|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verifying a complex build can easily take more than 5 minutes, but if you're not monologing like a super villian you should be able to describe how your build works in less than 5 minutes.
The key work in your sentence is 'should'. The fact is these power-monkeys LOVE to talk about their particular cheese concoctions and will go on ad nauseum about them if allowed. I don't quite get it. I think they are looking for affirmation of their intelligence and/or gaming acumen. What they are NOT focusing on is that the gaming slot is, at MOST, 1/4 about them (them, 2 other players, and the GM running a pre-gen to make the table). The other players are not there to go on 'Your Adventure'tm. It's supposed to be a cooperative game where we conquer challenges as a team. The two key words are 'challenge' and 'team'. If you have a character that dominates by taking the most favorable (to the player) interpretations of several rules, you are likely one of these cheese-monkeys. Stop trying to 'win D&D' (or Pathfinder, in this case). Thank you.
I happen to be a power gaming cheese weasel. I play some of the most cracked out montrosities possible while still being legal. I have made GMs cry.
That said, I cannot think of any good reason any build, no matter how wierd, cannot be summarized into a few sentences.
It might take an hour to explain every little detail, but you should be able to boil down the main points into a summary. If you cannot, you are either using obfuscation to try and convince someone your build is somehow NOT cheesy, perhaps yourself, or you are trying to pull a fast one. Or perhaps you are really horribly mentally disorganized , in which case perhaps you should not be playing such a complex build.
-jason wu
Cheesemonger extraordinaire
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Or you're playing a complicated character that a friend helped you build -- or that you found on some internet site -- and which you yourself don't understand very well.
That's legal too. Diffeent people have fun in different ways. Maybe "playing a strong character" is fun for somebody looking for an adolescent power fantasy, but "designing said character" isn't fun.
|
The key work in your sentence is 'should'. The fact is these power-monkeys LOVE to talk about their particular cheese concoctions and will go on ad nauseum about them if allowe
that is ... epic ... I Love it ... you are right ... I see this just about every week lol
I happen to be a power gaming cheese weasel
HAHAHAHA I LOVE IT !!!! I must use this to describe some players in the near future
|
|
The key work in your sentence is 'should'. The fact is these power-monkeys LOVE to talk about their particular cheese concoctions and will go on ad nauseum about them if allowed. I don't quite get it. I think they are looking for affirmation of their intelligence and/or gaming acumen. What they are NOT focusing on is that the gaming slot is, at MOST, 1/4 about them (them, 2 other players, and the GM running a pre-gen to make the table). The other players are not there to go on 'Your Adventure'tm. It's supposed to be a cooperative game where we conquer challenges as a team. The two key words are 'challenge' and 'team'. If you have a character that dominates by taking the most favorable (to the player) interpretations of several rules, you are likely one of these cheese-monkeys. Stop trying to 'win D&D' (or Pathfinder, in this case). Thank you.Verifying a complex build can easily take more than 5 minutes, but if you're not monologing like a super villian you should be able to describe how your build works in less than 5 minutes.
This is why I said that part about monologing like a super villain.
the bottom line is that the most powerful options usually aren't the ones doing this. This is for the builds that want to do something cool, while still being powerful. I have no qualms with Jiggy's build from a power perspective, I just don't think it's intended to work that way.
|
|
The fact is these power-monkeys LOVE to talk about their particular cheese concoctions and will go on ad nauseum about them if allowed.Truly, these are the words of an impartial observer with an open mind toward his fellow gamers.
Hey, one of the people I like hanging out with most in the Seattle gaming community is a power-gaming cheese-weasel. Say hello, Kyle! XD
But, sure, mind is now open. Can you tell me why you made the monk-ninja build? Was there a particular book or movie that put a mental picture in your mind of the Master of Manuevers ninja?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Can you tell me why you made the monk-ninja build? Was there a particular book or movie that put a mental picture in your mind of the Master of Manuevers ninja?
In no particular order:
• Pressuring tablemates into prioritizing flanks for me doesn't seem fun for them, so a measure of "it's cool, I got it" seemed nice.• People throw crap into their enemies' eyes in fiction all the time. Making it actually worthwhile in Pathfinder (instead of "I Power Attack it. I Power Attack it. I Power Attack it.") seemed cool.
