Advice about a problem player...


Advice

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Passive aggression and rocks fall you die are both bad choices here. It's an OOC problem, it needs to be dealt with OOC.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How old is this person? If they have been playing since 2nd edition, that's at least 17 years, so I assume we are talking about someone in their 30s (at least). I agree with most of the other folks who have responded - This is probably not someone you ought to keep playing with. I also have trouble seeing how they could be a good friend out of game when they clearly care so little about whether the rest of you are enjoying yourselves when you play - someone who has been an a$$hat for a couple of decades of RPGing is likely to be an a$$hat the rest of the time, too.


I've been until recently lucky having the same group more or less for fifteen year. Two players, father and son are both rules lawyers and occasionally jerks. The son who is collage age shows more maturity then this guy. Even when I ran two evil campaigns our group had less conflict.
The player isn't going to change so you need to. Tell him enough stop his crap. You could lose him, good riddance. He isn't going to stop because you won't stop him. I'd rather and have not played then play with this guy.


Sometimes you've just got put people in their place, especially if you're GM.

I've had meta-gamers start to really impact on campaigns and I've just stopped the game mid session and done it... and in front of everyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Add me to the list of voices saying this is an OOC problem involving a player who doesn't seem to respect you or the other members of your group, and is prioritizing his own interests over the group's fun.

Personally, I would not hesitate for a second to boot him out at this stage. The interventions to date have been unsuccessful, and he is clearly the type to leverage any advantage he can against you -- I suspect he knows you are keeping him around so the game does not collapse, and relying on that when issuing his ultimatums of 'evil character or nothing'. He also seems highly immature and incapable of seeing things from any perspective but his own (as evidenced by his many complaints of feeling picked on and taking in-character actions personally while expecting others not to do the same).

If there are valid reasons for not kicking him out (which I think is something only you can really determine), I still think resolution starts at an OOC level. I think you need to decide on what kind of game you want to run and the group wants to play (which sound to be in alignment), and take the time to inform him and the other players that they will all be expected to work within that. If that means no evil characters, so be it. If that means realistic consequences to player actions, so be it. After directly communicating that, your job is then to consistently enforce those rules and expectations, regardless of how he acts out in response.

Maybe -- just maybe -- he will eventually take the hint and start acting (more) appropriately. I find it unlikely given his stated history and lack of improvement to date, and personally would have neither the time nor patience for the attempt, but I do wish you well if this is the path you end up taking.


Steve Geddes wrote:

I wouldn't put any further work into accommodating him.

Rather, I'd put that work into persuading the others that a group of 3 PCs is fine (better than a group of 3 PCs and another character detracting from the group).

I prefer groups of four players because you have more tools in the party's bag of tricks to handle problems and one more set of hands when things start to go downhill, but three players is fun because the game moves much more quickly. Party composition is even more important, just as it is more lax in groups of five.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to echo pretty much everyone else - if he's a problem with every game you play, you should be playing no games with him. Period.

You keep saying you and your other friends are trying to get him to learn, to change. He's not going to change if he doesn't want to or have to. By tolerating him basically being a toxic gamer, he's going to stay a toxic gamer.

If your game breaks up because he's not playing (which I have to say is weird if everyone's having problems with his behavior - unless he gives someone a lift to the game on a regular basis), then let it break up, take a break for a while, and then try to come back together a bit refreshed with a bit of distance from the situation and ready to play - without the disruptive player from the get go.


The issues you describe in your posts are frighteningly similar to tactics used by my six year-old to try and get his way: "If you don't let me do X, I will do Y". The difference is that I call his bluff, while it appears that you have been backing down to his threats, so he has very little reason to end his approach.

So what if he does quit? Would you rather continue emasculating yourself? (And I mean "emasculate" in the non-gender sense as in, "I emasculated myself by caving in to the unreasonable demands of a player who uses brinksmanship to get his way, thereby encouraging the behavior to continue, and diminishing any leverage I had as GM").

Yeah, yeah, we have all heard you say that if you don't let him have his way, he will quit. So what? He is ruining a game. Why play at all if it is simply not fun?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a few ideas on the subject aside from the very good posts that are here.

1.) Have him take over some villainy roles, kind of a DM assistant. This would be useful because he could play the bad guy and harass the players but within a game world you control. Of course you have to make it clear that these villains he plays will eventually die at the party's hands. If he's doing some villain/monster stuff you can make an NPC to balance the party out.

2.) Change the content up a little and have the goal be to for the other players to destroy this character, or a ritual to send him off to his god's plane or something. Of course he has to be aware and agree

3. There is always the tried and true dominate person :) A little heavy handed I know but there is also charms to motivate him mechanically.

