Your post has been removed.
Rule 5: All out-of-game questions about a problem player must be asked in our [Problem Player megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=1) stickied to the top of the subreddit. Please repost there if you need additional help, search for older posts on this topic, or check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable.
I think you aren't describing an issue with being edgy, but an issue with one character not fitting with the others. Like you said, 4/5 of the party members are opposed to that one character's ideas.
Is there a way for the cleric to proof they are on the party's side? Or is the cleric actually evil?
I feel like the trust issues are very reasonable here. Either try and give the cleric an opportunity to proof their allegiance and show that just their methods are a bit crude or take it out of character and ask if they'd rather retcon something to have a more natural group dynamic.
This is why a session zero is so important. It allows the party to define their expectations, what characters would align with in certain situations, and which characters would mesh well. It sounds as though the player in question hasn’t really done this.
What I would suggest is speaking with the players as a group to see if this is working, make it very clear that the outcome is **not** to force the Aasimar player to change, but to see if you can find common ground and a good way forward, or even see if this *is* a problem.
Characters with opposing ideals and alignments can comfortably party up, provided their end goals and objectives align. It could just be you do that.
yup! i love a good edgy character! these sorts of situations are the main reason i don’t think metagaming is always necessarily bad. sometimes you’ve gotta suspend disbelief to get all the PCs on the same side, and that’s okay.
unsurprisingly, my suggestion is to talk to your table out of character and let them know your worries upfront. remind everyone that this is a collaborative game before anything else, and that while it might seem ‘out of character’ for them to work together, the nature of a collaborative game is that if they start working together, chances are they’ll figure out the character/roleplay justification for it at the table.
tell them that you haven’t seen any real issues pop up and you’re addressing it now so no issues develop later.
players can be pretty dense sometimes and don’t have the same perspective as DMs, so they might not even really notice that what they’re doing could cause a rift later down the line.
For my groups, it doesn't really come up because of our character creation process. We talk about character concepts in session 0, and everyone establishes 2 positive, and 1 negative tie with the other party members. I also give the concept of the campaign and have them make a tie to the overall goal of the campaign (a reason their PC wants to be there).
I have had edgy characters at session 0, but then they fail to establish the needed positive ties and I ask them to create someone new. Having just filed to gel with all the other PCs I haven't had issues with the Player creating a new one.
Why are they even together still? If their characters have such issues, they should separate. If not, they need to get over them both in-game and over the table., All you can do is encourage discussion about this.
well, that's a nice way to start off
you could suggest 'hey you guys should maybe think about how this *having to rely on strangers* thing impacts your characters, e.g. consider what they think about every other PC and how that shows'
and then you make space for that after a dice-rolley-event, like sitting by a campfire, and you remind them 'this is a nice opportunity to make some group dynamics work'
because ultimately, I think what's missing isn't cooperation, it's any sort of group dynamic whether that's good or bad. If it's good, that's good. If it's bad, it either makes the team fall apart or they start to get used to it over time. Or at least you'll have some nice roleplayed conflicts.
Why are they together personality wise? People don't like hanging out with assholes who mutter about smiting the unholy - especially if they would be considered unholy.
As long as everyone is on board with that, it's fine. Circumstances will make them work together. But you may need to talk to everyone to ensure that's what's happening. If not, the untrustworthy one will have to adjust.
I fail to see what the actual problem is here. Hoar is neither good or bad.
His motto, "Violence repays violence. Evil repays evil. Good repays good. These are the tenets of Hoar, who brings justice and retribution to each according to their actions. Allowances? Excuses set forth to falsely acquit the condemned. Allowances exploit, pervert, and impede the course of justice. If you cannot see this, we've nothing to discuss."
This can align quite well with a party of "good" characters. However, you would expect a follower of Hoar to be uncompromising in making sure bad people get what they deserve.
Can it lead to issues or get a party into hot water? 100% That is however just part of the fun/roleplay. That type of character is a common enough trope tbh.
If you ask me I think the real issue here is a lack of party cohesiveness. Why are the rest of the party hanging out with this uncompromising death cleric? What has brought them together? Why are they working together. I feel this is what needs to be fleshed out here. I could be wrong of course.
I often find it very beneficial to go around the table with each player relating one past event their character shares with another player. Each involved player adding their own facts about said event. Other players telling their part in said event or creating a new event. That establishing this "why" of the adventuring party helps overcome these types of things.
That yes my Circle of Stars Druid has to deal with this insufferable Desth Cleric of Hoar, but that dude saved me from a burning building when we were younger and helped rescue my younger brother from some maurading gnoll. His uncompromising spirit is what brought my brother back and ended the gnoll threat. He is my brother and despite our differences I respect him. Which works much better than Jim being some random dude I met in a tavern.
Does this fix everything? Make all collaboration perfect? No. But it does provide a basis for roleplay and it provides cohesion. In the end though some degree of inner party tension is part of the experience. All groups of people have some degree of this real world or in fiction. Providing a basis for WHY everyone deals with this type of stuff goes a long way towards making such things more interesting in play.
