Disruptive Player?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


So, lately I haven't been running any games because the last one died off suddenly and left me burned out. Me and two of the players were eating at a restaurant and just kinda talking about gaming when we gradually realized that every game i've run recently has been radically pulled away from its initial premise by one specific player, one who also tends to just drop out whenever he feels bored.
Since the campaign premise had already changed, the other players lose interest and the campaign kinda dies off. I don't think he's intentionally doing it and none of us think it's malicious, but it really burns me out when my campaigns get sabotaged, even unintentionally.

So i was just wondering if anyone else has run into this kind of problem, or if I'm just on my own?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yep. Years ago, I was among a group of friends that noticed a similar problem when gaming.
Our answer was to stop inviting the problem player to the game. As if by magic, the problem stopped. It caused some hurt feelings for a short time, but they got over it. There are other things groups of friends can do to hang out together that doesn't involve gaming.

The bigger problem, turned out being the GM that was non-confrontational to the point of not being able to say no to player requests that were absurd, like twisting RP situations into mechanical advantages that none of the other characters could take advantage of.

Don't play with that GM anymore, problem solved.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately any decent advice that isn't "kick him off the table!" Will result in a surge of players enforcing their right to have fun at the expense of yours.
It's part of the game, confrontation doesn't have to be negative, nor do you have to become a rail roading task master of a DM.
Best solution would be to talk to the problem player about dialing things back a bit. If you are sure that it's not intentional or malicious then he should understand that it's what is best for the game and for the group, whatever he ends up deciding.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I will add to MM's post is that after a frank discussion with the player about play style, etc. booting the player may still be necessary. Its nasty business I know, but it the discussion works, then the game will be better. If kicking him out works, then it will also be better.


I had a player kinda like that. He only seemed to be having fun when he was screwing people over. Textbook CE masquerading as CN. Once he set a captive ogre free on this town just because he could.
So I just made the ogre's first act to kill the player. There is no CE solidarity after all. His next character behaved a little better after that.
Sometimes you gotta be assertive and work your will on players. I'm not saying be some railroading, tpking if they don't comply tyrant. I'm just saying that if he wants to jump off the train,(especially if everyone else is enjoying the ride) make sure he knows you won't help him land.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you do keep this player in the group, just remember - you don't have to indulge his desired actions. Nor do you need to win an argument if he protests. I always want player's decisions to work - but if someone is clearly breaking the social contract of "please don't mess up the game for everyone" - whether they are aware of it or not - then you can just say no and move on to the next player.
But, don't say no, then wait for that trouble player to agree. He won't. You have to just move on, making it clear that he is not in control. It's not about a GM power trip, it's just facilitation. It can always be awkward when doing this - but it's better in the end. If the player complains (and sometimes rightfully so) that you are cutting him off and not listening, then just explain why, what it's doing to the game, and that it is one of the few things that takes priority over giving the player total freedom. Again, you're telling, not asking. If he doesn't agree, then he's done.


I'm the jerk GM who would sit and think of purposeful ways of turning his request back on him to bite him in the butt.


If booting the player is not practical or something the group doesn't want to do long term, I suggest smaller, less intense sessions for just the other players that lets them play around without worrying about someone bending the tracks.

This may mean either starting 'early' or at some other time inconvenient for him, or having a second day for them to dig around the game without someone trying to roll for initiative or get arrested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zourin wrote:

If booting the player is not practical or something the group doesn't want to do long term, I suggest smaller, less intense sessions for just the other players that lets them play around without worrying about someone bending the tracks.

This may mean either starting 'early' or at some other time inconvenient for him, or having a second day for them to dig around the game without someone trying to roll for initiative or get arrested.

Passive aggressive solutions like that aren't good because it's disrespectful and immature. Be upfront with your players they will respect you more.


A fairly simple solution, in my experience, is to rigorously enforce causality. If the player does something disruptive, he will have to face the consequences in character up to and including Character Death.

However, before you get to that point, sit down and have a conversation with him about how you see the situation. You're well within your rights to do this, since it's your game to run and you can even bolster this by reminding yourself that he is one player, ruining it for three other people with his actions. In this case, the needs of the many certainly outweighs the needs of the few.

If he is unwilling to deal with it, if he can't accept his responsibility, or if he gets confrontational about it, you always have the option of shrugging, getting up and telling him that you were trying to resolve things amiably, but that you are left with no choice but to ask him not to play with the rest of you anymore.

You are not obligated to run a game with a player you do not get along with. Even if he's a good friend in other circumstances, there's nothing wrong with saying "look, we start a game, your character derails it away from the destination I had planned out, then you get bored and drop out of the game only to rinse and repeat the next time I start up again. I don't want to deal with that anymore. You're out of the group by consensus of the rest of us".

As GM, your primary responsibility is to make sure everyone playing has fun. That actually -includes- -you-. If he's ruining the experience, there's no great, universal law stating that you have to allow him to wreck havoc on your campaigns.

I've been in this situation in the past. I ran a campaign in a pre-existing setting, centered on the scions of a noble family, and one player, who had chosen to play the family's younger brother, basically managed to get the entire campaign derailed from the planned plot to instead dealing with something out of his background, to the point where the entire group moved more than halfway across the continent, chasing a forlorn love-interest he had once decided he wanted to marry at one point.

At one point during that quest, the player decided to compete in a tournament starting out with over 250 participants, the flower of that world's knighthood and the most skilled combatants around -at all-. He made it to the final 8, through absurd luck on the dice and an extremely well statted character. Because he then fell to a superior knight (in fact a named character from that setting, generally considered the most powerful knight in the world), despite rolling very well, the player decided that I was cheating on the dice and blew a fuse. He threatened to leave the group, and accused me openly in front of everyone of fudging the dice because I wouldn't allow him to win the grandest tournament in the world and change the entire history of that game setting. Never mind that he was the one who had run roughshod all over the campaign I had planned out.

I solved it fairly simply by laying out, one by one, all the areas where I had given in and allowed him to dictate the course of the campaign. I showed him the quality of the items his character was equipped with compared to the rest of the characters. I explained to him what I HAD planned for the campaign originally, to show him how far off course it had gone.

And then I told him to grow up and stop with the entitlement crap, and I told him that I thought his accusations against me were far fetched in the extreme given the circumstances.

He stayed in the group. He even tried to amend his ways and give more air-time to the other players.

Frankly, by that point I was so sick of the situation that I chose to wind down the campaign and end it not long thereafter.

Frankly, it sounds to me like the player you are describing is cast in the same image.

That of a spoiled brat.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Disruptive Player? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion