OK, it's not entirely clear from your post whether this is purely a RP thing, or is some of it a player thing too? Are the other players irritated with this player, or are they all having fun enjoying this player's RP?
If it's the latter, let it sort itself out. Everyone is having fun. If the troublesome character makes trouble, let the trouble happen. If they miss clues, alienate NPCs, run afoul of the law, or end up in any other kind of RP difficulties, then let them. Emphasize it. Exaggerate it.
Learn from the modern U.S. Army. During basic training, if a recruit creates problems, the DI disciplines him. That's usually enough to straighten him out, but if the problems persist long enough, the DI starts disciplining the entire group - eventually the group disciplines and/or helps the troublemaker to become less of a problem (no, not in the overly dramatized Hollywood fashion).
If your players are tired of their characters dealing with law enforcement, merchants raising prices for known associates of that irritating fetchling, possible allies turning their back on the group, possible neutral parties being less than neutral, etc., they will find RP ways to make this character more sociable.
Heck, maybe that is what the player wants anyway - maybe this is a "I start out bad but learn to trust and grow and become likeable" kind of character development thing.
But, on the other hand, if the player is alienating the other players, more immediate action is needed.
THis is going to sound really evil as a DM but get that character into a fight by himself, if you say the character wants trouble and wants to escalate things with everyone and everything then do it until either the character is dead or he realises it isn't fun anymore.That could work, I suppose. I just don't want to look like I'm picking on one character. And as I said in the spoiler thing, by official rules for the Trust Mechanic, anything he does to make people not trust him affects the entire party. Granted, that system is horribly broken (it's technically impossible to get as many Trust points as you're supposed to have by the end), but I still get that feeling that I'll be punishing the entire party for one guy's actions, and I hate doing that. That really isn't fair to the other players.
*sigh* Maybe I'm just too nice as a DM sometimes :P
If he is insisting on going off on his own, let what happens happen. He will get in a fight he can't handle, and die.
Or suggest that the other characters could cut all ties to that character, you can tell the player you'll run his character on the side in a personal session, but if he wants to continue in this campaign, to roll up a new one, as he is no longer "part of the group". If he doesn't like that, suggest the other characters solve their problem, the violent way.
Start keeping a separate Trust tally for said character.
The way she's been acting the party may not want to go save her from the various haunts and nasty beasties that infest the prison. If they don't, assume she dies if you wanna get it over with, or play out some encounters with her before she is inevitably killed by the Lopper, Splatterman, or more likely the Cold Spot or Old Ember Maw.
If they do decide to go in to save her, give the player an ultimatum: The character is disruptive as-is and is making the game less fun for everyone. You now have an out, she is grateful for being saved and warms up to the rest of the group, at least to tolerable levels. Begin character development into a less disruptive character.
End that character's life.
AKA Rocks fall. You die.
Have you tried creating an external threat that causes the party and the character to have common cause?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Redman has a good idea. He seems to be less of a jerk than I am; see for yourself:
If I were you I would ignore that player almost entirely. I would continue the adventure for the rest of the party. What's next, a stranger walks into the tavern and needs them to do a job, great, he talks to the party and sends them on the job. I would not even care if the party tries to bring the fetchling or not.
If one of them says "Hey, let's go get our fetchling." you could then ask that player "Why? Do you have an RP reason that you want the fetchling along?" If he does, great, and if he doesn't but still wants to try, let him of course (it's metagaming but really, metagaming so all the PCs stick together is the best reason there is).
Maybe the fetchling will come along. In which case, you win, the party is all together. Maybe the fetchling will still be a jerk and not go along, in which case, you run that adventure. Every once in a while you can ask the fetchling "Still chatting in the tavern? Cool. I'll get back to that when we're done here."
So that player gets to sit there and watch everyone else play. Make sure the other characters get XP while he doesn't.
If he complains, tell him that his character is totally allowed and expected to be on this adventure but it seems SHE didn't want to come. If he still complains, say "I thought this was want you wanted, chatting in the tavern." If he still complains, say "Look, adventurers have to find ways to get along with their group. Your fetchling chose not to, and the group you could be part of left without her because of her choices, her actions. If you wanted this to play out differently, she should have behaved differently." If he still complains, tell him in no uncertain terms that you'll be glad to discuss this further, in private, after the game.