• I can't even list how many martial arts movies have someone do something non-damaging to disable their opponent before following up with precise and deadly strikes, usually within a single fluid motion or a quick "flurry". This mimics that trope perfectly.
God forbid we find a way to make Pathfinder combat more cinematic and interesting without being suicidal, eh?
|
|
So to get back on topic this is the question as I understand it.
- The build is entirely legal.
- I don't understand it (due to my own failures or those of the player it doesn't matter).
- Can I, as the table Judge, insist the player use a pregen or some other character.
Simple. Yes.
I'm the judge. I get to decide who and what I play with. Sure if I'm doing it because I don't like gunslingers or some other frivolous argument then the don't be a jerk rule applies and the store/con coordinator can remove me as a judge. But until then I'm in charge of my table.
PFS cannot force me to judge with a given player/character. They can force me to judge a certain way once we sit down and roll.
My two bits.
|
|
Can you tell me why you made the monk-ninja build? Was there a particular book or movie that put a mental picture in your mind of the Master of Manuevers ninja?In no particular order:
• Pressuring tablemates into prioritizing flanks for me doesn't seem fun for them, so a measure of "it's cool, I got it" seemed nice.
• People throw crap into their enemies' eyes in fiction all the time. Making it actually worthwhile in Pathfinder (instead of "I Power Attack it. I Power Attack it. I Power Attack it.") seemed cool.
• I can't even list how many martial arts movies have someone do something non-damaging to disable their opponent before following up with precise and deadly strikes, usually within a single fluid motion or a quick "flurry". This mimics that trope perfectly.God forbid we find a way to make Pathfinder combat more cinematic and interesting without being suicidal, eh?
Eh, my 'main' is a rogue .. just as in Living Greyhawk ... I never ask for flanks ... most players seem to learn to set them up. I suspect they do so because they also benefit directly (+2) and indirectly (hey, the rogue is doing something finally!).
Throwing dirt, sand, flour, w/e is a very fun trick, imo.
As far as disabling, do you mean the blinding trick? Or am I missing something? I really never play monks and haven't built that ninja I keep telling myself that I will ...
Also, what inspired you to have the guy (or gal) wear armor?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Would that be considered table variation or disallowing something because it's too complicated/not understanding the rules?
This is my whole point. The GM will say it's "table variation", and the player will say it's because it's too complicated/the GM didn't understand the rules.
In my opinion, this disparity is bad, and is the underlying issue that leads to things like the OP's question. Let's talk about how to make things better.
For instance, RainyDayNinja stated that he would err on the side of the player unless and until it interfered with the fun of the rest of the table (and then research it later). This completely preempts the above issue.
Alternatively, some players (like myself, as noted when I brought up the monk/ninja thing) will simply opt not to play any but the most basic, straightforward PCs. This also completely preempts the above issue.
Which of these is preferable? Is there a third option? Is it not really an issue in the first place?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Throwing dirt, sand, flour, w/e is a very fun trick, imo.
Agreed. The character would probably buy a spell component pouch, empty it, and then fill it with flour. :D
As far as disabling, do you mean the blinding trick?
Yes. In movies, sometimes they pants them, or comically trick them into holding something so their arms are occupied, or whip off their own shirt and wrap it around their face, etc. Frankly, I see a lot more "dirty trick" maneuvers than "trip" maneuvers in martial arts films...
Also, what inspired you to have the guy (or gal) wear armor?
Do you ask the same question when somebody's duelist wears a mithral chain shirt instead of the leather that's so prominent in movies? Or when everyone in the party is wearing a backpack in combat when in movies they always seem to have nothing but their clothes and weapons?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There is a whole spectrum of choices from "basic, straightforward PCs" to "corner-case, loophole abusive PCs"... those aren't the only two.
Alternatively, some players (like myself, as noted when I brought up the monk/ninja thing) will simply opt not to play any but the most basic, straightforward PCs. This also completely preempts the above issue.Which of these is preferable? Is there a third option? Is it not really an issue in the first place?
I agree.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying, then.
|
|
Would that be considered table variation or disallowing something because it's too complicated/not understanding the rules?Alternatively, some players (like myself, as noted when I brought up the monk/ninja thing) will simply opt not to play any but the most basic, straightforward PCs. This also completely preempts the above issue.
