Since you are all friends, I suggest stalling. Get "sick" and cancel game to let everyone take a breath and settle down. If he is still spoiling for a fight in two weeks, stop the game at PvP, say this isn't worth damaging friendships, and say you are no longer having fun. Bring a collaborative board game like lord of the rings or pandemic to get everyone on the same side.
To ?!?, with this kind of drama.
Re: alignment change, I would say yes, that qualifies as Evil. That having been said, I think in the future you shoukd lay down a simple rule: all characters must be team players. Any exceptions must be approved BY THE WHOLE GROUP. If everybody in the group, and I mean EVERYBODY is okay with someone playing Captain McSoloAngst, then okay. But this very much a case where all the players should have to buy into this.
Re: alignment change, I would say yes, that qualifies as Evil. That having been said, I think in the future you shoukd lay down a simple rule: all characters must be team players. Any exceptions must be approved BY THE WHOLE GROUP. If everybody in the group, and I mean EVERYBODY is okay with someone playing Captain McSoloAngst, then okay. But this very much a case where all the players should have to buy into this.
That made my night :D
Captain McSoloAngst must be added to my list of NPC villains for the HeroQuest board game (I use it for some of the more light-hearted, goofy role-playing campaigns, full of stuff like Plaid Potions, "random" encounters with Goblin adventurer parties, and "Ring of Summon Stinky Pete, the Pirate".) I mean, come on: who doesn't want to attack Captain McSoloAngst on sight after playing RPGs long enough to encounter him at least once?
Heck, if I understand right, she plans to attack the party's Paladin (who doesn't get along with the character). So my attempt to tell him that his character is going to be left out got him to instead attack another party member. I'm not going to stop it (because I can't, really), but the Paladin will likely tear through the character, and I'm trying to decide if blatantly attacking someone for no reason is an Evil enough act to drop a Chaotic Neutral character down to Evil.
1. Yes, you can. You are the DM. Nothing happens in the game without your say-so. If the PC tries to attack the paladin, you can & should simply say:
" No, you can't do that."2. Next- what good is declaring the PC evil gonna do? "Ooh, great now I'm evil so I can finally do all that stuff I want to do."? Unless you have a rule "No Evil" and declaring the PC evil mean it's now a NPC, which is perfectly reasonable.
Look. D&D is a Game. Games are supposed to be Fun. For everyone, including the DM.
So, as a penultimate try, just play that card. "Bob, D&D is a Game. Games are supposed to be Fun. For everyone, including the DM. The way you are playing your PC means I am no longer having Fun. Please bring in a new PC. Thank you."
Dropping the problem PC to evil means the Paladin can Smite Evil and kill him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, attempts to punish a sulking player who can't figure out how to fit in, who doesn't feel motivated to cooperate, and isn't very interested in sharing the spotlight with team mates, are not going to suddenly raise that player's morale and bring about a Renaissance of good will, cooperation, and understanding.
Punishment will only alienate this player even worse, and reinforce the exact behavior you are wanting to change.
Punishment gives the player even more attention than he's already getting at the expense of players who are team players. You're actually punishing the good players, and rewarding the troublemaker and attention-hog by giving the troublemaker and attention-hog the trouble and attention he's seeking.
Punishment raises the level of angst and alienation in a player who already feels like the best way to express himself is through angsty, alienated characters.
Punishment only pushes a problem player even further away from you and the group, while breaking down the reasonable communication and out-of-character teamwork that are your only real hope of mending the situation.
Punishment sends the wrong messages to the other players, who may be left thinking "wow, this DM is a hardcase, I'd better watch my step and stop taking fun chances, so I won't be next", or worse, who might be inspired to join in with you in punishing, ostracizing, and alienating a player who probably needs a friend and support more than anything else right now.
I think DrDeth is on the right track for the way to handle a PvP attempt: "No, the only way I'm going to allow a PC-vs.-PC attack, is if your character becomes an NPC. Isn't there any more constructive option your character can try, like talking to the Paladin? Or, would you rather create a new character who fits better with the party and campaign, and let me run your character as a recurring villain? You really have written a very deep, complex, and well-rounded villain, and I would be honored to have your permission to write her into the campaign...."
|
I apologize if somebody already said this, but I couldn't read all of the thread (on my way to work.)
If you haven't already mentioned this to the problem player's character then this is what I'm thinking:
Remind the player that this is a group effort and, although staying in character is all well and good, if the character is not meshing well with the other characters then he's being more disruptive to the party, in and out of character.
Point him to the following passages (though they're usually for GM eyes only):
GameMastery Guide
pg 71: Antagonist
pg 74: Loner
I don't know if this player cares overly about these guidelines, though he seems to understand rules of a sort (i.e. staying in character). I imagine he really doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong. Unless you suspect he is intentionally being divisive I would assume positive intent in that regard. However, since he's playing a group environment he really DOES need to be aware of the ramifications of causing strife between characters and, by extension, their players.
You mentioned that you weren't very good at confrontation, but this is one area where you are going to have to step up. The other players see you as the 'leader' of the group and nothing destroys group cohesion faster than a leader that starts to lose the respect of his followers. If they are having a problem and they know that you are aware of it they will begin to resent the lack of resolution to this issue.
I hope the previous paragraph wasn't too harsh because I did not mean to be disrespectful, only direct. There is a very fine distinction between leading by the carrot and leading by the stick. Unfortunately some people, though they may not know it, actually respect being led by the stick (though most people assume everybody would prefer the carrot.)
Most of the comments and suggestion above actually mention various ways of removing this character from the party, but keeping the player. Please keep that in mind when you finally decide to speak to him about it. The general consensus here is coming from, probable, combined years of experience at these types of games. Though the majority may not always rule sometimes the consensus is the best way to determine what you should do.
I hope some of that helps, even if only a little.
Dropping the problem PC to evil means the Paladin can Smite Evil and kill him.
Which is rewarding the bad player. You can't solve a OOC problem IC. Esp by killing the problem player's PC, since he can just bring in a new one.
Not to mention, attempts to punish a sulking player who can't figure out how to fit in, who doesn't feel motivated to cooperate, and isn't very interested in sharing the spotlight with team mates, are not going to suddenly raise that player's morale and bring about a Renaissance of good will, cooperation, and understanding.
Punishment will only alienate this player even worse, and reinforce the exact behavior you are wanting to change.
Punishment gives the player even more attention than he's already getting at the expense of players who are team players. You're actually punishing the good players, and rewarding the troublemaker and attention-hog by giving the troublemaker and attention-hog the trouble and attention he's seeking.
I think DrDeth is on the right track for the way to handle a PvP attempt: "No, the only way I'm going to allow a PC-vs.-PC attack, is if your character becomes an NPC. Isn't there any more constructive option your character can try, like talking to the Paladin? Or, would you rather create a new character who fits better with the party and campaign, and let me run your character as a recurring villain? You really have written a very deep, complex, and well-rounded villain, and I would be honored to have your permission to write her into the campaign...
Great points on punishment.
Ooh, this last one is a great idea! Convert to NPC by playing up to his ego.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dropping the problem PC to evil means the Paladin can Smite Evil and kill him.Which is rewarding the bad player. You can't solve a OOC problem IC. Esp by killing the problem player's PC, since he can just bring in a new one.
I could.
After his (now evil) PVP douchebag character is killed and looted, I would tell the player "OK, you had your fun and you got what you wanted. I hope you got that out of your system. You are, of course, welcome to bring a replacement character into the group, but this time your character WILL be suitably cooperative with the rest of the PCs and with the campaign or else we'll find a different player can follow this simple request."
Done.
Not to mention, attempts to punish a sulking player who can't figure out how to fit in, who doesn't feel motivated to cooperate, and isn't very interested in sharing the spotlight with team mates, are not going to suddenly raise that player's morale and bring about a Renaissance of good will, cooperation, and understanding.