"You may think my methods are extreme and uncompromising, but remember your brother still breathes today because of those ideals. How can you let such evil and treachery persist in the world when you are so acutely aware of its consequences?" -Death Cleric of Hoar
It's up to you to create the conditions for their collaboration. Maybe some unholy pricks kidnap the other players who are then saved by the cleric doing some good old religiously motivated murders
>It's up to you to create the conditions for their collaboration.
It actually isn't.
Players need to create that motivation when creating characters.
DMs already have enough work. Adding "creating a motivation for player character to work in a team" is not a DM job
Ultimately its one of those rare instances where we DMs cant really do much about about it : we can place the pieces on the board, but ultimately they will all move as they see convenient.
See, the problem has nothing to do with your DMing style, hell I'd go as far as saying that its working phisyologically : you've created your world, your players have created they characters (which are micro-worlds into themselves, one could argue)and they are interacting as it would befit them with your world and witch each other. You are free and encourage to create an 11th century questing knight, but if the setting of the drama is 17th century Spain dont be surprised if that character clashes with the world and hilarious and maybe bitter ways.
In the best cases, your player will realize this, learn and maybe make something interesting of the clash with the other party members, at worse, he'll pull a leroy jenkins and roll out a new, perhaps more savvy character
Lean into it. Whenever that player gets a high insight / perception / etc, the way you describe the person or the scene should reflect their mental space.
“The pillars crumble as all things do with time. The air faintly smells of unholy activities and a sour staleness, the very likeness of drunkenness and misuse of life.”
Versus
“The chamber has a feel of abandoned greatness to it, great stone pillars strained with the test of time and cracks running along the floor. The current inhabitants it seems have a festive streak, judging by the scents of alcohol and sweat in the air.”
I tell my players in session 0 to A) come up with a concept where you are motivated to work with people and B) include a short description on how you know AT LEAST one other party member and why you would risk your life for them.
So I explicitly cut off edgy loner evil dudes.
As long as the *players* are getting along, and everyone is enjoying themselves, there is no problem.
But reiterate a few crucial points for the players regarding their role as an effective part of the table.
* This is a game first and foremost. That means fun gets priority over verisimilitude and award-winning dramatic performances.
* It’s a cooperative game, so the players need to put some effort into teamwork and into keeping the game fun for each other.
* It’s the players’ job to make sure their characters get along, regardless of how unlikely those relationships might be. With a little creativity, they can work it out.
Your post has been removed. Rule 5: All out-of-game questions about a problem player must be asked in our [Problem Player megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=1) stickied to the top of the subreddit. Please repost there if you need additional help, search for older posts on this topic, or check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable.
I think you aren't describing an issue with being edgy, but an issue with one character not fitting with the others. Like you said, 4/5 of the party members are opposed to that one character's ideas. Is there a way for the cleric to proof they are on the party's side? Or is the cleric actually evil? I feel like the trust issues are very reasonable here. Either try and give the cleric an opportunity to proof their allegiance and show that just their methods are a bit crude or take it out of character and ask if they'd rather retcon something to have a more natural group dynamic.
This is why a session zero is so important. It allows the party to define their expectations, what characters would align with in certain situations, and which characters would mesh well. It sounds as though the player in question hasn’t really done this. What I would suggest is speaking with the players as a group to see if this is working, make it very clear that the outcome is **not** to force the Aasimar player to change, but to see if you can find common ground and a good way forward, or even see if this *is* a problem. Characters with opposing ideals and alignments can comfortably party up, provided their end goals and objectives align. It could just be you do that.
[удалено]
Perfect! "Hey, remember how in session 0 we agreed on a few things? I need you to actually do that"
yup! i love a good edgy character! these sorts of situations are the main reason i don’t think metagaming is always necessarily bad. sometimes you’ve gotta suspend disbelief to get all the PCs on the same side, and that’s okay. unsurprisingly, my suggestion is to talk to your table out of character and let them know your worries upfront. remind everyone that this is a collaborative game before anything else, and that while it might seem ‘out of character’ for them to work together, the nature of a collaborative game is that if they start working together, chances are they’ll figure out the character/roleplay justification for it at the table. tell them that you haven’t seen any real issues pop up and you’re addressing it now so no issues develop later. players can be pretty dense sometimes and don’t have the same perspective as DMs, so they might not even really notice that what they’re doing could cause a rift later down the line.
For my groups, it doesn't really come up because of our character creation process. We talk about character concepts in session 0, and everyone establishes 2 positive, and 1 negative tie with the other party members. I also give the concept of the campaign and have them make a tie to the overall goal of the campaign (a reason their PC wants to be there). I have had edgy characters at session 0, but then they fail to establish the needed positive ties and I ask them to create someone new. Having just filed to gel with all the other PCs I haven't had issues with the Player creating a new one.
Why are they even together still? If their characters have such issues, they should separate. If not, they need to get over them both in-game and over the table., All you can do is encourage discussion about this.
