Ways to handle a chronically quitting player and their PC


Advice


Temporary, nonlethal and relatively nonpunitive ones, particularly.

So, without going into too much detail, my group has a player who, on occasion, leaves games "for good" due to "irreconcilable" differences... for durations of anywhere from three hours to three weeks, before concluding that their quitting was a misunderstanding or overreaction. To make matters worse, most of these departures generally involve quite a bit of drama and hurt feelings. Often they're worked out within the day, but this still at best involves long and unpleasant discussions instead of gameplay and everyone too tense to play afterward.

Now, the obvious and easiest solution is "don't let them back in", but as the player in question is still a friend and the erratic behavior is a matter of psychological complications, I would like to find a way to keep them as a player while minimizing stress as much as possible. Plus, they're making progress about being less reactionary, so often, it ends up having been long enough for us to hope there won't be a repeat incident, but not long enough to not need a contingency plan.

One particular concern is what to do with their characters.
- I don't want to maintain them as GMPCs too much, especially when the player is twitchy about it. (iirc apparently a previous GM of theirs committed a few atrocities along the lines of "oh, hi, you're late! For funsies, I had your PC mock and insult all their friends while you were gone. That NPC contact you just made? Yeah, he hates you now.")
- Our games are pretty serious and RP-heavy, so "Gurk the barbarian quietly fades into the mist" is not ideal.
- Ideally it should be something reversible within a session or two, especially since I want to not feel guilty about just telling them to leave the table for the day one way or the other once they pull out the "no, I don't want to play unless you change this" if it isn't resolved quickly.
- The player themselves... during these times, tends to offer suggestions that they would later regret and/or resent, so "ask" is not a reliable option at the time.

Aside from just getting the character out of the way for the session or two short of metagame artifacts or recurring comas, though, any suggestions on managing the situation with the player would be very welcome. (I'd be glad to discuss further in PMs, but I'm trying to keep my public explanation respectful and minimally critical.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not the first to face difficulties with players who don't make it to every session (although the way this player acts is new to me). Paizo has offered a solution in the Scar of destiny. Not something for every type of campaign, but it might suit you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keeping in mind the troublesome player's behavioral issues it shouldn't be a surprise if (a) they are not being entirely accurate in their depiction of events with GMs past; and (b) that kind of recurring behavior is going to piss people off.

Recurring drama queendom is usually a great way to get kicked out of gaming groups. Everyone is playing to have fun, not get more stress heaped on 'em from their own hobby.

Without using a metagame artifact such as the aforementioned scar of destiny you really don't have anything else non-contrived going on.

The alternative to the scar of destiny that I use is player ally - yes, that is not a typo - which is a nod to the 1e AD&D days when summon monster spells could summon an entire adventuring party to serve for the duration. player ally simply whisks the absent character away for however long they're gone, returning them to those they have a significant emotional attachment (i.e., friends/adventuring buddies) of their choice. Their deeds in service to (whatever/whomever) keeps them current to the group in XP and gear.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can offer no advice on the "Real World Problems" with your player.

BUT, to help you with an in game explanation on why a PC would suddenly be "unavailable" for a duration of adventure... that I can fix.

The PC has "Family Obligations", and has one or more Friends/Family/Employer/Religious Organization/Government Agency who has priority on them. At some future time, the PC may be "Called" using a

Bracelet of Friends:

Bracelet of Friends

Aura strong conjuration; CL 15th

Slot wrists; Price 19,000 gp; Weight —

Description

This silver charm bracelet has four charms upon it when created. The owner may designate one person known to him to be keyed to each charm. (This designation takes a standard action, but once done it lasts forever or until changed.) When a charm is grasped and the name of the keyed individual is spoken, that person is called to the spot (a standard action) along with his gear, as long as the owner and the called person are on the same plane. The keyed individual knows who is calling, and the bracelet of friends only functions on willing travelers. Once a charm is activated, it disappears. Charms separated from the bracelet are worthless. A bracelet found with fewer than four charms is worth 25% less for each missing charm

and is not available until the Family Crisis/Government Intervention/Religious Obligation is completed.

example:
Judge:"Dude - it's your Mom calling. You gotta go..."
PC: "Sorry guys! I'll be back as soon as I can! Meantime, don't forget to..."pop!

