PDA

View Full Version : Possible imminent party falling out, help!



Sipex
2011-04-21, 11:48 AM
Alright, everyone here knows the 'Habits that Kill fun in a gaming session' thread, yes? Well, particularily I have one player who fits A LOT of the complaints found within (including every single complaint I've made), we'll call them Bob.

Now, this wouldn't be so bad if it was just me, I'm the DM and I can deal with it and that's been the plan up until now. One member of my party (Andrew) has noticed a lot of the things that make Bob a very annoying person to play with (seriously, this player has probably 15 different items off that thread which are all repeated nearly every session) and their patience is thinning.

Now here's the part where I'd love to say "I need to kick Bob out and I want to be tactful about it." but no, that's not an option and I'll explain why. Bob is dating another player, one of my best friends (We'll say Jack). If Bob leaves then Jack also leaves because Bob is kind of controlling and Jack is kind of spineless when it comes to Bob.

Also, I'll stop you there, but we're not convincing Jack to leave Bob. If Jack didn't love Bob he'd have no problem leaving. This is a road that won't get explored unless Bob gets worse in personal ways.

Anywho, this means my campaign essentially falls apart and it will be particularily messy. Ignoring the friendship stuff that will have to be dealt with, how do I go about handling this (increasingly possible) situation?

There's no ifs, ands or buts about the campaign being dead. I know Bob well and I know the other players. Jack won't be allowed to play (simple as that, even if he says he doesn't want to) and our final player (Jim?) will feel bad about playing the campaign because Bob will make him feel bad about it. This just leaves Andrew and I'm not going to run the campaign without the party.

In addition, Bob may try to convince me to run the campaign without Andrew ("Since Andrew has the problem he should be the one that doesn't play.") and I won't want to do that either because in reality, it's Bob who's the bad player, we all know it, just Andrew has the least patience of us and is going to snap first.

Any advice at all? I know it's confusing but anything will help, even stuff I should look out for if this happens.

arguskos
2011-04-21, 11:51 AM
Walk away and let it die. Yeah, it sucks horribly, and I feel for you, but this isn't a situation with a good end. Just end it now and don't play with Bob in the future.

Sipex
2011-04-21, 12:01 PM
I was afraid of that but to be honest, I'm not hopeful that this campaign will survive if this happens.

Currently Andrew is trying to limit his contact with Bob out of game to see if that helps so I'm not about to premptively end it just yet.

Any advice for stuff I should look out for if and when this happens?

edit: Still a tad reluctant to let it die sadly. We're in a campaign which is 3 years of play so far, has the story all planned out and has very intricate character stories.

Also, it's my first campaign (run and played in) and you know how that is.

Kylarra
2011-04-21, 12:08 PM
Well... you could always talk to Bob, see if he'll change some of those annoying habits. If not, you are pretty SOL.

arguskos
2011-04-21, 12:10 PM
edit: Still a tad reluctant to let it die sadly. We're in a campaign which is 3 years of play so far, has the story all planned out and has very intricate character stories.

Also, it's my first campaign (run and played in) and you know how that is.
I've been down this road before man, trust me, it's not gonna end well.

If you think that everyone else can just ignore the ******* in the room, then go ahead and try it, but be prepared for the blow-up when someone with less patience than you just flat explodes at Bob.

If you absolutely 100% have to keep going, then you need to talk to Bob, Jack, and Andrew. Bob to tell him to chill the hell out, Jack to tell Bob to chill the hell out, and Andrew to gauge just how far his patience goes. If you can get Jim on your side too, you might be able to pressure Bob into calming down a little and being less of an issue. If he refuses... eeeeeeh, good luck at that point.

Sorry to hear it man, it's a rough situation, you've got my sympathies.

gbprime
2011-04-21, 12:18 PM
Bottom line... if you have a problem player, you need to talk with problem player or kick them out if the talking doesn't help. If that player also has "authority" over several other players such that they will not show up if problem player doesn't want them to... then it wasn't a viable gaming group in the first place.

Congrats on having fun despite the dysfunctional situation, but a situation like that won't last. Problem player will either drive everyone away or will quit and take other players with him. Cut to the chase, deal with the problem, and get a new group together sooner rather than later.

And who knows, the other two players might surprise you and come back around despite the one player's objection.