At that time, tell him that he is just one player out of what, four players, so he deserves no more than 1/4 of the GM's time and you gave it to him, his character chatted in a tavern. Also tell him that it's HIS job as a player to find ways to motivate his character to go adventuring with a group. That group MUST get along or they will break up or die. Making a character like this is a really bad idea (I would say "stupid" but that's just gonna cause a fight) - he KNEW his character would cause problems for the other characters but he EXPECTED those characters (and their players) to just shut up and deal with it. Unacceptable. That's not going to work. Then tell him to fix his character's attitude or bring a different character next week.
I envision his fetchling approaching the PCs when they come back to town and apologizing for being a jerk and asking for another chance to join the team - this could be an amazing RP opportunity and it doesn't have to mean the fetchling must be sweet and charming, she could still be sullen and pensive and even abrasive at times, but at least with her new-found appreciation that life is better with friends, or at least with acquaintances who tolerate her, and that it's HER responsibility to not ruin that relationship.
In any case, all possible outcomes are wins for you. Either the fetchling comes along and you win, or the fetchling misses out but then steps up and apologizes and you win, or the fetchling stays in the tavern while everyone else goes adventuring and completes all 6 books of the AP and you win (because you don't waste time on the fetchling anymore), or the player makes a less annoying character and you win.
I guess you don't win if the player quits and stomps out and never talks to you guys again, but really, if he's really like that then it's not a big loss (I know, easier for me to say that than you). But if he has half a brain and any common sense, he'll know that this is his problem and not yours and that fixing it is his job, not yours. And if not, then you should tell him that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A cooperative game like Pathfinder cannot long survive an uncooperative player or GM. It relies on the group members, out-of-character, to work together to share the spotlight, and help each other have fun... if one or more members of the group are unwilling to compromise and sacrifice a little of what they want to help everyone else have fun, it's an out-of-game problem.
A conscious player decision to create and play an uncooperative character in a cooperative game counts as an out-of-game problem.
Out-of-game problems, demand out-of-game solutions.
1. If you haven't already, talk to the other players, and listen to what they say. Verify that this really is a problem that affects them, rather than a personal annoyance/pet-peeve of yours that you are projecting onto them (and perhaps exaggerating) - we're human, and as role-players we're imaginative humans: it happens!
2. Once you are sure whether it's a problem that is irritating the group, or one that's just irritating you personally, talk to this player - it sounds like you have done this already, but nothing productive happened. If it's just you getting annoyed, you are dealing with the player in terms of a personal favor to you. If you are dealing with the player in terms of a problem that annoys the whole group, talk to the player along with the group as a group problem.
3. As an adult in a cooperative game, ask the player to steer the character in a different direction.
4. If the player refuses to change the characterization, you have some additional out-of-game choices:
- Learn to live with it, if it's just a personal pet-peeve of yours. Maybe it's YOU that is being unreasonable, if the other players are alright with it! We've probably all been there, where we have a bad day or week or month, and someone we ordinarily get along with well suddenly starts rubbing us the wrong way without trying. Maybe you just need some fresh air and a cleared head, before coming back to the table to forgive and forget, and make a fresh start of it. Maybe you can simply adjust your expectations of the campaign style and mood.
- Ask the player to change character altogether, especially if it's not just you, and the character really is annoying the whole group. "This character is just not a good fit for this campaign and this group... could we shelve her for now, and use her again later in a different group, for a different story?"
- If your group is open to the idea, see if a change of other characters and campaign, to something better-suited to cooperating with this one "jerk" character, can be placed on the table. Maybe the whole group is feeling introspective and anxious, are willing to explore grimmer territory, and is in the mood for a darker-and-edgier storyline full of co-dependent, troubled antiheroes trying to survive a crap-sack world, with the PCs as their own worst enemies, and maybe you can put yourself in just the right mood to give this setting and storyline to them in a memorable way they will talk about fondly for years to come! (This assumes the player's character concept would cooperate with a group, if the other players and GM were on the same page with this player, and that nobody else minds making a little room to indulge this player.)
- Talk to the player to find out what you'd have to give him/her to change the direction the character is going in, and give it to the player in good faith. Maybe all the player wants is a spotlight episode, where the character confronts her personal demons, sees what she is doing wrong, and changes her ways... a single episode where this character is the center of attention may be a small price to pay to promote group harmony and to keep an otherwise good role-player in the group.
5. If the player absolutely refuses to meet the group (or you) on middle ground, and you and the group can't find any way to compromise with the player (or don't believe you should have to), then it's time for the group to lose one or more members, or for the campaign or even the group to completely disband and move on.
