Need Advice for a Potentially Problem Player


Pathfinder Society

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

My regular group has been experiencing some continuous, though inconsistent issues with a particular player. Now this player, in my own experience, is a great guy and generally fun to play with, and the issues people, even myself, have with it all seem exceeding minor to the point of being easy to ignore. But they are adding up, and I'm not sure what to do.

There really would be too much to list as examples, and as I said the vast majority is extremely minor, but the bottom line it is slowing down the game. Both in and out of combat he doesn't seem to have a full grasp of his character's role in the group, and doesn't seem to grasp the role of any of the other characters, and often the purpose of the mission as well. He seems to view his own character as one dimensional: a paladin that smites evil (and has absolutely nothing else to contribute so expresses a desire to smite evil/engage in combat even in social encounters). Not just occasionally, not just every encounter, but each and every chance he gets to express himself.

Today's example comes of playing the pregen gunslinger. Pretty much every time he was given a change to act, it was to shoot something, or state he wanted to shoot something, or otherwise threaten something with being shot. In one encounter in which all the PCs were given a sap and told to fight each other until only one was last standing, he argued in favor is using his extremely lethal pistols for the very reason of his greater chance hitting and greater damage... every turn. He was eventually told that using the pistol instead of the nonlethal sap would be reported as PVP, at which point he opted for the pistol whip deed, which we excepted as it couldn't accidentally kill anyone with a crit and it got the game moving again.

I really don't want to turn him away from the game, I just would like some advise on how to get him to back off a little. I think everyone would be okay if he wants to play a one trick pony provided he only involved himself in encounters where that trick is applicable, and kept quiet otherwise. I think everyone would be even happier if he expanded on what he felt his character was capable of. Even more, I don't want myself or anyone else to just snap one day and blow their top at him.


I would recommend trying to sit down with him one on one and try talking out the issue. Maybe you could figure out why he only seems to be interested in one aspect of his characters. Maybe he could be encouraged to do a back story, to help develop his idea of who the character is. Then he could better role play how his character really would act.

Alternatively, perhaps the real problem is he isn't really into "role playing" games, and would better enjoy something more combat focused, like Descent, or Super Dungeon Explore.

Either way, I think the first step is to try and get inside his head, and find out why he's playing the way he is. Who knows, maybe he's the sort of guy who, if he hears what the problem is, would be able to just adjust for the good of the group.


Is he 12?

There's a stage roleplayers go through, then they get out of it.


You are being extremely nice with your characterization of this person. From your post I know who you are talking about, and there are many of us that really think of it like you taking a bullet to regularly have this player at your table. I don't have any desire to list all the reasons I think a simple talking to is overly optimistic with this person; I don't know what could be gained by that. To keep it short, he is a very young player who is also very immature for his age. I do agree with the earlier poster who said Descent would be more up his ally, but I don't imagine that an easy sell.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Have the others treat his character like a pretty dump and one dimensional person, teasing him and holding him back, telling him it´s not the time to smite.
Then in combat let them release him like a combat trained dog.

He should really get the hint over time.

Not sure why Paladins always attract this kind of players.
I had a guy lately playing a Paladin who objected to nearly everything because of his "faith". He didn´t have a clue of any Golarion faith though. Really tiresome experience.

Lantern Lodge

While I have no problems with teasing a player/character I know well and know will take it in good spirits, I would not recommend doing that to anyone who you do not know well.

Based off of what you and Sitri have said, I would take him aside for a moment before next game session and just plainly inform him that a little more maturity and consideration for the other people at the table is required. If he doesn't want to or cannot provide that courtesy, there are plenty of other things he can be doing.

Scarab Sages

Maybe talking with your local Venture Officer team about the player would help. I personally know that your local VC and VL there are good with these types of things. If he is that young maybe talk to his parents parents about his behavior. If they behavior doesn't change talk to your VO team about him being removed from the gameday.

Shadow Lodge

I'll go ahead and warn you of one thing, from personal experience. You're probably not the only one frustrated by him, and maybe not all of your players have the same amount of patience you have. You need to try to resolve this sooner rather than later before one of your other players loses their cool and it becomes a "me or him" deal. It's probably not just going to blow over on its own.

Grand Lodge

If he wants to turn every encounter into a fight, let him. Sooner than later it will result in either his character getting killed or banned from organized play for an evil action.