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've always handled absence by just having the character be absent as well, no explanation or mechanics. It might be less believable if you decide to focus on it, but really, it's not any more narratively disruptive than a dozen other things that we take for granted as part of our playing pretend anyway, so it always seemed simplest.

I only bring it up here in particular because of the specifics of your situation. I'd hesitate to make something mechanical like those things suggested so far simply because it is upfront saying "we expected you to quit again, so we're tacking this mechanical thing onto your character", which depending on the particular individual's psychological complications, might have the effect of singling them out and making things worse.


The player's behavior has already done that in spades. Does this person not have the ability to recognize the consequences for their own behavior, or are they of the "it's always someone else's fault" mentality?

If the latter, there's nothing to be done since it seems probable that a decision between friend and entire group will happen sooner or later.

I'm really sorry you and your group are having to deal with this player. I do recommend Duiker's advice: it simply just happens, don't sweat the details.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a difficult situation to be in. What do your other players think?


Quen Pah wrote:
This is a difficult situation to be in. What do your other players think?

Gonna second this one. They seem to be affected the most, and they might have a good idea of what will and will not set off this problem player. I'd hate to see one of our suggestions be perceived by the problem player as a personal attack against his or her character, starting up another disruption cycle.

If you (and your fellow players!) wish to soldier on through, then I suggest a heavy dose of Doublethink. Is the problem player out to lunch? "I don't know who you're talking about, good sir, our whole party is here, all [X-1] of us." Did the problem player come back and hash it out? They were here the whole time. Of COURSE they were there for that last dungeon, why do you ask?

The above solution isn't friendly towards immersion without a mythic suspension of disbelief, but that's hardly the most difficult thing your table seems to be dealing with.


Sometimes it's ok to say "no it's cool, we've moved on."


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Our group totes the PC along as if they were catatonic. We say "X is staring at their thumb", and move along. GM ignores the character as if they weren't there, but the next time the player shows up it's "We're in Someplace now and we've got these problems".

Sometimes no-drama is more useful to damp down the behavior. The whole group doesn't become the cast for the player's tantrum. It's taken as 'oh, ok, Player X isn't here; Character X is invisible and catatonic. Let's move on'.


I don't think the issue is what to do with the character when they arent there so much as the player when they are.


First thing: does the rest of your group feel the same way you do and want the player to continue to warrant an invite?

I'm going to assume they do.

We've handled this a few different ways in the past; there's one generic solution we frequently fall back to, and occasionally we use more character/campaign-specific options.

Our Standard Generic Option:

The character is "present", but automatically fails all attack rolls and skill checks (except skill checks that other party members have succeeded, such as climbing over a wall.) Alternatively, the character "guards the back", dealing with their own small batch of non-specific enemies that the character coincidentally defeats the same round the party finishes up combat and miraculously always ends up walking away from completely unscathed.

These are mechanically identical to the character not being there, but have the added benefit of the illusion of the character being present and attempting to contribute.

An example of a character-specific option is some years ago, we had an unreliable player playing a wild mage. Solution? She would randomly blink herself out of existence (virtually identical to the Scar of Destiny.)

An example of a campaign-specific; we're currently playing Jade Regent. If you're not present to play, your character is at the caravan.

Good luck!

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know you've mentioned that the “just ask them what to do with the character” is not a great option due to their suggesting things they would later regret. However, it sounds like they only do this during the times that they've quit. So, if you can, I would try to address the issue with them when they've not quit, away from the table and not during game time. I don't know what kind of reaction they'll have, but presenting it as an issue of you wanting everyone to have a good time playing and having as smooth a game as possible - emphasizing the benefit to everyone and doing your best to make it non-accusatory - could be a good way to approach it. Especially emphasize that you want to find a way that's not punitive and that this isn't punishment, because punishing players is not ever going to lead to good results, especially for a player that's been burned before, and especially for this player in general.

Now, from what it sounds like, they may react badly. But it sounds like they eventually do relent and apologize? And that they're getting better at self-correcting on this. You might just need to be patient as they work through this, and also realize that their progress probably won't always be at the same pace, and they may lapse, and they may never completely drop this behavior. I'm also not trying to recommend that you just suck it up, because as you said feelings tend to get hurt at these points and the hurt they cause is still real and not simply excusable. Don't accept that, but do feel free to accept (or not) the player’s apologies later.

