Eh, I'd prefer to just dump the d-bag of a player and not have to suffer from more d-baggery in the future. After all, players are legion.
So, after they translate the note, I stealthily explain to the PC who is from the city that he remembers hearing a similar rhyme before and that it refers to the old, than new, clock tower. And what does he do? He sits on that and goes by himself, claims the charter and says that his character leaves the city.
One way to fix this is just tell the player that out in the open.
Next is to refuse to let the party split up. Remember, DMs- *YOU* are in charge of encounters. "You find nothing". "You encounter nothing."
Players may be but friends are not. Sitting down and talking this out like adults is never a bad idea.
It sounds like something happened with this guy off camera. I'm sorry it blew your game up.Nope. I keep a record of that stuff.
@ Whedonhate...i mean Freehold, possibly, but he should have said something.
I just got off the phone with the guy. I kinda hoped that he was having some life issues that would clarify his recent douchebaggery (not just during games, he's become unpleasant company everywhere, to the point of people not inviting him to parties or food related activities).
It seems that his life is just fine and that we are all arrogant douchenozzles who can't appreciate his genius and awesomeness. So yeah.
Unless he has a brain tumor which is making him a s**thead, I think I'm gonna stop seeing him altogether.
yikes.
Yeah, he needs a time out.
I think we've all been there. No matter how well you screen there's always one player who just wants to kill monsters and get lewts, even though everyone says they're on board for plot. The reality is sometimes folks just aren't honest about what kind of game they like.
I had a dude years ago who was very passive/agressive. His RP style was nearly non-existent. I like to run a very plot-driven game so we clashed more than a few times. The only difference between me and you Ham-dawg is that my guy didn't go all childish when he got the chance. He did act out a few times, but never to that extreme.
Over time though I noticed something. I found my game adding more and more fights to include this player, but at the same time his RP came up and up. Other players came and went but this guy ended up being one of the best I've had in a long time. We finally found a happy medium between the 2 of us and had a few really epic sessions, but then he moved away unfortunately.
I guess all I can say is that sucks. There's no real fix for it. Haters gonna hate and ainters gonna aint and that's all there is to it. The best any GM can do is be open and communicate honestly with the players before, during and after the game. If that doesn't handle it well, there's the door.
Hama-slamma', it sounds like you've got MORE than enough players to fill the empty seat, so I wouldn't worry about it. If the dude comes back and wants a second shot though, I say forgive and forget.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had long time friends (10+ years) that have done similar things.
One summer I returned to my home town and ran a short summer game, knowing that we would only get a handful of weeks to really be around each other.
My once best friend decided at the table, roughly a half hour into the game that he was done, and that he'd rather go play Halo 2 for the rest of the day, taking another player with him to do just that.
There are people in this world that lack empathy in certain situations. These are people that I keep at arms length.
|
|
I think we've all been there. No matter how well you screen there's always one player who just wants to kill monsters and get lewts, even though everyone says they're on board for plot. The reality is sometimes folks just aren't honest about what kind of game they like.
I had a dude years ago who was very passive/agressive. His RP style was nearly non-existent. I like to run a very plot-driven game so we clashed more than a few times. The only difference between me and you Ham-dawg is that my guy didn't go all childish when he got the chance. He did act out a few times, but never to that extreme.
Over time though I noticed something. I found my game adding more and more fights to include this player, but at the same time his RP came up and up. Other players came and went but this guy ended up being one of the best I've had in a long time. We finally found a happy medium between the 2 of us and had a few really epic sessions, but then he moved away unfortunately.
I guess all I can say is that sucks. There's no real fix for it. Haters gonna hate and ainters gonna aint and that's all there is to it. The best any GM can do is be open and communicate honestly with the players before, during and after the game. If that doesn't handle it well, there's the door.
Hama-slamma', it sounds like you've got MORE than enough players to fill the empty seat, so I wouldn't worry about it. If the dude comes back and wants a second shot though, I say forgive and forget.
If he approaches me nicely, I might. But I tend not to give people a second chance, unless I think it can actually work.
Hama-slamma'
And just for this, If I ever meet you, I will provide food and an alcoholic (or non-alcoholic) beverage of your choice. :D
Yeah, I had a similar experience straight up wreck one of my first attempts at GMing as a kid. The setup was that the party were prisoners taken by a cult of nomads, to be sacrificed on the night of a new moon. The expectation was that the party would break out, sneak through the camp to retrieve their gear, and maybe confront the big honcho.