I'm sure you hope that it doesn't have to come to the point where such an ultimatum would have to be issued, but sometimes it comes down to that, and if the differences are irreconcilable, then no game mechanics, NPC brow-beating, poorly-veiled hints from other characters, and that sort of thing are likely to help (in fact, in-game solutions tend to make out-of-game problems worse!) It's better to break things up, than to inflict a miserable time for weeks, months, or years on yourself, your group, or on one or two players who aren't having fun as a group.
Good luck in any case!
The other players are not enjoying the RP, because there really isn't any. 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.
According to what I see here, the player has solved your problem for you. Just don't spend any time running his lame "solo adventure" in the tavern. The character doesn't get to be a jerk if she isn't with the party!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When creating a character, a player should have answers to these questions:
(1) Why would my character want to get involved with the theme of the campaign? (Defeating undead, in this case.)
(2) Why would the rest of the group want me with them?
If he is avoiding the other players then let him. If he is not around when the other players start an adventure then leave him behind. Stop working to keep him with the group and let him suffer the consequences f his actions. This way you are not kicking him out of the game he is removing himself from it. After being left out of a game or two he will get the message.
It is the players responsibility to integrate with the team. The GM only needs to setup the initial meeting and give a reason to work together. After that it is up t the players.
If he is avoiding the other players then let him. If he is not around when the other players start an adventure then leave him behind. Stop working to keep him with the group and let him suffer the consequences f his actions. This way you are not kicking him out of the game he is removing himself from it. After being left out of a game or two he will get the message.
Make sure you track exp separately for each character as well so he doesn't benefit from the actions of the characters who are actually cooperating and doing the adventure.
If the player isn't providing in-character reasons why the character's gonna be sticking with the party, the rest of the party isn't obligated to metagame/make-up reasons to keep the character around. In my games, it's the player's responsibility to make characters that work together. If they can't do that and rest of party finds the character detrimental, time for a new character.
When creating a character, a player should have answers to these questions:
(1) Why would my character want to get involved with the theme of the campaign? (Defeating undead, in this case.)
(2) Why would the rest of the group want me with them?
Has anyone in the group actually asked the guy if he has answers to those questions? I am concerned the player is being punished for playing an unconventional character, but one who would nonetheless contribute to the group. Playing a jerk is an acceptable choice, provided the jerk has a role in the party. On the other hand, marginalizing a player because you don't feel like you need to hook their character does not seem very fair. Would we be having this conversation if the adventure featured a shady NPC trying to hire the party to investigate an old dwarf mine, and one of the PCs was a dwarf with objections to tomb-raiding and another was a paladin who was really professionally focused on slaying evil, rather than underground vermin?
So Ezzran, tell us what happened if anything.
The character doesn't really have any reason to continue with the adventure. Minor, non-spoilery info for CC (told in the Player's Guide if you want more detail) is that the PCs are named in a will for Professor Lorrimor. That's the reason the characters are THERE.** spoiler omitted **
OOC, the character is a Fetchling Sorceror with the Pestilence Bloodline, meaning she focuses on diseases. In a game centred around undead, which are immune to disease. The character is effectively useless in combat, outside of minor damage. Oh, and she uses touch attacks. For comparison, the rest of the party are a Paladin that dual-wields, a Wizard that uses buffs to do melee attacks, a Cleric that is going with the Holy Vindicator PrC, and a Fighter. Oh, and a DMPC Oracle that I added in at the request of a couple people to help with Knowledge checks and healing between combats (they don't get xp from Knowledge stuff if they ask the Oracle, so it's a last resort sort of feature so they don't miss something important that drives the plot along).
Basically, the character is mostly useless in mechanics, too, and they know this. The character has already alienated the party (by being a jerk), and OOC the players don't see any need for her. Basically, the character is NOT suited to the game at al.
I'm pretty sure your viable options would be:
A) Enlist the player to take most of the responsibility for coming up with a solution: Ask the player for ideas on how to integrate this character better into the campaign, and do your best to modify things to help her fit. If you are willing and able to make the requested changes to provide the hooks and thematic elements that would inspire the PC to invest herself into the campaign, hopefully the player will also be willing to compromise a little and make the minor mechanical changes to the character to help her fit better into an undead campaign. Or,
B) Remove the Character (for now): Ask the player to shelve this character for now, and bring her back in a future campaign where she's a better fit, and work with this player and the rest of the group to create a new character that works better with the party. Or,
C) Remove the Campaign (for now): Shelve your campaign for now, and create a new one that is a better fit for this character. Or,
D) Remove the player, or disband the group: If the player cannot compromise on this character, and you and the group cannot compromise to provide a party and campaign that is a good fit for this character, then you and your group should start preparing an exit strategy to let this player go join the sort of campaign he/she wants this character to participate in. (In short, part ways with this player.)
