One sentence summary: I'm a first time GM, and my game came to a screeching halt when a player stood up and left the game after the rest of the party voted against what he wanted to do.
Longer version: I've played a bit, but this is my first time GMing. It was going pretty well, and everyone seemed to like my NPCs, and the plot-hook, and the dungeon, and even the random encounter on the way to the dungeon.
Partway into the dungeon, they encountered a room that was supposed to be a bit of a challenge. They came upon a locked door, and a devil that was bound to guard the place. He told them that they could release the magic locking the door by going down a side passage and doing some things there. He explained that he was forced to fight them if they tried to go deeper into the dungeon, but didn't actually have to get aggressive until they tried to go for the door he was bound to. He told them freely that he would rather they die against some other guardian in the process of trying to unlock the door instead of having to kill them himself, and promised that he would let them through to the side areas without a fight, and only attack them if they succeeded there and the door unlocked. He also said that if they attacked him preemptively, he'd call for help from the adjacent rooms, which would be a tough fight (probably not unwinnable, but tough).
It was supposed to be a difficult decision and it was. Two players wanted to go through, since the devil was going to allow it and they expected he'd stay true to his word. Two players wanted to fight the devil and risk his reinforcements instead of going past him and having no escape route. The last player wanted to retreat from the dungeon and come back better-prepared.
Well, they talked it over, and eventually four out of five of them settled on going forwards. The last one still wanted to retreat and come back later. When it was pointed out to that last one that he was outvoted, he stood up and declared "Fine, if you're not going to listen to me, then good luck getting through all the traps without a rogue", and he left. Walked away from the game, lay down, and went to sleep. The rest of the party broke apart to vent. Nobody was happy. Nobody was in the mood to game again that night, even after calming down.
This player... does this. This was my first time GMing, but I've played with him in other games and other systems, and he's threatened to ditch the party when people don't follow his plans at least once per game (He's got other problems too. His characters are always better than everyone else's by a lot, they always have a long-term goal of assassinating the most important NPC around and usurping their power, and he always gets really angrily dramatic about being 'completely useless' when another PC comes across an encounter that's suited to making them shine). The other players (when they've been GMing their own games) have talked to him about his problems, but it doesn't seem like it's doing anything, and I'm sure as heck not just going to sit idly by. People were having fun, and then with one sentence he made a game crash and burn. Now nobody wants to go back to it, and I don't really feel like I want to run or play any more games with him in them.
So: Is there anything I should do before kicking out the player? Questions to ask, talks to have, etc.? Or is this the sort of thing where I should trust that the previous GMs have probably already tried their best, and go with the finisher right away?
(His character abandoned the party and dungeon... and walked right into the frozen antarctic wastes, at least two weeks from the nearest civilization. He's got no survival skill, and he just walked away from the ranger PC who got the group out here. Also they'd already gotten past the dungeon's only trap by that point. Heh.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone has a breaking down melting point. If the person you described has such a low tolerance melting point, it is best not to play with such a person.
Any other solution would be forcing a square peg in a round hole.
If the player makes more powerful PCs than everybody else he might conclude that he's better at the game than everybody else. If he feels that he's the smartest and most capable person present then people refusing to listen to his "good advice" might frustrate him, especially if it seems likely to get the PC he put so much effort into killed in a foolish way.
I guess the answer might come down to getting the player to have more respect for his peers. Perhaps you could explain that while going forward ill prepared might seem stupid to him going back seems boring to everybody else and they'd rather take a bigger risk of getting killed in the game than of being bored to death in real life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't play with him at all if he's gonna be a little s+~+ about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One sentence summary: I'm a first time GM, and my game came to a screeching halt when a player stood up and left the game after the rest of the party voted against what he wanted to do.
Longer version: I've played a bit, but this is my first time GMing. It was going pretty well, and everyone seemed to like my NPCs, and the plot-hook, and the dungeon, and even the random encounter on the way to the dungeon.