It might seem harsh, but he needs to learn a lesson. Right now, he's interpreting his method as play as one hundred percent valid because other players and game masters have been covering for his actions. Just step back and let the fireworks go off. It only takes one shredded character sheet to correct that kind of behaviour.

That is unless, as previously suggested, he's 12 years old. Then just have a talk with him.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

The player is an adult, though barely so, and as Sitri explained is immature for his age. I have talked with the local VL about his, though briefly and without any resolution then to be made aware.

We've tried the RP of trying to hold him back when it's inappropriate, but lately it's been less RP and more OOC "no you can't smite/attack the widows and orphans!" (that's an exaggeration of course, though accurate.

I can try having a talk with him before the next game and see what comes of it.

Bit of background having talked with him a bit after the game yesterday: He's having some issues with home and is playing PFS to give him something to do that gets him out of the house all day one day of the week. I don't know and really don't care to know any further details. It may be he just needs to find a different hobby to occupy his time, but I'd rather see if I can find a way for him to make and keep PFS his hobby of choice.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

Radiostorm wrote:

If he wants to turn every encounter into a fight, let him. Sooner than later it will result in either his character getting killed or banned from organized play for an evil action.

It might seem harsh, but he needs to learn a lesson. Right now, he's interpreting his method as play as one hundred percent valid because other players and game masters have been covering for his actions. Just step back and let the fireworks go off. It only takes one shredded character sheet to correct that kind of behaviour.

That is unless, as previously suggested, he's 12 years old. Then just have a talk with him.

While I can't speak for the tables I've not shared with him, for those I have his behavior is not being validated. Some of his other minor issues and outbursts have been overlooked as annoying but not disruptive, but the things he does which slows down or halts game play or otherwise disrupts the game have been called out by both players and the GM. The primary issue is that he's not receiving the message.

I might try this tactic as a last resort though, perhaps keeping him in low to mid-tier scenarios so if he gets everyone else killed the loss is not as severe, perhaps encouraging other player to play their b-list characters. I'd rather try to get through to him though.

Grand Lodge

Keep in mind, if one player in the party makes an incredibly bad decision, the game master need not punish the whole party.

Teams of Pathfinders, just the teams of players roleplaying them, are assembled haphazardly. They are strangers without a shared history or even a unison in motives. Think of how common it is in the lore for a single Pathfinder to forfeit his allies and go rogue.

If one player in the group does something asinine and evil in a social situation, the remainder of the group have plausible deniability of collusion - especially if they've spent time in character debating it. Give the rest of the party a chance to lay down arms or talk their way out of the mess.

"I apologize on behalf of the Society for the gunslinger. He seemed a loose cannon from the get-go, but us low-ranking Pathfinders don't get to choose who we go on missions with. We'll help you clean up what's left of him then move right along. Could you pass the mop?"

The Exchange 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Washington D.C. aka Grolick

Honestly, it will likely take more than one person talking to him to convince him. It would probably be best to take someone with you to talk to him first. You don't want a whole table, because that's intimidating, but if there's someone else, it is not going to be "Just you" who feels that way.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Upper Midwest aka Silbeg

That's a really hard call, Raven.

Perhaps one thing GMs could do would be to enforce the Paladin's code on him. When he chooses to act like this, his Paladin abilities stop working. This is something that could be interpreted from within the rules as written. Then, he'll need to Atone before he gets the abilities back (check with your V-Os first, though).

Perhaps someone could spend a little more time, going over what it means to be a Paladin with him. Draw up a code for him to follow, and suggest that if HIS Paladin doesn't have anything to add to a conversation other than "I SMITE EVIL!!!", perhaps he should stay quiet.

Or, if the player shows interest in playing out a code, you could move towards asking what his character's real motivations are... perhaps he needs to root out evil wherever he finds it... if so, suggest to the player that skills like Sense Motive are excellent in helping him determine who is evil and who is not. Even if, at first, he replaces the outbursts with "I roll Sense Motive to see if the bartender is lying", at least he is adding some productivity to the story line.

I wish you luck in this.

Shadow Lodge

Silbeg wrote:
Perhaps one thing GMs could do would be to enforce the Paladin's code on him. When he chooses to act like this, his Paladin abilities stop working. This is something that could be interpreted from within the rules as written. Then, he'll need to Atone before he gets the abilities back (check with your V-Os first, though).

A note about this: PFS absolutely requires GMs to tell the player, in no uncertain terms, when they're about to commit such a violation, right down to what exactly will cause the "infraction", and give them the chance to change their minds.