Which of these is preferable? Is there a third option? Is it not really an issue in the first place?
Dealing with your questions first. As far as having issues not understanding builds, the only ones I've had multiple issues with when GM'ing or playing involve magus. A lot of this is on me as I have never built a magus (beyond 1st level anyway) and looked into it. Probably because I have never been a fan of these archtypes in fiction or film. Most of them seem to appear in anime ... and, well, I hate anime. XD
For me, the aggravation is not a lack of understanding of what they are doing, but WHY they are doing it. Uber powerful characters tend to make the challenge factor in many scenarios approach zero. I don't like super-brutal, you-wont-win-unless-all-six-of you-are-ultra-optimized fights, but I like walk-overs even less. I seriously have trouble coming up with what motivates these individuals. Thus I'm left with the thought that they are looking for some type of affirmation of their intelligence or boost to shaky self-esteem.
My last statement may seem ... a bit arrogant? But, if so, no more than your statement of, "Some players, (like myself) will simply opt not to play any but the most basic, straightforward PCs".
|
|
Do you ask the same question when somebody's duelist wears a mithral chain shirt instead of the leather that's so prominent in movies? Or when everyone in the party is wearing a backpack in combat when in movies they always seem to have nothing but their clothes and weapons?
No, but perhaps I should. Though, I think you may agree that stretching from leather 'armor' to a light chain mail shirt is less likely to pull a verisimilitude muscle than stretching from a monk's gui (spelling?) to a light breastplate. XD
edited: Because I fail at counting quote brackets.
|
I have only skimmed this thread and so I apologize if I'm repeating points already made.
This whole discussion strikes me as insanely theoretical and silly.
Pathfinder is a hugely complicated game, with lots and lots of rules interactions. I'd guess that NOBODY knows the rules perfectly. I've certainly regularly seen 4 and 5 star GMs make mistakes in posts. I've never ever played or run a scenario where the GM made absolutely no mistake at the table.
Nobody knows immediately what the subset of rules legal in PFS are.
Some combinations ARE abusive. Some of those combinations are legal, some are in grey areas, some are illegal
PFS events are timed events. Every minute that the GM spends on evaluating your character is a minute that he isn't spending on something else.
The only sane solution is exactly the solution that I've seen used at every single table I've ever played at. People are reasonable. Players with complicated builds have supporting information, people don't try and deliberately cheat, GMs don't unreasonably forbid things just because they're unfamiliar with it or don't like it. I LOATHE gunslingers but I allow them at my table.
What I have seen and done is for a GM to explicitly ask a player to not play a particular character or to deliberately nerf a character. For instance, at a 6 or 7 table game I've seen a GM ask the druid to NOT bring along his Animal Companion or to, at least, have it be very, very passive. And the player will agree.
If a player pulls something weird (either during or before a session) I expect the player and GM to handle it like sane, mature adults. A quick discussion with some rules quotes. A great deal of trust on both sides. Followed by the GM making a decision (correct or not, he has to make a decision). And the player living with that decision even if he disagrees with it.
If the discussion happens before the game and the player dislikes the GMs decision enough then the player doesn't play, plays a pregen, or plays the nerfed version of the character.
I thought there was a section in the guidelines saying that the GM had the right to not seat players. Couldn't find it. I don't care.
As a GM I absolutely have the right to not play with some player. If the only legal way for me to exercise that right is to walk then I'll walk.
As a mature person I'd only exercise that right under extreme circumstances. I've NEVER come even close to that point. But a player that I had reason to distrust presenting a character that seemed very cheesy, that I couldn't adjudicate quickly, and insisting on playing that character regardless would very definitely get me at least close to that point
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Though, I think you may agree that stretching from leather 'armor' to a light chain mail shirt is less likely to pull a verisimilitude muscle than stretching from a monk's gui (spelling?) to a light breastplate. XD
Assuming that a monk has to be eastern-flavored. There's a guy on these boards who has (had?) a Taldan aristocrat lady who slapped people silly with a fan or somesuch, but on paper she was a monk using Flurry of Blows.
Does that pull your verisimilitude muscles?
