|
Last Saturday I DM'ed City of Strangers, Part 1 and had, for the first time since GMing, a situation that left me conflicted and uncomfortable. The situation was compounded by the fact that 4 of my 5 players were new, and only just started playing at Dragonflight last weekend.
The party consisted of a Ninja, Cleric of Sarenrae and Paladin of Sarenrae, a Gunslinger and a Ranger. All but the Ranger were new players, who is a semi-regular at my FLGS.
The party was investigating the murder of Colligarde when they were ambushed by the men who wanted to avenge him. The Cleric and Paladin picked up on the hints that something was off with the encounter, and tried negotiating instead of fighting. They were doing some excellent RP and had the Diplomacy rolls to back it up, and even the Gunslinger started getting into it when the Ranger piped in:
"I want to meet the guy who killed Colligarde and shake his hand."
This made me do a double-take. The Ranger was a worshipper of Norgerber, the god of murder, so this was not an out-of-character thing for him to say. It could be said he was admiring the work of a master in his craft. However, this completely screwed with the non-violent RPing that most of the party was doing.
With that remark, I wanted to bump the attitude of the thugs back down to Hostile, but I decided I didn't want to screw over the rest of the party, especially with most of them being new players, for one player being stupid. This wasn't an isolated incident, either; several more comments along the same lines were made during the course of the adventure. In the end, I decided to make the game as fun as possible for the new players and ignore the remarks the other player made.
In summary, with 4 new players and 1 veteran, 3 of the newbies were doing excellent RPing in solving the encounters while the veteran had bad judgement and did several things that threatened to unravel the work the rest of the party did. In the interest of making the new players have the most fun, I decided to ignore the veteran's 'contributions' and pretend he didn't actually say what he said.
Did I handle this correctly? I think I made the best decision I could at the time, but I would be interested in how other GMs handle situations like these so I am better prepared in the future. I'm also interested in knowing if the answer would change if all of the players were veterans, or if all were newbies.
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd take him aside afterward to let him know that while he has the right to play his character any way he prefers, some of his choices came across as if he wanted to deliberately screw up what the others were doing. Ask him to please show more sensitivity to other people's play styles, especially when he's dealing with new players who might hesitate to assert themselves.
|
|
I'd take him aside afterward to let him know that while he has the right to play his character any way he prefers, some of his choices came across as if he wanted to deliberately screw up what the others were doing. Ask him to please show more sensitivity to other people's play styles, especially when he's dealing with new players who might hesitate to assert themselves.
Got it. I'm planning on running Part 2 again this week, so if he's at my table again I'll take him aside before the game and ask him not to repeat it.
I played QfP 2 recently and after defusing a difficult situation and engaging in diplomacy successfully, one of the players decided he wanted to punch the person we were talking to. Iirc his faction mission required information but he was better at intimidate than diplomacy, so he was going to start an unnecessary fight to give himself more of a chance to get the info. The GM warned him that he'd start a fight, and the rest of us seeing what he wanted to do asked if we could help him achieve his objectives in a more diplomatic way, which eventually worked. But before we got to that point we'd essentially ignored his stated actions, as he said he was going to punch the guy repeatedly, and the GM stalled him until we found a solution. It's hard to know what to do when one player wants to do something that is completely at odds with the rest of the party.
|
Give the party members a small chance to smack him in the mouth, and if they don't take it, combat begins. The closer they get to death for it, the next time a stupid decision comes around, they'll know what to do.
The problem with this logic is that you're letting one guy ruin it for the rest of the group. You got most of a table trying to do the right thing and one jerk that's probably just trying to get attention. In the situation the original poster described, the new players might not have the will or the desire to stand up to the more experienced player. I see it a lot when I GM though most of my vets don't go off and ruin things and are 99.9% of the time helpful.
I agree with those above that in this particular situation, ignoring the jerk is the best way to handle it.
I can't comment for the OP, but in my example no-one was being a jerk, or hogging the spotlight, or trying to get attention, he was just trying to complete his faction mission in a way that didn't complement what everyone else was doing. If we'd all been swinging punches it would have been fine...
|
|
Give the party members a small chance to smack him in the mouth, and if they don't take it, combat begins. The closer they get to death for it, the next time a stupid decision comes around, they'll know what to do.The problem with this logic is that you're letting one guy ruin it for the rest of the group. You got most of a table trying to do the right thing and one jerk that's probably just trying to get attention. In the situation the original poster described, the new players might not have the will or the desire to stand up to the more experienced player. I see it a lot when I GM though most of my vets don't go off and ruin things and are 99.9% of the time helpful.