But from what he's written, this is his friend and somebody who has no problem gaming in other games. It's just this game that he's chosen to go with this character concept. Look, I think somebody who can mix up character concepts and roleplay them with gusto is way better than somebody whose characters are all 'team player spec op commandos' but doesn't really get further into roleplaying or always plays the same personality, probably some variant of their own personality on a power trip. Choosing a more 'difficult' character personality isn't a crime, but whatever the in-character dynamics are, dealing with out-of-character dynamics is a real part of the cooperative social game that D&D is - and the player seems to do that just fine in other games of the group. None of us can really say why the player chose this concept this time, and why attempts to deal with the out-of-character issues haven't been productive. I don't see how it lessens the game if there is an occasional PC who does not end up working out with the group, that can be a roleplaying experience for all. That said, the whole game can't be derailed because of this one character, so the situation will need to resolve itself somehow. If the Paladin ends up Smiting this unfortunate evil soul, so be it, a different kind of evil then the 'muahahaha EEEEVIL' type, but could be good for atmosphere. Just keeping the communication open so that the out-of-character situation is fun for everybody is the important thing.
Character wants to do drugs, eh? Easy solution.
Opium has game stats. Hook the character up with a pusher who gives him freebies until the addiction sets in. Then he has to feed the habit. If the zit is all hopped up, he's going to do something really stupid. Assuming that the dope-fiend doesn't get killed, he gets trussed up and sent off to an asylum. Player rolls a new, non-retarded PC and the game goes on.
Have foes for the other players to whomp on him with.
But from what he's written, this is his friend and somebody who has no problem gaming in other games. It's just this game that he's chosen to go with this character concept.
Fine, but friends don't do this to friends.
When I inadvertently do something that pisses of my friends and they tell me I pissed them off, I apologize and figure out how to fix it.
That's not what this player is doing. The player himself is being a jerk. Sure, he's doing it through in-character RP, but the PLAYER is being a jerk here. Friends are not jerks to their friends. If this guy showed any conciliatory attitude, I would be inclined to agree with you, but the OP has made it fairly clear that the player is doing quite the opposite - instead of working it out, he's just digging in and being more of a jerk, and blaming it on "RP" is just a false rationalization.
Look, [roleplay] is way better than [no roleplay].
I agree, but not to the point that destructive roleplay is better than lack of roleplay.
Choosing a more 'difficult' character personality isn't a crime,
I would say this guy has gone beyond "difficult". Uncooperative, contrary, uninvolved, and destructive to campaign cohesion.
the player seems to deal with out of character dynamics just fine in other games of the group.
But not this one. Why? Is he pissed off at somebody or about something? Is he just trying to get under the OP's skin? Is he just naturally a jerk and those other campaigns were him trying to hide that fact?
Actually, it doesn't matter. THIS time, he's a jerk. THIS time he's not dealing with the other characters, players, or GM in a fashion conducive to good gaming. THIS time he's a problem that needs to be dealt with.
I don't see how it lessens the game if there is an occasional PC who does not end up working out with the group, that can be a roleplaying experience for all.
Agreed. It's awesome when some surly, angsty, or evil character finds himself in a group, interacting, and doing things that change that character's attitudes and problems so that he can grow and evolve and become a contributing character.
BUT
The player has to want that, has to provide some way for this to happen, has to give some hook that will get his character involved. Just being a jerk and metagamistically assume the GM or other players will play along with the jerk because it's D&D/Pathfinder and players and GMs have to deal with me is not enough.
That said, the whole game can't be derailed because of this one character
Agreed.
That is, after all, what this thread has been about, right?
Talk to the player.
Fetchling does Crime?
Rival Gang of 6 5th level Half-Orc Thugs with an 8th level leader Blindsides and Murders Fetchling in combat. play out the combat.
Group is allowed to live if they don't help the Fetchling
Tell the guy to make a more Team Friendly Character.
The character, after being told off by another party member IC, decided that the party doesn't want her around, and now she's avoiding them. It's creating a bit more work for me, but the biggest problem is that now the character is basically not involved with anything at all, except chatting in the tavern, and it's taking time from the other players, who want to continue with the story.