Gullintanni
2011-04-21, 12:20 PM
Bob may not even be aware that he's falling into these pitfalls. Has anyone pointed out to him that his style of play is disruptive? If not then it may be beneficial to have someone pull him aside and do so.

If it's the first time someone's pointing it out, then try to have just one person talk to him. Otherwise he might feel blindsided by everyone dumping on him all at once.

If Bob is aware that he's irritating other players and has not intention of changing the way he plays then...chances are pretty good that things are going to fall apart. If you consider yourselves good friends with this person, then perhaps you should walk away from the campaign for a while for the sake of the friendship...

Maybe pickup from where you left off in a few months or a year or whatever time it takes for everyone to relax and maybe develop some perspective.

That's about the best I've got though...good luck :smallfrown:

Sipex
2011-04-21, 12:25 PM
I should've added this caveat to my first post.

I've talked to Bob before, he's oversensitive (despite claiming the opposite) and it only marginally improved his performance (which quickly reverted).

Had I known Bob was like this 3 years ago when I met him I wouldn't have started the group with him because I've got an amazing group...minus Bob.

Good news is once the fallout is completely over I'll be able to run a campaign with Andrew and Jim at the very least and Jim has good connections in our gaming world for other players. I'm just sad that I can't take my original campaign and finish it. Sadly we'll never be able to play with Jack again because...as I said before, Jack won't be allowed to play or will be heavily guilt tripped if he did.

You guys seem to have had Bobs in your group before, any advice on what I should look out for if this explodes?

arguskos
2011-04-21, 12:33 PM
You guys seem to have had Bobs in your group before, any advice on what I should look out for if this explodes?
Denial of responsibility, attacking your reputation outside of the game, angrily challenging your sexuality/relationships/character, endless insults, attempted sabotage of your other friendships that Bob is aware of, and possible violence (depending on the manner of explosion) are all things I've personally seen/been subject to.

People like this are just PROBLEMS. Get rid of them. Sorry about Jack, but if he can't figure it out... well, that's his issue.

Vladislav
2011-04-21, 12:47 PM
Do the right thing.

The game isn't worth it. Kick Bob out, let Jack deal with the results of his own spinelessness, and stay friends with Andrew and Jim as much as possible. Who knows, maybe, free from having to spend time to endlessly cater to Bob's needs and worry about him, you will discover some new friends, new players!?

Sipex
2011-04-21, 01:00 PM
Oh yeah, friendships shouldn't be at risk here (except Bob will stop talking to whoever snaps first, no question but I doubt that person will care too much) and I'll still be able to play video games with Jack over live so it's not a total wash.

Starting a new group without Bob sounds like heaven though.

Pentachoron
2011-04-21, 01:17 PM
If you've spoken to Bob and Bob seems unwilling to change behavior, then that's that. If it's bad enough that it's eventually going to cause the end of the campaign you really have two options: 1. End the campaign before the meltdown, 2. Just let it happen.

I would heavily suggest option 1. Either ending it naturally, or just stopping the campaign and I do want to put emphasis on ending it. Don't just ride it out because nothing bad is happening yet. If you know it's going to explode cut it off as soon as you can before friendships are permanently ruined. RPs are never worth losing friends.

It sucks yes, but the alternative sucks harder. Significant others, in my experience, tend to be the biggest killers of campaigns and you may want to in the future consider only ever playing with one person out of a couple to avoid situations like this. That's the rule I've established, I've made it well known that my SO will not be playing with the group and neither will anyone else's. I've never had it be an issue with anyone that's listened to my reasons.

Gullintanni
2011-04-21, 01:27 PM
If you've spoken to Bob and Bob seems unwilling to change behavior, then that's that. If it's bad enough that it's eventually going to cause the end of the campaign you really have two options: 1. End the campaign before the meltdown, 2. Just let it happen.

I would heavily suggest option 1. Either ending it naturally, or just stopping the campaign and I do want to put emphasis on ending it. Don't just ride it out because nothing bad is happening yet. If you know it's going to explode cut it off as soon as you can before friendships are permanently ruined. RPs are never worth losing friends.

It sucks yes, but the alternative sucks harder. Significant others, in my experience, tend to be the biggest killers of campaigns and you may want to in the future consider only ever playing with one person out of a couple to avoid situations like this. That's the rule I've established, I've made it well known that my SO will not be playing with the group and neither will anyone else's. I've never had it be an issue with anyone that's listened to my reasons.