Grand Lodge

SCPRedMage wrote:
Silbeg wrote:
Perhaps one thing GMs could do would be to enforce the Paladin's code on him. When he chooses to act like this, his Paladin abilities stop working. This is something that could be interpreted from within the rules as written. Then, he'll need to Atone before he gets the abilities back (check with your V-Os first, though).
A note about this: PFS absolutely requires GMs to tell the player, in no uncertain terms, when they're about to commit such a violation, right down to what exactly will cause the "infraction", and give them the chance to change their minds.

As an aside, I have interpreted the rules to mean you inform them, "You are about to commit an act that runs counter to your faith and beliefs. To do so would place you in danger of losing your Paladin/Cleric/Druid/Oracle/Cavalier/Monk abilities." At that point, let them figure it out. Obviously if they are a newer player, spoil it for them. If they aren't, then you let them play their character how they want to.

I have dealt with a player previously like the OP is dealing with now. I will tell you, straight off the bat, that it will be difficult to get him to sit there and listen. This is especially true of he's the type to min-max everything about his character. The best thing you can do is try to get him to listen. If he won't and it's obvious early on and you can risk the lower amount of people at the table, I'd recommend removing him immediately. If you can't, suck it up until the end of the scenario and inform him not to show up to the next one. Stick by your guns when you do, too. After that, play it by ear.

Silver Crusade 2/5

In my experience, you have to deal with this in a firm, straightforward way. Tell him clearly and specifically what behaviors are problematic and why. Tell him that these behaviors have to change or he will no longer be able to participate. You have to be willing to follow through on that past part. If, after being clearly told which behaviors of his are causing problems, he continues acting as he always has, you have to be willing to eject him.

Here's something to think about.
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

Radiostorm wrote:

If he wants to turn every encounter into a fight, let him. Sooner than later it will result in either his character getting killed or banned from organized play for an evil action.

It might seem harsh, but he needs to learn a lesson. Right now, he's interpreting his method as play as one hundred percent valid because other players and game masters have been covering for his actions. Just step back and let the fireworks go off. It only takes one shredded character sheet to correct that kind of behaviour.

That is unless, as previously suggested, he's 12 years old. Then just have a talk with him.

That sort of approach sounds good. I have seen it suggested many times, tried several times and actually work zero times. A person who responded to social pressure would have changed his behavior a while ago after seeing everyone being obviously annoyed by his behavior. That obviously didn't happen. He is much more likely to feel himself to be picked on and dig in his heels more, quit the game in a huff or blow up at the table over what he sees as mistreatment. Meanwhile, everyone else gets to be annoyed every session for an indeterminate period of time.

Attempts to change people this way just don't work.


Some players never get past this stage.

I ran a public game day for about 10 years, until I moved to follow my paycheck. We really only had one REGULAR problem player similar to this for about 6 years, and then the others started showing up.

They get their own table these days. Every time the group meets, they gather in the back and kill stuff. The story is irrelevant. The goals are irrelevant. They kill stuff.

One of the things about running a public massively shared campaign event is that you aren't supposed to turn people away because you don't like them. Another is that everybody (including the volunteer judge) has the right not to sit at a table with a player (or judge) they dislike. Note that this does not mean the individual is removed form the table, it means everybody else leaves the table.

I have seen tables with 8 people gathered around them get up and leave the event rather than have THAT guy be the PFS maximum 7th player at the table. As long as that player makes a point of wanting to play, everybody else gets the option of NOT playing or playing with them. Even the dumbest guy figures out after 3 or 4 events where a full table chooses NOT to play in order to avoid playing with him that things aren't going to go the way that he wants them to.

The group that just wants to kill stuff has even grown to the point that they have a couple of guys rotating judging duties for that table. EVERYBODY is happier now that that's happened.

Yes, this requires being polite and enforcing the rules about including players at public events thoroughly enough that people have to choose not to play over playing with the problem player. That sends a pretty powerful social message, though, as more and more people refuse to allow you to consume their leisure time.

Silver Crusade

Like others say it is a hard call, but you need take a decission the group or the player.
Talk with him cannot be a solution because he probably can't understand, i don't know what abilities has his character, but you need kill when he play as a mad slaughter, all enemies against him or any others strategies, the group don't help him.

I sorry for you but he isn't a good PFS player he needs die many times to learn how has to teamplay, this is PFS.