That is the point when you have to ask the player if this character really has any stake in the main story at all. The plot of APs is pretty fixed and to continue exploring the story that was so lovingly crafted by Paizo staff you need characters that are actually invested in the story.
It is also entirely unreasonable to have a player expect you to run an entirely separate plot just to keep them entertained. Read the Spoilers to continue my point.
Not to mention, attempts to punish a sulking player who can't figure out how to fit in, who doesn't feel motivated to cooperate, and isn't very interested in sharing the spotlight with team mates, are not going to suddenly raise that player's morale and bring about a Renaissance of good will, cooperation, and understanding.But from what he's written, this is his friend and somebody who has no problem gaming in other games. It's just this game that he's chosen to go with this character concept. Look, I think somebody who can mix up character concepts and roleplay them with gusto is way better than somebody whose characters are all 'team player spec op commandos' but doesn't really get further into roleplaying or always plays the same personality, probably some variant of their own personality on a power trip. Choosing a more 'difficult' character personality isn't a crime, but whatever the in-character dynamics are, dealing with out-of-character dynamics is a real part of the cooperative social game that D&D is - and the player seems to do that just fine in other games of the group. None of us can really say why the player chose this concept this time, and why attempts to deal with the out-of-character issues haven't been productive. I don't see how it lessens the game if there is an occasional PC who does not end up working out with the group, that can be a roleplaying experience for all. That said, the whole game can't be derailed because of this one character, so the situation will need to resolve itself somehow. If the Paladin ends up Smiting this unfortunate evil soul, so be it, a different kind of evil then the 'muahahaha EEEEVIL' type, but could be good for atmosphere. Just keeping the communication open so that the out-of-character situation is fun for everybody is the important thing.
I like off-the-wall character ideas and even tension and disagreement among characters at least as well as anyone - I've seen some very entertaining and interesting games where the players agreed to have characters who barely get along, and most of the most memorable games I've been in have had characters with serious character flaws who've either overcome those shortcomings to rise above it, or who have tragically succumbed to those weaknesses, and come to spectacular and memorable ends.
But, my experience has been that those sorts of things only work well when the players and GM are all cooperating with each other, out of character.
From the complaint as I've been reading it so far, it sounds like the character is only a minor problem (a very weak link in an undead-focused campaign, who can contribute very little of use to the party against the undead). The big problem sounds like the players have begun to resent this character, and the character's player is reacting by attacking other characters, with the major solutions being considered being punishments for the character, when the problems are much bigger than what's going on in the game. The problem sounds like it's not sorting itself out, but rather escalating a little bit at a time, until it's gotten to the point where the DM has even considered removing the player, in spite of the player being a friend who is getting along in other games... that doesn't sound to me like a problem that is sorting itself out.
It's entirely possible that the player is really just being a good role-player by playing a difficult role, and the DM and rest of the group just don't "get it". On the other hand, if the original poster is describing the situation accurately and the DM and players agree that this character and the player's management of the character has been divisive, I'm inclined to side with the majority in that group, especially since the original poster doesn't sound unrealistic or unfair about the situation - I get the feeling the original poster genuinely wants to keep this player, and to resolve the problem (real or imagined) with as little drama as possible.
ut not this one. Why? Is he pissed off at somebody or about something? Is he just trying to get under the OP's skin? Is he just naturally a jerk and those other campaigns were him trying to hide that fact?
Actually, it doesn't matter. THIS time, he's a jerk. THIS time he's not dealing with the other characters, players, or GM in a fashion conducive to good gaming. THIS time he's a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Actually, I think that is a legitimate question... if this player really is getting along in the other games, but for some reason wants to fight or feels he has no choice but to fight in this game, I am curious about why this game is different from the others.
I'd like to think the original poster is able to ask that question, that the player in question is able to give a good answer, and that it's something the original poster will be able to do something to fix.
For example, I'm hoping it's something as simple as the player being frustrated, embarrassed, and depressed that a character he cares a lot about isn't working out as well as he'd hoped, and he doesn't know what else to do about it except stick to his guns and try to earn the party's respect by fighting, rather than giving up quietly and slogging helplessly through a game the character isn't welcome in.