Instead, once they were free, the party wizard decided to leave immediately, without any concern for his equipment or other party members because they were utter strangers. I was flummoxed, as as he tried to disappear into the night, I had to mention that it was a new moon, and pitch black outside of the nomads' bonfire--he had to come back to get a light source. (This made me feel terrible afterward, like I was accidentally railroading him--this was one of my first campaign efforts and I'd read much on the evils of the Railroad online).
So he returned, stayed around long enough to make a torch, and then planned to leave again. By this time half the party had scouted the camp and found their belongings, and they were able to eventually cajole him into helping them beat the wagons guards to retrieve their belongings.
At which point the wizard immediately leaves camp again. Not wanting to confront their captors without a full party, the other players follow... and the wizard makes it a point to move faster than them so he can put as much distance between himself and these strangers as possible. "I don't know any of these people, why would I ever help them!?"
This led to the big fallout of that night, as for a random encounter after the campfire tangle, I'd set up something relatively light--a single goblin, with a pit trap. With a full party, this would have been no contest. But with a 1st-level wizard on his own, in 3rd edition, moving ahead of the party down the road, in the dark... he went down in one round.
At which point another player commented on how the character was being such a dramatic loner--the term "emo" cropped up--and the wizard's player went absolutely livid and left the chat. One of the other players was her boyfriend, so he left too, and I think the other players were left with a bad taste for RPGs afterwards, so the game died before the first session was over.
Some RPers just don't cater to the social contract that keeps a game fun and open to the whole group, whether it's an desire to "win," the need to self-entertain, or a strict urge to "stay in character."
That's how it's typically played, yes. But as far as I'm aware the books only state that groups form into parties for overcoming challenges together, they're still entitled to their own objectives and can cut off the business relationship at any time [unless it was more than a business relationship, which is a good way to prevent such betrayals in the campaign planning phase.]This is true. D&D is a TEAM game.
I'm suggesting that if the character was created in such a manner as for this behavior to be congruent with the character's written and submitted identity, that it the GM shares some of the blame in this situation.
This is going off on a bit of a tangent possibly, but I disagree with this.
It is implicit that when you sit down to play Pathfinder, you are playing as a team. A character can be greedy and self-centered and still work in a party. You can have secret goals and motives and still work in a party.
So, if you are making a character for PF, it is reasonably assumed that the characters will work together, no matter what your backstory says. The GM would have no reason to expect this (and thus, no "share of the blame") unless the player has a history of doing this at the table, which doesn't seem to be the case, as Hama doesn't seem to be the "three strikes" sort of GM when it comes to this.
I think the assumption, all other things being equal, is that it's a team game. If a player want to run subplots with their character that are counter to that general assumption, I think the onus on them is to mention it to the GM before play. Hama has mentioned that the party had at least a superficial group backstory, and that he'd agreed with the player that his character would act as a conduit of information to the party from time to time.
There aren't really any excuses here. Vampire is different to PF in its basic premise. The game was set up as a group thing, and the player agreed to play an intel-giving role. The player lost his s!%+ for whatever reason. It's not cool, and I don't think you can rationally defend the player's actions.
Yeah, that would really, really suck Marco.
It's inconvenient, but one absolutely must hash out the social contract in detail with players in advance, and make sure they know that any character whose behavior would not fit is not permitted.
Yeah, talking before hand is key. Most of my gaming friends are as old as me, which is to say they remember 1e when it first came out. We all also share a lot of the same movie interests. As such I tell my players I need action heroes out of them.
They don't have to be shiny paladins/LG, but some level of good and willing to work as a team for a goal. I then refer them to movies like Roadhouse, Big Trouble in Little China or other 80s/90s flicks. If you want to be the lone wolf out on the ragged edge, that's fine. When the chips are down though I expect that you'll partner up and do some good.
If there are "I don't know these people/why would I help them" shenanigans after these expectations are set, there better be a darn good reason. For example in some Downtime play through emails I did have a Hunter PC say "what's in it for me?" when I intro'd the adventurer's guild that the PCs would be working with, however he plays a rather opportunistic scoundrel whose heart is in the right place when the stuff hits the fan.
If however he'd made his comment and then followed it up with "forget it; I take the kobold loot and leave town" then we'd probably have had words.