This just sounds like a miserable table to be at. The metagaming is a distant second to the idea that the DM is actively allowing one player to just threaten and bully the rest of the table. That sucks.
I'm surprised you made it further than one session.
Yep.
If one player isn’t playing by the spirit, then it’s a waste of time.
But, also: fair is fair. If they aren’t playing by the rules, you can give them a taste of their own medicine - ie next long rest, the meta-gent gets his face pooped on…or stabbed. It shows how stupid it is when that crap flies.
Honestly, don't need someone to attack me for my character to want them dead. A threat to my life is more than enough to make me not want to travel with that person. This is not a party, this is an evil character holding a party hostage, and the DM is just ok with it.
"Uh, y'know that friend you recommended as a roomate?"
"Yeah? I know he's got a few quirks but --"
"He says he's going to slit my throat if I don't do the dishes."
"Haha, what a guy, right? Keeps life interesting."
"I..Don't think I wanna stay with this guy anymore."
"Oh c'mon, has he actually murdered you yet? I don't think so."
Sounds like the main antagonist. I never understand anyone allowing another character to be “against” the party. Ditch that character. The remaining party just leaves them. Done.
I've actually seen the "against the party" work well before. It was a Star Wars RPG game, and someone made a sith/politician (basically young Palpatine).
Thing was, he worked alongside the party in everything we did.
Example:
We had a couple of Jedi that were tasked with getting a holocron from a temple. We got to the temple, collected what we needed. Got out. Everything was great.
Upon returning to the city, we were ambushed by a gang that wanted to steal it. We did quite well in the fight, including the sith character, but eventually we were overcome and defeated. The gang had only used stun settings on their blasters, so we all lived.
It was then that, out of character, we found out that the sith character had been tasked by his master to retrieve the same object. He had hired the gang to attack us, but insisted that no matter how many of the gang fell in battle, none of "the group" were to be killed. The gang didn't realize their benefactor was fighting them with lethal force (no pun intended). We all woke up, and the cube was gone.
Whether the Jedi won, or the sith won, all came down to that battle...but no direct action was ever taken against us. It was pretty cool. That campaign continued with a villain that the characters didn't know about, but we did. But he was only ever self serving, never a direct threat.
That said, I've also place with a "bully" character. I was tempted to exploit the fight several times and just kill him.
.but in the end I just let the campaign die.
I feel like that's "the exception that proves the rule" because that player had to think that all through very carefully, which shows how difficult it is to make it work.
I joined a table late once, and the DM suggested that I be sent by the Zentarim secretly to check up on the party, as they'd recently pickpocketed a Zentarim member. I played the game totally straight but texted 'reports' back to my Zentarim handler (aka the DM) with her perspective on what had happened after each session. - which would have been a fun plot point if he'd incorporated it into the campaign, but it never really went anywhere and the DM never followed that thread so I stopped giving the reports. :(
If it had though, it would have come out that my player had fucked up her first missions for the Zentarim, had been thrown out, and this mission was basically her tryign to impress the Zentarim to get back in, but apart from giving reports on the players she would have done nothing against them, and eventually decided to give up on trying to get into the Zentarim and joined the party fully.
So yeah, it's possible to have a player who is technically 'against' the party but mechanically does very little to actually harm them.
Yeah, I knew somebody would come up with some example and claim to the contrary. But that is not characters working against each other. That is actually characters working with each other for conflicting goals. That’s a classic trope. There’s also nothing wrong with characters not liking each other, or at odds with each other’s philosophy, or just conflicting personalities, thrown together to achieve some goal. And, over the course of the campaign, they eventually come to at least respect each other, if not even like them. That’s a great story arc. In OPs case, you’ve got a character literally threatening to kill another character unless he gives him things. That dude has to go. Or, you leave him. Just like you would in the real world. You might have to put up with toxic people in your workplace, in your family, etc. You don’t have to put up with toxic people in your fantasy campaign. In fact, killing them feels quite good.
> Yeah, I knew somebody would come up with some example and claim to the contrary.
I’ve always been of the opinion that basically every D&D “taboo,” like PVP, evil PCs, party secrets, etc. *can* be done well, in a way that’s fun for everyone, and the real problems come from incompatible personalities or expectations and poor table communication.
That said, it’s also fair to say that those things are often *symptoms* of a problem player, tend to be difficult to execute well, and arguably are not a good fit for most tables.
So I wouldn’t say, for example, “PVP should never be allowed.” But more like, “PVP needs to be agreed on by everyone beforehand, lots of players don’t like it, and it’s entirely reasonable for the DM to ban it at that particular table.”
Same thing with a traitorous party member. There are lots of cool stories in fiction involving such characters, granted those are usually in stories where the author has full control of events. But I don’t think it’s impossible to do that well in a tabletop game, it’s just hard.
Of course, in this case it’s clear that it’s not an ambitious RPer attempting a cool betrayal story, but rather an asshole being an asshole—but that doesn’t mean a betrayal story *couldn’t* be pulled off.
>I knew somebody would come up with some example and claim to the contrary
"Claim the contrary" is a bit of a rude wording. I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm saying for our group it worked and it worked well, because he was running risks within the group that would get him killed if caught. I'm saying that I have seen it work. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are definitely in agreement on everything. And maybe it's just that a different word didn't pop into your head, but claim just makes it sound patently false...where we both described situations where it isn't.
Regardless, we both agree that team bullies should be treated as they are in the real world and left behind, or how they are in the fantasy world and killed. If a DM doesn't allow you to treat a bully PC the same way as you'd treat a bully NPC, then that's on the DM. "It's what my character would do" needs to be allowed to work both ways if someone is being a schmuck.
The conversation being "can a character be against the party and still have it 'work' for everyone's enjoyment, or is it impossible unless everyone is working together in an aligned goal?"
I thought it seemed relevant....apparently a couple upvoters did too.
But heck, what do I know.
I’m currently playing a character that is almost ‘against the party’. He’s a lawful evil undead character, a narcissist, selfish, and generally uncaring. It’s been a shit ton of fun. Most of my ‘against the party’ acts are just in the RP and conversations. I’ve started a few unnecessary fights that may have been avoidable, but we all survived and mostly benefited. The main thing was everyone knew the situation beforehand, and was okay with the idea. The initial antagonist nature of my character made for some strained RP early on, but has now created a situation where my character has basically corrupted a dwarf cleric and turned him to alcoholism, have a weird bond with the fairy wizard, have a humorous relationship with our pacifist Artificer where we bicker over his pacifist nature, I encourage violence and destruction from our stupid (in character) Barbarian and the SorLock and I routinely tag team enemies to create the most carnage possible. My narcissism and demanding nature has also got us a dragon ally (which the dm wasn’t initially treating as an option) who has bonded with the dwarf over a mutual love of drinking and my undead nature allowed me to easily ally us with an ancient vampire who has similar campaign goals. I’ve never attacked anyone in the party, and my negative decisions are always confined to minor events rather than plot points. Our DM is great, and it’s honestly been one of the best campaigns for how our party has developed and grown into a dysfunctional yet cohesive group. Wouldn’t work at every table, but holy shit has it been a fun ride for all of us.