4) Adjust your content to account for his antics, a lot of work I know and your not psychic but depending on how much prep time you have you might be able to create some cause and effect bubbles concerning his character.

5.) Throw a few Good aligned outsiders in there like angels, and the rest of the party takes a knee because the refuse to raise a weapon against these angelic beings (Angels, very powerful angles haha, maybe he takes a few down and feels good then he dies and it's new character time!)

6.) Inquistor steals his gear and holds it ransom. PVP I know, but an option. S+$* could go down and players may have to kill him.

7.) Players come across a power entity that provides a wish/miracle spell and his powers/class features only come on line when he's not doing chaotic stupid stuff.

That's just a few, I'm sure there is more but I do agree that you should spend a little time looking for new players or perhaps teaching a few friends/family members the game for replacement.

Once you have your table you have leverage meaning you decide if he plays or not. Also talk to your party see if they are concretely willing to continue without him, we can't assume they won't without them actually saying "Ya if he goes I'm gone too". I play just fine with a 3 man team plus dm, just adjust the difficulty or give them mythic power.

Good luck I hope things work out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm assuming "mulligan" is a term you're using for giving the player a pass on things that should kill them. Stop doing that and let him die. Actions have consequences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So to give everyone an update, I really appreciate the input.

I've stopped pulling my punches after trying to resolve this OOC and not really getting any headway.

Recent event, the group needed the help of a pirate captain and their ship to severely cut down some travel time to get from their location to where they need to go, in exchange the group had to take care of a little problem for the pirate captain. No problem, the group handled it - involved removing a curse from a friend of theirs that basically turned them into a loathesome undead. The group broke the curse and saved the person (best scenario) without the evil characters help. Everything was good so far, only catch was the transformation horribly aged the poor woman so she was alive but the curse had taken it's toll on her.

The group retired to the tavern for the evening, but the evil player character came to the pirate captain - offered to turn the old woman into a vampire and offered to summon a Contract Devil so the old woman could sell her soul while she was at it (he genuinely believed this to be a truly stellar idea without any drawbacks and he could profit from it), all without the rest of the party's knowledge.

Needless to say the pirate captain did not take the news well. They frogmarched him out the tavern and made it clear he ruined the transport for his friends. The rest of the party was livid with him, this allowed the situation to resolve itself on its own as the party lost their ever loving s**t with the player.

He was forced to grovel on his knees by them in an attempt to placate the pirate captain, who after a very high Diplomacy roll agreed, albeit the evil character is under the heel of the others now who have by now finally had enough.

The party has made it clear regardless of taking them along on the ship, they will finish the character off themselves (which happens next session) and as a collective we are not allowing him to create another evil character again if he chooses to keep playing. If he doesn't I have spoken to the players and gotten their Buy in to commit to a smaller game with less players should that happen.

The player naturally thinks the pirate's reaction was "overboard" (who wouldn't want to be a vampire? selling their soul when they seen undead is free stuff since they don't need it anyway, etc) and complained about her being heavy handed. I didn't budge on it, I explained the Pirate views the old woman as a mother figure and not everyone thinks becoming undead is a great idea - she's insulted that she even suggested doing that to her, if it wasn't for the fact the group saved her she would have obliterated her with her two Cannon Golems she had on standby.

Thanks for the input everyone, seems it's worked itself out.


Errant_Epoch wrote:

Yeah but sometimes these threads can be cathartic to the OP. I mean most of us have been here before. There's always that one person who want's to be the CE or CN, greedy, selfish, backstabby, type character. Eventually most of them grow up and realize that it's far more fun to play amid the group and enhance each others fun than to play in an adversarial way.

To the OP, that's all you can do is try to be patient and then if that fails, cut your losses. Otherwise you're effectively punishing yourself.

you can play both CE and CN with out being a greedy,selfish, backstabby character


Just want to echo what Lady-J said (not neccesarily about CE) Im a chaotic neutral Veiled illusionist with serious mind manipulation powers and while it can annoy a good character (claims hes neutral good - more lawful if you ask me) i think i manage to keep it entertaining.

A couple of times it possibly could have caused problems the GM has dealt with it amazingly.Gm Thought i was brainwashing too many people so created a villain with a ridiculous will save (actually too ridiculous, he rolled a 2 and still saved - he has since reduced it slightly.
Another time i was torturing a dwarf to get plans for Drill Manor (Im not evil honest ... i was going to cast false alibi so he forgot all about it, was a bit edgy i suppose) and the GM made the dwarf commit suicide. That caused me to go into terrible remorse.