I second this. Don't let this explode. Just walk away from the game...tell your players you are bored or some such thing, and then invite Andrew and Jim back for another game a week or two later. You can even plug their characters back into another campaign, if they're attached. They'll understand the break in service.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-21, 01:30 PM
Let's look at the dynamics:

Bob: Problem Player. Everyone hates playing with him.
Jack: Dating Bob. Otherwise decent Player.
Jim: Good Player. Emotionally victimized by Bob
Andrew: Decent Player. Shortest fuse.

This campaign is going to implode (if you're lucky) or explode (if you're not). You can't finish this campaign unless you have exactly one session remaining - either Andrew will explode or Jim/Andrew will stop coming to the game due to sheer annoyance.

Kicking Bob and politely dis-inviting Jack ("we like you, but Bob's a real problem. If you'd like to keep coming we'd love to have you, but we understand if you have to leave too") will make Bob angry at you and - apparently - cause Jim to feel crappy as well. That's a bad situation as well.

Best to just kill your campaign. Tell everyone that you're having trouble dealing with the party dynamics and you'd rather just let the thing die. This "ambiguous" ending should forestall Bob getting enraged, since he thinks Andrew is the problem. Next, a few weeks later, invite Jim, Andrew and some other guys to start a new campaign.
An important question is whether Bob is otherwise your friend. If he is, then you have more to deal with later. If not, then you only have to deal with Jack. If Jack asks why he wasn't invited to your new game explain that you don't feel comfortable DMing for Bob and you wouldn't want to put Jack in an awkward situation.

That's the best I can come up with. Good luck :smallsmile:

Gamer Girl
2011-04-21, 01:32 PM
I've gamed with too many Bobs. And if you can't talk to them or avoid them, there is the easy solution:control them.

1,If it's out of game stuff, like he is always texting. You can just skip his turn or better yet set a time limit(say 60 seconds). For example, we had a Ted for a while, who literally every five minuets had to go out on the deck to smake and use his phone. He would say ''just tell me when it's my turn'', but even if we did, he would not come in and play for about 5-25 minutes(until he finished his cigarette/phone call). So the simple solution was to 'forget to call him'. After three games where he sat on the deck for six hours on his phone, and not playing the game even once...he simply left the group as his life was 'too busy' to play.

The point is that simple(playground level) rules can help a lot.

2.For the in game stuff, you can ignore at least 50% of it. If his character randomly kills people, just let him...but have it have no effect on the game. Should he pants the king, just have the king laugh it off. And so forth. Often a person will stop when it's 'no fun'.

3.Make the actions pointless. If he wants to spend an hour breaking into the town bank, let him. And then let him find the town bank has 25 copper coins and one IOU. Meanwhile the group kills a dragon and gets 100,000 gold.

4.A very, very poor world can work. A place where there is nothing much to 'do'. Where the average towns folk has 'wood coins'(100 wood=1 copper) and people buy 'A quarter rotten apple chunk for 25 wood coins'.

5.High fantasy and magic. This is the one I use the most. Make the world awesome.

Jolly
2011-04-21, 01:33 PM
Were it me, I'd give Bob a stern talking to and a single "last chance" to reform, tell Jack what is happening and why, and go from there. If Jack and Bob leave, you might be able to save the campaign with a tragic assassination of their characters, with the remaining party swearing vengeance and meeting any new recruits along the way.


Gaming stuff aside, it sounds like J and B have a really, really unhealthy relationship. If you are good friends with Jack, a conversation about how he is being treated (and how it's not ok) might be in order. Probably won't work, but it seems like trying is the right thing to do.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-21, 01:38 PM
I've gamed with too many Bobs. And if you can't talk to them or avoid them, there is the easy solution:control them.
IMHO, the worst thing you can do is this.

Rule #1 for troubleshooting RPGs: Never Use In-Game Mechanics To Solve Out Of Game Problems

At its core, you (as the DM) are using the special power inherent in the DM-Player relationship to coerce another person. Using games to control people taints the game and turns it from a fun activity into an instrument of manipulation. Don't be that guy.

Gamer Girl's first suggestion is OK, but it would have simply been better to kick Ted in the first place, rather than invite him to your house for weeks only to have him stand out on the deck for hours doing something else.