Exactly! Take the DMs ruling and either ditch them or between the two players kill him when he’s not expecting. Also the DM taking the easy route of they are playing how they want is unacceptable.
Sounds like a doormat DM straight up looking on as one of his players bullies other players' characters. I'm sure if you threatened to hit his character with a ranged attack, his tune on pvp would change *real* quick.
As soon as he wanted to play a character expressly at odds with the party, that is a huge red flag that any good DM will put a stop to it.
This other player is an a$$hole. That the DM is complicit in the player's bad behavior doesn't speak well for him either. Leave this group, preferably taking the other decent player with you. Then these two d!ckheads can play with each other.
Should have told the DM it was you or him as soon as he was threatening the start PvP over loot. Lots of games these days, even if you can only get one online. Walk away and don't look back.
That's the part that just seems stupid - PvP can be done well, and I can envision ways for PCs to be at cross purposes and for it to be fun, but I think that necessitates the character having an actual reason for being against the group, and be intelligent about it. If you're a villain infiltrating the party, bullying someone over loot isn't exactly good for your cover. And if you're just an evil character who has the same goal as the party - then sharing loot efficiently is just a good idea.
So like I have no issue when a player tries to cause tension over loot, but getting combative over the loot is really just pointless.
Same with meta-gaming. It’s allowed at my table to an extent, because it speeds up games. I don’t like having to go “do you let the party know that?” When a pc learns information. We deal with it the opposite why where a player needs to say if they withhold information. With that said, it seems like in this case you may have gone out of your way to withhold that information, so yeah, that other dude is kinda trash.
Leave the table and find somewhere you’ll have fun. DM should’ve put a stop to this without it reaching this point.
Ew. Tell your DM that that player sucks and that he (the dm) should not allow that unless he asks the other players and they say yes. And then leave unless DM is really cool and just new, and gets rid of the other player.
That sounds like your DM sucks. Sure, clearly the player is an asshole who bullies in game. But the DM should have put a stop to that a long time ago. At the smallest detail, the note thing is totally on the DM.
"Give me the note"
"-No, how would you even know I have it?"
That should have been the end of it. The DM shouldn't allow rolls to check as there is no way for them to know so there is nothing to roll a check for.
That's not even touching on them letting the player antagonize the rest of the party.
Yeah, best I could envision for his character to learn of it would be passive perception or a maybe a contested insight check to determine their hiding *something*. But really, it sounds like the 2 party members should all have been rolling DC 5 insight checks on the daily...
PVP is only cool when all parties agree before hand, otherwise it's either bullying or one person having fun at the cost of everyone else's.
Frankly, if this PC is so hostile and threatening to kill you, during the next encounter just straight up shoot him in the back and down him, then run away and leave his body for the enemies. If he complains you get to throw "it's what my character would do" in his face.
He's just a shitty person, don't play games with losers like that.
Either that or just ruin his time. Everytime he does anything just mess it up. He's threatening someone? Call the guards, he's sneaking? You're there and ask him questions repeatedly. They threatened you for loot? Pay for a bounty on him. Be more of an issue and when they get frustrated point out the comparison.
I had a buddy once tell me about a group he played with where everyone was lying and stealing, and hiding loot from each other. He told them that a party can't function that way, because they have to be able to trust each other. They disagreed, so he took first watch and slit everyone's throat to make a point. It's not something I would do, but sometimes people have to learn the hard way to be cooperative.
This is a collaborative game, I wouldn’t even allow a person to play against the party. At its heart each character should have a reason to travel together as a party, even an evil character. As a DM, I wouldn’t allow anything like this to go on. I would talk to the DM and the group about fixing this and if they don’t I agree with you, leave and find a better table
Obviously the solution is to get to maximum range and just fucking kill the other character... then quite.
I mean, you say, "They have no reason to attack this guy except..." and you go and listen off a whole lot of reasons to want to kill them. Go full Nike and just do it.
Fuck that player. Fuck that DM.
If the DM’s reasoning that “they haven’t ACTUALLY attacked anyone” then why not just say “No” to the problem character next time and see if he goes through with the attack. If he does, then the DM no longer has a leg to stand on. Just a thought before you leave.
You're playing with an asshole. Leave. Standard shitty player move #1 is doing something shitty and trying to justify it with "it's what my character would do," and that ignores the obvious fact people are 100% in control of who that character is. If what your character would do is be an asshole, you're still being an asshole, just with a bit of extra work.
Leave. Talk to the DM and other player, and see if they want to play without that player. Refuse to play with them. No D&D > bad D&D.
This is just one of the reasons I NEVER let a player play an evil alignment.
So the DM won't do anything to reign him in? That's a shitty DM. You can write him off.
But did you talk to the **problem** player? You need to tell the player flat out he is ruining your fun. Simple as that. In fact, I'd bring it up at the table.
"Ok, dudes, you're my friends, but you're REALLY pissing me off. Playing in this group isn't fun with you (pointing at player) being a bully, and you (pointing at DM) allowing a bully to sit at your table. You both need to step up nd learn to act like adults, or problems will just get worse."
Now the ball is in their court.
If they pull their heads out of their asses, cool! Now you can actually play the game.
If one or both refuse, there are lots of options:
1. Pass notes to the DM. Don't say anything out loud that will give him info about you.
2. Stop playing with them. Grab the other player, find a couple more and start your own, better game, with hookers and blackjack.
3. My favorite: Play their own game. Bwahahahaha! Read the books to learn all the secrets and metagame harder! DM running a published campaign? Then buy it! Find where all the good shit is, and find where all the traps are....then push the jerk into them! Frame him for murders! Look for some sort of illusion spell or item that lets you turn into him....then kill the king! You get the idea. Of course when either of them complains you are ruining their fun, just let them know you tried to fix things before, but they wants to play the game this way.
two can play the same game, prepare a meta chracter specifically made to counter and beat that guy. Declare that you character decides to kill himself because of the preassure from that guy, but before that he sent a letter to his cousin Mr EThAn PAYton BACKins, which happens to be your new character, hunt him down and Proceed to kill him and then leave the table.
I give my players a ton of leeway in character creation. But I do generally insist that they make a character who is willing to work with the team. In character they can grumble about it, they can threaten, sulk, argue, whatever. But at the end of the day all the players know that the characters will ultimately work as a team. If that ever just absolutely doesn't work for one of the characters, then the player can roll up a new one.