Partway into the dungeon, they encountered a room that was supposed to be a bit of a challenge. They came upon a locked door, and a devil that was bound to guard the place. He told them that they could release the magic locking the door by going down a side passage and doing some things there. He explained that he was forced to fight them if they tried to go deeper into the dungeon, but didn't actually have to get aggressive until they tried to go for the door he was bound to. He told them freely that he would rather they die against some other guardian in the process of trying to unlock the door instead of having to kill them himself, and promised that he would let them through to the side areas without a fight, and only attack them if they succeeded there and the door unlocked. He also said that if they attacked him preemptively, he'd call for help from the adjacent rooms, which would be a tough fight (probably not unwinnable, but tough).
It was supposed to be a difficult decision and it was. Two players wanted to go through, since the devil was going to allow it and they expected he'd stay true to his word. Two players wanted to fight the devil and risk his reinforcements instead of going past him and having no escape route. The last player wanted to retreat from the dungeon and come back better-prepared.
Well, they talked it over, and eventually four out of five of them settled on going forwards. The last one still wanted to retreat and come back later. When it was pointed out to that last one that he was outvoted, he stood up and declared "Fine, if you're not going to listen to...
I'm only assuming that you run and play these games for fun yes? Because this is something that you actually enjoy doing? This person is making what you do in your free time for fun less pleasant and enjoyable. If this player's poor behavior is consistent and they are not willing to change, why are you even dealing with them? A friend, a REAL FREIND doesn't treat his/her friends like this.
Eject them from the game and MOVE ON.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell him you regret that you felt he had to drop, but accept his decision. Tell him he's still your friend, but obviously your gaming styles are incompatible. Thank him for having participated in your campaign and schedule some non-Pathfinder activity (a movie night) and invite him so that he knows that there are no hard feelings.
Hmm
Life is too short to be putting up with childish behavior like that. If he is going to act like a child then treat him like one. Give him a time out. When and if he modifies his behavior, then consider letting him back in to the group. At the very least, he should apologize.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Final warning with the certain knowledge that it is not acceptable behaviour?
Just because he has done it in the past doesn't mean it was dealt with properly. In fact if he was allowed to get away with it he may think it is a viable method of persuasion.
Maybe tell him you're new to DMing this group and are happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he really will only get one shot and if he messes it up, he will be booted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Final warning with the certain knowledge that it is not acceptable behaviour?
Just because he has done it in the past doesn't mean it was dealt with properly. In fact if he was allowed to get away with it he may think it is a viable method of persuasion.
Maybe tell him you're new to DMing this group and are happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he really will only get one shot and if he messes it up, he will be booted.
I'd agree with this approach.
Although I'm not optimistic he's going to change based on previous campaigns and the other DMs not being able to change his behaviour - I nonetheless think you should have at least one attempt yourself as DM. Partly that's to protect yourself from charges from him that you've 'booted him with no warning or explanation' - he sounds like a volatile person who may well leap to blame rather than self-reflection.
FWIW, I think it's a good experience as DM to learn some player-management anyhow. It won't always be this drastic, but over time you're going to need to be able to broach issues with your players that you won't really feel like raising, so you may as well get some practise in here, where it's already pretty close to being 'the end' anyhow.
It's one thing for a characters survival instinct to kick in and abandon the party, but this just seems like a hissy fit to me.
Either outright eject him, or try to have a conversation, but something tells me you won't get anywhere.
Also if he apparently plays really strong, powerful characters, why is he playing a rogue? That's like... the worst thing you can do.
1} What a character would do in-character, and how a player behaves shouldn't be linked. That the rogue was outvoted and might abandon the party is not unrealistic. Life & death decisions are serious. That the player abandoned the table and went to sleep is an entirely different thing.
2} If a player believes their characters are frequently "completely useless", there are a few possibilities that the player should consider. First, they are bad a character design. Second, that they are bad at keeping track of how often their characters are useful. Third, that their DMs are deliberately designing encounters and campaigns to marginalize his characters. In all three cases, the player has some serious thinking to do. They need to (respectively), either make better characters, stop making unfounded accusations/insinuations, or figure out why they are persecuted.
All of which boils down to: you've got a hot-head who intrinsically doesn't do well with cooperative games. Play squash with him, so he can mop the court with you and feel like a real man, but keep him out of team games.
1) I believe your rogue rogue (HA! I has jokes!) has done a great job writing himself out of the campaign. If he still wants to show up to sessions, let him -- just keep him in a separate room to add "realism" to the scenario, and periodically pop in to ask him to make a Survival check and describe his course of action. The rest of the time (97%+), you get to focus on the active participants, doing combat, telling stories, doling out loot, etc. If this player (clearly) enjoys getting to pout in-game, LET HIM!