Point im making is a good gm can normally deal with dodginess as long as the player isnt a prick


There you go. I'm glad things seem to be working out. Stay strong guys like this will try and take advantage whenever they can.


They? You've got more than one such trouble player? Urgh, time to disband the table.


Goblin_Priest wrote:
They? You've got more than one such trouble player? Urgh, time to disband the table.

I think the OP meant "he" on several instances when he or she wrote "they". I noticed this as well, and it made it very hard to read, but I felt awkward about pointing it out in my response.

For the record, my understanding is that the OP has only a single problem player.


The latest version of the AP Stylebook allows for use of the "singular they" pronoun, and they're a lot stricter on grammar than virtually everybody else.

So I didn't think there was anything ambiguous in the OP.


GM's problem. he should have killed the character.

This is not actually a player problem yet. It could be after enough corpses. But yes she is just playing the character and her character should be dead.

The party is dumb for adventuring with her.

Evil characters can work but the GM and the party are not roleplaying their characters in any reasonable way.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The latest version of the AP Stylebook allows for use of the "singular they" pronoun, and they're a lot stricter on grammar than virtually everybody else.

So I didn't think there was anything ambiguous in the OP.

"They" has been adopted as a new usage for the neuter second person pronoun. The "singular They" has been around forever as a replacement for "his or her," but in recent years has seen a lot broader usage. Several major language organizations have already adopted it as acceptable formal usage.


ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

So to give everyone an update, I really appreciate the input.

I've stopped pulling my punches after trying to resolve this OOC and not really getting any headway.

Recent event, the group needed the help of a pirate captain and their ship to severely cut down some travel time to get from their location to where they need to go, in exchange the group had to take care of a little problem for the pirate captain. No problem, the group handled it - involved removing a curse from a friend of theirs that basically turned them into a loathesome undead. The group broke the curse and saved the person (best scenario) without the evil characters help. Everything was good so far, only catch was the transformation horribly aged the poor woman so she was alive but the curse had taken it's toll on her.

The group retired to the tavern for the evening, but the evil player character came to the pirate captain - offered to turn the old woman into a vampire and offered to summon a Contract Devil so the old woman could sell her soul while she was at it (he genuinely believed this to be a truly stellar idea without any drawbacks and he could profit from it), all without the rest of the party's knowledge.

Needless to say the pirate captain did not take the news well. They frogmarched him out the tavern and made it clear he ruined the transport for his friends. The rest of the party was livid with him, this allowed the situation to resolve itself on its own as the party lost their ever loving s**t with the player.

He was forced to grovel on his knees by them in an attempt to placate the pirate captain, who after a very high Diplomacy roll agreed, albeit the evil character is under the heel of the others now who have by now finally had enough.

The party has made it clear regardless of taking them along on the ship, they will finish the character off themselves (which happens next session) and as a collective we are not allowing him to create another evil character again if he chooses to keep playing. If he doesn't I...

The pirates reaction was overboard. SHe offered to do it. SHe didn't do it. Your g$~ d$+n pirate isn't a paladin.

There is serious GMing problems here. Even if the pirate was that offended , he should have killed her not f over the party.

You are being antagonistic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah man! If someone I'm doing a favor for went and asked to turn my best friend into an undead abomination and sell her soul to the Nine Hells obviously my response would be a stern shake of the head and then forget about the whole incident.

Geez man, pirates may not be paladins, but most people will take offers to damn their friends to an eternity of torment poorly to say the least. Also the pirate only refused to transport the party in the wake, the party is the one who's dealing with their "ally" after smoothing over that incident.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Realizing that I was not there and thus am the perfect person to comment on this entire situation (not really knowing anything about the circumstances makes me the expert right?), it looks to me like the OP is handling his problem fine. Much better than I would. I've been playing RPGs a long time, and over the years I have started to loose my patience with "Problem Children". I'd just kick him out. Is it worth the effort to try to reform him? Not for me it isn't. 30 years ago I would have tried to. 20 years ago I would have put some effort into it... 10 years ago, I would have even thought about it and would have put the effort into it if they guy brought something else to the game besides an anti-social outlook. Now? Kick him out and don't look back.

I sort of wonder how many people have been avoiding the OPs group because of the "problem child". The "Socially Challenged Player" has been in the hobby for a number of years... how many players in his local area will recognize him, and avoid any group he is in? I wonder if really there are more than 3 players available, or are there only 3 that will still sit at a table with the "problem child"?