If that's the case, then the player does have an honorable way out - as an NPC, a candidate for a different campaign, or a candidate for a little mechanical tweaking, the character would not be a failure, and the player has a chance to reload the game and try again.
Ultimately, I think it comes down to the player's willingness to communicate with the rest of the group, and compromise just enough to meet them halfway on out-of-game cooperation on telling a story they all enjoy at least most of the time.
If the player can't communicate or compromise, however, and he and the rest of the group are not enjoying their time together, the player should really part ways with the group... whether the fault is his, or if he just can't trust the group and the group really is trying to force him into making unfair compromises, it's really the only constructive way out at that point, and it's better for everyone involved.
One possibility is that he set out to make a character who would be initially antagonistic and unhelpful but at some point the other PCs would say or do something that would make it possible for them to become friends. Only, other players never do what you imagine they'll do.
Having created this personality, he feels the need to stay in character and see how it plays out.
If this is the case, killing off the character will give him a chance to start again with one who fits the campaign better.
Dropping the problem PC to evil means the Paladin can Smite Evil and kill him.Which is rewarding the bad player. You can't solve a OOC problem IC. Esp by killing the problem player's PC, since he can just bring in a new one.I could.
After his (now evil) PVP douchebag character is killed and looted, I would tell the player "OK, you had your fun and you got what you wanted. I hope you got that out of your system. You are, of course, welcome to bring a replacement character into the group, but this time your character WILL be suitably cooperative with the rest of the PCs and with the campaign or else we'll find a different player can follow this simple request."
.
And you can do the same without giving him what he wants. Easier, takes less time, and no chance of him killing a valued member of the party.
This is essentially it. When I talked to him about it, he said that his character was meant to grow based on the party. When I pointed out that the party currently has no reason to like his character, he got mad.It generally feels like he's being a bit selfish. He wants the entire party to bend around HIS character, instead of making a character that fits with the party. It's really frustrating. I'll see what happens next session. I'm hoping he'll have calmed down by then, so he won't do something stupid. If he outright attacks the party Paladin unprovoked, that's enough for his character to drop to Evil, which means the Paladin can retaliate with a Smite, and the player will need to create a new character. We'll see what happens, I guess.
Wish me luck! I'll come back after the session to fill you all in on what happens.
So he just kills the paladin in his sleep. I think betting on the Paladin to win a PvP is not a sure thing. What happens if the paladin loses? Pally rolls three consecutive ones, the PvPer rolls several crits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So he just kills the paladin in his sleep. I think betting on the Paladin to win a PvP is not a sure thing. What happens if the paladin loses? Pally rolls three consecutive ones, the PvPer rolls several crits.
The paladin's god intervenes, and lets the paladin re-roll those ones. Or just outright blasts the problem PC out of the campaign. Character gone. The end. Have him make one that works with the group, or leave.
So he just kills the paladin in his sleep. I think betting on the Paladin to win a PvP is not a sure thing. What happens if the paladin loses? Pally rolls three consecutive ones, the PvPer rolls several crits.
Yar, that's a likely scenario I see happen all the ding dang ol' time yes sirree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So he just kills the paladin in his sleep. I think betting on the Paladin to win a PvP is not a sure thing. What happens if the paladin loses? Pally rolls three consecutive ones, the PvPer rolls several crits.The paladin's god intervenes, and lets the paladin re-roll those ones. Or just outright blasts the problem PC out of the campaign. Character gone. The end. Have him make one that works with the group, or leave.
Ah, so cheating (and that's what the PvP player will call it) is better than simply putting on the old big boy DM pants and laying down a firm "NO!" ?
You can remove the "problem PC out of the campaign. Character gone. The end. Have him make one that works with the group, or leave." just by the DM saying so, without wasting a bunch of everyone else's time on a spotlight hog and giving him what he wants.
Ah, so cheating (and that's what the PvP player will call it) is better than simply putting on the old big boy DM pants and laying down a firm "NO!" ?