Just let him pout somewhere in the arctic wilderness, all alone. Maybe he can make friendsmealtime with a polar bear, or something.
2) Don't tell him when the next session is scheduled. If he ever asks, to the best of your knowledge, his character was wandering aimlessly through the frozen wastes. Keep *very* accurate timeframe records of what the majority of the group achieves, so *maybe* he doesn't have to die because of his pride and narcissism. I've had characters in bear fights before -- doesn't take long to impress them with the foolishness of splitting the party . . . .
3) If he's going to be a prima donna, deal with him like Ike did Patton in WWII -- put him in charge of a fake army for a few months, all by his lonesome (relatively speaking), with no guts or glory to be found. He will either migrate onward or realize what a punk he's been -- the problem *should* correct itself!
Also if he apparently plays really strong, powerful characters, why is he playing a rogue? That's like... the worst thing you can do.
Are rogues not that strong? He hits really hard with sneak attacks, and basically always gets it (good stealth for opening snipe-attacks, and then dual-wielding, with 3 other members of the party being melee-focused for him to flank with). Other PCs like the Ranger and Sorceress are stronger in specific circumstances, but the rogue is the most consistently-powerful of the five of them.
If a player believes their characters are frequently "completely useless", there are a few possibilities that the player should consider. First, they are bad a character design. Second, that they are bad at keeping track of how often their characters are useful. Third, that their DMs are deliberately designing encounters and campaigns to marginalize his characters. In all three cases, the player has some serious thinking to do. They need to (respectively), either make better characters, stop making unfounded accusations/insinuations, or figure out why they are persecuted.
All of which boils down to: you've got a hot-head who intrinsically doesn't do well with cooperative games. Play squash with him, so he can mop the court with you and feel like a real man, but keep him out of team games.
That bit's not really a frequent occurrence. His characters are usually the strongest. He gets upset when a situation comes up that's amazing for one of the other PCs. As an example: They got into a fight with 3-dozen Strix at one point. He didn't shine in that fight because they couldn't be flanked from the ground, and flew outside of sneak attack range, but he didn't actually get bitter until the sorceress took out two-thirds of the enemies with one fireball. (I'd put that encounter in because I knew the sorceress was excited about playing a major caster for the first time, and particularly about having access to fireball. There were no other great opportunities for an impressive fireball in that adventure, so I worked one in. She was happy about it, like I'd hoped, but it's like he was mad that someone was doing better than him.)
With what you described, your group has already gone to all the lengths I would be willing to go to, and I would recommend anyone to go to, before just booting the player.
He's clearly not fit to function in a group, if he consistently walks out on the game just because he doesn't get to make all the executive decisions.
You say you have tried to talk it over with him and that achieved nothing. Basically that closes the case, anything you can do beyond that will end up coming across as passive agressive or openly antagonistic, and at that point its better to just honestly tell the player that he's not compatible with the group.
I'm on the vote that you are better off removing him from the game at this point. This will only get worse.
Since this is a party of 5, losing one character is fairly easily compensated for.
My proposed solution:
1) Discuss this with both him one-on-one and with the entire group together. Let him know that he is making things un-fun for the rest of the group; set ground rules and expectations (a "social contract") for the gaming sessions that the group as a whole (not just the GM) is responsible for.
2) Talk with the rest of the group about making characters that can fill in for each other in multiple roles if need be. Basically, this will help disarm the problem player of his capability to threaten ("I'm the only healer/tank/trap finder/etc., so I'm indispensable" is hard to pull off when others can step in without too much trouble), as well as making the party as a whole stronger.
3) If the player pitches a fit again and tries the "I'm taking my ball and going home" card, tell him "OK, see you..." and let him walk (permanently, if need be). Either he'll get a clue or the rest of the group will be able to deal with his absence.
The social aspect outside the gaming sessions is another topic altogether.
There comes a time in every young man's life when he must stop expecting others to shower praise for his accomplishments. That time is around age 10. When one of my kids acts out because they didn't get their way, I tell them what I have to say one time. No amount of hollering, door slamming, or stomping around is rewarded.