Really, like most problems of this sort, there is no conceivable good reason why, in character, the other PCs would tolerate keeping the evil PC in their group.


Saldiven wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

The latest version of the AP Stylebook allows for use of the "singular they" pronoun, and they're a lot stricter on grammar than virtually everybody else.

So I didn't think there was anything ambiguous in the OP.

"They" has been adopted as a new usage for the neuter second person pronoun. The "singular They" has been around forever as a replacement for "his or her," but in recent years has seen a lot broader usage. Several major language organizations have already adopted it as acceptable formal usage.

Interesting to know!

While I'm happy to accept that it is grammatically correct as a substitute for "he or she" or "his or her" (which I tend to use for gender neutrality), OP referred to the player as he/him, so it seemed to me that there was no need for gender neutral language. Accordingly, I found the varied usage of "he" and "they" in the original post confusing, particularly when OP was making reference to the problem player's actions and the group's response.

It seems like I was not the only one, but it isn't a big deal, and not something I would have commented on apart from Goblin_Priest's post about there being multiple problem players (which I thought I could help clarify).

As to the original issue, glad to see that things have been proceeding more smoothly of late. I'd echo Derek Dalton's note about staying vigilant against a recurrence of bad behaviour in the future though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
nosig wrote:
I sort of wonder how many people have been avoiding the OPs group because of the "problem child". The "Socially Challenged Player" has been in the hobby for a number of years... how many players in his local area will recognize him, and avoid any group he is in? I wonder if really there are more than 3 players available, or are there only 3 that will still sit at a table with the "problem child"?

As someone who would absolutely avoid a group for this reason, I suspect you might be spot on here. Especially since, as OP mentioned earlier, he's been through multiple groups before.


Did you ever think that it could be also your fault?

I've dealt with problematic players multiple times, and I can tell you that if you want to stop them, you can. So while his initial behaviour is his own fault, the fact that he keeps pulling this crap is also your fault.

Here's a few way to approach the situation:

1. THE "EASY WAY OUT": since talking to him OOC didn't get results, just kick him out of the group. Be honest, and tell him that while you enjoy his friendship IRL, he's behaving like an ass in game.

2. THE "ABDUCTION" Simply take out his character. He could be actually kidnapped, or just get killed, or when arrested given death penalty or life sentence. There are plenty of ways to take him out without hurting the rest of the party.

3. THE "AN EYE FOR AN EYE": he makes your life (and your players) a living hell? Do the same. Put him against impossible odds. Get him constantly arrested by guards, spending time in jail while the party can play through town; have him contract a very rare disease with an impossible saving throw, something that hits his most important stats; have him cursed by a deity, so that he has to re-roll any successful attack or skill check; do stuff like that, making the game terrible for him unless he changes behaviour. He starts behaving? Good! His reputation will go up, so won't be constantly arrested. Maybe he finds the cure. Maybe the deity lifts the curse because he repents.

4. THE "OPPENHEIMER": "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds". As a DM, you are above everything else; with a snap of your fingers even deities can die. Since the party doesn't seem like it's doing anything to stop him, but yet complains about him, punish them all. TPK can seem a harsh solution, but it's still one. Maybe make one or two of them survive, but other players die often puts things in a different prospective.

5. THE "BYE BYE": he causes troubles, but without big consequences. Next time, have the consequences be so massive that the party's only choice is to leave him behind. If the party actually hates how he behaves, they won't go towards sure death if they can simply abandon him. Take your deity example: the god himself could have intervened, forcing the party to either fight the divine, or let the god smite their "friend".

And so on... Those are just ideas, some harsher than others, to deal with him. But if you let him get away with everything, he has no reason to stop. Taking away his powers (hitting his stats, or actually taking away spells and such with some exploit) and wealth can often change a player's behaviour.

Any DM should always have some ruling about what he accepts and what not. Saying NO to a player is always an option, but it has to be thought trough. Many DM don't allow delicate topics such as torture or assaults. Other don't let players turn against each other, from stealing from a fellow member to trying to hit them or kill them in their sleep. Everyone has his "NO" moment, even if you try to allow everything there will always be something you will say NO to. So start saying no to him.

As a DM, I punish players if they ruin the game for the rest of the party. As a player I'm more limited, which is why I blame my DM if he doesn't do anything solid to stop him.