I see a number of clever in-game ways to try to force this square peg to fit in a round hole, but, to hear your description of the situation, this player isn't really interested in fitting, and would likely resent efforts to force the matter, so I don't see the in-game methods doing anything but making matters worse.
It sounds like you could solve most of your problems by 1) giving the PC some information the other PCs need, and 2) introducing a threat the PC needs the other PCs for. Which, from what you say, is nearly anything. Is the problem that the PC has alienated the group, or that the PC has frustrated your vision of how the adventure should proceed?
The most problems our group tends to run into are ppl taking games too seriously
we had a walk out from a character playing an Oracle when he walked into a room and closed the door behind him as his AC had gotten stupid high and he thought he was untouchable. He got cocky, walked into said room, at lvl 4 and ran into a CR 7 encounter made to fight the whole group, then got pissed and walked off when his guy got dropped to unconscious.Or ppl power gaming.
For example, a Fighter Dragoon a friend made, whose lance (when not part of a charge and with power attack on) does 1D8+17 with a +9 to hit at lvl 5. Mind you if you use it as part of a charge, thats 1D8+17 x3 and +11 to hit. If it crits, thats 1D8+17 x3 x3 - better yet or is that x6? OR is it 3 squared O.o
lol
Cause its x3 for using it as part of a charge and another x3 for it critting and confirming
We figured it out, its like 1D8+51 as part of a charge and upwards of 1D8+153 critting
In Pathfinder (and 3.X), having more than one multiplication like that is always additive. So if you have the x3 for charging, then x3 for a crit, that's x6, not x9.
The more you know!
Anyway, update: Talking to the player, now, so we'll see what comes of it. This is basically the last time I'll pester him about it. If he doesn't want to change the way his character acts or change characters entirely, he'll have to deal with in-game consequences.
EDIT UPDATE: *rips hair out in frustration* After telling him all the problems he's going to have with his character if she continues as she is, his response was "ok". According to one of the other group members (who has known him longer than I have), that means he's tired of talking about it. So I guess that's that. He's adamant about playing the character as she is, and I'm going to let him, even if it means she won't have fun. I've done what I can.
Thanks for the help, everyone!
Just keep an open mind. "In-game consequences" is probably what he wanted in the first place. You can't force other people to have your kind of fun. Best of luck resolving a difficult situation. I applaud your patience and grace.
If you can arrange for the final boss of that book to focus all attacks on the problem character for a round or two, the problem will go away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other players are not enjoying the RP, because there really isn't any. 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.According to what I see here, the player has solved your problem for you. Just don't spend any time running his lame "solo adventure" in the tavern. The character doesn't get to be a jerk if she isn't with the party!
Right. You do this by running an hour with the main party, then turn to the solo and say "you encounter nothing". Back to the main party one hour, then to solo "Nothing of interest happens", and so forth. if they try to start a fight in the tavern, you say no one is interested in fighting and they leave. Etc. This is remarkably effective.
Do NOT arrange solo encounters, even those that will kill the PC. *YOU* are the DM. *YOU* get to decide any encounters. That PC simply doesn't have any. Just explain "D&D is a team game. You have to have a PC that will get along with the Team."
All those talking about killing the PC are wrong. You can't solve a OOC problem IC. Kill the PC and another, even more obnoxious PC comes in. As RJGrady sez ""In-game consequences" is probably what he wanted in the first place." He wants you to single out his PC for special treatment even if it's punishment. Don't.
And the whole bit about "that's just how my character would react is BS. *HE* was the one who decided his characters personality.
So basically, he doesn't get to play unless he brings in a new PC.
But let him know he can bring in a new PC at any time. One who cooperates with the group.
If you can arrange for the final boss of that book to focus all attacks on the problem character for a round or two, the problem will go away.
And easily arranged if he takes my suggestion...
If you can arrange for the final boss of that book to focus all attacks on the problem character for a round or two, the problem will go away.** spoiler omitted **
Sure, that will kill the PC. Won;t solve the problem of the Player.
I think you have to tell the player that so far neither you nor the other players have worked out a way to integrate his character with the party. If he has an idea on how to do it, he should let you know so that you can work with him to make it happen.