In the meantime for all of this, it might stink but I feel like the option of just having their character fade into the background or having them go off to do something until the player returns is probably your best option? It may strain fictional credibility a little, but I think it's your cleanest and simplest option.

Finally, if you know specifically what this player's “psychological complications” are, maybe do some independent research on how best to be the kind of friend they need when they get like this. Preferably accounts from people who experience similar complications. Talk to them directly about it as well, again, preferably when they aren't in this reactionary mode. You may already be doing this or something similar, but I think it's important to emphasize that accommodating this person's needs (while also not just excusing the harm they cause) will likely lead to a better game and a better friendship. People should always come before a game, y’know?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya, member of the same group.

We're pretty closely knit and are trying what we can to help the friend. They're not in all of our campaigns, so they don't drag down our Pathfinder campaigns as a whole, and as long as that's the case, I have no issue with this friend being in one or two of ours. There have also been plenty of sessions where the player was completely normal, aside from so it is an interesting issue.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:

Temporary, nonlethal and relatively nonpunitive ones, particularly.

So, without going into too much detail, my group has a player who, on occasion, leaves games "for good" due to "irreconcilable" differences... for durations of anywhere from three hours to three weeks, before concluding that their quitting was a misunderstanding or overreaction. To make matters worse, most of these departures generally involve quite a bit of drama and hurt feelings. Often they're worked out within the day, but this still at best involves long and unpleasant discussions instead of gameplay and everyone too tense to play afterward.

Now, the obvious and easiest solution is "don't let them back in", but as the player in question is still a friend and the erratic behavior is a matter of psychological complications, I would like to find a way to keep them as a player while minimizing stress as much as possible. Plus, they're making progress about being less reactionary, so often, it ends up having been long enough for us to hope there won't be a repeat incident, but not long enough to not need a contingency plan.

One particular concern is what to do with their characters.
- I don't want to maintain them as GMPCs too much, especially when the player is twitchy about it. (iirc apparently a previous GM of theirs committed a few atrocities along the lines of "oh, hi, you're late! For funsies, I had your PC mock and insult all their friends while you were gone. That NPC contact you just made? Yeah, he hates you now.")
- Our games are pretty serious and RP-heavy, so "Gurk the barbarian quietly fades into the mist" is not ideal.
- Ideally it should be something reversible within a session or two, especially since I want to not feel guilty about just telling them to leave the table for the day one way or the other once they pull out the "no, I don't want to play unless you change this" if it isn't resolved quickly.
- The player themselves... during these times, tends to offer suggestions that they would later regret and/or...

Are you a licensed psychiatrist/Psychologist/Therapist?

If not then dealing with/adjudicating someone else's psychiatric issues isn't your job or responsibility, friend or no. That person needs to SEEK HELP. Because in the meantime they are disrupting the game for you and the other players. I assume that you and the other players play this game for fun and having to deal with outbursts and hurt feelings and unpleasant conversations last time I checked aren't fun (unless you're a masochist and in that case, have at it then...).

Trying to find away to explain what happens to the persons PC in-between outbursts just sounds like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic or putting a band-aid on the wound from a 12 gauge shotgun. You need to deal with the issue of the player otherwise your game is going to continue to suffer. Anything else is just window dressing.


Does the other player want to continue playing. Perhaps the when you do x this makes us feel y. approach would be good, depending on the pathology he might have. Is there a way if he is on meds that you can ask if he has taken them prior to play?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Dandy Lion wrote:

Hiya, member of the same group.

We're pretty closely knit and are trying what we can to help the friend. They're not in all of our campaigns, so they don't drag down our Pathfinder campaigns as a whole, and as long as that's the case, I have no issue with this friend being in one or two of ours. There have also been plenty of sessions where the player was completely normal, aside from so it is an interesting issue.

Good on you, mate. The world is better for a little patience and kindness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you have multiple games going at once, and some not including the friend, can you just jump to them when the friend isn't playing and put the game the friend is in on pause?


As GMs, we have to face unexpected drop outs every other session. All one has to do is come up with a simple reason for why the PC is missing. They're on patrol, back at camp, not feeling well, training, etc.