I know that my words are hard but is the reality, don't waste your time.

Silver Crusade 2/5

hustonj wrote:

One of the things about running a public massively shared campaign event is that you aren't supposed to turn people away because you don't like them. Another is that everybody (including the volunteer judge) has the right not to sit at a table with a player (or judge) they dislike. Note that this does not mean the individual is removed form the table, it means everybody else leaves the table.

Turning away a player that is being disruptive and who refuses to change his behavior is a far cry from turning away a player "because you don't like them".

It's unreasonable to essentially cancel the event and deny everyone else the chance to play because one person refuses to stop being disruptive in the name of including everyone at any cost. People who are being persistently disruptive and who refuse to change can be excluded. You don't have to include everyone in everything despite the cost to everyone else every time.
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil

GSF1 is one of the most common fallacies, and one of the most deeply held. Many geeks have had horrible, humiliating, and formative experiences with ostracism, and the notion of being on the other side of the transaction is repugnant to them.

In its non-pathological form, GSF1 is benign, and even commendable: it is long past time we all grew up and stopped with the junior high popularity games. However, in its pathological form, GSF1 prevents its carrier from participating in -- or tolerating -- the exclusion of anyone from anything, be it a party, a comic book store, or a web forum, and no matter how obnoxious, offensive, or aromatic the prospective excludee may be.

As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as well go out for the football team.

This phenomenon has a number of unpleasant consequences. For one thing, it actively hinders the wider acceptance of geek-related activities: I don't know that RPGs and comics would be more popular if there were fewer trolls who smell of cheese hassling the new blood, but I'm sure it couldn't hurt. For another, when nothing smacking of social selectiveness can be discussed in public, people inevitably begin to organize activities in secret. These conspiracies often lead to more problems down the line, and the end result is as juvenile as anything a seventh-grader ever dreamed of.
----------------------
You should make every reasonable effort to include everyone who wants to play at PFS events (or any public event like a public game at a con) but that doesn't include punishing everyone else for one person's bad behavior.


I said the club had existed for a decade, right? The RPGA rules (the ones the club was formed around) specifically forbid excluding players without specific documentation being provided to or from RPGA HQ. EXPLICITLY, every player not documented as banned or suspended (and/or not thrown out by the venue owner/manager) had to be allowed the chance to play, within valid table construction limits.

Your fallacy claim is irrelevant. The group followed the rules they accepted when formed.

Can't avoid that and still claim the high moral ground when dealing with problem players.

Saying that a PUBLIC game day doe snot have a moral requirement to be about inclusion is demanding that you have the right to treat it as a private event. If you want a private event, hold a PRIVATE event. If you advertise a PUBLIC event, then you have offered to do what you can to provide a chance for all comers to play, within the limits of the games involved.

The process the RPGA used (everybody else leaves the table) doesn't intrinsically punish anyone. Everyone makes a choice, and that choice exists ONLY because they chose to attend a PUBLIC event.

Silver Crusade 2/5

We aren't talking about RPGA. This isn't RPGA. This is Pathfinder Society. RPGA rules are irrelevant.

I don't have to avoid anything. That just doesn't apply. Also, rules like that are not sacred writ handed down from the heavens and set in stone. If they become counter-productive then should be reconsidered. Everyone shouldn't be tied to what seemed like a good idea at the time. These are group rules, not scripture.

No, it isn't. It's saying that everyone else doesn't have to sacrifice their own enjoyment because of one disruptive player that refuses to change his behavior. Expecting people to have some minimal consideration for others at a social event is not a bit unreasonable. Ejecting people who refuse to show such consideration is also not a bit unreasonable.

There is no such moral requirement, It doesn't exist. I should make every reasonable effort to accommodate people when possible but that doesn't include accommodating a problematic person at the expense of every other player at the table including me. There is no moral requirement to accommodate him at the expense of everyone else any more than there is a moral requirement to put up to someone being disruptive at a theater while everyone is trying to watch a movie.

In practice, it does. If there is no other table or not enough spots for those people, they lose their chance to play because one person can't behave himself.

Public event doesn't that everyone must always be accommodated regardless of their behavior. Businesses are open to the public but still have the right to refuse service. I also have the right to refuse service. I and all the other players don't have to sacrifice our own time and enjoyment in the name of inclusion of everyone all the time regardless of cost. I don't drive an hour and a half to judge Pathfinder events so that I can essentially dissolve the game and send everyone home or do that multiple times in the name of symbolic inclusion at all costs.