EDIT:
Oh, and rule #2: Interfere With Someone's S.O. At Your Own Risk

Nobody likes hearing people rag on their S.O., ever. Personally, I'd only step in if I strongly suspected an abusive relationship or if I were asked for advice. But that's something that should take place outside of the concept of the game anyways.

Gamer Girl
2011-04-21, 02:02 PM
Rule #1 for troubleshooting RPGs: Never Use In-Game Mechanics To Solve Out Of Game Problems

I simply don't believe in this so called rule. Mechanics can solve just about any Out of Game Problem.

A good 60% of people do respond to 'positive in game mechanics' and will change their ways, and at least another 20% will simply go along with them. So that is a good 80% of players that you can 'fix'.

Sure you could follow the 'rule' and hop up on a soapbox and decree ''Thou Shalt Not Game At My House Evermore!''. Or you can take 1.2 seconds to put a little mechanical fix in the game and have a happy player and game.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-21, 02:06 PM
From what you've said OP, it sounds like Bob is willing to change (some of) his behaviors, when they're brought up to him, but he's not very good at keeping up the change. Frankly, that's not so bad. For example, few former smokers can quit at the drop of a hat and never relapse.

If you're still considering about working on Bob's bad behaviors, patience, gentleness, and straightforward ideas are helpful.

I feel X when you do Y, and Z may happen if Y continues.

As for the relationship between Jack and Bob, I think a good friend would share their perspective and support, without imposing their values and forcing their point of view. To me, this means that no longer inviting Jack would be heartless and would send the wrong message. You've got not issues with Jack. Let him decide his own actions for the future. That means giving him the chance to decide for himself if he'll continue playing in your (same / new) campaign, and let him decide to put up with the consequences from Bob if that's what he chooses.

Sebastrd
2011-04-21, 02:24 PM
I've had this situation come up before (although in my case Bob wasn't solely responsible for conflict at the table).

In my case, I met with Jack outside the game, explained that I didn't want to put him in a difficult situation, and booted them both.

There were no hard feelings, and I have had plenty of amicable encounters with both Jack and Bob since.

Sipex
2011-04-21, 02:47 PM
I'm happy to see the support and that I'm not the only one who's experienced this. Putting the campaign 'on hold' sounds like a good alternative, maybe pick it up in a year.

As a bit of a measure, let me tell you about Bob. Not to claim that he's worse than your Bobs or anything, just because it'll quell the minor outrage of me realising that Bob killed my campaign.

edit: I will also consider talking to Bob in a calm, rational matter. He might just accuse me of taking the game too seriously again though.

Bob is a D&D 4th edition fighter
1) Bob doesn't know his class. He knows what it's called but he doesn't actually know how to play despite numerous training attempts and 3 years of playing.

2) Bob is the player who takes up 1/2 the table with his stuff and is confused when people ask him not to.

3) Bob used to play 2 characters back when I was a fledgling DM and didn't realise this was bad. As things went along I realised the ramifications of this action and retconned it, first in a way that shifted the blame (I can't handle more than 5 characters) then, when I realised that he'd jump at the first opportunity to pull his spare back in when a player had to miss a session, for good (It's not fair to the other players. You get two turns while they only get one). Bob frequently forgets the second ruling with the most recent occurance being two sessions ago.

4) Bob makes a ton of characters and tries to get them incorporated into the game in hopes that I'll overlook the above point.

5) We're all pretty sure Bob has a learning disability but won't accept help when we offer it. This means anything new slows the game down significantly and we can't do anything but watch.

6) Bob is horrible at rolling dice. I could split this up but I'll make it all one point. He'll roll his D20 and tell me what he rolled without stating what he's doing. After being asked what he's doing I have to remind him to give me the modifier as well. Typical turn for Bob:
Bob: "I rolled an 18!"
Me: "What are you doing?"
Bob: "Attacking the monster?"
Me: "I mean, how are you doing it?"
Bob: *checks his sheet for a minute* "With my sword."
Me: "...what power?"
Bob: "Oh!" *Another minute of getting his cards out and checking them* "This one!"
Me: "What's you modifier?"
Bob: "Oh!" *has to get his character sheet out again* "Plus 14."
Me: "Okay, that hits, did you roll damage?" (Protip: We constantly ask everyone to roll damage with their attacks to save time)
Bob: "No, what do I need to roll?"
...

