players" are obligated to spend their recreation time teaching Jim how to properly socialize?
Like, it sounds like you're trying to pitch Jim's side in your write up but Jim clearly comes across as a selfish jerk from your description. Monopolizing the conversation and interrupting folks are not RPG negatives, they are human being negatives.
I think you are, unfortunately. You're going to have to be that dick you don't want to be and keep your friends and ditch the newer guy.
Can you at manage to finish the campaign and then just not invite him to the next one?
we just started a new one
if there's someone as close to a "neutral" party, it's probably Hank
I think there's immense value in expanding your friend group, in fact I'm making a new addition to my group this week, and I think if your friends don't like Jim as a person, it was cowardly for them not to talk about it sooner, but thinking about what might have beens isn't going to help our problem now, and sometimes people aren't going to mesh well and may need to go later
i agree 110% with @italianranma 's post. as DMs maybe we're not Camp Counselors, but there is merit in being the shepherd of the group, and taking a laissez-faire stance is going to just poison the well. i spoke about your situation with some of my own group last night and they agreed with the scenario as you've laid it out--Jim prolly has to go
best of luck fren
speaking as someone who started in 2003, which may be outside the "old days", i have often followed two simple maxims:
no gaming is better than bad gaming
and
don't game with someone you wouldn't hang out with outside the table
the best game groups are forged out of an existing friend group imo, and no one is immune to the joys of gaming i've found
That kinda does it. I wouldn't (and haven't) hung out with Jim outside of PnP.
Thanks for the support, guys.
This may be unique to me situation where I fully relocate every 2-3 years, but often everyone is a stranger to me and there are no perfect players. I think a lot of established groups are just super insular and that can make it difficult/intimidating to bring new players into the hobby. I also play a bunch of war games and insular groups or unsociable players will kill off their own community in a heartbeat. It may not be my place to socialize people or make groups more welcoming, but if not me as a DM or event organizer, then who will? I recognize that not everyone is suited for that kind of work, but if you are I almost feel like you have an obligation to do so. With great Charisma comes great responsibility I guess.
Edit: well, until it hurts I guess. When you get to Evilthecat’s situation here and it’s become intolerable then you’ve got to cull the player for the good of the group and take any lessons you’ve learned from it.
i actually think this is good behavior--there's a shit ton of value in being willing to take on that role. part of being an ambassador to the hobby i think is shepherding the baby nerdlings and helping them bust out of their shells
honestly, if we analyze the situation end to end, and evilthecat saw it: it was a communication breakdown. if his players weren't also engaging in some social obliviousness and had talked about it earlier, in some alternate universe Jim might not have gotten to this point, but we'll never know.
i do agree, the functional groups are basically hidden islands because they see no reason to add people. the last two players i've added (am adding) are basically borne out of a desire to expand my friendship with them and give them a place to have a good time and do some storytelling, but i could have kept my original number and been perfectly happy. but these are people i scouted / knew out as compatible long before i ever pitched them a seat at my table. i've never had any luck at all with random people coming together to only game and then do nothing else together.
but your statement about great charisma resonates a lot with me. in your situation, having to make a pillar out of nothing every few years, i think you're doing good work and that's a hell of a thing
hopefully Jim will understand that he really upset those people with bad behavior and that he needs to have a think about it. who knows, maybe you can start hanging out with jim in other faculties and help him overcome that? a heart to heart with the guy may effect some positive change, and he could become someone you want at your table.
https://store.penny-arcade.com/products/the-official-d-d-acquisitions-incorporated-book
Also they have a DM screen that's completely worthless amazing
Speaking of ridiculous.... my next session of LMoP is tomorrow night with my Murder Hubbies group, and its the coda session where we return to Phandalin and have a party and figure out what Doop the house goblin has been upto in Tresdenar Manor after the PC's claimed it as their own. More importantly, this was the session where I need to plant the seeds for the next adventure and send the characters on their way....Except I have no idea what we are doing next! I have 5 players, and given them a vote for which official adventure to do next. Only one of them came out and voted (SKT or Mad Mage equally) and another player said, "I agree with him!".... I was waiting for other votes to come in, and now I realize that I have no time to prepare for tomorrow. Oh well! Tomorrow will be a shit show, laughs will be had and eventually they'll head to either Triboar or Waterdeep.
(Once ToA is done, I'm doing a custom campaign world with my core group. The Murder Hubbies get to play along with official adventures.)
One of my gaming groups met this way and we're all good friends now. (it is indeed the glory days)
Doing this however, does take weeding out the Jims(I have had 3 or 4 players that we're more or less removed from various tables for various reasons). Though do note that not all Jim's are lost causes and you should identify players with issues and also make sure your players come to you with any issues they have early so they can be addressed before things go 1.5 years without fixing them.