The reasonable response to one person persistently causing a problem is to remove that one person not to remove everyone else.


Do you own the location where the game day is being held? Are you paying for the facility, or is it being provided to you as a way to get customers in the door?

You do not have the right to chase a customer out of the facility.

Even the RPGA rules allowed for removing a player AFTER bad behavior. Heck, that was the first step in the process of documenting the individual as a problem. If someone habitually displayed inappropriate behavior, the RPGA's formal process advertised that the individual should be avoided to the entire group of potential players, and provided a means to refuse event tickets to that person at national events.

Saying that you can throw somebody out of space that you have no legal ownership over, and that you have no obligation to provide advertised services is the fallacy.

The RPGA did many things wrong through the years, but the formal documentation requirement to exclude players protected the entire player base, not just one small group.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I have the right to tell someone that they can't play at my table. I can't throw them out of the venue but I can throw them off my table if I need to. If I need to remove a disruptive player and I am told I can't, I will simply stop running open events there. If other GMs are told that their only response to a disruptive player is to shut the table down completely, I doubt that I will be alone.

RPGA rules are not relevant here. I did not agree to any such rules and they do not apply to PFS play at all. There is a reason why I don't participate in RPGA or run RPGA events.

I can't tell them leave the store. I can tell them to leave my game. If the person's behavior is genuinely disruptive, I won't be the only person that feels that way.

I was in RPGA. I'm not any more. There's a reason for that.

I and all the players will have made a special trip to the venue lugging all their stuff and making whatever arrangement they have to make specifically to participate in PFS. You are telling me that, if I have a persistently problematic player, that my only option is to have everyone else leave the game which will practically result in all of them going home without being able to play instead of just ejecting the one problem person? That I am going to have to possibly do this for several weeks in a row if he keeps coming back? That is completely unreasonable.


Only if and when it is your table.

If you don't work WITH the property owner, then you are going to start weakening your welcome at the store. One table at a time, or all the tables that could have been over months or years?

You keep saying that you can do what you want and respond to people how you want. There are costs to be paid.

You have to give the man who owns the property control. You have to give the man running the event control.

The ONLY right you have is the right to get up and walk away. You do not have the right to remove someone who is not displaying poor behavior without cause. If they have a record of poor behavior, those other people should support you, but the guy sitting at the table as judge only has the right to choose to judge or not.

Do not overstate the authority of a table judge. Right now you are pretty much saying that any PFS judge, at any venue, can refuse to accept a player sent to his table. It isn't gong to work that way at the big name ticketed conventions. It never does. The paying customer gets what they paid to receive.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Actually, if the player is actually problematic and the only alternative is to cancel the game for 6 others, I doubt I will have a problem with the venue owner. I doubt he wants to enable one customer to drive away the others.

There are costs to be paid for everything. Everything is a tradeoff. That's reality. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. I am fine with the tradeoff of requiring one person to leave to avoid spoiling the fun of several others or forcing all of them leave instead.

You don't define what rights I do and do not have. You don't make the rules in PFS. You have authority whatsoever to tell me what rights I do and no not have. None at all. Don't cite RPGA rules as authority either. This isn't RPGA.

I reserve the right to eject problem players if I feel that I need to. That's the bottom line. It's not negotiable. It's not something I would do lightly but it is something I reserve the right to do if I need to. So far, I have not even had to consider it but if I need to do it, I will do it regardless of what you think I do or do not have the right to do so.

That's the authority that any GM has in any RPG. If I have a player that insists on being disruptive, that player will have to leave or someone else will have to do the judging. Period. I will not put up with one person spoiling the game for everyone because you say so. I won't put up with it AT ALL.

At large events, I will have probably never seen that guy before and won't know him and there will be other tables for the people leaving to go to. That doesn't apply to most local PFS events. All events are not large con events. Where I judge, that would mean cancelling the game and sending everyone else home because of one problem person quite possibly for several weeks in a row. I am not prepared to do that to satisfy you.

Does anyone else have an issue with being told they must accept all players regardless of their behavior and track record and that ther only response to a problem player is to have everyone else at the table leave? Does anyone think this is not a reasonable response to a problem player?

Sczarni 4/5

@OP
Sometimes, in order to help someone, you need to be a jerk. This is life's rule. As sure as you might deny some friend something that he badly desires because it might be hazardous for him, you have to step in and tell the player to stop.