Maybe I like the concept of a smart, breastplate-wearing, poofy-sleeved musketeer type who fights creatively, but the only mechanical way to implement it is with a monk/ninja.
|
|
Though, I think you may agree that stretching from leather 'armor' to a light chain mail shirt is less likely to pull a verisimilitude muscle than stretching from a monk's gui (spelling?) to a light breastplate. XDAssuming that a monk has to be eastern-flavored. There's a guy on these boards who has (had?) a Taldan aristocrat lady who slapped people silly with a fan or somesuch, but on paper she was a monk using Flurry of Blows.
Does that pull your verisimilitude muscles?
Maybe I like the concept of a smart, breastplate-wearing, poofy-sleeved musketeer type who fights creatively, but the only mechanical way to implement it is with a monk/ninja.
If the latter is what inspired you to build this character, then bravo!
As far as being slapped silly with a lady's paper fan, yeah that does stretch my verisimilitude muscle (was going to abbreviate that 'v-muscle' .. thought again). But so do most of Jackie Chan's fight moves. Choreographed much? XD
Fighting fan - it's steel and sharp.
|
|
"What? You can channel as a move action AFTER already channeling as a standard action? Put that crap away."
<- Can someone tell me how to do this? I will use it responsibly, I swear.
I heartily agree with Talbanus's comments. Some players just want to stroke their gaming peen, and complicated, borderline rule-breaking OP builds are their way of masturbating all over the gaming table.
|
|
Quick channel, UM pg 154
Do it as a 5th level paladin with the fey foundling feat and lay on hands yourself too.
Standard: Channel
Move Action: Quick Channel
Swift Action: Lay on Hands
Free Action: Taunt BBEG
7 uses of lay on hands gets you 15d6+30 hp back. Not too shabby at 5th level, if a "bit" expensive to do. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Quick channel, UM pg 154Do it as a paladin and lay on hands yourself too.
Standard: Channel
Move Action: Quick Channel
Swift Action: Lay on Hands
Free Action: Taunt BBEG
Then when the BBEG crits you, cast hero's defiance as an immediate action.
We have a local paladin with 7 DEX and an AC of 18 at 9th level, but damage just doesn't stick to him. It's insane.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as being slapped silly with a lady's paper fan, yeah that does stretch my verisimilitude muscle (was going to abbreviate that 'v-muscle' .. thought again). But so do most of Jackie Chan's fight moves. Choreographed much? XD
Paper? It's made with silk and lace, thank you very much. Not that anyone from Andoran would know what silk even is...
-Matt
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have time to audit in a 4hour slot. I hate just trusting the players because way too often(in the past, not now at least), if I look up the stuff on the way home, they were indeed cheating. I try to nix those cases next I see them. Even with that experience, I still do not feel I can afford to audit at the table often and just give the benifit of the doubt. Sometimes I do ask to look over stuff after handing out chronicles or just ask for a quick source like feat name and book. In those cases, I try to emphasize not every challenge is is an accusation, sometimes I want to learn the new trick myself to consider using it with one of my own characters. I might also try looking up something if the players start to take a long time on their turns.
What I really disdain from seeing several times here are people saying they will nix your ability when it is ruining the fun of the table. Even when you do understand it is legal, you would do this? Excuse me? Because I do something highly effective, I am ruining the fun of the table? When people think I could one shot the mod and they feel they do not need to play because they do not feel like they are making a meaningful contribution themselves, that does not mean I am ruining the fun of the table. This is especially absurd when it comes from a mediocre if not outright very poorly designed build. You know what ruins my fun? When someone dies. I rather be accused of being an optimizer or even a power gamer and finish the game with all PCs breathing than go home feeling bad someone had a character death. Thankfully, no judge has of yet told me they were nixing my abilities so they could run up their body count. I don't think any of the stuff I do is particularly powerful and/or without a major drawback but I do get the occasional comment that summoners are broken.
|
|
Not talking about the time to look it up. Talking about the time to convince them that the fact that it doesn't specify whether they're immune or not means they're not.
You could show them page 7 of the PFRPG Conversion Guide:
Note that the rogue sneak attack ability now functions against most constructs, plants, and undead. It does not function against oozes, elementals, and incorporeal undead. See page 68 for more information.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
What I really disdain from seeing several times here are people saying they will nix your ability when it is ruining the fun of the table. Even when you do understand it is legal, you would do this? Excuse me? Because I do something highly effective, I am ruining the fun of the table?