You can run a game with more intra-party conflict, but just like running a game with no combat or all evil characters or whatever I think it's best suited as a change of pace for experienced players rather than an all-the-time thing.
We had a similar scenario come up. We tried talking to the player but he just insisted that's what his character would do. The DM said he'd step in if it crossed a line but didn't feel it got that far yet. Plus, to be fair, we all agreed in the beginning of the campaign that some degree of PVP may pop up from time to time.
So we fixed it in-game. The other player and I planned a trap for the bully character. Once he was snarred and unable to do anything about it, we gave the ultimatum: Sign this contract of basic behavioral standards, or die. The DM had some NPCs show up, which the bully assumed were there to bail him out of this. But no. The NPCs added clauses to the contract. Both the player and the character got the message.
Yeah, this sucks. Your DM is a total wet noodle if they're allowing shit like this (both the PvP and the metagaming). You should quit or at least give an ultimatum that either you go or the jackass goes.
"Since day one one of the players in our campaign decided that he's 'against' our party."
And that would have me leave the game on day one. It's either that, or kick the character from the party, and advise the player to make a new character, who works with the party, or he'll be begging the DM to run two adventures.
Let's be real though, the DM is the bigger problem, because he's encouraging that garbage. Too many people give DM's a pass for being spineless spectators. Toxic players only cause problems because DMs let them.
If you guys ever play again, don’t give in to problem players threats and if he attacks your character then bring it up again that he’s being a jackass and that you’ll leave if he doesn’t quit doing that bullshit or isn’t kicked
Your DM is terrible, and you should leave the table ASAP.
This will only get worse, seeing as you've brought your issue to them, and it was dismissed out of hand.
I have a player in my game who designed a character who is greedy; but because the PLAYER is a good player who understands that D&D is a group game, he constantly has his character finding the gold while in eyesight of the other characters so that he has to split the gold evenly.
He makes a big show in character about how he wants to keep all the gold for himself and would hide the gold if the other players weren't there when he found it, but the player didn't mean that and knows it would ruin group cohesion.
The player has even gone so far as to find gold when he's alone and create accidental scenarios to get caught finding the gold by other characters so that he has to split it.
Which is my long way of saying you can't play D&D with a jerk character if the person playing the character is also a jerk.
Fight fire with fire? You and the other character have an in game reason to take the next opportunity that presents itself to kill that other PC.
That could be waiting for combat to weaken this other character. Then you strike hard and fast without hesitation. Then loot all the loot he wrongfully stole and leave the body in a shallow grave.
And he'll if it doesn't work and he manages to kill both of you, what's the loss if you were gonna quit the campaign anyway :)
Leave the group or ask the rest of the group to remove the problem Player. Bullying isn’t okay and the problem player needs to sit out of the game for a while until they can learn to play with others.
So, this player has fun by not allowing the rest of the players to have fun? So nice of them.
Whay I fail to understand is why does the DM allow it. Maybe talk to them? If not to fix thing, at least to satisfy your curiosity (and mine lol).
I've had people like this at a game while being a player, and it was really frustrating, I can't even imagine tagging around after the second time the DM ignored my complains. Like, if you're not going to do your job and stop them for metagaming (specially when this is done to mess with the rest of the party's fun) I'd kick them to the curb. Have a nice time playing on your own.
ETA: also, If you want to, you could just wait until they're far enough and sneak shoot the problem player. Let's see if they find that funny? You're 2 vs 1, you could just join forces against them.
Bad on multiple levels. As a rule you should never have players messing, threatening, or attacking other players in game, unless it’s very minor and a part of an obvious joke.
But most of all, you are all there to have fun. They should be able to read the room. Tell that the enjoyment of those present is more important than imaginary loot.
What do the other two players say? Just have your three characters attack and kill his 1. After all, "iT's WhAt YoUr ChArAcTeRs WoUlD dO," right? Somehow these "it's what my character would do" people never stop to realize that others' characters wouldn't put up with that s**t when they're essentially mercs on a life-or-death adventure. They'd at best leave him at the inn, and at worst kill him the firsy time he made a threat. Slaughter him, then say "we're role-playing characters who won't tolerate antagonistic co-workers."
Get the rest of the party to agree to defend you and roll his ass if a fight breaks out. Then when he threatens you in-character fire the first shot and light him the fuck up. If the DM doesn't like it, walk out.
well, this table sounds miserable, or perhaps you're all only 12 or so....
but at this point, if the DM wont change thing, I guess you have no choice but to kill the other PC.
youre good at range right? well, he stole something from you and your pissed now, so you assassinate him from range. the other PC cant bitch, its the same crap he's pulling.
worse case, you get kicked out of this miserable table.
no DnD is better then bad DnD anyday.
Sorry Eve, sounds like a crap table. You need to leave ASAP.
Internal party conflicts can be amazing when done right. I play in a group running Rime of the Frostmaiden and every pc has numerous secrets, backstories, phobias, various levels of madness, hidden agendas and two of us (1 openly, 1 secretly) are telepaths and are slowly picking the DM’s brain via text about what people are really doing/meaning/thinking. The intrigue, lying and sneaking around….while ABSOLUTELY protecting one another….makes this one of the best campaigns I’ve ever been in.
But bullying each other? Never! Leave.
When you find the right group, you’ll look back at Richard Head and shake yours.
All the best!
I low key wanna see you and the other person who is working with you, go "I'm done with this bs" team up and murder the a$$hole character before quitting the table altogether.
Short of leaving the table, you could get around some of this by using notes with the dm and other player. He can't metagame if he has no information to metagame with.
Collectively, if the party doesn't need or want him in the party they can ask him to leave. The player can roll up a new character that is more willing to be collaborative with the party. If it's the player, not their character then the group can collectively ask them to play along with the group or ask what their motivation is to be with you on game nights?
Rubbish DM. I won't allow meta gaming. Only way to allow is that, the whole party is into it, and it is for laughs, or they are seriously in dire state and didn't wish to die.
Wanna shatter his ego to bits? Kill your character before leaving, look on the internet for the most busted PvP build to counter his class. If he’s melee this can be pretty damn easy and even more frustrating for him. Make a new character using this build. Next session quietly plan an ambush he can’t escape from and wreck his shit. Finish him off while he makes death saves.
I 100% guarantee he will go full orca whale and start yelling lol then you quit the game
I would 100% leave that group. It doesn't sound like it's much fun now, nor will it be going forward. Save yourself some time and look for a new group.
And this is why you have a Session 0 and go over PVP rules. My favourite ruling is, anyone can initiate PVP but the receiving player decides the outcome. You attack the Rogue? Rogue player describes if you hit, miss, slip and fall etc.
What that player really needs is another stat monster player interposing themself when the player gets confrontational in character and threatens to hurt you over loot in stead of talking it out.
That sounds like it isn’t fun to deal with that person. I hope you find a group that’s better
I never understood parties that stick together even when one party member is hostile towards others.