From your examples, it seems like you let him get away with anything. He gets arrested? Oh, he'll just get out if he promises not to break the rules (which he will, both because the player is a jerk and because the character is CE). He curses a deity in their own temples? Oh well, someone will get upset, but no biggie.
PUNISH HIM. You don't want.to kill him? Fine, cut off one of his limbs as a punishment; or his tongue. Have him cursed by the deity. DO SOMETHING.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Yeah man! If someone I'm doing a favor for went and asked to turn my best friend into an undead abomination and sell her soul to the Nine Hells obviously my response would be a stern shake of the head and then forget about the whole incident.

Geez man, pirates may not be paladins, but most people will take offers to damn their friends to an eternity of torment poorly to say the least. Also the pirate only refused to transport the party in the wake, the party is the one who's dealing with their "ally" after smoothing over that incident.

Cause no one would find being a vampire with eternal youth and beauty a temping offer. (especially not someone who recently had their vigor and life stolen from them)

Especially not a pirate or his mother with all their vast earthly wealth.

There definitely hasn't been an endless series of pirate movies about one guy selling his soul to raise one ship from the ocean floor and the insuring consequences.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah and there isn't an endless series of fictional pirates who are swashbuckling rapscallions with hearts of gold am I right?

It's not GM antagonism that a pirate happened to not want to condemn her old chum to the 9 Hells or be cursed to live as an undead abomination, it's just basic NPC working. Maybe in the next life the player should make sure the person is receptive to such acts before rolling out the diabolism/necromancy sales pitch. I personally have no sympathy for Stupid Evil players. Let his head roll.


Oh wait, never mind. You said above that the situation has been resolved.

So... um... puppies?


I feel like "not being able to go in the sun" is going to be a big problem if you spend a lot of your time on ships near the equator. Moreover "selling one's soul" seems contrary to the pirate ethos of a ship's captain serving no master but themselves.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "not being able to go in the sun" is going to be a big problem if you spend a lot of your time on ships near the equator. Moreover "selling one's soul" seems contrary to the pirate ethos of a ship's captain serving no master but themselves.

only if you become the kind of vampire that burns up in the sun


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to clarify this place they're in is a tropical island where the sun is in the sky most of the day, being a vampire would suck (no pun intended) and had the player decided to do the most basic of Gather Information rolls (which they did not) they would find the islanders have had huge problems with undead and have NO love for them.

Again he didn't even do the basic rolls to find that out.

Luckily the party's Paladin had made a good rapport with the Pirate Captain (who's CN alignment) and is basically the governor of their own city, the Pirate is more than happy to rule her little kingdom. The player only had himself to blame for the mistake (12th instance of making assumptions about others).

The party Paladin luckily saved the groups skin with a good Diplomacy roll in the High 30's, this took the captain down to Indifferent towards them (they would have all suffered the same fate otherwise)

What's more, he genuinely believed he could take on a God (he personally went into a temple of Orcus and offended him before running off) and had NO remorse that Demons could be sent by Orcus which might attack the party too by just being around the character. He believed that Orcus should not be able to send anything he can't handle thinking adventures adhere to a certain CR range in encounters. I told him this didn't apply to Gods, who had a infinite pool of resources to pull from.

He refused to awknowledge his situation was bad and what danger he put the party in, so they turned on him and he was basically left to Orcus as a peace offering to get off their backs so they can continue their quest. Now he's done - I'm not going to let it bother us, we will enjoy the game without him if he cannot be adult about it and learn from his mistakes.


Don't vampires have a problem with water?


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Don't vampires have a problem with water?

again it entirely depends on the type of vampire


True; I think classic vampires die in running water


I think there might be something about not being able to cross running water either. Like not even on a bridge in some versions soooo yeah being on a boat might not be ideal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This whole post is a trap. You don't want this player to disrupt the game, but he/she will only play abrasive characters. As a GM you allowed a Chaotic Evil Cleric and a Paladin in the same group, this decision was doomed from the start. Most advise is too get rid of the player and you constantly have reason why you can't, and then add more reasons why they need to get the boot.

Some of these situations should never even come up, the easy communications with Orcus...why even have that possible? Turning NPCs into mummies and having NPCs confrontational about a Charm Person, that is what Charm Person prevents, if this player is a power gamer that NPC shouldn't have any issues, it will simply never win the contested cha rolls and will be a friend. Too much leeway is given to this player and therefore they are out of control, step back and look at your GM style and see if maybe you encourage some of the behavior. Many of the punishment you seem to hand out are pretty heavy handed, and will not sway that player to play differently.

I am not trying to call you a bad GM, just pointing out that you allowed this player/character in the group, so you and the other players need to decide if you want these conflicts...before the game even starts would have been best. PVP gaming always pisses someone off, why encourage it.


I completely agree with Rhaleroad. You gave him the chance to do most of this stuff, without stopping him.