I agree with those above that in this particular situation, ignoring the jerk is the best way to handle it.
I think this is very subjective. A player may be opposed to the party but at any time a player wants to begin combat, the party members always have the option of standing by the side and watch them get pummeled into a coma.
You could have simply roleplayed it that disruptive player starts a one-on-one brawl and then fudge the dice so they get knocked unconcious. The whole point of being a GM is that you determine the storyline.I am pretty new at pathfinder society though, but to me that seems reasonable. It also teaches said player to be more of a team player if you want your team to back his plays.
Does that make sense or seem like a better answer than just ignoring a player at the table? wouldn't it be legal within the roleplaying of a sanctioned game?
My DM always clarifies that character death is an option, though it's not somethign he strives for.
|
|
There's always tension in a party when one PC wants to do things the opposite way as everyone else, and often no player is even being a jerk. Another good example is the team that is trying to stealth, with one character bellowing forth an announcement of the team's presence and foiling stealth in every encounter, giving the enemies a surprise round each time. You can probably think of several concepts for which this isn't even strange behavior. This actually happened to one of my tables at Gencon. The guy was a great roleplayer, but I can't say for sure it didn't lead, in part, to the only deaths at a table I played at this year at Gencon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every GM has a different style. My style, I wouldn't ignore the roleplaying the "disruptive" player was doing. He is after all, playing his PC. Being imperfect and doing/saying interesting things is part of the game. Instead of viewing it as disruptive, it could actually enhance the RP of the session. Not everyone has to get along or have the same opinion.
I would however:
1) OOC warn him that saying this could be disruptive to our negotiations and could change their attitude towards us. Basically, let him change his mind and take back what he said. I allow this because the player might not know the consequences, but his PC might.
2) If he wants to say it anyway, give the party a chance to Bluff (or tell them he's not with us, etc) and cover up his faux pas before there was an automatic attitude change. I'd say the thugs might be hostile towards the Ranger, not to everyone, and maybe beating him up might placate them.
3) Tell the player that was the last warning I'm going to give regarding saying inappropriate things.
At Gencon, I was in a group and one of the players was making terrible decisions. Decisions that basically didn't allow him to participate in an entire act, and his animal companion died as well. Did the GM railroad the PC into doing the "correct decision"? No, he let him do his thing, but limited it also so his solo adventure wasn't disruptive. I thought that was a good way of handling it, instead of ignoring the player altogether.
Ignoring a player comes awful close to telling him how to play or that he's playing wrong. I just don't like it, but YMMV. That's not to say I won't trash him and make him pay, I just don't like telling players how to play their PCs.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
I agree that the GM shouldn't discount a player's choices just because he's marching to the beat of a different drummer. Unfortunately, this sounded like the table's most outgoing, enthusiastic player had the tendency to take over. He needs to be (gently and courteously) directed not to steamroll the choices made by less assertive players.
It's a balancing act: Some folks like to take the spotlight and feel stifled if you discourage them. Other are hesitant to step forward and need a bit of encouragement. Ideally, a great GM can give both the chance to enjoy themselves.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
One of my characters handled quite simply: he intimidated the character, and the whole party moved to give the NPCs flanks and said they'd be tossing buff spells to the NPCs. Our disruptive friend quickly quieted down.I hope you're kidding.
Seems like the Batman rule to me. "I'm not going to kill you, I don't have to save you." *shrug* If I had a player at my table who said "I'm going to pickpocket the NPC Paladin." Dex and Rey would get perception checks and would act to intervene. (Mayim might too, but she'd giggle, then try to steal it from the PC).
|
|
If a faction missions was involved, that changes everything, I'd tell the Ranger he can't interfere, and I'd tell him why. The action would still happen, but I might have the thugs just grunt, sneer, and maybe threaten the Ranger without any further reprocussions.
But from what I understand, the Ranger was making an inappropriate comment to NPCs that could have been handled through Diplomacy or combat. So it's not a big deal. In addition, a good diplomat should be able to make up for any inappropriate comments his teammates make, which can lead to RP.