You can remove the "problem PC out of the campaign. Character gone. The end. Have him make one that works with the group, or leave." just by the DM saying so, without wasting a bunch of everyone else's time on a spotlight hog and giving him what he wants.
No, I think big boy pants are better. This GM seems like he doesn't want to use them, and is wanting the forums to help reassure him that it is the right decision.
Tell him to make a new PC, or stop playing in that campaign. Easy peasy (well, from here, not so easy if you're the one saying it).
I feel like I missed something because I just started reading the end and the beginning, but I would avoid making the person feel cheated. Saying "divine intervention" changed someone's dice rolls and killed you is likely to end badly. Like, extremely badly.
My first thought is talk about it and see what's wrong. If a character isn't working out, maybe a reroll is needed or for a slight tweak in personality. Group cohesion is important, and its also important that everyone at the table has fun. Aggression and bad feelings tend to pop out in the wrong places when they're all pent up, and if they're worded in the wrong way bad things tend to happen. Its sadly easier to talk to one person than the whole group, I have no idea what the actual situation is since I'm not there, so I can't 'reassure' that any action is the proper action, but if someone acting up it may be because the player is having a problem. This is supposing everyone is able to talk about things though, which isn't always the case.
|
I suggest that your read Anne McCaffrey's "The City Who Fought".
Check out the character "Joat". This is your social misfit, who wants to help the party, but doesn't quite know how to get along with the party, and would actually prefer to work alone.
This type of character will attempt to "secretly" follow the party so that they can be the "unknown benefactor" who suddenly appears out of nowhere to save their asses when the action gets hot, and just as suddenly disappears when the monsters are dead.
"Who was that masked man?"
Consider that this character should have good Disguise skills to keep the other PCs for recognizing him after seeing him repeatedly over multiple scenarios.
Ask you buddy if this is more like what he had in mind.
Game Machanics:
During Travel Scenes:
You toss in a few Stealth and Perception roll offs between the PCs to see if anybody spots the Lone Ranger following them.
During Combat Scenes:
For all intents and purposes, the "Lone Ranger" will not be a member of the party: Cannot Aid Another, or benefit from any Team Feats, and most importantly does not count as flanking for any party member, and cannot get a flanking bonus from any party member.
There could be combat role-playing with the Lone Ranger asking for help and the party consenting to give it, but it will not be automatic.
During Role-playing Scenes:
The Lone Ranger can make Perception checks to eavesdrop on the party's conversations with each other, or with NPCs, and make plans accordingly, a failed Perception check means the Lone Ranger did not get that information, and his actions are with repect to that information is to follow the party. He may also need to do some Tracking if he has to follow the party at a respectful (non-observable) distance.
Or, the Lone Ranger can attempt to gather information independently, and if he does find something the party needs to know, he can leave them mysterious notes or clues. Be sure to include occasional Stealth and Perception checks to see if the party spots him eavesdropping or slipping them notes.
The character may "evolve" from skulking in the shadows to a more face-to-face Team member relationship, or maybe not. The story line has some potential for some very interesting developments in either direction.
However, this type of play probably wouldn't be sanctioned by the RAW, even though no rules are being broken by playing this way. But it could be great fun, especially if you can coordinate the parallel play of what would essentially be 2 groups, a group of 3 and a group of 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your idea sounds really cool Jimbo.
Unfortunately from what has been posted previously, this character is not interested in "helping the party but being a lone wolf too", he's interested in being a criminal, drug addicted assbasket, so I'm not sure your idea will mesh with the "vision" of the character.
|
Okay, so I'm a relatively new DM (I've run a few one-shots of 3.5, but this is my first time running anything spanning multiple sessions), and I'm running Carrion Crown with some buddies. The problem I'm having right now is that one character is being, for lack of a better word, blatantly antagonistic.