This is one of the reasons many DM prohibit Evil alignments: people don't know the difference between an Evil character and a dumb psychopath.

CN characters COULD work with a Paladin if they are willing to do a lot of stuff without being seen. Pretending to leave an offering on the alter, while actually taking something of more value. Pretending to be a good fella by offering some food to a beggar, but having it poisoned with something that takes a while to kill him (so that the Paladin sees you do a "good action", which is an evil one in reality). And so on...
Clearly your friend is not into that kind of gameplay, so it doesn't work.

And whatever "He believed" doesn't really matter. You are the DM, you make the rules. Even the player handbook says that the rules are just there to help, but the DM has unlimited power over it.

I'm glad to see the party woke up and left him behind. Now, you can either kick him from the table, or give him a seconda chance forcing him with a non evil alignment. See how he behaves, and if he creates problems you just take him out OOC. No need for explanations, he will just vanish like if he was an illusion.


Give him DAS BOOT!

In all honesty, he reminds me of a friend of mine that I no longer play Pathfinder with. Nice guy in real life, but always the type to play asshat characters.

One time, he took the gnome alchemist that served as the party healer and literally used him to break down a door, causing the gnome to just about die. It caused a PvP situation and, when I asked what the hell was his whole idea, the only response was "My character is like Conan. He's a CG barbarian that likes to break doors with people."

Well yeah... but not with the guy responsible for keeping you alive. You're only CG if you break down doors with villains, not with a NG HEALER.

I think most people see 'chaotic' and say, "Hey, this chaotic alignment sure looks fun. Let me roleplay the gaming equivalent of an ingrown hair on someone's ass and shame everyone with an alignment argument when they get tired of my Poe's Law antics."

Or maybe people just see 'chaotic' and assume that means the character must be clinically insane. One of the two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I value everyone's opinions, but as for setting this up as a trap I disagree.

The Reign Of Winter campaign (which I've personalized to some extent) had them all under Baba Yaga's Geas so that was the reason everyone was working together for that reason, compelled by her Mythic level magics.

It's been resolved, after failing to ever use Diplomacy as intended (or at all) he got the party to resolve the problem themselves. He was his own worst enemy in this.

I am not tolerating his "it's chaotic evil or nothing" arguements anymore, we will continue without him if he cannot change. He also has ZERO accountability for his actions, it's always some PC or NPC or GM's fault that this or that didn't go his way.

The party got its wish and got rid of the toxic element, now they can work together and not worry about the priest causing trouble for the group any further.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi,

Just wanted to put my two cents in here as ID is my GM and he is a great one at that.

We all love his creativity and his willingness to let us be who we want to be. So those who are suggesting it thay is a GM problem it is DEFINITELY NOT !

The whole relationship with offending party is very nuanced and it's also private - So I can see how it can be confusing to an outsider looking in without divulging the particulars of our personal lives which ISN'T up for discussion.

The player in question was most certainly the problem. I am the Paladin and that means I butted heads with him the most.

The "evil" character's player takes everything very personally so these disagreements bled into real life and I actually spent a good chunk of my evening trying to get through to him.

I told him " When your character does something I don't like I address it in character and roll with the punches - I can't make you behave how your character wouldn't behave - But behaviours have consequence. You think you should be free of them and we should just accept it just because.

When my character or another player character reacts the way their character would you get mad and claim they are being heavy handed and have a fit and basically tell us how we should be playing our characters. We want you to afford us the same respect we give you."

Long story short the converstation didn't fare well and he quit.

He wanted his way or no way and we told him we are sorry he felt that way.

The group size is not a problem to be honest. That part is just our GM being a little paranoid we appreicate the hard decisions and hard work he put into all this. Being the boss is a heavy burden and you can feel it weighing down more heavily on certain days especially when it involves dealing with a 18 year friendship. I Can't wait for this weekend :)

The Exchange

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:
The group is heavily good except for the Tiefling player who regardless of any game has to play the most evil characters around (they will not play even neutral characters)

IMHO, You should start your next session off and basically present to your players that it's time for the "Blaze of Glory Session". Tell them you're not having fun trying to deal with how to manage the party of good characters along side the single evil character, so you have several options to present them.

1: The good Characters can finally rise up and put down the evil character in a Blaze of Glory. (and find a replacement good/neutral companion)

2: The Evil character can assassinate the good characters and walk out in a Blaze of Glory. (to find new evil companions)

3: The party can remain together and some of their 'allies' that have been wronged band together and put down the band of adventurers (protecting this clearly evil character) in a Blaze of Glory. (Ultimately end the campaign and start a new one with rules restricting opposed alignments, and possibly even limiting power gaming at GM discretion)

4: If none of the above are acceptable then maybe it's just time for all of you to find something else to do while hanging out with your friends.