Unless you're using a gimmick like the scar of destiny, then quick thinking is all you can rely on in these circumstances. Every situation will require its own unique solution.


In my group, we have a player who's been friends with most of us for 20+ years. He's a good friend, but often a troublesome player, enough so that he got kicked out of one of the games we played before it even started.

We got together as a group and discussed specifics. What things could he do that would convince us to let him back in? We talked them over with him, but made it clear that he would not be in that game with us. He'd already very thoroughly burned that bridge.

A year or so later, we set up a short-term game (think it went 6-8 sessions) and invited him to play with us, with the understanding that it was sort of a trial run. He seemed much more aware of his poor behavior, and while he still did some of it, he quickly apologized and stopped when called on it.

He's back with our main group now, and has been for a few years. I wish I could say it's been a total success, but he's dangerously close to relapsing and may have already killed another game the GM was going to run.

That might be a bit extreme for your particular case, but maybe a smaller scale would be suitable. If they quit, don't let them back in until the current chapter or section is done so that their character's random comings and goings aren't an issue. If there's something specific that sets them off, try and talk it out sometime other than at the game.


I used to warn my players of the dreaded "DM's disease." Miss one session and your character would start to not feel well. Miss a second session in a row and you got purple blotches all over your body (no cure). Miss a third and the disease was lethal. We never had a character die from it.

We've also had the missing character just "guard the horses/camp/whatever." It takes them out of the action completely. The bigger drawback to missing sessions back then was lack of treasure and experience.

These days, someone else just plays the missing player's character for them and we go on about our business. If they are going to be away for an extended period (or if they indicate they are dropping out), we retire that character in a manner that befits them and move on.

Good luck in finding a solution that works for you and the group. I'm sure there's one out there.


Kaladin_Stormblessed wrote:
Ideally it should be something reversible within a session or two, especially since I want to not feel guilty about just telling them to leave the table for the day one way or the other once they pull out the "no, I don't want to play unless you change this" if it isn't resolved quickly.

In my games, we have established that we are playing in infinite multiverses. The idea is that there are infinite universes reflecting every possible change. There is a universe where the flowers are made of water. There is a universe where chickens have taken the place of dogs. Aaaaannnd... there is a universe for every possible, conceivable configuration of the team.

So if a player doesn't show up, we're playing in the universe where that PC not only doesn't exist but never existed. When they come back, we're playing in the universe where he/she exists and always has. Because of this, we don't have to invent stories about why the PC is not around. The character doesn't exist, so nobody would even bring the PC up. Simple.

Now, I don't give XP when you miss a session, and that can be odd. For example, if a player had to leave for a few games and is back, we are now playing in the universe where the PC has existed all along. That should mean he/she was there for all the adventures. And my response to "If my PC was there for it all, I should get XP," has been, "Well, it's a gamey thing. I want players to try to attend, so you get XP if you attend, and you don't get XP if you miss. Hopefully it motivates you to attend more."

And I leave it at that, and it mostly seems to work well.


We used to have two players in particular who quarreled a great deal. The verbal disruptions were brief but it made things less enjoyable. No can say for sure who was more to blame as they seemed to antagonize each other. They were actually good friends but also rivals. Eventually one of them stopped showing up to the sessions. A couple years later the remaining player moved onto a different group and the one who left rejoined.

This player in my group didn't want to deal with the BS anymore - same as the rest of us - so he bailed. What does your "problem" player want? Does he see that he is the recurring element in all of the drama, or does he think the problem lies elsewhere?

In another group I am in, there is a guy who seems to have a problem with the way other people role-play, or how much we it. Not 100% sure because I don't know him very well. Some of us are more into RP than him, and I think he finds it disruptive to the game. Its boil down to a difference in play style, which I understand, but he was getting annoyed while others were having fun. Finally his brother (also in the group) had a one on one with him. He talked about how unhappy he seemed and asked if he even wanted to play in the game, or if he was only playing because his brother, son, and brother-in-law were part of the group and the game was at his house. I haven't heard the final conclusion of the talk and we haven't had a follow-up game yet, but in our scheduling texts he still seems ready to play. I'm hoping that the direct discussion will have a positive effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have dealt with many players like that, and my most successful solution was always dealing with them like with a child in a tantrum: ignore them until they calm.
This people usually have a big need of attention, so when the attention is only given to them when they behave properly, they often start to do it.