The character is a fetchling, and, to put it nicely, a complete and utter jerk. However, she feels that people hate her because she's a fetchling, and that if they're going to treat her like a criminal, she's going to act like one. So she said something rude and confrontational, immediately alienated the rest of the party, and now feels that their reaction is unfair and if they're going to treat her like a problem, she'll be one. So she's now alienated most of the party, and refuses to spend more time with them than she has to. She's also one of the types that completely doesn't realize that the way she acts is generally frowned upon, and she won't listen to people who try to tell her that, because she assumes it's a race thing.
Talking to the player has yielded minimal results. He's mostly unwilling to budge on the character. Kicking the player himself from the group isn't an option either, as he lives with one of the other players, and I'm playing with him in a game run by another person in the group. Kicking him from the game would create a lot of drama that I'm completely unwilling to deal with.
So do any of you have advice on how to handle it? I'm kind of at my (limited) wit's end :/
** spoiler omitted **
Ok, i TL:DR-d through the thread because I'm in a hurry, but i promise i will read it when i come back home.
to the OP:
Picture this: This game stretches for 6-8 months of weekly games, and this player keeps playing the aggravating fetchling and keeps refusing to budge on the character. You all go crazy from this and someone strangles him in his sleep.
OR you kick the player, there is a week's worth of drama, then the game goes on as normal.
Which is preferable?
Howdy, I thought I'd chime in on this with a few points. You may or may not take it well, however I hope that it's food for thought.
Every campaign requires that the heros function passably as a team. Table top RPGs are a group oriented activity. There is no GM who runs a game for himself and players need additional people to succeed (solo campaigns as an exception). So you have to have a group of real people that function well as a gaming group. It seems from what I've read that there isn't a problem w/the people - though I did skip some of the later posts.
With that said, the players characters also MUST function as a team in order for the campaign to work. You're seeing what happens if that doesn't work. Table top RPGs are an ensemble cast, not Bobs Fetching with a supporting cast. The problems you are experiencing with this player is not soley the players fault. You as the GM should have veto'd the loner/grouch character from the get go. Each player needed to have been told you can play what you like IF it fits within the confines of the groups dynamic. AKA, you would not approve a CE baby sacrificing wizard whos motivation is to destroy the world when you have a LG Pally who wants to protect kids and save the world from the BBEG. So, you needed to have shut this guys character CONCEPT down and told him what he had to work with. With that said, the guy is obviously being contrarian and is being a prick despite multiple chances to redeem his character through party role playing (hey, if he got the point, he could have adapted to the situation and had some cool RP with the other characters).
My recommendation is as follows. Do not kill the character outright. RP this. If the character is looking to do criminal activities, that's not a heroic action and your games about the characters being heros. Nothing AT ALL indicates that the character would be a lucky or good criminal. Guy tries to buy drugs? Cool. Cops bust him and toss him in jail. Fights with cops? He's on the run now. Gets caught? Maybe the guards decide to put him down depending on how violent he is. We've all seen the news when a cop killer gets taken in. Not fun for the perp. So what ends up happening is the player, unless he recants and rejoins the players as a team member will have enough poop coming down on him through his own ridiculous actions that your own players will kick the character to the curb. If they don't because some are going meta-game, you can have some interesting RP between the towns police/judge and the players.
How do you know this guy?
Why are you trying to stop him from being punished and released, he's killed a guard during a lawful arrest etc etc.
You want us to release a person you met 2 days ago that's engaging in criminal activity, killed a guard, sold drugs, endangered innocents etc etc? You have to be mad, get out of my office.
There is plenty you can do rather quickly to show this guy that going outside the box in this manner will not get a free pass. Another fun thing would be put the group in a quandary. They can either A. do the heroic thing and stop the BBEG, or abandon the innocents to the BBEG to save the players character. The players can decide to be heros or let the BBEG win and save a guy who normally...they would put down as being a minion of a BBEG.
I wouldn't spend much time running a side adventure to deal with this guy though. Your focus needs to be on the group and the story progressing. Run them mostly and devote a small amount of time to educating this troublesome player through RP'd encounters. Then end it and move on. If the players descend into the pits of hell and the fetchling is in jail...sucks for him.