7) Bob does the above as his first turn to every battle. He's refused help on tactics or speeding up game play and when we try to get him to set all the dice he'll need into easy to grab sets, he refuses because "I might want to use different ones."

8) Bob doesn't leave his character sheet out for easy access, nor his power cards. They're all tucked away in plastic until needed. This is a problem in battle and he resists our urges to act otherwise.

9) Bob gets upset with me when a monster does anything effective. This makes running a challenging battle impossible because he'll eventually sulk and blame me. Reminder, Bob is the fighter and is built to grab aggro.

10) Bob is a lite cheater. We have a dice box and he's good about rolling in it but in the cases where the dice bounces out he'll check the result. If it's high he'll try to pass it off, if it's low "Oops, out of the box. Let me try again."

11) Bob tries to steal the spot light from everyone. This is Andrew's most recent peeve. Bob won't let you have your sole 5 minutes of just you being useful and insists on rolling on everything, even when another member is better suited for the task.

12) Bob plays his character badly and gets upset with the other players when they out perform him. He doesn't have a bad character, he just frequently makes bad choices. Like never using anything stronger than an at-will and using a great spear when all his feats and paragon path revolve around dual wielding blades.

13) Bob tries to homebrew or negotiate overpowered stuff and then gets upset when I turn it down. I trust him not to use the stuff in a disabling manner (he's good like that) but it's not fair to the other players (who use every advantage they have to the fullest, as per the norm) when he requests an at-will teleport power or a homebrew race which has double the advantages over other races.

14) Bob metagames in a negative way. We had a fun mini game for Jack (our rogue) where he infiltrated a gang and had to play liars dice with them to impress the leader. Since everyone else couldn't join in they got to play players at the table. Near the end of the game Bob purposefully lost so Jack could win.

15) Bob sulks for 30 minutes at a time if he doesn't get things his way. If the party doesn't choose his plan he gets upset, even if we try to incorporate pieces of his plan. It has to be 100% or he'll get upset and the majority of his responses for the next bit will be "Fine..." and "Whatever..."

16) Bob scares the party. Bob constantly berates Jim and until recently (an earlier thread actually) he had a ruler which he'd hit Jim with if Jim talked to much. Bob missed a single session of D&D (due to work) in our 3 years and had a total fit (this is actually when I talked to him and put my foot down). He scared the entire party (minus Andrew, this was kind of the starting point for him, about 6 months ago) into inaction and even got Jack to speak with me about it.
Please note that everyone (except me, being the DM) has missed at least 1 session due to life stuff and none of them acted this way ever.

17) Bob needs everyone to be quiet and pay attention 100% of the time or else he stops everything and has to shout "Guys! Pay attention!" etc...
Innocent sounding at first but this usually happens in situations where everyone DOESN'T need to pay attention so the characters who aren't involved are roleplaying between each other or doing something to stay from being bored (usually productive too, which is why it hurts to lose the game. I've heard horror stories about players who get lost in video games and such).

18) Bob is a defeatest. When things turn ugly, Bob goes "I give up, I can't do this." and sulks.

Sorry, I really really really needed that. Ranting always helps.

Vladislav
2011-04-21, 03:09 PM
he had a ruler which he'd hit Jim with if Jim talked to much.
I'm sorry, is this for real?

You have a player in your group who was habitually beating another player, and you're asking us for advice? Come on, the obvious decision should have been made months, if not years, ago.

Sipex
2011-04-21, 03:17 PM
I should clarify since Beat was a bit of an extreme word which implies extreme violence and possibly a much more extreme picture of what was happening. This doesn't make it any better but for sake of accuracy he'd snap the ruler on the table and sometimes get Jim's arm with it.

That was a short addition to the campaign. Bob never liked it when Jim talked too much (it's one of Jim's problems that we work on) and eventually bought the ruler which he just found out could make the snapping noise too. It lasted 2 sessions before we told him it wasn't okay and then subsequently had Jack hide it as an additional safety measure.

edit: The party (minus Bob) asked me to keep the campaign running after that, this is why it wasn't the original campaign ender it could have been.

olthar
2011-04-21, 03:29 PM
Just end it. If you don't want to end it in confrontation, then deus ex machina it and give them some quick closer to whatever is going on in like 2 or 3 sessions. Tell Andrew and Jim why it is happening ahead of time so they don't complain, and then just don't invite bob or jack once it's done. Bob/Jack complains about the quick deus ex machina type ending, then handwave it in some way.