Each time that the player wants to quit, even when he is starting to do his thing, ask him politely to take a break and remain silent or go away for a while, while you continue roleplaying normally with the other players, like nothing had happened. And when he calms down, let him rejoin the group, quickly, without explanations or anything else. That will avoid losing time from the game but, what's more relevant, will cut the drama.

From my experience, ignoring the disruptive behaviors of the players and minimizing their effects in game almost always ends with the players being more civil, as they aren't paid attention when they aren't.

The most important part is not engaging them, it disrupts the game and they will often feel rewarded with attention.

I had this same issue with a player, who would feel bad and cry for a lot of reasons (she'd find a reason to cry each time her character wasn't having all the spotlight). At first we went after her and calmed her down and she did it more and more often. Until we just let her go and continue RPing until she came back. Then she stopped doing it (she just made sad faces and sobbed).

About what to do with the character in game, my best option would be to take him away from the group with the first half believable opportunity you have. That will largely depend on the situation, but you should be able to device something for him.

My suggestion is that you plan in advance ways to remove him in the case he quits: in a dungeon he might go to explore on his own for a while, on a town fetch information, etc. Think about what your players will be doing this session and have some ways to take him away from the group.

When he comes back, don't let him inmediately join the party unless it's completely logical. If he has to wait and just watch for a while until he can join back this is a soft way to "punish" him for leaving without being too harsh (you are not punishing him, just waiting for the best moment for him to come back ;-D) and encouraging him not to quit.

Also...This post needs some Tableflip McRagequit insight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks have given a lot of good advice for handling this issue both IC and OOC.

I was going to suggest that instead of asking the problem player what they want done with their PC (since they respond badly to that), instead ask the other players- but the posting of the Other Player somewhat answered that. Somewhat.

It seems like the rest of the group is willing to accept or at least tolerate the continued presence of the Problem Player, but it still might be worthwhile to ask the rest of the group specifically how they would like to handle the missing character (not the player).

The other thing I'd like to suggest is a book. Stop Walking On Eggshells by Paul Mason and Randi Kreger. It's intended not for people with Borderline Personality Disorder, but for the non-Borderlines who regularly interact with them. Your friend's psychological complications are none of our business, but this book is an excellent read for anyone who regularly deals with... complicated people. Not just Borderlines.

Here it is: link.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
Does this person not have the ability to recognize the consequences for their own behavior, or are they of the "it's always someone else's fault" mentality?

While it isn't the actual situation, I would use the analogy of an alcoholic who's slowly breaking the habit. They're really trying but every once in a while they give in and have a few drinks, and every once in a while they still show up for a session utterly drunk and not a happy kind of drunk. So not much to do at that point but try to convince them they're drunk and need a ride home. And then they sober up and the next day are back to normal and really sorry and recognize the fault.

mechaPoet wrote:
Now, from what it sounds like, they may react badly. But it sounds like they eventually do relent and apologize? And that they're getting better at self-correcting on this. You might just need to be patient as they work through this, and also realize that their progress probably won't always be at the same pace, and they may lapse, and they may never completely drop this behavior. I'm also not trying to recommend that you just suck it up, because as you said feelings tend to get hurt at these points and the hurt they cause is still real and not simply excusable. Don't accept that, but do feel free to accept (or not) the player’s apologies later.

Pretty much, and thanks. Just about exactly has been my perspective on it. They're trying, it's gradually making a difference, I just don't want to neglect damage control when trying isn't sufficient.

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Are you a licensed psychiatrist/Psychologist/Therapist?

If not then dealing with/adjudicating someone else's psychiatric issues isn't your job or responsibility, friend or no. That person needs to SEEK HELP.

I'm aware it's not my responsibility. From my perspective, it's pretty much the same as if I know CPR, and at some point some guy walking by keels over and stops breathing. Yes, I'm going to call 911, but I'm also going to try CPR even if I'm not a MD and it's not my job. I'm not just going to walk past, shrug, and tell him he should really call a doctor about that heart problem. And I'm completely okay with my choice in the matter.