With that said, always, always leave open a way to bring the character back into the fold if the point is made. If the character dies or is removed from play, have an open discussion with your group when you are all there about making sure that the groups boundaries are respected and inform them if the character concept will not work in a team, it will not be allowed to be played. Ensemble cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RP this. If the character is looking to do criminal activities, that's not a heroic action and your games about the characters being heros. Nothing AT ALL indicates that the character would be a lucky or good criminal. Guy tries to buy drugs? Cool. Cops bust him and toss him in jail. Fights with cops? He's on the run now....
You make a lot of good points, but….
All of which is exactly the kind of attention this kind of player wants, and is indeed the side adventure you agree the DM shouldn’t bother with.
Rather than waste everyone else’s time, it’s simply better to say “OK, Bob, enough is enough. Bring in a new PC, one who gets along.” That takes less than five minutes.
RPing this out just encourages this sort of behavior.
RP this. If the character is looking to do criminal activities, that's not a heroic action and your games about the characters being heros. Nothing AT ALL indicates that the character would be a lucky or good criminal. Guy tries to buy drugs? Cool. Cops bust him and toss him in jail. Fights with cops? He's on the run now....You make a lot of good points, but….
All of which is exactly the kind of attention this kind of player wants, and is indeed the side adventure you agree the DM shouldn’t bother with.
Rather than waste everyone else’s time, it’s simply better to say “OK, Bob, enough is enough. Bring in a new PC, one who gets along.” That takes less than five minutes.
RPing this out just encourages this sort of behavior.
I see your point, I think that it will depend how much time has previously been expended. Going in fresh, I'd prefer to RP it out. If it's hit the boiling point, I think you're suggestion is spot on. I can see that I didn't quite offer my opinion as clearly as I hoped I did - curses to being bored late at night and tired hah!
|
|
Okay, so I'm a relatively new DM (I've run a few one-shots of 3.5, but this is my first time running anything spanning multiple sessions), and I'm running Carrion Crown with some buddies. The problem I'm having right now is that one character is being, for lack of a better word, blatantly antagonistic.
The character is a fetchling, and, to put it nicely, a complete and utter jerk. However, she feels that people hate her because she's a fetchling, and that if they're going to treat her like a criminal, she's going to act like one. So she said something rude and confrontational, immediately alienated the rest of the party, and now feels that their reaction is unfair and if they're going to treat her like a problem, she'll be one. So she's now alienated most of the party, and refuses to spend more time with them than she has to. She's also one of the types that completely doesn't realize that the way she acts is generally frowned upon, and she won't listen to people who try to tell her that, because she assumes it's a race thing.
Talking to the player has yielded minimal results. He's mostly unwilling to budge on the character. Kicking the player himself from the group isn't an option either, as he lives with one of the other players, and I'm playing with him in a game run by another person in the group. Kicking him from the game would create a lot of drama that I'm completely unwilling to deal with.
So do any of you have advice on how to handle it? I'm kind of at my (limited) wit's end :/
** spoiler omitted **
A wise man once said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". So I would have a private talk with the other players and ask for their input, once you come to an agreement i.e. kill her, ignore her or run a side session with 1 character. The worst thing that happens is you alienate 1 player.
Well, the character DIDN'T attack the party pally. So that's good. Overall, last night's session was mostly uneventful. They gained a trust point from a minor event (which I made a point of having AWAY from where Captain McSoloAngst was doing what she was doing), and then they went to eat and shop, and I fumbled because I had forgotten to generate shop stuff. Overall, nothing of consequence.
I hope that doing a specific event without that one character will make him realize that he'll start missing out on things if he doesn't get along with the party. It wasn't even a combat event, either. Just a minor RP event.
Thanks for keeping us updated.
|
|
A wise man once said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".This can be a potentially dangerous philosophy in life.
Sometimes it's very true however. My grand uncle died in a fire because he was running back inside the building and bringing the kids out to their parents. They say that a wooden beam fell on his head killing him instantly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wise man once said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".This can be a potentially dangerous philosophy in life.
The truth usually is.