Obviously, you're better off with a conversation about why it isn't working out, but that kind of thing is easy to avoid.

Jolly
2011-04-21, 03:43 PM
Interesting.... From your description, it sounds less like "Bob is a jerk" and more like "Bob is mildly retarded." And I mean that in a clinical not pejorative way. If someone is mentally incapable of playing a game, and socially incapable of understanding appropriate behavior then I don't think there is a happy solution. Perhaps try to persuade Bob to quit on his own? Doesn't sound like he enjoys things that much.

AFS
2011-04-21, 03:46 PM
Just boot him, no reason why the game can't continue with just jim and andrew.

Post places for new players and incorporate them into the campaign. Don't let your story die because of someone. The introduction of new players isn't that hard. A little rough at first but that is when you can "test" the new player.

Seek the perfect group. Keep the good, banish the bad.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-04-21, 03:46 PM
Sure you could follow the 'rule' and hop up on a soapbox and decree ''Thou Shalt Not Game At My House Evermore!''. Or you can take 1.2 seconds to put a little mechanical fix in the game and have a happy player and game.
Well, the patent-pending Oracle_Hunter's Method of Dealing With Problem Players is as follows:

(1) Identify the Problem
Not all problems in your game are the fault of other Players. It can be you are doing something that is annoying one or more Players. Fixing yourself is always easier than fixing other people. Of course, if the problem is another Player, it's helpful to figure out exactly what it is the Player is doing that is causing the trouble and in what situations it arises in. Most Problem Players are normal Players who are dissatisfied with the game somehow.

(2) Talk With the Problem Player and Find Out What is Wrong
Taking your Problem Player aside and talking with them about what they're doing is a quick and easy way to resolve most problems. At the very least you can get some confirmation for your intuitions as to the problem, and a discussion can narrow down the exact cause of the problem.

(3) Either Ask the Player to Alter His Behavior, or Alter Your Game to Accommodate Him
Some Problem Players have bad habits that they can work to correct if you point them out to them. They're not features of their playstyle - just things they've picked up over the years that are harming your game. Alternatively, there may be some bad habit you've picked up over the years that is really bothering the Player - fix it, and you've fixed the problem. Occasionally the Problem Player is becoming bored and you can fix that by adding more things that interest the Player into the game.

Naturally, don't alter the game if you think the alteration would ruin the game for the other Players or for yourself.

(4) If All Else Fails, Boot the Player
In the end, the fun of everyone else must win out over the fun of one disruptive Player. If the game collapses because of one Player being booted, then you might as well just kill that game and start another without the Player.

N.B. Compare the sort of "altering the game" I propose from that suggested by Gamer Girl. Here, I encourage DMs to alter their game to make it more fun/less annoying for Problem Players. In my experience, most Problem Players are people who have gotten bored/annoyed with your game and turned disruptive to entertain themselves. They're not bad people; they're just acting out. Gamer Girl's suggestions are tailored towards sidelining or punishing Problem Players - using the power of the DM to coerce a Problem Player to change his ways. This is using a game to make someone's life more difficult; I can only see this making the Problem Player lash-out more (in-game) increasing their disruptive behavior in an attempt to throw off the shackles of DM oppression.

Someone like Bob is not going to respond well to coercive actions like ignoring his in-character actions or using fiat to sabotage his character's actions. Admittedly, it doesn't look like he's a salvageable Player, but at least Step 4 of the Oracle_Hunter Method won't make things worse for everyone else.

Flame of Anor
2011-04-21, 04:11 PM
Interesting.... From your description, it sounds less like "Bob is a jerk" and more like "Bob is mildly retarded." And I mean that in a clinical not pejorative way. If someone is mentally incapable of playing a game, and socially incapable of understanding appropriate behavior then I don't think there is a happy solution. Perhaps try to persuade Bob to quit on his own? Doesn't sound like he enjoys things that much.

That was definitely my impression. And though I wouldn't advocate being mean to disabled people, it's not fair to make your other players have to play with him. Just get Bob out of the game as nicely as you can, and don't let him back in.

eepop
2011-04-21, 04:13 PM
How often do you all go do stuff as a group outside of playing D&D?