Kileanna wrote:
My suggestion is that you plan in advance ways to remove him in the case he quits: in a dungeon he might go to explore on his own for a while, on a town fetch information, etc. Think about what your players will be doing this session and have some ways to take him away from the group.

Thanks, Kileanna! Now that you suggest it, having them be fetching information actually works really well for my game - their character is very much the party's rumormonger "friends in low places" guy, and it's a pretty intrigue-heavy campaign.

Gives me a way to hand out obscure hints, them to feel not as excluded from the campaign and have something to re-involve themselves with the next time they play, and has the potential of side sessions as a positive reinforcement of "if you can own up to that you're not in any state to play today instead of having to be ordered to sit out, you can still get some gaming time in later when you're feeling better."

"Rogue was out really late snooping around and chatting up contacts, learned some interesting stuff but at the cost of a killer hangover, he'll catch up later" seems like about as good an explanation as anything. Think I'll try running it by them as a default.

Sovereign Court

My group had acquired a ring of invulnerability when one player joined the group. When you wore it and was hit you got turned into a statue. We had great fun with it with npcs etc. However we did use it for when a player was out for the week saying we put it on, punched them and then stuck them in a bag of holding.


I am so glad my advice was useful and that you can make it fit your campaign.
I firmly believe that positive reinforcement works much better than punishment in most cases: punishing bad behaviour often leads to discomfort, but rewarding the player for good behaviour makes them realize that they are working towards something positive.
If your player knows that he has a problem and wants to change, it is good that he realizes that you support him and don't want to punish him, but at the same time that he cannot play when he is not in the adequate state of mind.
I hope that your problems with this player are solved and you enjoy your game!


First off, good on the OP for trying to work with a friend they recognize has some form of issues that are not coming from being a general d-bag.

Second, SkinHakkaider, one does not need to be a licensed professional to recognize there are problems with people or try to help. Yes, the person should seek help, but that does not mean the friends should shun him -- you did not say that, I know, but it is the logical next step from what you said. So long as they all know it and are willing to tolerate the frustration that may arise on occasion, that is their business.

One of the players (and DM for his own world) we have is socially awkward, stutters, not good with confrontation, had anxiety issues, a "comfort" animal, and other medical problems with his internals, he is self-aware enough that RPG's are a way for him to force himself into social situations where he has to overcome his issues.

And we are all patient enough and enjoy his company and participation and gently prod him along. So, OP, are not alone in having friends with mental issues in the game, and I would encourage you to be patient -- BUT, help him to become self-aware of the issue so he may seek help.

Could be counselling solves it, or there is a chemical imbalance, or change of diet, who knows?


It never ceases to amaze me how bewildering childish people can be over what is in fact a fantasy dice game.... tell the person to go and not come back.


In our group when a player is missing, we just 'phase' their character. The character is there, and witness to what is happening but they don't really 'do' anything and won't be effected by anything. From the other characters perspective, the character of the missing player is 'there' but doesn't really do anything notable or memorable, they basically just fade into the background. The players of course are aware that the character of the missing player is 'phased' and basically just ignore them. A phased character can't do anything at all, and won't be effected by anything that happens. I do sometimes make an exception for support/basic jobs that the missing players PC was designed to handle, a cleric providing out-of-combat healing or condition removal for example, or the starship engineer getting the warp core online, but mostly the players will have to do without the missing players PC.

This isn't a totally elegant system, it definitely requires suspension of disbelief, but I find trying to find an in game reason for the characters absence to often be difficult, especially if an absence isn't planned ahead. Having 'phasing' being the default assumption just makes everything easy and quick to deal with and the players that are there can focus on gaming.

As for your players core issue that is causing this, I think you are handling it pretty well and hopefully it will improve. I have friends who have been known to 'rage-quit' from time to time as well, and for the most part we just accept that that is who they are and sometimes they are going to lose it. Everyone has there good and bad personality quirks and sometimes you just have to accept the bad along with the good. It seems like you have communicated with the player pretty well, and they understand why the quitting bothers you and the group. The only thing I would add is that ask them what THEY think would help solve the issue. Giving them the responsibility and agency to help fix things can make a world of difference in all sorts of interpersonal issues.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Ways to handle a chronically quitting player and their PC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.