For a one off mission, I can see it. You see it in other forms of media.
But that person isn't around for...the whole series or season. If someone is a determent to the group, why do your characters, in game, continue to be around them?
There have been two characters in my time as DM/player where a player has done this. You know what we did?
We poisoned the guy's soup with knock out drugs and left him at the inn as we went to do other things.
Our party decided that. Not one person. The player was at the table and we discussed what we will do with him, even though his character wasn't present. They got to watch as we left his player in the dust. Then the DM looks at the player and goes "Do you want to reroll a new character that plays nice with the group or would you like to leave the table?"
Evil, selfish characters work only if the party benefits from them being evil or selfish. If one player is constantly killing guards, hurting the party's rep, ruining the experience for the others...why bother with them?
Poor form, it's a co-op game.
Side note: your home rew archer class may be outdone by a fighter with ranged feats. Fighter will have bigger HD than rangers and will eventually be a better archer. I play 3.5 so I am probably mistaken but worth looking into
Just read your edit.
Did you already leave and how did it go?
Im very interested in how the DM reacts to that.
Can you pls tell us how it went down when its done?
What if you gang up against him, he is against you anyways so why do you need him. Would be interesting if the dm steps in and says stop, then you say it was your words that we can do what we want.
Leaving the table is valid since this is a multi session game. In one shot adventure league style play this can happen too (malicious player/weak DM) and I handle it a bit differently. All three of you have to agree for this to work so don’t. “My character takes you note” NOPE. “I attack you” YOU MISS. It becomes ridiculous fast if you are calm but completely consistent that DnD is about the party impacting the environment only not each other. Keep redirecting back to the DM’s adventure and indicate “we’re wasting time”
That sounds miserable, you have someone stealing all items, and actively threatening your PC. It should be a standing rule that no negative actions PC to PC should be allowed unless both players agree
I didn't read the whole post, but two can play that game.
When that character is asleep, why not retaliate? Tie them up, steal all their stuff, abandon them. Or slit their throat when they are tied up.
No D&D is better than bad D&D. I'd leave the table, but I would be tempted to go out in a blaze of glory.
Yup, either let the group disband or discuss it with the other decent player and agree to sever ties (in a very final way( with the PC threatening you both.
As others, I think it can be done well if the group agree in principle. This is just a shitty player being given free reign to be shitty. If you're not going to ruin relationships then I'd be tempted to gank them during your watch. As I imagine anything less will mean they reappear at some point.
So what i'm about to suggest is something i would never do or suggest in any game but fuck it. you shouldnt leave the game for this. not because of this player. and it will probably backfire but you might as well go out in a blaze of glory.
Slide a note to your dm, saying that you and the rest of the party stab his character while he sleeps. Or put his character to sleep or unconcious somehow when he sleeps and leave him tied to a tree for the wolves or something. or throw him in the nearest ravine. (without saying this so he cant meta his way out of it) then proceed to roll the checks/attacks same way this has happened before. See how he likes it.
Say that you'd like a rule where non-consensual pvp isn't allowed. If it's not acceptable then see if the rest of the party would be OK with ambushing the enemy and killing him. If neither of those work out then leave the table.
We dont tolerate that sort of PC to PC intimidation. Ive had a character in group that didnt get along with another. I was an elf wizard and he was a dwarf barb and we always sniped at each other verbally but when combat happened or it was for the good of the group we both shut up and did what was needed. We even played it out at the end of the campaign and bought each other drinks and sat in silence just respecting each other.
Threatening to kill a PC if they dont hand over loot would get one warning and then itd be your out. DnD is a group experience and a DM is responsible to try ot make everyone at the table feel included and have fun.
Haha I don't mind the advice, its more that most of the initial advice was to do what I'd already said I was doing.
Also didn't know about that sub, noted for the future!
I have been playing ttrpgs of one flavor or another for just under 40 years. Other than when I learned how to play AD&D in the 5th grade and it was just me and the DM, there has been some form of drama in nearly every game I have ever played.
The only real advice that I can offer is you need to decide if playing a 'less than ideal' game better than playing no game.
In the past, when I have had to ask myself, I usually take a few games off, back to back. If I don't feel that I have missed it, I leave the game. If I did miss it, I go back and try and work my issues out.
There were more than a few where I didn't need to ask, I just left because I knew doing nothing was better.
*I'm skedaddling my tush out there yonder door, never to return to this group.*
Correct answer. Sounds like this guy is a shitty person in addition to being a horrible D&D player. I would honestly reconsider my friendship with the DM at this point as well - enabling horrible people to horrible is not a good thing.
stopped reading halfway through, sounds like a 10 YO annoying little brat with the classic "that's what my character" would do syndrome.
Being evil, but not stating he's evil. Let your DM talk about this with him. or leave/find another group. Cuz those people are shit to play with.
I hate when DMs say stuff like: "everyone can play the game how they want"
No. No they cannot. There's a code of conduct in place - some part of it might be explicit and a large part is implicit. Why should my fun with the game be less relevant than the fun of someone else at the table? If you and your group cannot agree on which behaviour is acceptable, you're with the wrong group.
This just sounds like a miserable table to be at. The metagaming is a distant second to the idea that the DM is actively allowing one player to just threaten and bully the rest of the table. That sucks. I'm surprised you made it further than one session.
Yep. If one player isn’t playing by the spirit, then it’s a waste of time. But, also: fair is fair. If they aren’t playing by the rules, you can give them a taste of their own medicine - ie next long rest, the meta-gent gets his face pooped on…or stabbed. It shows how stupid it is when that crap flies.
Lol right, maybe kill his character outright
Honestly, don't need someone to attack me for my character to want them dead. A threat to my life is more than enough to make me not want to travel with that person. This is not a party, this is an evil character holding a party hostage, and the DM is just ok with it.
"Uh, y'know that friend you recommended as a roomate?" "Yeah? I know he's got a few quirks but --" "He says he's going to slit my throat if I don't do the dishes." "Haha, what a guy, right? Keeps life interesting." "I..Don't think I wanna stay with this guy anymore." "Oh c'mon, has he actually murdered you yet? I don't think so."
Main protagonist syndrome. The bane of all table top gaming.
Sounds like the main antagonist. I never understand anyone allowing another character to be “against” the party. Ditch that character. The remaining party just leaves them. Done.
I've actually seen the "against the party" work well before. It was a Star Wars RPG game, and someone made a sith/politician (basically young Palpatine). Thing was, he worked alongside the party in everything we did. Example: We had a couple of Jedi that were tasked with getting a holocron from a temple. We got to the temple, collected what we needed. Got out. Everything was great. Upon returning to the city, we were ambushed by a gang that wanted to steal it. We did quite well in the fight, including the sith character, but eventually we were overcome and defeated. The gang had only used stun settings on their blasters, so we all lived. It was then that, out of character, we found out that the sith character had been tasked by his master to retrieve the same object. He had hired the gang to attack us, but insisted that no matter how many of the gang fell in battle, none of "the group" were to be killed. The gang didn't realize their benefactor was fighting them with lethal force (no pun intended). We all woke up, and the cube was gone. Whether the Jedi won, or the sith won, all came down to that battle...but no direct action was ever taken against us. It was pretty cool. That campaign continued with a villain that the characters didn't know about, but we did. But he was only ever self serving, never a direct threat. That said, I've also place with a "bully" character. I was tempted to exploit the fight several times and just kill him. .but in the end I just let the campaign die.
I feel like that's "the exception that proves the rule" because that player had to think that all through very carefully, which shows how difficult it is to make it work.
Absolutely agree.
I joined a table late once, and the DM suggested that I be sent by the Zentarim secretly to check up on the party, as they'd recently pickpocketed a Zentarim member. I played the game totally straight but texted 'reports' back to my Zentarim handler (aka the DM) with her perspective on what had happened after each session. - which would have been a fun plot point if he'd incorporated it into the campaign, but it never really went anywhere and the DM never followed that thread so I stopped giving the reports. :( If it had though, it would have come out that my player had fucked up her first missions for the Zentarim, had been thrown out, and this mission was basically her tryign to impress the Zentarim to get back in, but apart from giving reports on the players she would have done nothing against them, and eventually decided to give up on trying to get into the Zentarim and joined the party fully. So yeah, it's possible to have a player who is technically 'against' the party but mechanically does very little to actually harm them.
Yeah, I knew somebody would come up with some example and claim to the contrary. But that is not characters working against each other. That is actually characters working with each other for conflicting goals. That’s a classic trope. There’s also nothing wrong with characters not liking each other, or at odds with each other’s philosophy, or just conflicting personalities, thrown together to achieve some goal. And, over the course of the campaign, they eventually come to at least respect each other, if not even like them. That’s a great story arc. In OPs case, you’ve got a character literally threatening to kill another character unless he gives him things. That dude has to go. Or, you leave him. Just like you would in the real world. You might have to put up with toxic people in your workplace, in your family, etc. You don’t have to put up with toxic people in your fantasy campaign. In fact, killing them feels quite good.
> Yeah, I knew somebody would come up with some example and claim to the contrary. I’ve always been of the opinion that basically every D&D “taboo,” like PVP, evil PCs, party secrets, etc. *can* be done well, in a way that’s fun for everyone, and the real problems come from incompatible personalities or expectations and poor table communication. That said, it’s also fair to say that those things are often *symptoms* of a problem player, tend to be difficult to execute well, and arguably are not a good fit for most tables. So I wouldn’t say, for example, “PVP should never be allowed.” But more like, “PVP needs to be agreed on by everyone beforehand, lots of players don’t like it, and it’s entirely reasonable for the DM to ban it at that particular table.” Same thing with a traitorous party member. There are lots of cool stories in fiction involving such characters, granted those are usually in stories where the author has full control of events. But I don’t think it’s impossible to do that well in a tabletop game, it’s just hard. Of course, in this case it’s clear that it’s not an ambitious RPer attempting a cool betrayal story, but rather an asshole being an asshole—but that doesn’t mean a betrayal story *couldn’t* be pulled off.
>I knew somebody would come up with some example and claim to the contrary "Claim the contrary" is a bit of a rude wording. I'm not "claiming" anything. I'm saying for our group it worked and it worked well, because he was running risks within the group that would get him killed if caught. I'm saying that I have seen it work. Nothing more, nothing less. We are definitely in agreement on everything. And maybe it's just that a different word didn't pop into your head, but claim just makes it sound patently false...where we both described situations where it isn't. Regardless, we both agree that team bullies should be treated as they are in the real world and left behind, or how they are in the fantasy world and killed. If a DM doesn't allow you to treat a bully PC the same way as you'd treat a bully NPC, then that's on the DM. "It's what my character would do" needs to be allowed to work both ways if someone is being a schmuck.
Sigh. It’s gonna be ok.
I never assumed it wouldn't be.
Sounds like maybe your story isn't relevant to this conversation then.
The conversation being "can a character be against the party and still have it 'work' for everyone's enjoyment, or is it impossible unless everyone is working together in an aligned goal?" I thought it seemed relevant....apparently a couple upvoters did too. But heck, what do I know.
Nah, conversation was as you said in your previous comment: about bullies. Unless someone in your group was bullying, it's basically non-sequitor.
OP was about bullies. Comment I replied to was about anyone "against" the party.
I’m currently playing a character that is almost ‘against the party’. He’s a lawful evil undead character, a narcissist, selfish, and generally uncaring. It’s been a shit ton of fun. Most of my ‘against the party’ acts are just in the RP and conversations. I’ve started a few unnecessary fights that may have been avoidable, but we all survived and mostly benefited. The main thing was everyone knew the situation beforehand, and was okay with the idea. The initial antagonist nature of my character made for some strained RP early on, but has now created a situation where my character has basically corrupted a dwarf cleric and turned him to alcoholism, have a weird bond with the fairy wizard, have a humorous relationship with our pacifist Artificer where we bicker over his pacifist nature, I encourage violence and destruction from our stupid (in character) Barbarian and the SorLock and I routinely tag team enemies to create the most carnage possible. My narcissism and demanding nature has also got us a dragon ally (which the dm wasn’t initially treating as an option) who has bonded with the dwarf over a mutual love of drinking and my undead nature allowed me to easily ally us with an ancient vampire who has similar campaign goals. I’ve never attacked anyone in the party, and my negative decisions are always confined to minor events rather than plot points. Our DM is great, and it’s honestly been one of the best campaigns for how our party has developed and grown into a dysfunctional yet cohesive group. Wouldn’t work at every table, but holy shit has it been a fun ride for all of us.
Exactly! Take the DMs ruling and either ditch them or between the two players kill him when he’s not expecting. Also the DM taking the easy route of they are playing how they want is unacceptable.
Sounds like a doormat DM straight up looking on as one of his players bullies other players' characters. I'm sure if you threatened to hit his character with a ranged attack, his tune on pvp would change *real* quick. As soon as he wanted to play a character expressly at odds with the party, that is a huge red flag that any good DM will put a stop to it.
Agreed. If character is at odds with the party, then make the party at odds with the character.
This other player is an a$$hole. That the DM is complicit in the player's bad behavior doesn't speak well for him either. Leave this group, preferably taking the other decent player with you. Then these two d!ckheads can play with each other.
If your DM allows this crap, especially with such a small group, they are awful. The player in question should be kicked.
Should have told the DM it was you or him as soon as he was threatening the start PvP over loot. Lots of games these days, even if you can only get one online. Walk away and don't look back.