I've seen less interesting PCs ruin many diplomatic efforts before (straight up attacking) and the GM never ignored the PC. Why is attacking OK and a smirky comment is not OK? Maybe both actions take some of the fun away from the diplomat, but I always figured it was part of the party dynamics that you'd have to work out...
|
One of my characters handled quite simply: he intimidated the character, and the whole party moved to give the NPCs flanks and said they'd be tossing buff spells to the NPCs. Our disruptive friend quickly quieted down.I hope you're kidding.
No, I'm not. The fight was entirely uncalled for, and could have cost us the scenario. The player backed off, and the game continued. If we had not, the game would have crashed to a halt, and some players might not have returned to PFS if one disruptive player can choose to cause a TPK.
|
|
No, I'm not. The fight was entirely uncalled for, and could have cost us the scenario. The player backed off, and the game continued. If we had not, the game would have crashed to a halt, and some players might not have returned to PFS if one disruptive player can choose to cause a TPK.One of my characters handled quite simply: he intimidated the character, and the whole party moved to give the NPCs flanks and said they'd be tossing buff spells to the NPCs. Our disruptive friend quickly quieted down.I hope you're kidding.
He can't choose anything for the party. The GM simply steps in and says, if you attack this group, They will kill you. If the player insist on combat, you just attack him with all the NPCs and not the party. Bullying him with intimidate checks and threatening to flank is PVP imo and against the PFS rules.
If this was the way my group handled disputes, I would simply find another game to play. Suddenly I feel even more thankful for the folks I play with each week.|
|
No, I'm not. The fight was entirely uncalled for, and could have cost us the scenario. The player backed off, and the game continued. If we had not, the game would have crashed to a halt, and some players might not have returned to PFS if one disruptive player can choose to cause a TPK.One of my characters handled quite simply: he intimidated the character, and the whole party moved to give the NPCs flanks and said they'd be tossing buff spells to the NPCs. Our disruptive friend quickly quieted down.I hope you're kidding.He can't choose anything for the party. The GM simply steps in and says, if you attack this group, They will kill you. If the player insist on combat, you just attack him with all the NPCs and not the party. Bullying him with intimidate checks and threatening to flank is PVP imo and against the PFS rules.
If this was the way my group handled disputes, I would simply find another game to play. Suddenly I feel even more thankful for the folks I play with each week.
Which becomes bullying by the GM instead. How is that better?
|
I had a fairly similar situation come up at Gencon. I have +17 diplomacy. We capture a prisoner I'm offering him protection (via the society, or Qadira if needed) in exchange for information.
My compatriot interrupts my discussion, in character with the GM, by "I grab him by the neck, and tell him to tell us what we want to know or I'm going to gut him right here"
I was dumbfounded, like literally stunned, my mouth had to be hanging open.
The GM handled it quite well imo. He, looking nearly as surprised as I felt, looked at me and said "well that just blew your diplomacy check"
The other player realized immediately what he had done, and I think he learned the lessen (he had a -2 cha no ranks in intimidate lol).
It's a good story though, in character I simply rolled my eyes, and said "he's all yours" then left. I believe they killed the prisoner. He should have agreed to my offer :D
If a player doesn't get the hint, and intentionally tries to be disruptive, that is bullying or griefing, which isn't ok.
|
|
Which becomes bullying by the GM instead. How is that better?No, I'm not. The fight was entirely uncalled for, and could have cost us the scenario. The player backed off, and the game continued. If we had not, the game would have crashed to a halt, and some players might not have returned to PFS if one disruptive player can choose to cause a TPK.One of my characters handled quite simply: he intimidated the character, and the whole party moved to give the NPCs flanks and said they'd be tossing buff spells to the NPCs. Our disruptive friend quickly quieted down.I hope you're kidding.He can't choose anything for the party. The GM simply steps in and says, if you attack this group, They will kill you. If the player insist on combat, you just attack him with all the NPCs and not the party. Bullying him with intimidate checks and threatening to flank is PVP imo and against the PFS rules.
If this was the way my group handled disputes, I would simply find another game to play. Suddenly I feel even more thankful for the folks I play with each week.