If the rest of the players aren't happy with your play style, then you are indeed ruining the fun of the table. So yes, I would ask you to tone things down; if you carried on I would indeed ask you to leave the table. This falls under the "Don't be a jerk" clause - if you can't play well with others, you're missing the whole point of PFS.
|
|
What I really disdain from seeing several times here are people saying they will nix your ability when it is ruining the fun of the table. Even when you do understand it is legal, you would do this? Excuse me? Because I do something highly effective, I am ruining the fun of the table? When people think I could one shot the mod and they feel they do not need to play because they do not feel like they are making a meaningful contribution themselves, that does not mean I am ruining the fun of the table. This is especially absurd when it comes from a mediocre if not outright very poorly designed build. You know what ruins my fun? When someone dies. I rather be accused of being an optimizer or even a power gamer and finish the game with all PCs breathing than go home feeling bad someone had a character death. Thankfully, no judge has of yet told me they were nixing my abilities so they could run up their body count. I don't think any of the stuff I do is particularly powerful and/or without a major drawback but I do get the occasional comment that summoners are broken.
As a judge, I would never do this. What I might do, however, is suggest to a player with an "overpowered" build compared to the rest of the table to "step back" a little. I've seen people with high powered builds do this to allow other players a little bit of the spotlight when there was little danger, but have the backup available if it was needed. As a judge, when I can, I try to give every player a chance in the spotlight. That way everyone has fun, not just the very experienced players with the "overpowered" builds. Not everyone is experienced enough to make crazy power builds, and not everyone even wants to!
PS: The summoner is broken ;) At least in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing with it.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
... a monk's gui (spelling?)...
gi
As far as dirty tricking goes -- I played a game recently with my friend's "battle chef" character that fights with an assortment of pots and pans, and is planning on specializing in dirty trick. He was wailing on people with his backpack, a cooking pot, or a rolling pin the whole game.
Love it :D
|
|
What I really disdain from seeing several times here are people saying they will nix your ability when it is ruining the fun of the table. Even when you do understand it is legal, you would do this? Excuse me? Because I do something highly effective, I am ruining the fun of the table?
I've read this entire thread and I don't think anyone said that. Re-read and then come back with a quote.
|
|
I think it is more important (at least to me) that a player knows where his material comes from and how they are used. This is especially important for new and casual players who might pick something up thanks to advice of someone else - and then don't know where it is coming from.
I had an Inquisitor (played by an inexperienced player) who did inquire about the Hand of the apprentice. He did chose it when building the character but had forgotten what it was doing.
I didn't find it under inquisitor. We play at my home - but there is limited time ahead of the game - and if it's late then I'm not keen to spend more time on characters as well. Therefore twice I told the player 'next time'.
This time I canceled game night and did a character upgrade / clean up / optimize session instead. 'Optimize' should read as - ensure a full audit and that all feats / skills are selected, decent equipement is bought, most of the money is spend and not left from 3+ games.
I felt stupid afterwards when I noticed that this is the special power of the universal wizard. I should probably have googled it in PFSRD - or maybe delegated it to another experienced player - ideally with a smart phone or similar at the table (not that I have that at the moment).
I throw this in here as 'complicated' is relative. If the GM doesn't know something then there is only that much you can expect him to do. The rest needs to be done by the player.
For some players even 'simple' builds are too complicated. I had one who still after 10 sessions tried to use rebuke death against undead ...
This was from PreGen Kyra.
|
|
What I really disdain from seeing several times here are people saying they will nix your ability when it is ruining the fun of the table. Even when you do understand it is legal, you would do this? Excuse me? Because I do something highly effective, I am ruining the fun of the table?I've read this entire thread and I don't think anyone said that. Re-read and then come back with a quote.
If a player is totally dominating a game I'll ask them to dial their character back. That domination might be the character being so effective that the other players aren't contributing at all, it might be taking up so much table time with the 5 summoned monsters that their turn is taking too long, it might be the player monopolizing all the attention by whatever means.
If the problem comes up in mid scenario there isn't much that I can do if the player says "no" to that request. But if I see the problem in advance of the scenario starting the player doesn't have the option of saying no and playing at my table. We find some mutually acceptable compromise or he finds a different game.