The Exchange

if you start checking around for a replacement player (or 2, or 3), be sure to mention that "Problem Player" is no longer a member of the group. It might just help some players decide to try your group... now that the "toxic atmosphere" has been reduced.


The pirate captain rescinding his reward after the evil pc made her offer is a dick move. It's the GM getting the players to harp on the player's play style. That was pretty terrible and shows you guys were pushing him out of the player group.

This was after you failed to deal with his antics in character. She should be dead.

Instead you worried about his out of character response and didn't give him a chance to act like an adult.

I have little doubt it would have all ended the same way (him quitting after not getting his way), but there was severe levels of immaturity from everyone.

He really should have left the group because you guys were being antagonistic to him at the end. You lost all moral highground and became a toxic group to that player.

I'm only giving him a pass his actions because you guys never handled it correctly. His character never suffered for her actions until the GM goaded the PCs to effectively murder her.

You all should feel shame for your actions.


Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:
ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:
The group is heavily good except for the Tiefling player who regardless of any game has to play the most evil characters around (they will not play even neutral characters)

IMHO, You should start your next session off and basically present to your players that it's time for the "Blaze of Glory Session". Tell them you're not having fun trying to deal with how to manage the party of good characters along side the single evil character, so you have several options to present them.

1: The good Characters can finally rise up and put down the evil character in a Blaze of Glory. (and find a replacement good/neutral companion)

2: The Evil character can assassinate the good characters and walk out in a Blaze of Glory. (to find new evil companions)

3: The party can remain together and some of their 'allies' that have been wronged band together and put down the band of adventurers (protecting this clearly evil character) in a Blaze of Glory. (Ultimately end the campaign and start a new one with rules restricting opposed alignments, and possibly even limiting power gaming at GM discretion)

4: If none of the above are acceptable then maybe it's just time for all of you to find something else to do while hanging out with your friends.

We weren't going to help him with the minion Orcus was going to send - I mean why would we want to piss off a greater god by helping? Besides he was very cocky about his chances and didn't take the threat seriously which ticked us off further.

He was mad that we wouldn't help. Again we would most definitely be put on the s!#$ list of a greater god if we helped.

But when he MIGHT have lost his armour in a fight he ran and hid and I almost had to roll up a character because of his inaction. (This happened during our first big battle )


Rhedyn wrote:

The pirate captain rescinding his reward after the evil pc made her offer is a dick move. It's the GM getting the players to harp on the player's play style. That was pretty terrible and shows you guys were pushing him out of the player group.

This was after you failed to deal with his antics in character. She should be dead.

Instead you worried about his out of character response and didn't give him a chance to act like an adult.

I have little doubt it would have all ended the same way (him quitting after not getting his way), but there was severe levels of immaturity from everyone.

He really should have left the group because you guys were being antagonistic to him at the end. You lost all moral highground and became a toxic group to that player.

I'm only giving him a pass his actions because you guys never handled it correctly. His character never suffered for her actions until the GM goaded the PCs to effectively murder her.

You all should feel shame for your actions.

Have you read anything ? I said we let him play the way he wanted but he was unwilling to accept consequences and he basically blew up for our characters not putting up with his s!$~ or calling him out on it.

So effectively we weren't allowed to do anything but praise or forgive his character for putting us in mortal danger on many occassions.

It lead to him fighting a lot with us out of character.

So if anyone was "harping" on players styles it was him.


Princess Of Canada wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

The pirate captain rescinding his reward after the evil pc made her offer is a dick move. It's the GM getting the players to harp on the player's play style. That was pretty terrible and shows you guys were pushing him out of the player group.

This was after you failed to deal with his antics in character. She should be dead.

Instead you worried about his out of character response and didn't give him a chance to act like an adult.

I have little doubt it would have all ended the same way (him quitting after not getting his way), but there was severe levels of immaturity from everyone.

He really should have left the group because you guys were being antagonistic to him at the end. You lost all moral highground and became a toxic group to that player.

I'm only giving him a pass his actions because you guys never handled it correctly. His character never suffered for her actions until the GM goaded the PCs to effectively murder her.

You all should feel shame for your actions.

Have you read anything ? I said we let him play the way he wanted but he was unwilling to accept consequences and he basically blew up for our characters not putting up with his s+*@ or calling him out on it.