While people here are obviously trying to be helpful, and it would be good advice in most cases, this guy is pretty oblivious to attempts at guidance. Outside of ridiculous game choices he constantly makes, he also ignores when players tell him to stop constantly b+%$$ing about being ineffective, it isn't funny to take others' pencils and not give them back, it isn't appropriate to yell in other player's ears when they aren't ready for initiative, be careful when driving, and he doesn't realize the moniker Sir Dickish is actually a slur against him.

Dusk Raven, you may have more patience with this type of thing than I do. If you do, more power to you, but I have found avoidance whenever possible to be the best policy.

I can also appreciate that things might be hard for him and this is one of the few ways he gets to have social interaction outside of a problematic home, but I would have guessed that before you said so. I would expect that to be the norm for someone so oblivious to normal social conventions. If I could wish it any other way for him I would. But I like to play this game for enjoyment and my own brand of escape, using that time to re-parent someone who should soon be moving out on his own is beyond the scope of my generosity.

Grand Lodge

hustonj wrote:

Do you own the location where the game day is being held? Are you paying for the facility, or is it being provided to you as a way to get customers in the door?

You do not have the right to chase a customer out of the facility.

Even the RPGA rules allowed for removing a player AFTER bad behavior. Heck, that was the first step in the process of documenting the individual as a problem. If someone habitually displayed inappropriate behavior, the RPGA's formal process advertised that the individual should be avoided to the entire group of potential players, and provided a means to refuse event tickets to that person at national events.

Saying that you can throw somebody out of space that you have no legal ownership over, and that you have no obligation to provide advertised services is the fallacy.

The RPGA did many things wrong through the years, but the formal documentation requirement to exclude players protected the entire player base, not just one small group.

I have the right, as the store liaison, to remove a player from any table if I deem them a problem, with or without the store owner's consent. If he doesn't like my decision, he is more than welcome to remove me from my position and kick me from the store.

Lantern Lodge

I would think that removing a problem player from your table would not quite be the same thing as removing them from the store. Telling someone they are causing trouble at this table and are not welcome to sit at is not kicking them from the store.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

Thank you everyone for your advice.

I'd never dream of asking another customer of the store we play at to leave the store, but I'm extremely comfortable asking someone not to sit at my table (or not sitting at a table already seating a player I'm not comfortable playing with). I'm not sure yet if my problem player is there yet, but I can definitely see it coming.

I've got another event planned for this upcoming Saturday to run the 2nd part of a module (the one he's playing the pregen gunslinger). I'll have a quick chat with him before the game, and if necessary after the game. The following Sat it's our VC's turn to coordinate and I'll have a quick chat with him (or the VL) to keep him in the loop.

Shadow Lodge

whats interesting about this thread .. is the only thing were getting is that he's "Immature" which is a great way for people to Rubber stamp someone with a real Mental Disability

Dust I am Sending you a PM based on this

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

Wraith235 wrote:

whats interesting about this thread .. is the only thing were getting is that he's "Immature" which is a great way for people to Rubber stamp someone with a real Mental Disability

Dust I am Sending you a PM based on this

Thank you for the PM and your insight. To the best of my knowledge this player has no disability of any kind. Granted, I don't know much about him outside PFS. He's 19, lives with his parents, is looking for a job, and would rather be somewhere other than at home on the weekends. For his age, he is either a bit immature or maybe just inexperienced in social situations, but it would be pure speculation on my part as to the cause.

Shadow Lodge

I think I might even still inquire

but that's based on my personal experience

what can it hurt

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs aka Dust Raven

Wraith235 wrote:

I think I might even still inquire

but that's based on my personal experience

what can it hurt

Well, there is the question of avoiding sounding like I'm saying "Hey, lots of players have been complaining about you, are you mentally disabled?"

I figure if it's relevant, and he's comfortable discussing it, he'll volunteer the information.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland— Baltimore aka skyshark

Dust Raven wrote:

My regular group has been experiencing some continuous, though inconsistent issues with a particular player. Now this player, in my own experience, is a great guy and generally fun to play with, and the issues people, even myself, have with it all seem exceeding minor to the point of being easy to ignore. But they are adding up, and I'm not sure what to do.