I've found that occasionally getting out and doing something else (watching a movie, playing mini golf, etc) can help settle these kind of conflicts down a bit.

When all the time you spend with the person is filled with them doing the things that annoy you, you can tend to turn that person into a caricature that just focuses your ire on them.

This works best if you can find an outside activity that can let them get some problem things out of their system. If for example the problem person talks way too much, they probably see D&D as one of the times when they get the most human interaction. Finding an activity where they are actually encouraged to talk a lot (like going to see a bad movie that you can all make fun of during it) can help them purge some of it from their system.

Not sure what would help Bob in this manner though. But a lot of the issues with him are very game specific, so just getting away from those things for a change of pace might help things settle down.

Jay R
2011-04-21, 04:39 PM
You have the wrong thread title. The issue isn't the party falling out. It's your friends falling out. Stop "ignoring the friendship stuff that will have to be dealt with". Deal with it now. Stop trying primarily to save the game. THE GAME IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR FRIENDS.

The solution isn't hard to find. It's just unpleasant to do.

You can see a situation growing worse and worse, with increasing probability of hurting several of your friends.

You have two choices:

1. Make popcorn, and watch with lurid curiosity, because you don't care how badly people get hurt, or

2. Talk to them. Each of them individually and all of them as a group.

Bob deserves to know his actions are hurting people. Jack deserves to know that Bob's actions are hurting people. Andrew deserves to know that his attempts to fix the game will hurt things bigger than the game.

If these friends can't play D&D together, don't ruin friendships over D&D; play something else.

Jornophelanthas
2011-04-21, 05:14 PM
Long rant about Bob.

I remember reading about this situation in an earlier thread several months ago. Except that "Bob" was then named "Player 2" and female. Am I correct?

Analytica
2011-04-21, 06:46 PM
I feel some of those problems are more problems than others. If the player doesn't know the rules and simply says things like "I hit them with my sword", then do the rules-handling for them behind the screen, roll dice and just narrate the results. Basically, form an interface between them and the game which is freeform on their front, rules legal on your front. I guess this is easier in games where the DM rolls all the dice, which is what I am most used to.

More problematic is the player demanding that other players keep quiet. This is the kind of thing that I think the group might talk about, not accusing anyone, but coming to a consensus on what is and is not required player conduct.

The hitting part would be unacceptable, but seems to be over with.

Some out of game behaviours, I think the rest of the group could tacitly decide just to ignore. If he is disruptive, but the rest of the group do what they want regardless (i.e. fixing points 16 and 17), there might be less of a problem.

For the emo type player Bob seems to be, particularly as he doesn't seem to care about the actual mechanics enough to learn them, why not just give him some narrated crowning moments of awesome here and there to keep him satisfied? Sure, fairness and all, but since the player is unable to play effectively, it might be OK to compensate. In roleplaying moments, affirm his character concept in small ways. For instance, if another character should handle a negotiation, perhaps the NPCs become unsettled by the frightening fighter (affirming him) to the extent that they more easily deal with the more social characters (giving them spotlights).

May or may not work. Hard to tell from afar.

Doc Roc
2011-04-21, 07:18 PM
Oh yeah, friendships shouldn't be at risk here (except Bob will stop talking to whoever snaps first, no question but I doubt that person will care too much) and I'll still be able to play video games with Jack over live so it's not a total wash.

Starting a new group without Bob sounds like heaven though.

Bro-Tip: If he ain't fixable, it ain't fixable. It's like Arg said, either deal with the player or kill the campaign. Better to end things before the bitterness spirals out of control. See if Andrew can deal with two more sessions so that you can tie the campaign off if you really really want to, but it's a goner if Bob doesn't bro-up.

I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems, but an insane and omnicidal player currently isn't one.

lerg2
2011-04-21, 07:28 PM
I remember way back when we had a player like that. He wound up with 16,754 gp, +1 Adamantine full plate, +1 flaming hasted spiked chain, the feat 'Improved Trip' and a gauntlet of 'Ghoul touch'. By level 10. 2 real-life players were related to him and the DM was a lifelong friend.(Seriously, they were born in adjacent hospital rooms within 6 minutes of each other!) Eventually he pulled me aside and asked me to talk to Player....... let's call him J. Turns out that Player J was mildly autistic with parent problems, real problems made him use the game as exhaust. When it made him feel better, he obsessed over every rule until the game was commited to memory. However, the problem solved itself when Player J went to College in state X. So, you really need to know what's going on in your player's life. Maybe talk to Jack and find out what's going on?

