How To Handle A PC That Goes Against The Adventure

[Doomed Hero]

This is an out-of-game issue.

Before the game, talk to your players and explain that the adventure only works if the characters are invested. They need to come up with their own motivations for being willing to join in. The Campaign Traits help to create the framework of investment, but ultimately every character needs to be tied to the story by their own internal reasons.

[quibblemuch]

This thread (and threads like it) makes me profoundly grateful for the group I play with now. I know most of you guys don't often browse the message boards but if, by chance, you're here, take a big heartfelt thank you*.

*This gratitude is in no way an indication of my softening as your GM. You will be crushed next session, this I vow, as I vow every session. For on your tears I live and in your howls of anguish I find solace.

[Lostcause78]

0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Lostcause78 wrote:

I need to ask, was there any reason for the character not to go? Did he have a beef with the NPC being buried? Is it early in the campaign? Does he have a point in deciding that his character wouldn't want to attend?

There are certainly players who have a trend of just being the odd person out, but sometimes it's also a player who have a reason to feel his character has been overlooked or overruled in the past.

In short, talk to your player. It's rare players do contrary things that aren't based on past experiences, often perceived slights.

Not OP, but I have played the pallbearer encounter in question. It is pretty much the first event in a particular AP, and the campaign traits are all about how you know the deceased and how you certainly don't have a beef with the dead NPC. Attending the funeral is literally why the party meet and the all important hook to kick off the adventure.

So in this case, the player is being an ass, or the character is being an ass. It's like playing Skulls and Shackles and refusing to board a boat.

Oh of course, I must have brainfarted not to notice it was Carrion Crown OP spoke of.

You are right, I can't think of any reason that a character would bypass that event, it's THE reason the group comes together.

[Bwang]

Concerning the original post, Your player wants to control the game.

You are being challenged, but so is every other person at the table. The RW solution is to let the person hold their breath until they pass out, have a medical about to make sure they don't die, then game on.

I have no real solution, but have had the same problem. Unfortunately more than once. I made a point of excluding the misfit for as long as possible, once allowing the party to sail for a period of offshore sessions. My best advice is to go with the adventure. Well...unless the misfit comes up with something better. This does happen, but most of the time it is a brutal power grab.

[Bill Dunn]

the Lorax wrote:

As for "book on the table" I NEVER have a such a thing when I'm running - its all on my laptop ready for review in .pdf form - players dont need to know what adventure they're going on - and most likely I've modified lots of stuff anyway.

I'm not entirely sure that's always a good idea. For example, I'm not going to run an Adventure Path for my player without them knowing which AP it is. Aside from the fact that I want them to read the Player's Guide, I want them buying into the general premise and making PCs reasonably appropriate to the AP. It's an effort to try to make sure the character really isn't a bad fit for he campaign.

[Bill Dunn]

quibblemuch wrote:

This thread (and threads like it) makes me profoundly grateful for the group I play with now. I know most of you guys don't often browse the message boards but if, by chance, you're here, take a big heartfelt thank you*.

*This gratitude is in no way an indication of my softening as your GM. You will be crushed next session, this I vow, as I vow every session. For on your tears I live and in your howls of anguish I find solace.

And don't forget the post-TPK Jig of Triumph that you must perform upon the gaming table.

[Bill Dunn]

Nohwear wrote:

How old is the player? "Dumb teenage rebellion" can happen while role playing. It is usually in the form of "since every sign say go right, I go left." It could be a maturity thing. If so, hopefully it will be temporary. But again, have a talk with this play, preferably outside of the usual game time and place if possible.

It can also happen at pretty much any age, even post-50.

[quibblemuch]

Bill Dunn wrote:

quibblemuch wrote:

This thread (and threads like it) makes me profoundly grateful for the group I play with now. I know most of you guys don't often browse the message boards but if, by chance, you're here, take a big heartfelt thank you*.

*This gratitude is in no way an indication of my softening as your GM. You will be crushed next session, this I vow, as I vow every session. For on your tears I live and in your howls of anguish I find solace.

And don't forget the post-TPK Jig of Triumph that you must perform upon the gaming table.

I do love me a good Jig of Triumph...

[Kileanna]

I aggree that conflict in game comes mostly from player or GM issues rather than in game issues.
I'm GMing Way of the Wicked. Running a game for evil characters is always a plus in difficulty.
I have this two players. One is playing a CE pirate. He values his freedom over all things, is a bit irreverent about faith and gods and is mostly centered in here and now with no plans on the long term. The other player is playing a LE antipaladin who fits perfectly the tyrant archetype. He is sort of a religious fanatic and wants to rule with an iron fist and impose his view of a perfect world.
This might seem like instant conflict between characters. And it is. It comes to play at least once per session. But not in a disruptive way. Both players have decided to roleplay their differences by making their characters punning each other in a friendly way. They are actually best friends and sometimes it escalates a bit but they roleplay their arguments knowing that everything is in character and always come to an agreement.
And that's because they know how to roleplay different personalities without harming the game. Actually, I think the story wouldn't be the same without both characters having such different points of view.