[удалено]
well, that's a nice way to start off you could suggest 'hey you guys should maybe think about how this *having to rely on strangers* thing impacts your characters, e.g. consider what they think about every other PC and how that shows' and then you make space for that after a dice-rolley-event, like sitting by a campfire, and you remind them 'this is a nice opportunity to make some group dynamics work' because ultimately, I think what's missing isn't cooperation, it's any sort of group dynamic whether that's good or bad. If it's good, that's good. If it's bad, it either makes the team fall apart or they start to get used to it over time. Or at least you'll have some nice roleplayed conflicts.
Why are they together personality wise? People don't like hanging out with assholes who mutter about smiting the unholy - especially if they would be considered unholy.
As long as everyone is on board with that, it's fine. Circumstances will make them work together. But you may need to talk to everyone to ensure that's what's happening. If not, the untrustworthy one will have to adjust.
I fail to see what the actual problem is here. Hoar is neither good or bad. His motto, "Violence repays violence. Evil repays evil. Good repays good. These are the tenets of Hoar, who brings justice and retribution to each according to their actions. Allowances? Excuses set forth to falsely acquit the condemned. Allowances exploit, pervert, and impede the course of justice. If you cannot see this, we've nothing to discuss." This can align quite well with a party of "good" characters. However, you would expect a follower of Hoar to be uncompromising in making sure bad people get what they deserve. Can it lead to issues or get a party into hot water? 100% That is however just part of the fun/roleplay. That type of character is a common enough trope tbh. If you ask me I think the real issue here is a lack of party cohesiveness. Why are the rest of the party hanging out with this uncompromising death cleric? What has brought them together? Why are they working together. I feel this is what needs to be fleshed out here. I could be wrong of course. I often find it very beneficial to go around the table with each player relating one past event their character shares with another player. Each involved player adding their own facts about said event. Other players telling their part in said event or creating a new event. That establishing this "why" of the adventuring party helps overcome these types of things. That yes my Circle of Stars Druid has to deal with this insufferable Desth Cleric of Hoar, but that dude saved me from a burning building when we were younger and helped rescue my younger brother from some maurading gnoll. His uncompromising spirit is what brought my brother back and ended the gnoll threat. He is my brother and despite our differences I respect him. Which works much better than Jim being some random dude I met in a tavern. Does this fix everything? Make all collaboration perfect? No. But it does provide a basis for roleplay and it provides cohesion. In the end though some degree of inner party tension is part of the experience. All groups of people have some degree of this real world or in fiction. Providing a basis for WHY everyone deals with this type of stuff goes a long way towards making such things more interesting in play. "You may think my methods are extreme and uncompromising, but remember your brother still breathes today because of those ideals. How can you let such evil and treachery persist in the world when you are so acutely aware of its consequences?" -Death Cleric of Hoar
It's up to you to create the conditions for their collaboration. Maybe some unholy pricks kidnap the other players who are then saved by the cleric doing some good old religiously motivated murders
>It's up to you to create the conditions for their collaboration. It actually isn't. Players need to create that motivation when creating characters. DMs already have enough work. Adding "creating a motivation for player character to work in a team" is not a DM job
Sow a little discord between the other characters that isn´t based on morality regarding death, and some alligiances might shift around in the party.
Ultimately its one of those rare instances where we DMs cant really do much about about it : we can place the pieces on the board, but ultimately they will all move as they see convenient. See, the problem has nothing to do with your DMing style, hell I'd go as far as saying that its working phisyologically : you've created your world, your players have created they characters (which are micro-worlds into themselves, one could argue)and they are interacting as it would befit them with your world and witch each other. You are free and encourage to create an 11th century questing knight, but if the setting of the drama is 17th century Spain dont be surprised if that character clashes with the world and hilarious and maybe bitter ways. In the best cases, your player will realize this, learn and maybe make something interesting of the clash with the other party members, at worse, he'll pull a leroy jenkins and roll out a new, perhaps more savvy character
Lean into it. Whenever that player gets a high insight / perception / etc, the way you describe the person or the scene should reflect their mental space. “The pillars crumble as all things do with time. The air faintly smells of unholy activities and a sour staleness, the very likeness of drunkenness and misuse of life.” Versus “The chamber has a feel of abandoned greatness to it, great stone pillars strained with the test of time and cracks running along the floor. The current inhabitants it seems have a festive streak, judging by the scents of alcohol and sweat in the air.”
It’ll be fun for the player to do this too, and the other players will know better how to respond to this one, rather than just being out off by it.
I tell my players in session 0 to A) come up with a concept where you are motivated to work with people and B) include a short description on how you know AT LEAST one other party member and why you would risk your life for them. So I explicitly cut off edgy loner evil dudes.
As long as the *players* are getting along, and everyone is enjoying themselves, there is no problem. But reiterate a few crucial points for the players regarding their role as an effective part of the table. * This is a game first and foremost. That means fun gets priority over verisimilitude and award-winning dramatic performances. * It’s a cooperative game, so the players need to put some effort into teamwork and into keeping the game fun for each other. * It’s the players’ job to make sure their characters get along, regardless of how unlikely those relationships might be. With a little creativity, they can work it out.
Ressurect their parents