I would prevent this child from spoiling the evening by either...playing his character as an NPC (which it sounds like you would not want to do because he would be upset, but I would not care unless he was very young or has some serious emotional problem to explain his behaviour) or adding in an NPC. You could make it easy by giving them a powerful friend, or hard by giving them someone who is good with traps, but can barely do anything else. He could be someone they rescue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had players that make the game impossible to enjoy before, the longer you draw out his removal the worse it gets. I once had to boot my roommate out of a game, thankfully he got over it pretty quick.
If he's been warned repeatedly, talked to at length about the issue by other GMs... Boot him.
Kick the whiny baby out immediately.
Note: Not an actual unmentioned baby that might be around the table. The whiny player that refuses to play well with others and making the game into a toxic experience for everyone. THAT whiny baby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kick the whiny baby out immediately.
Note: Not an actual unmentioned baby that might be around the table. The whiny player that refuses to play well with others and making the game into a toxic experience for everyone. THAT whiny baby.
This guy is a babykicker! Hey everybody, get the baby-kicker! Rabble rabble!
I would start by talking to him and letting him know that his behaviour is unacceptable. I would let him know that if he is not happy about a decision, he shouldn't throw a temper tantrum. It's not acceptable with toddlers and it's not acceptable with adults. Yes, this is what I would tell my friends or strangers I am gaming with.
If that doesn't work, I would tell him that he shouldn't game with us then. I don't spend hours of my week working on an adventure to have it get derailed by a temper tantrum. The rest of the group doesn't need it and neither do I.
I have relatively little patience for tricks like this. Make it clear that if someone stomps off in a huff, you're fine with it - you aren't going to punish the party for his actions either. They'll be able to carry on just fine.
Once it's clear his actions aren't going to cripple the party, he can either play like an adult or not. It's his choice. But if his actions only hurt him, well, sucks to be him.
One sentence summary: I'm a first time GM, and my game came to a screeching halt when a player stood up and left the game after the rest of the party voted against what he wanted to do.
(His character abandoned the party and dungeon... and walked right into the frozen antarctic wastes, at least two weeks from the nearest civilization. He's got no survival skill, and he just walked away from the ranger PC who got the group out here. Also they'd already gotten past the dungeon's only trap by that point. Heh.)
You have the classic player that I call an F.F.P., Fu** Face Player.
First off: his character just walked out into an arctic wasteland, good, have him make a survival check to not get lost. If he does get lost, then he has to roll for exposure based on how cold it is. With any luck, his character will die due to his own idiotic decisions.
Secondly, when you have a player pull this crap, you need to—~need to~—throw it right back in his or her face. Making pointedly anti-party choices is never acceptable because the they would replace the offending character as soon as possible.
This behavior is endemic to people who are relatively new at RPGs and those who just have a slight superiority complex. Really, you just need to tell the offending player that his or her character would not logically do what he just had it do. If a character is party of a party, that character has agreed to support the other characters to the end. He or she might not be all in for helping with menial or trivial tasks, but walking around in an extremely dangerous location is neither of the above.
Easy way to do it is to have a character who is just all around better than the player's character show up who is all in for helping the party. This character might be a fey creature (since you said the player's character is a rogue) who out rogues him at every step (Atomies are fantastic for this). Make sure the player and the "superior replacement" are rivals who hate one another, and furthermore have the replacement make fun of the character who just decided to abandon the party.
This method of mocking and replacing infantile players ensures that the players who act like this understand that their characters, while great, are not the driving life-blood of the party. It also teaches them that just because they decide to break character and throw a Trigglypuff style temper-tantrum, it doesn't mean that anyone is going to care.
In essence, your P.P. or Problem Player is attempting to punish the other players by not participating. In return, you should not give him XP for anything the other players are doing, and, if anything, increase their XP by splitting the XP by one less person. Mr. Fussypants might be better built than the players, but when they're one or two levels higher than he is, that will change.
If someone walks out after a snitfit - assume DM control of their character and use them as an NPC as close to their intended personality as you can for the rest of the adventure. Basically they become a free cohort.
If snitfit *IS* their personality, and they're carrying it way too far, to the point where it's just a problem - kill them off. Replace with a hireling or cohort or a suitable deus ex machina. Make them reroll to continue in that campaign. PF is a cooperative game, not a free for all.