Note : This is all theoretical, of course. In practice, players and GMs around here are all reasonable and will compromise. Maybe we're lucky, maybe I don't go to enough cons, but mostly I think this entire discussion is insanely silly. We're discussing problems that don't come up in practice.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
I happen to be a power gaming cheese weasel. I play some of the most cracked out montrosities possible while still being legal. I have made GMs cry.
I have no problem with cheese, as long as everyone (including the GM) has a good time. As GM, I don't want to run a game where some guy solos the adventure while everyone else feels like a bunch of spare tires.
I do find that most people can be dealt with reasonably and courteously. There is seldom any need for the GM to "lay down the law" when they can just ask the player to look up the relevant rule for them while the other players are taking their turns. Most rule ambiguities can be adjudicated without derailing the game as long as everyone works together to help each other.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
My wife doesn't play as seriously as I do, so I made summary handouts listing rules and modifiers relevant to her characters. This allows her to effectively use her archer without stopping to calculate which modifiers apply at any given time and makes her able to play more quickly. I made a separate sheet for my daughter's mounted bard (Who often uses her Ride skill and Handle Animal), and my Rage Prophet (with assorted AC and attack mods from common spells and raging). I made separate character sheets for my living monolith and alchemist characters.
I find that having your ducks in a row that way prevents a lot of rules debates, as GMs can easily see that I've tried to properly calculate all relevant modifiers. Since I readily share the information with other players, errors can be spotted ahead of time and eliminated.
It does help that even my "cheesy" characters don't try to milk out every last point. I haven't tried to combine flurries, maneuvers, bites, claws, horns, and a kitchen sink slam into one character. GMs don't feel like I'm trying to use questionable rule interpretations to get one over on the scenario authors.
I had an Inquisitor (played by an inexperienced player) who did inquire about the Hand of the apprentice. He did chose it when building the character but had forgotten what it was doing.
I didn't find it under inquisitor.[snip]... I felt stupid afterwards when I noticed that this is the special power of the universal wizard.
Are you sure he wasn't using Hand of the Acolyte from the Magic Domain? It's identical to Hand of the Apprentice but uses Wisdom rather than Intelligence as the primary stat. It would make more sense for an Inquisitor to be using that.
[Again, backseat gaming from a non-PFSOP player/GM; just thinking about the issues raised here, have some ideas. Hope somebody finds them helpful.]
:)
So, do any of you PFSOP GMs (a) have the time and (b) make yourselves available between games for "preemptive auditing?" You know, going over that complicated build you noticed at a game when you don't have to put off a game session to do it? Do you PFSOP players try to get in touch with your local GMs and get your explanations out of the way before bringing your uber-build to the game?
I know none of us have enough time for everything... but, particularly when you have a possibly-problematic set of dovetailing abilities, spread across 3-5+ books, it might be worthwhile to make some time to go over how it works so that everything is clear between PC and GM; and an "off-game" check would provide an opportunity for the GM to think about whether to ask for a little "hanging back" from the PC during a game.
Obviously, this wouldn't work for a convention setting: too much stuff happening in not enough time already! But for organised play on a local level, it might be a good way to iron out the bugs on a "difficult" build.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
So, do any of you PFSOP GMs (a) have the time and (b) make yourselves available between games for "preemptive auditing?" You know, going over that complicated build you noticed at a game when you don't have to put off a game session to do it? Do you PFSOP players try to get in touch with your local GMs and get your explanations out of the way before bringing your uber-build to the game?
It's hard to find the time to carefully review a character sheet during a game day, but I have been able to help some folks. I've also had players call me at home, hashing out details of their character builds. Others have entered them onto a fillable PDF form, then Emailed the sheet to me for evaluation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player A says: "I create legal characters that make GM's cry!"
Translates to: "I need attention! Look at me mommy!"
What I do and counsel other GMs to do, is ignore this player. Let them do their thing, but ignore them for most part. Play up the accomplishments of the other characters at the table. When Player A does his thing, just say "ok" remove the bad guy or whatever, and move on. When Player B does his thing, go into great detail and act things out. Sometimes Player A gets the hint and stops being a jackass. Usually, ime, they don't.
The worst thing you can do is concentrate on this player and try to challenge them. That's what they want and only encourages the adolescent behavior.