2 different things here:
1.You as a group threatening another player2. a GM giving a player a warning that if they continue down their current roleplay they are going to initiate combat with the group and that the other party member don't want this combat, so you are going to enter it alone.
Thats not bullying, thats the reality of how this situation could play out. In real life, if my friend started a fight with someone for no apparent reason and I didn't agree with it. I would never help beat my friend up, but I also might not jump in there and stop him from getting his ass kicked. I would most likely step in and say "enough" to prevent death and then continue on with the diplomacy with the strangers.
See where i am coming from? Because when I look at this from several angles, I still can't fathom how you think your way is correct.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is when the party healer declares that he doesn't have "Cure Stupid" on his spell list.
After the player announces something dumb, the healer says "I won't heal you if you do that." Let him rethink his action.
If he still goes through with it... "if I heal you, you'll never learn."
I can bring you back to life even if your heart has stopped and your spleen is across the room.
I can reattach limbs, and bring you back if you've been dead a week.
I can even regrow your head.
|
|
The DM could have at least let him try to assist your diplomacy with an intimidate, doing the whole good cop bad (or in this case REAALLY bad) cop thing.
So this exact situation happenned tonight. PC #1 was being diplomatic and PC #2 "helped" (with no intimidation skill) by threatening. GM did a good job and said the intimidate was an assist to the diplomat. I think it would have been weird if the GM ignored player #2.
|
Anytime you do anything to another player, lethal or not, you are making them feel singled out and it has the potential to escalate. If the GM will not step in and have a quick one on one with the player, then do so yourself and be respectful. In the end they want to have fun with thier character too, and perhaps you can reach a comprimise.
|
I have found that sometimes the actions of characters that go against what the party is trying to accomplish, end up being case of the player being less socially savvy than his character.
When someone interrupts a diplomacy with a violent, or disruptive action that will destroy the parties work, I will ask the player what he is trying to accomplish. This lets me determine the intent of the action before I have the action take place in my game. If the intent of the action doesn't match what the player stated the character was going to do, I will either have the player make an appropriate skill social skill check, or suggest alternative actions more in line with his intention.
I change what characters hear when a player who is talented speaker gives a great speech, but then rolls a 3 on a diplomacy check. So I try to make sure the NPCs are hearing right message from a character, when player makes poor comments.
|
Just had one of these in Crypt of the Everflame last night:
Lower level, Azure Fungus room - the Cleric and the Rogue look at the room and decide it's dangerous, so the party goes the long way around. When they're coming back, the Barbarian and Fighter decide they want to check it out, as the Barbarian's player says "just to see what it is".
Barbarian strides boldly into the room alone, sets off the electrical discharge, I roll max damage. Barbarian tries to run out, sets off electrical discharge, electrocutes himself...
Later that evening, facing the BBEG, only one out of the remaining 6 characters brought a bludgeoning weapon to a fight with a skeletal champion and skeleton minions (knowing in advance what they were fighting), and that was a Gunslinger who didn't know about alchemical cartridges, so he was only shooting once every other round. Lots of tactical errors that put PCs in bad positions ensued as well.
End result - 7 PCs entered the Crypt, 3 PCs fled with their lives while their companions joined the ranks of the undead.
At each "bad decision gate" I looked the player in the eye and asked them if they were sure about their course of action (well, I also asked that at sometimes totally harmless points too, to keep the players on their toes). In all instances, the players decided to push forward...I felt bad for them in the end, but running-as-written, there's not much else I could have really done, is there?
|
|
The times I hate are when Player A charges into the fire trap, distroying Players B & C faction mission objective, and fails to learn anything other than it sucks to be Players B&C. Or starts a fight which the party has to finish - and never takes any bad effects from spoiling everyone elses fun. Or worse yet, never even NOTICES. "Great game guys! where would you have been with out me to move things along?"
I am a recovering that guy. I have an amazing knack for setting off any and all traps. And any time there's an option (drink from cup A or cup B) I inevitably pick the wrong one. I usually don't care that much, because I always have CLW wands and I'm pretty cavalier about character death.
But recently I sprang a trap with my barbarian. As usual, I didn't care (made my save and easily absorbed the remaining damage), but it also VERY nearly killed the poor halfling bard standing behind me. He was a point or two from death.
I try to be more careful now.