Honestly, if the player is doing this a lot... they have some social problems to overcome. You can try talking to them and giving them more chances, but as DM you need to have a firm control of the overall experience. If they consistently spoil the game - don't play with them until they get their act in-line.
When I've had players refuse to do something because they don't like the plan (but not get to the point of walking out); I resort to dice rolls. Take the member of the party with the best diplomacy, and have the rest of the players assist him/her, odds are good they cannot resist that sense motive v diplomacy check. They're often still upset, but with the game itself making their characters "convinced" - they tend to be less angry about it.
|
|
The problem with relying on game mechanics to deal with persistently problematic players is it can fail, and they may not get the message and in the worst case become even more belligerent. If he's as consistently and persistently awful as you've made it sound... Boot him, replace his character with an NPC (or let a player who can handle it play two characters, or just have a free cohort) end of story. The players shouldn't have to suffer him longer than they have to and they shouldn't have to suffer any nonsense that is risked by attempting to "teach him a lesson," particularly when it doesn't seem he'll learn.
The reason I say this is I've attempted the "kill off the character" with bad results, I've attempted every method I can think of to avoid booting a player and hopefully teach him a lesson... It rarely works out, every player I've attempted these things for got kicked out in the end, and it was so much worse for having drawn it out.
You say he's been like this in other games before, and he has had The Talk several times already?
I think you know what to do.
|
|
Why did the other players not want to heed his advice to come back later with better preparation ? That does sound like the smartest thing to do.
Did you arrange the stryx encounter just so the sorceress could fireball them and get all the glory while the other characters just watched and saw how great she was ?
I can see how it could make a player angry ("GM's pet" syndrome does exist) at what he perceives as an unfair treatment.
Your group just might have a case of people wanting different things about the game. Maybe he feels that he is the only one treating it seriously (as realistic PCs would do) while all others are just using it as an excuse to get their kicks, realism be damned.
In any case it would be better to ask him why he behaves this way and to REALLY listen to him, rather than risk being sanctimonious, which will just aggravate things further.
Are rogues not that strong? He hits really hard with sneak attacks, and basically always gets it (good stealth for opening snipe-attacks, and then dual-wielding, with 3 other members of the party being melee-focused for him to flank with). Other PCs like the Ranger and Sorceress are stronger in specific circumstances, but the rogue is the most consistently-powerful of the five of them.
...
That bit's not really a frequent occurrence. His characters are usually the strongest. He gets upset when a situation comes up that's amazing for one of the other PCs. As an example: They got into a fight with 3-dozen Strix at one point. He didn't shine in that fight because they couldn't be flanked from the ground, and flew outside of sneak attack range, but he didn't actually get bitter until the sorceress took out two-thirds of the enemies with one fireball. (I'd put that encounter in because I knew the sorceress was excited about playing a major caster for the first time, and particularly about having access to fireball. There were no other...
What I am reading is that this is a major ongoing issue in regards to the player - he generally plays the most effective character (effective does NOT equal powerful, so let's use what he's being - effective), but when it comes time for other PCs to shine, he b~#+*es that he's 'useless'.
All right. If you can, snag any other of your GMs for a gaming-group intervention. Start with letting him know that there is a large 'however' following your opening statement - then open by telling him you enjoy his company.
HOWEVER.
He needs to grow up as a player, and perhaps as an individual. There are five other people (four other players + GM) at the table, and everyone wants to have fun. Let him know that in a gaming session, everyone should have time in the spotlight - and that up until now, he's been a prima donna spotlight hog. Inform him that no, his behavior is neither adult nor acceptable - and if any of the GMs have kids, they will probably be able to admit that 'taking his ball and going home' is about the most pouty childish thing there is to do when you're playing with other people.
Let him know that ICA=ICC: in-character actions have in-character consequences. His in-character action of leaving the dungeon may result in his character's death if he doesn't manage to make the Survival checks.
Let him also know that OOCA=OOCC: out-of-character actions have out-of-character consequences. That next time, his walking away from the table will be considered quitting the game, and that his character becomes property of the GM, for results as the GM sees fit. One of my old GMs had the characters of such ragequit players die - but not even in a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' situation. The proud warrior-from-a-warrior-culture got her head cracked open in a bar fight; the dwarf out to redeem his honor as a slayer (WFRP) died of a heart-attack within sight of the town gate.