There really would be too much to list as examples, and as I said the vast majority is extremely minor, but the bottom line it is slowing down the game. Both in and out of combat he doesn't seem to have a full grasp of his character's role in the group, and doesn't seem to grasp the role of any of the other characters, and often the purpose of the mission as well. He seems to view his own character as one dimensional: a paladin that smites evil (and has absolutely nothing else to contribute so expresses a desire to smite evil/engage in combat even in social encounters). Not just occasionally, not just every encounter, but each and every chance he gets to express himself.

Today's example comes of playing the pregen gunslinger. Pretty much every time he was given a change to act, it was to shoot something, or state he wanted to shoot something, or otherwise threaten something with being shot. In one encounter in which all the PCs were given a sap and told to fight each other until only one was last standing, he argued in favor is using his extremely lethal pistols for the very reason of his greater chance hitting and greater damage... every turn. He was eventually told that using the pistol instead of the nonlethal sap would be reported as PVP, at which point he opted for the pistol whip deed, which we excepted as it couldn't accidentally kill anyone with a crit and it got the game moving again.

I really don't want to turn him away from the game, I just would like some advise on how to get him to back off a little. I think everyone would be okay if he wants to play a one trick pony provided he only involved himself in encounters where that trick is...

I recommend talking to him about it first. If it happens again, then let him smite the Good NPC. At the end of the adventure, mark on his chronicle sheet that he committed an evil act and that his Paladin has now lost all class abilities.


skyshark wrote:
I recommend talking to him about it first. If it happens again, then let him smite the Good NPC. At the end of the adventure, mark on his chronicle sheet that he committed an evil act and that his Paladin has now lost all class abilities.

I recommend this as well. Otherwise the whole situation is just going to keep compounding from all the "minor faults" into one "major fault". By talking to him you might avoid the situation of someone "blowing their top at him".

Besides how is the Paladin smiting evil on non-evil npcs?

Smite Evil wrote:
If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.

Plus the paladin has that built-in feature called:

Detect Evil wrote:
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

Which is meant to prevent wasted usage of Smite Evil.

I will admit I went through that phase as a player. I was very focused on combat but I would tweak my character in a min/max fashion but that is all I did. Once I had been talked to however, I understood that if I wanted to keep playing without an aura of dislike towards me, I would have to play casually, treat the game as a side-event while being sociable and relaxed and treat that part as the main-event.

I think such playstyles like what the OP describe are what many people who don't do much social interaction stem from. Me? I wasn't happy with people at school who teased and sometimes bullied me, so I spent most of time when away from school at home. Doing my homework, reading books, playing board games and video games, going on family outings, going to church once a week. Like most people but not as much social interaction I suppose then others.

I would also say part of this comes from the fact of how all Geeks are people who are in fact... "WEIRD". Each person has their own quirks and traits and their reasons tend to be common-ground when it comes to why they would bother to play Tabletop/LARP/Video Games in order to be part of a group so they might socialize with others and, depending on the person, not feel quite as socially isolated.

That is my two copper on this topic.

1/5

IF the player is question is who I think it is, I had him at my table about a month back, and he was downright rude to the other players any time things didn't go well for his character. I had my hands full with the S4 special at the time, but his behavior was bad enough that I now deeply regret not having confronted him on the spot.

If he behaves that way at my table again, he WILL be ejected without hesitation.

1/5

Dust Raven wrote:
Well, there is the question of avoiding sounding like I'm saying "Hey, lots of players have been complaining about you, are you mentally disabled?"

Heh...true.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I know this can be a very difficult issue. It is one that needs to be handled delicately if you want to keep the guy coming back (suggesting that he might have a mental illness is probably not the right avenue of approach).

@Dustraven, Sior, & bugleyman:

Can we take the public trashing of this anonymous person off the boards? You guys can email or PM together about the specifics. But can you imagine coming onto the boards to see 3 of the folks you play with and for essentially talking about how terrible you are? That would be crushing I would imagine.

My suggestion Dustraven, is to have a conversation with him as soon as you can. Try to nip the potential major issue in the bud before it becomes a major issue. Don't wait just because it will be awkward or uncomfortable. The longer you wait, the likelihood becomes that he feels his behavior is acceptable and will continue to do those things and potentially get worse. And then the likelihood is that you will lose players and GMs you really would rather keep.

Have the conversation with him right now. Give him one more strike. If he keeps it up, or is belligerent to you during the conversation, then disinvite him.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Need Advice for a Potentially Problem Player All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.