[Sissyl]

This one is easy. Sad, but easy.

"My character won't be at the funeral."
"Then make a new character that will."

Or, if you don't have time for that:

"Then rewrite your character's personality so that he will."

[Mark Carlson 255]

0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

Lostcause78 wrote:

I need to ask, was there any reason for the character not to go? Did he have a beef with the NPC being buried? Is it early in the campaign? Does he have a point in deciding that his character wouldn't want to attend?

There are certainly players who have a trend of just being the odd person out, but sometimes it's also a player who have a reason to feel his character has been overlooked or overruled in the past.

In short, talk to your player. It's rare players do contrary things that aren't based on past experiences, often perceived slights.

Not OP, but I have played the pallbearer encounter in question. It is pretty much the first event in a particular AP, and the campaign traits are all about how you know the deceased and how you certainly don't have a beef with the dead NPC. Attending the funeral is literally why the party meet and the all important hook to kick off the adventure.

So in this case, the player is being an ass, or the character is being an ass. It's like playing Skulls and Shackles and refusing to board a boat.

Or it is a case of the player not reading the information provided or simply missed the relevant parts.

IMHO, in this I case I might pull the player aside and ask why they are going against the PC's background info.

I have made the mistake in the past of providing email info during the off weeks of gaming to players and assuming they all read them. I can tell you this is not the case as some players read every week and others do not.
MDC

[Sissyl]

Sissyl wrote:

This one is easy. Sad, but easy.

"My character won't be at the funeral."
"Then make a new character that will."

Or, if you don't have time for that:

"Then rewrite your character's personality so that he will."

I should clarify. When a player makes a character, they also choose a personality for the character. This step is critical for anyone who wants to actually roleplay, obviously. However, just as not all alignments are suited to all campaigns, there are personality traits that are not suited to all (or any) campaigns. The cool outsider who does not adapt to the group at all. The unmotivatable one, who says "that does not concern me". The cliche thief who likes stealing from his party mates.

Part of the job of making a character is making sure THE CHARACTER FITS INTO THE CAMPAIGN. If it doesn't, say, someone with no ambitions and no stomach for being in danger at all, the player has not done his job.

Note: I am not saying "you're not allowed to roleplay your character". I am saying "there is something fundamentally wrong with your character's personality".

Don't do that. Make a character who would find the types of hooks used relevant.

[Poison Dusk]

0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

It's like playing Skulls and Shackles and refusing to board a boat.

If you were given a choice, you played it wrong.

[thejeff]

Poison Dusk wrote:

0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

It's like playing Skulls and Shackles and refusing to board a boat.

If you were given a choice, you played it wrong.

Though you could, IIRC, after the initial mutiny at the end of the first book, decide to give up the pirate life, make your way to land and settle down to farm or run an inn.

Which is why, in addition to press ganging you aboard, the AP & Player's Guide tell you to make characters who want to be pirates.

[PossibleCabbage]

Bill Dunn wrote:

I'm not entirely sure that's always a good idea. For example, I'm not going to run an Adventure Path for my player without them knowing which AP it is. Aside from the fact that I want them to read the Player's Guide, I want them buying into the general premise and making PCs reasonably appropriate to the AP. It's an effort to try to make sure the character really isn't a bad fit for he campaign.

There's also the thing where if the GM just straight up tells the players "we're playing Carrion Crown next" that will let the players know that they shouldn't go track down and read Carrion Crown (to see what it's like, because it's got a good reputation, because they might run it, etc.) I've had this happen and "wait a minute, this is [adventure I just read] isn't it" can be pretty awkward and a lot of extra work for everybody.

[Tableflip McRagequit]

thejeff wrote:

Though you could, IIRC, after the initial mutiny at the end of the first book, decide to give up the pirate life, make your way to land and settle down to farm or run an inn.

I was in a similar situation as a player in a different AP. After the first book, due to the way my character had evolved and the choices offered early in the second book, it was pretty clear that he couldn't work with any of the allies--and the party (smartly) wanted to work with an ally.

So I insisted the GM work for hours and hours for free to create a whole separate campaign for me that I then demanded he run with equal time while running that AP. At the same table at the same time. And I refused to allow any cross-over, because my character wouldn't want it that way, and the point of the game is for me to have fun.

No. Wait. That's not how it went at all.

I just talked to the GM and said "Hey, this character isn't going to work so well with the turn this campaign took, mind if I read him out and insert a different character? I'll even accept low starting gold because I know you don't like party wealth getting out of whack with new PCs. Here are a few backgrounds and rough concepts, along with ways they might fit in with the party and ingratiate themselves with the ally the party has chosen."

And that new character went on to become one of my favorites ever.

There's a lesson here, but it doesn't have anything to do with table-flipping, so I'm out of my element.