If he has no idea or does not want to do it, then you have an officially and permanently split party. That single player's character is the smaller group, so that "group" (his character) is out of play. If he wants to rejoin the group, then he will need to create a character who is willing and able to do so.
You said your player feels like the party treats their character like a criminal. If that were dealt with, maybe your player would live up to expectations, and chill out.
If she did something particularly heroic, and wasn't a total ass about it, she could get some respect which could develop from there. The situation is escalating, she'ss a jerk cause the others treat her like a criminal, which they do cause she's a jerk. If they let up, she might. The DMPC comment that made her avoid the party was an attempt to push the player and character. Instead, try to be inviting a change.
THis is going to sound really evil as a DM but get that character into a fight by himself, if you say the character wants trouble and wants to escalate things with everyone and everything then do it until either the character is dead or he realises it isn't fun anymore.That could work, I suppose. I just don't want to look like I'm picking on one character.
It's not picking on or singling out a character if that character:
1. Keeps avoiding her companions and isolates herself
and
2. engages in criminal activity.
That's how people get cornered by police and/or bad elements and killed in real life. Why should it result in anything different for this character?
I'm not saying to kill the character intentionally. I do not believe in that, nor do I believe in "punishing" problem players (and this person IS being a problem player, at some point you are going to have to deal with that fact). But it is just a matter of course that a loner who looks for and causes trouble finds it, and often does not survive it. You can play this naturally and the dice will probably do the dirty work for you - as long as you stick to playing it straight and you depict the authorities/other criminal elements in a fair, stern, and serious manner.
Wait, so talking to the player about the situation has changed what the CHARACTER wants to do? Well, that's a clear indication it's a player issue who is mixing out-of-character issues with character motivation. But if that's how it goes down, sounds like your Paladin PC might solve the issue for you, just be sure to tell the player "well that was an interesting demonstration of what non-cooperative PC concepts lead to... don't do that with your next character, and we can get on with the game" (and insist on vetting the character concept first) I don't really know why you are concerned about Alignment of a character that may soon die, either it shifts them Evil or it doesn't, so what? If you think it does, then it does. (EDIT: unless you're wondering whether the Paladin will Smite them?)
Trying to talk to the player about how his character is acting and why that would drive the party away hasn't yielded any useful results. If anything, the character is now MORE antagonistic. 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.
I'm not sure how that's going to work out, but I honestly HOPE the Paladin kills the problem character. *sigh* This should be interesting. Game is Monday night, so I guess I'll let you know how that works out.
Again, the in-game solutions aren't going to get you very far: an alignment shift is about the last thing you need to be worried about at this point.
It's probably too late for most out-of-game solutions to help at this point, as this player seems to have sandbagged himself into a him-against-the-group-and-DM position, and you and the rest of the group seem to have reached the end of your patience with the direction the player has chosen to drive the character in.
But, perhaps you can still try to talk to the player, and try to assess again at this point...
- where the player was hoping this character was going to go (in terms of goals) as one of the main characters in the story,
- what role the player was hoping the character would contribute to the party as a team,
- what constructive effect the player was hoping to achieve with the character's actions to this point,
- what, if anything, you and the rest of the group can reasonably still do to help the player achieve those goals, without soaking up any more than his fair share of the spotlight
Hopefully, this player is reasonable enough to explain to you whatever artistic vision he (hopefully) has in mind, and simply hasn't been very good at communicating his intentions to the rest of the group.
Maybe the player realizes he's painted himself into a corner, and would be willing and happy to be offered a way out, such as turning the character over to the DM as a recurring villain, and starting over fresh with a new character.
But, unfortunately, it sounds like the player has elected to undermine the group, perhaps in revenge for some slight (real or imagined), whether that was the original plan with this character or not. If this is the case, I don't expect any further attempt to meet the player halfway to do you much good, and booting him from the group might be your only option.
Good luck, in any case.
Trying to talk to the player about how his character is acting and why that would drive the party away hasn't yielded any useful results. If anything, the character is now MORE antagonistic. 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.
I'm not sure how that's going to work out, but I honestly HOPE the Paladin kills the problem character. *sigh* This should be interesting. Game is Monday night, so I guess I'll let you know how that works out.
The possibility of having to deal with this sort of situation is why I generally don't allow Chaotic Neutral characters. Heck, even dealing with Lawful Evil can be easier as long as the LE character's goals generally line up with those of the party.