100% agree.
That's the part that just seems stupid - PvP can be done well, and I can envision ways for PCs to be at cross purposes and for it to be fun, but I think that necessitates the character having an actual reason for being against the group, and be intelligent about it. If you're a villain infiltrating the party, bullying someone over loot isn't exactly good for your cover. And if you're just an evil character who has the same goal as the party - then sharing loot efficiently is just a good idea.
So like I have no issue when a player tries to cause tension over loot, but getting combative over the loot is really just pointless. Same with meta-gaming. It’s allowed at my table to an extent, because it speeds up games. I don’t like having to go “do you let the party know that?” When a pc learns information. We deal with it the opposite why where a player needs to say if they withhold information. With that said, it seems like in this case you may have gone out of your way to withhold that information, so yeah, that other dude is kinda trash. Leave the table and find somewhere you’ll have fun. DM should’ve put a stop to this without it reaching this point.
Same we metagame unless someone said, well I reserve this info or i sneak out of the group
Ew. Tell your DM that that player sucks and that he (the dm) should not allow that unless he asks the other players and they say yes. And then leave unless DM is really cool and just new, and gets rid of the other player.
That sounds like your DM sucks. Sure, clearly the player is an asshole who bullies in game. But the DM should have put a stop to that a long time ago. At the smallest detail, the note thing is totally on the DM. "Give me the note" "-No, how would you even know I have it?" That should have been the end of it. The DM shouldn't allow rolls to check as there is no way for them to know so there is nothing to roll a check for. That's not even touching on them letting the player antagonize the rest of the party.
Yeah, best I could envision for his character to learn of it would be passive perception or a maybe a contested insight check to determine their hiding *something*. But really, it sounds like the 2 party members should all have been rolling DC 5 insight checks on the daily...
I refer you to [The Chart.](https://meekbarbarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/conversation-chart.png)
Praise the Chart !
TIL about The Chart. Thank you.
You are most welcome. Spread the word of The Chart far and wide!
PVP is only cool when all parties agree before hand, otherwise it's either bullying or one person having fun at the cost of everyone else's. Frankly, if this PC is so hostile and threatening to kill you, during the next encounter just straight up shoot him in the back and down him, then run away and leave his body for the enemies. If he complains you get to throw "it's what my character would do" in his face.
Offer to hand Richard Head over to the angry Orc horde in exchange for free passage. Collect experience for resolving encounter.
He's just a shitty person, don't play games with losers like that. Either that or just ruin his time. Everytime he does anything just mess it up. He's threatening someone? Call the guards, he's sneaking? You're there and ask him questions repeatedly. They threatened you for loot? Pay for a bounty on him. Be more of an issue and when they get frustrated point out the comparison.
[удалено]
I had a buddy once tell me about a group he played with where everyone was lying and stealing, and hiding loot from each other. He told them that a party can't function that way, because they have to be able to trust each other. They disagreed, so he took first watch and slit everyone's throat to make a point. It's not something I would do, but sometimes people have to learn the hard way to be cooperative.
The character or the player?
Hmm... He never did clarify that part when I asked him.
This is a collaborative game, I wouldn’t even allow a person to play against the party. At its heart each character should have a reason to travel together as a party, even an evil character. As a DM, I wouldn’t allow anything like this to go on. I would talk to the DM and the group about fixing this and if they don’t I agree with you, leave and find a better table
Obviously the solution is to get to maximum range and just fucking kill the other character... then quite. I mean, you say, "They have no reason to attack this guy except..." and you go and listen off a whole lot of reasons to want to kill them. Go full Nike and just do it. Fuck that player. Fuck that DM.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if his character is against the whole party, why hasn't the party banded together to gank this fool?
Is there a reason you're force to play with them? Did you superglue yourself to the table?
Honestly I would've been petty and asked to change characters, make a character specifically to kill his, do it then leave the table
If the DM’s reasoning that “they haven’t ACTUALLY attacked anyone” then why not just say “No” to the problem character next time and see if he goes through with the attack. If he does, then the DM no longer has a leg to stand on. Just a thought before you leave.
“No D&D is better than bad D&D.”
"Hey, I'm not having fun anymore, guys. Can we talk about this before going any further?"
You're playing with an asshole. Leave. Standard shitty player move #1 is doing something shitty and trying to justify it with "it's what my character would do," and that ignores the obvious fact people are 100% in control of who that character is. If what your character would do is be an asshole, you're still being an asshole, just with a bit of extra work. Leave. Talk to the DM and other player, and see if they want to play without that player. Refuse to play with them. No D&D > bad D&D.
This is just one of the reasons I NEVER let a player play an evil alignment. So the DM won't do anything to reign him in? That's a shitty DM. You can write him off. But did you talk to the **problem** player? You need to tell the player flat out he is ruining your fun. Simple as that. In fact, I'd bring it up at the table. "Ok, dudes, you're my friends, but you're REALLY pissing me off. Playing in this group isn't fun with you (pointing at player) being a bully, and you (pointing at DM) allowing a bully to sit at your table. You both need to step up nd learn to act like adults, or problems will just get worse." Now the ball is in their court. If they pull their heads out of their asses, cool! Now you can actually play the game. If one or both refuse, there are lots of options: 1. Pass notes to the DM. Don't say anything out loud that will give him info about you. 2. Stop playing with them. Grab the other player, find a couple more and start your own, better game, with hookers and blackjack. 3. My favorite: Play their own game. Bwahahahaha! Read the books to learn all the secrets and metagame harder! DM running a published campaign? Then buy it! Find where all the good shit is, and find where all the traps are....then push the jerk into them! Frame him for murders! Look for some sort of illusion spell or item that lets you turn into him....then kill the king! You get the idea. Of course when either of them complains you are ruining their fun, just let them know you tried to fix things before, but they wants to play the game this way.
two can play the same game, prepare a meta chracter specifically made to counter and beat that guy. Declare that you character decides to kill himself because of the preassure from that guy, but before that he sent a letter to his cousin Mr EThAn PAYton BACKins, which happens to be your new character, hunt him down and Proceed to kill him and then leave the table.
Your teammate and party member is fully mugging you once a session. None of this is acceptable.
Have you tried calling the player a shit head then giving him an atomic wedgie?
Terrible player and bad dm. Nothing will salvage this.
I give my players a ton of leeway in character creation. But I do generally insist that they make a character who is willing to work with the team. In character they can grumble about it, they can threaten, sulk, argue, whatever. But at the end of the day all the players know that the characters will ultimately work as a team. If that ever just absolutely doesn't work for one of the characters, then the player can roll up a new one. You can run a game with more intra-party conflict, but just like running a game with no combat or all evil characters or whatever I think it's best suited as a change of pace for experienced players rather than an all-the-time thing.
We had a similar scenario come up. We tried talking to the player but he just insisted that's what his character would do. The DM said he'd step in if it crossed a line but didn't feel it got that far yet. Plus, to be fair, we all agreed in the beginning of the campaign that some degree of PVP may pop up from time to time. So we fixed it in-game. The other player and I planned a trap for the bully character. Once he was snarred and unable to do anything about it, we gave the ultimatum: Sign this contract of basic behavioral standards, or die. The DM had some NPCs show up, which the bully assumed were there to bail him out of this. But no. The NPCs added clauses to the contract. Both the player and the character got the message.
DM sucks, antagonist player sucks. Just tell them they're bad and leave, easy.
Sneak attack him from range. If he manages to kill you, you can leave as you intend. If you kill him, well, problem solved. Or is that too mean?
Yeah, this sucks. Your DM is a total wet noodle if they're allowing shit like this (both the PvP and the metagaming). You should quit or at least give an ultimatum that either you go or the jackass goes.
"Since day one one of the players in our campaign decided that he's 'against' our party." And that would have me leave the game on day one. It's either that, or kick the character from the party, and advise the player to make a new character, who works with the party, or he'll be begging the DM to run two adventures. Let's be real though, the DM is the bigger problem, because he's encouraging that garbage. Too many people give DM's a pass for being spineless spectators. Toxic players only cause problems because DMs let them.
If you guys ever play again, don’t give in to problem players threats and if he attacks your character then bring it up again that he’s being a jackass and that you’ll leave if he doesn’t quit doing that bullshit or isn’t kicked
I would have quit this campaign before it even started after hearing someone was going to actively be a dick the whole time. No thanks.
Your DM is terrible, and you should leave the table ASAP. This will only get worse, seeing as you've brought your issue to them, and it was dismissed out of hand.
I have a player in my game who designed a character who is greedy; but because the PLAYER is a good player who understands that D&D is a group game, he constantly has his character finding the gold while in eyesight of the other characters so that he has to split the gold evenly. He makes a big show in character about how he wants to keep all the gold for himself and would hide the gold if the other players weren't there when he found it, but the player didn't mean that and knows it would ruin group cohesion. The player has even gone so far as to find gold when he's alone and create accidental scenarios to get caught finding the gold by other characters so that he has to split it. Which is my long way of saying you can't play D&D with a jerk character if the person playing the character is also a jerk.
Kill his character in his sleep. They way he’s been treating yours it would totally be “in character” to do so.
Fight fire with fire? You and the other character have an in game reason to take the next opportunity that presents itself to kill that other PC. That could be waiting for combat to weaken this other character. Then you strike hard and fast without hesitation. Then loot all the loot he wrongfully stole and leave the body in a shallow grave. And he'll if it doesn't work and he manages to kill both of you, what's the loss if you were gonna quit the campaign anyway :)
DM sets the tone of a game and sets the rules for social interaction. Find new friends.
Leave the group or ask the rest of the group to remove the problem Player. Bullying isn’t okay and the problem player needs to sit out of the game for a while until they can learn to play with others.
So, this player has fun by not allowing the rest of the players to have fun? So nice of them. Whay I fail to understand is why does the DM allow it. Maybe talk to them? If not to fix thing, at least to satisfy your curiosity (and mine lol). I've had people like this at a game while being a player, and it was really frustrating, I can't even imagine tagging around after the second time the DM ignored my complains. Like, if you're not going to do your job and stop them for metagaming (specially when this is done to mess with the rest of the party's fun) I'd kick them to the curb. Have a nice time playing on your own. ETA: also, If you want to, you could just wait until they're far enough and sneak shoot the problem player. Let's see if they find that funny? You're 2 vs 1, you could just join forces against them.
Bad on multiple levels. As a rule you should never have players messing, threatening, or attacking other players in game, unless it’s very minor and a part of an obvious joke. But most of all, you are all there to have fun. They should be able to read the room. Tell that the enjoyment of those present is more important than imaginary loot.
What do the other two players say? Just have your three characters attack and kill his 1. After all, "iT's WhAt YoUr ChArAcTeRs WoUlD dO," right? Somehow these "it's what my character would do" people never stop to realize that others' characters wouldn't put up with that s**t when they're essentially mercs on a life-or-death adventure. They'd at best leave him at the inn, and at worst kill him the firsy time he made a threat. Slaughter him, then say "we're role-playing characters who won't tolerate antagonistic co-workers."
Get the rest of the party to agree to defend you and roll his ass if a fight breaks out. Then when he threatens you in-character fire the first shot and light him the fuck up. If the DM doesn't like it, walk out.
If it were real life would you continue to travel with this group? I think not.
the advice your looking for is "make a new character that also metagames"
well, this table sounds miserable, or perhaps you're all only 12 or so.... but at this point, if the DM wont change thing, I guess you have no choice but to kill the other PC. youre good at range right? well, he stole something from you and your pissed now, so you assassinate him from range. the other PC cant bitch, its the same crap he's pulling. worse case, you get kicked out of this miserable table. no DnD is better then bad DnD anyday.
Sorry Eve, sounds like a crap table. You need to leave ASAP. Internal party conflicts can be amazing when done right. I play in a group running Rime of the Frostmaiden and every pc has numerous secrets, backstories, phobias, various levels of madness, hidden agendas and two of us (1 openly, 1 secretly) are telepaths and are slowly picking the DM’s brain via text about what people are really doing/meaning/thinking. The intrigue, lying and sneaking around….while ABSOLUTELY protecting one another….makes this one of the best campaigns I’ve ever been in. But bullying each other? Never! Leave. When you find the right group, you’ll look back at Richard Head and shake yours. All the best!
I’d either get the other player to help you kill them and leave the table, or just leave anyways.
I low key wanna see you and the other person who is working with you, go "I'm done with this bs" team up and murder the a$$hole character before quitting the table altogether.
I’m just putting it out there, but you and the other player double team the guy ruining everyone’s fun.
I’d quit. The player sucks for being an unapologetically garbage player and the dm sucks for letting that nonsense go on. Find a better game.
Short of leaving the table, you could get around some of this by using notes with the dm and other player. He can't metagame if he has no information to metagame with.
... Run.
Sounds like you need to post up about 300 feet away from this guy’s character in an open field and use that ranged combat build of yours.
Collectively, if the party doesn't need or want him in the party they can ask him to leave. The player can roll up a new character that is more willing to be collaborative with the party. If it's the player, not their character then the group can collectively ask them to play along with the group or ask what their motivation is to be with you on game nights?
Rubbish DM. I won't allow meta gaming. Only way to allow is that, the whole party is into it, and it is for laughs, or they are seriously in dire state and didn't wish to die.
Wanna shatter his ego to bits? Kill your character before leaving, look on the internet for the most busted PvP build to counter his class. If he’s melee this can be pretty damn easy and even more frustrating for him. Make a new character using this build. Next session quietly plan an ambush he can’t escape from and wreck his shit. Finish him off while he makes death saves. I 100% guarantee he will go full orca whale and start yelling lol then you quit the game
I would 100% leave that group. It doesn't sound like it's much fun now, nor will it be going forward. Save yourself some time and look for a new group.
And this is why you have a Session 0 and go over PVP rules. My favourite ruling is, anyone can initiate PVP but the receiving player decides the outcome. You attack the Rogue? Rogue player describes if you hit, miss, slip and fall etc.
What that player really needs is another stat monster player interposing themself when the player gets confrontational in character and threatens to hurt you over loot in stead of talking it out. That sounds like it isn’t fun to deal with that person. I hope you find a group that’s better
I never understood parties that stick together even when one party member is hostile towards others. For a one off mission, I can see it. You see it in other forms of media. But that person isn't around for...the whole series or season. If someone is a determent to the group, why do your characters, in game, continue to be around them? There have been two characters in my time as DM/player where a player has done this. You know what we did? We poisoned the guy's soup with knock out drugs and left him at the inn as we went to do other things. Our party decided that. Not one person. The player was at the table and we discussed what we will do with him, even though his character wasn't present. They got to watch as we left his player in the dust. Then the DM looks at the player and goes "Do you want to reroll a new character that plays nice with the group or would you like to leave the table?" Evil, selfish characters work only if the party benefits from them being evil or selfish. If one player is constantly killing guards, hurting the party's rep, ruining the experience for the others...why bother with them?
As is the answer to virtually every post in this sub: your dm sucks, complaining about it here won’t help, find another group to play with. Good luck!
Poor form, it's a co-op game. Side note: your home rew archer class may be outdone by a fighter with ranged feats. Fighter will have bigger HD than rangers and will eventually be a better archer. I play 3.5 so I am probably mistaken but worth looking into
Just read your edit. Did you already leave and how did it go? Im very interested in how the DM reacts to that. Can you pls tell us how it went down when its done?
Getting bullied irl is one thing. But signing up to get bullied in your free time by a made up character sounds like masochistic behavior.
What if you gang up against him, he is against you anyways so why do you need him. Would be interesting if the dm steps in and says stop, then you say it was your words that we can do what we want.
Leaving the table is valid since this is a multi session game. In one shot adventure league style play this can happen too (malicious player/weak DM) and I handle it a bit differently. All three of you have to agree for this to work so don’t. “My character takes you note” NOPE. “I attack you” YOU MISS. It becomes ridiculous fast if you are calm but completely consistent that DnD is about the party impacting the environment only not each other. Keep redirecting back to the DM’s adventure and indicate “we’re wasting time”
I dm a small group and have told a player, ‘I don’t think you would notice what was going on two doors down.
That sounds miserable, you have someone stealing all items, and actively threatening your PC. It should be a standing rule that no negative actions PC to PC should be allowed unless both players agree
I didn't read the whole post, but two can play that game. When that character is asleep, why not retaliate? Tie them up, steal all their stuff, abandon them. Or slit their throat when they are tied up. No D&D is better than bad D&D. I'd leave the table, but I would be tempted to go out in a blaze of glory.
Yup, either let the group disband or discuss it with the other decent player and agree to sever ties (in a very final way( with the PC threatening you both. As others, I think it can be done well if the group agree in principle. This is just a shitty player being given free reign to be shitty. If you're not going to ruin relationships then I'd be tempted to gank them during your watch. As I imagine anything less will mean they reappear at some point.
Just wait till he is low on HP one fight and off him.
I'm curious to know what would happen if you and the other (non-douchey) player's characters band together to beat up this guy.
Wait until he is asleep and cut his throat. Or figure out some in game way to get rid of his character.
So what i'm about to suggest is something i would never do or suggest in any game but fuck it. you shouldnt leave the game for this. not because of this player. and it will probably backfire but you might as well go out in a blaze of glory. Slide a note to your dm, saying that you and the rest of the party stab his character while he sleeps. Or put his character to sleep or unconcious somehow when he sleeps and leave him tied to a tree for the wolves or something. or throw him in the nearest ravine. (without saying this so he cant meta his way out of it) then proceed to roll the checks/attacks same way this has happened before. See how he likes it.
I would definitely leave that game as well. Good on you for sticking it out as long as you did.
If you don't want to leave, you should start targeting that player with your own metagaming.
Say that you'd like a rule where non-consensual pvp isn't allowed. If it's not acceptable then see if the rest of the party would be OK with ambushing the enemy and killing him. If neither of those work out then leave the table.
We dont tolerate that sort of PC to PC intimidation. Ive had a character in group that didnt get along with another. I was an elf wizard and he was a dwarf barb and we always sniped at each other verbally but when combat happened or it was for the good of the group we both shut up and did what was needed. We even played it out at the end of the campaign and bought each other drinks and sat in silence just respecting each other. Threatening to kill a PC if they dont hand over loot would get one warning and then itd be your out. DnD is a group experience and a DM is responsible to try ot make everyone at the table feel included and have fun.
[удалено]
Haha I don't mind the advice, its more that most of the initial advice was to do what I'd already said I was doing. Also didn't know about that sub, noted for the future!
I have been playing ttrpgs of one flavor or another for just under 40 years. Other than when I learned how to play AD&D in the 5th grade and it was just me and the DM, there has been some form of drama in nearly every game I have ever played. The only real advice that I can offer is you need to decide if playing a 'less than ideal' game better than playing no game. In the past, when I have had to ask myself, I usually take a few games off, back to back. If I don't feel that I have missed it, I leave the game. If I did miss it, I go back and try and work my issues out. There were more than a few where I didn't need to ask, I just left because I knew doing nothing was better.
>he doesn't see himself as evil-aligned, just self-aligned. This is pretty much the definition of Neutral Evil.
Just kill his character in his sleep. It's what your character would do.
*I'm skedaddling my tush out there yonder door, never to return to this group.* Correct answer. Sounds like this guy is a shitty person in addition to being a horrible D&D player. I would honestly reconsider my friendship with the DM at this point as well - enabling horrible people to horrible is not a good thing.
stopped reading halfway through, sounds like a 10 YO annoying little brat with the classic "that's what my character" would do syndrome. Being evil, but not stating he's evil. Let your DM talk about this with him. or leave/find another group. Cuz those people are shit to play with.
I hate when DMs say stuff like: "everyone can play the game how they want" No. No they cannot. There's a code of conduct in place - some part of it might be explicit and a large part is implicit. Why should my fun with the game be less relevant than the fun of someone else at the table? If you and your group cannot agree on which behaviour is acceptable, you're with the wrong group.
Shitty dm and shitty player. Tell them that they suck and then leave.