TL;DR: "We like you, man, but this sh!t ain't cool. Play with us, and we're good; ragequit again, and there's only gonna be four player chairs at the table."
This guy is a babykicker! Hey everybody, get the baby-kicker! Rabble rabble!Kick the whiny baby out immediately.
Note: Not an actual unmentioned baby that might be around the table. The whiny player that refuses to play well with others and making the game into a toxic experience for everyone. THAT whiny baby.
But are they goblin babies?
But are they goblin babies?This guy is a babykicker! Hey everybody, get the baby-kicker! Rabble rabble!Kick the whiny baby out immediately.
Note: Not an actual unmentioned baby that might be around the table. The whiny player that refuses to play well with others and making the game into a toxic experience for everyone. THAT whiny baby.
My gods, what kind of monster kicks a baby?
The party was actually in perfect condition at this point. They'd fought their way in past trolls, a trap that dropped rocks, and earth elementals that attacked them from among those rocks, then went back to the dungeon's entrance room to rest. They encountered the devil after that, with everything full. Hp, spell slots, etc. I believe the player was actually suggesting leaving the dungeon, traveling 2 weeks to civilization, getting help there, then coming back (another 2 weeks).
On the Strix encounter: I basically did design that one for the sorceress (or specifically her fireball spell) to shine, yes, because there was going to be nowhere in the dungeon where she could cast that spell without hitting allies. She was excited about that spell in particular, and I wanted to give her a chance to use it.
(What's the difference between "Strongest" and "Most Effective" that Wyrm Ouroboros is describing? I'm not sure I get it.)
I've been playing this game and its many iterations for a very long time. You are going to run into players like this and my only advice is... Let them leave. Let them get up and leave and don't give it another thought. This is a game. If it's not fun for someone then they shouldn't be playing.
(What's the difference between "Strongest" and "Most Effective" that Wyrm Ouroboros is describing? I'm not sure I get it.)
A rogue is utterly useless in combat unless he can flank and get sneak attack. They are not strong, at all. They are extremely situational, and several classes/archetypes do what a rogue does 10x better.
However if he has 2 flank buddies, and he can reliably get a flanking bonus, then he can be very effective, but without them he's just dead weight.
So as a tip, make it hard for him to flank. Have multiple enemies in an encounter, use strategy and tactics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have a rogue in the party who does very well and with various magic tricks often has better armour than the tanks. Sneak attack with multiple attacks from two weapon fighting is great.
It has proven to be a character that does not dominate everyone else at the table but does reliably do good damage and get the party out of trouble.
For example in the BBEG fight this evening, he won initiative by a comfortable margin; leapt onto the Demon's bed ignoring the difficult terrain pillows and silks in between; sneak attacked her before she acted; cast cure serious wounds with a wand twice bringing back an unconscious brawler; avoided all the fireball damage from the BBEG; ignored the sneak damage from two babu then killed one with full attack two weapon sneak damage from flanking; then when dimension door'ed out of the dungeon to 200ft up in the air by the BBEG, disarmed the demon of her wand of dimension door, swallow dived 200ft into a lagoon and then used the wand to dimension door back to the dungeon room.
Certainly not dead weight.
This really is a playing attitude issue, not a character build issue anyhow. It doesn't really matter whether you're good or bad relative to the other PCs and relative to the campaign challenges. Storming off when you don't get your way isn't conducive to other people's fun so it shouldn't be tolerated long term (unless your group is really, really forgiving of such behaviour, but it doesn't sound like it from the aftermath).
I think the only decision to make really is whether you speak to him about it and provide one more opportunity for reforming his tantrums or whether you treat the other DMs' discussions as his 'last chance' and take more drastic action immediately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, I'm not a GM who likes to kick players for being brats, but this sounds like its one of those times where,if he were my player, I'd have to ask him to leave the table. if it were just his character being uncooperative, it'd be one thing, that's just being in character, but stomping off and going to bed because no one wants to listen to his plans is a dragon of another color entirely
Side note: I don't see anything wrong with creating some made to order situations for any one player playing a new class to shine, it encourages enthusiasm for their class choice