So effectively we weren't allowed to do anything but praise or forgive his character for putting us in mortal danger on many occassions.

It lead to him fighting a lot with us out of character.

So if anyone was "harping" on players styles it was him.

That was part of the problem. You guys were immature.

You should have dealt with his character in character and let him misbehave.

Instead you guys murdered your established ally for a far lesser offense than all the other stuff she deserved death for.

You weren't forced to do anything. You weren't forced to forgive his character. You avoided conflict to the detriment of your campaign and then you punished him for cumulative actions based off one act that wasn't even bad.

You guys messed up from start to finish.


Rhedyn wrote:
Princess Of Canada wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

The pirate captain rescinding his reward after the evil pc made her offer is a dick move. It's the GM getting the players to harp on the player's play style. That was pretty terrible and shows you guys were pushing him out of the player group.

This was after you failed to deal with his antics in character. She should be dead.

Instead you worried about his out of character response and didn't give him a chance to act like an adult.

I have little doubt it would have all ended the same way (him quitting after not getting his way), but there was severe levels of immaturity from everyone.

He really should have left the group because you guys were being antagonistic to him at the end. You lost all moral highground and became a toxic group to that player.

I'm only giving him a pass his actions because you guys never handled it correctly. His character never suffered for her actions until the GM goaded the PCs to effectively murder her.

You all should feel shame for your actions.

Have you read anything ? I said we let him play the way he wanted but he was unwilling to accept consequences and he basically blew up for our characters not putting up with his s+*@ or calling him out on it.

So effectively we weren't allowed to do anything but praise or forgive his character for putting us in mortal danger on many occassions.

It lead to him fighting a lot with us out of character.

So if anyone was "harping" on players styles it was him.

That was part of the problem. You guys were immature.

You should have dealt with his character in character and let him misbehave.

Instead you guys murdered your established ally for a far lesser offense than all the other stuff she deserved death for.

You weren't forced to do anything. You weren't forced to forgive his character. You avoided conflict to the detriment of your campaign and then you punished him for cumulative actions based off one act that wasn't even bad.

You...

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

The fact of the matter is this player has through every game he's ever played been near identical as far as he can be (female (evil race or closest to) spellcaster) and through many previous groups has been allowed to do this for the longest time.

The group all agreed to try and help work things out with him but he would frequently say he understood why his characters actions were out of line then minutes later go and rescind it and do something awful that people were supposed to be happy with.

The fact is he didn't do ANY fact checking of the Pirate Captain, didn't even do the most fundamental of Gather Information rolls (yet again) and made an offer he would have taken himself. The party didn't suffer thanks to the Paladins great Diplomacy roll, but other instances the party didn't have ANY say in what he did.

He just played "chaotic stupid" or better yet "chaotic ignorant", this incident wasn't harsh by any means the Pirate Captain didn't punish him for it at all after he apologized. It was the party who put him on a platter for Orcus because they didn't want some God sending his minions after them in a fight they didn't ask for or need.

It wasn't helped this player genuinely believed he could take Orcus or any other God, he really believed he was untouchable with high saves, backup plans and 30+ AC. Any attempt to persuade him that his situation was a disastrous one was met with contempt, that's what ended his character not the Pirate or any other incident.

You can't deny angering a Greater God directly should have consequences, he defiled his temple in front of his worshippers before bailing. That's what got him nipped not the other incidents.


He is totally in the right on the pirate thing.

It's messed up that you punished him for previous actions based off an action where you guys are in the wrong. A mere offer cannot be construed as threatening or harm and you guys effectively killed her for it. You admit the party resolved to axe her after that encounter and then found the next excuse for it.

You let his bad behaviour moralize your own and that is just not how it works. You guys failed to handle the problems in character until you out of character exploded and overreacted in character.

It doesn't matter if he always plays that. After enough dead PCs, he would either learn or leave. Or you should have banned evil characters from the onset.

Sure he misbehaved. But you guys provided that environment and then got mad when he did.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
A mere offer cannot be construed as threatening or harm and you guys effectively killed her for it.

If you go up to someone and offer to buy their soul or whatever, they might very well take offence.

It's difficult to handle this type of situation, either in character ("I'm just doing what my character would do!" "Well, I'm just what doing what my character would do - killing you because I'm a Paladin and you're obviously evil.") or out of character ("We've decided to cut you out of our gaming lives, please leave.")

They probably didn't handle it the ideal way - whatever that was - from the start, but there's no need to insult the entire group over it. It sounds like they tried to work around the problem and eventually lost patience. That's what most people would do.

51 to 100 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Advice about a problem player... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.