KillianHawkeye
2011-04-21, 07:33 PM
Interesting.... From your description, it sounds less like "Bob is a jerk" and more like "Bob is mildly retarded."

I think you mean "Bob is a mildly retarded sociopath." Seriously, Sipex, how the hell have you been playing this this jerkass for 3 years?? :smallconfused:



Anyway, here's a little comparison for you:

When a television show gets cancelled, it usually just up and disappears. Full stop. Once in a while, however, the network gives the show's producers a heads-up, and they tie up all the show's loose ends as quickly as possible. Now, it's not going to be the ending they wanted to make, but at least the viewers at home get to see an ending.

Your D&D campaign is in Category 2. You know it's going to be cancelled at the end of the season, and even though you maybe had plans to make two more seasons after this one, you know you're not going to get them. Pulling together whatever ending you can manage is the most satisfying thing you can do at this point. (Of course, this is dependant on the party being able to continue playing together for another couple of sessions.)

And hey, you never know, maybe in a couple years there will be a fan outcry demanding your campaign's return! At least you won't have to worry about getting funding from the networks.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-21, 10:15 PM
It's seems as though Bob's issues are beyond the scope of a socially awkward fixer-upper. I applaud you for your resilient attitude, OP. I would have dropped this hot potato long ago, if I were in your shoes. Then again, with age, I've grown less tolerant of nonsense.

I had players with interpersonal issues outside the gaming session, but everyone knew that once we sat down and started playing, we were there to play, not let our squabbles get in the way. Then again, they and I co-created a grand ol' adventure, which helped.

Bob's issues seem to have more going on than just "interpersonal differences". Intentional violence, would have sealed a player's fate with an auto-boot... and I don't mean the footwear.

D&D requires a moderate level of reasoning, patience, friendliness, cooperation, imagination, focus... Need I go on? Some people just don't have these skills in the right amounts to successfully play a role playing game. Bob might be one of those people.

Toofey
2011-04-21, 10:47 PM
The real answer is simple:
Scorched earth, do what you're going to do, and let what happens happen, anyone who's going to stop being friends over D&D aren't really friends, and if people are this irritating, then they're not really enriching your life either.

I say off like a bandaid, if it's really bob's fault than it lies at bob's feet, if andrew is just being a priss, than he can go instead.

also you're not doing jack (the BF was jack right) any favors by accommodating his enabling of ... I am finding this very hard without cursing... someone who's bad to them.

Not only is honesty the best policy, if you get ahead of it, in this case it may be fun to watch.

I feel like this entire post is more evil than I intended it to be.

Epsilon Rose
2011-04-22, 01:22 AM
I support the mildly manipulative response. That is to say, if you can't actually kick him out, convince him he wants to leave. If you do it well enough you might even be able to rig things so he doesn't feel the need to drag the other two players along with him.

Beowulf DW
2011-04-22, 02:31 AM
The group I'm in has only had one player who was and has been a problem. And his only crime is being a powergamer in the wrong group. We had it out recently: he won't change, and we aren't going to bend over for him anymore. He's not a part of our group now, and we're all still friends.

But, goshdarnit, Sipex, you have one hell of a problem-player. Your patience in dealing with this Bob is certainly at nigh legendary levels. I would have walked away by now, at the very least. With that ruler incident, I would have dragged him outside and showed him just how bad my temper can be. I have no patience for behavior like that.

...*sigh*...Sipex, my mother, my sister, and my older cousin are all teachers who have training in dealing with mentally disabled students. That does not make me an expert by any means, but from what I know, Bob needs help. Professional help. You can't provide this help, Sipex. You need to end this relationship now. It will only get worse if you wait.

CalamaroJoe
2011-04-22, 08:52 AM
The answer is just one: love.
How came that you played all this time with this player Bob? Maybe he was problematic from the beginning, but you agreed to endure the situation 'cause of friendship. Maybe things get worse in recent times...
From what you tell, I think that Bob only needs consideration and self-confidence. Even more if, as it seems, Bob is actually a ...Bobette.
I think that talking with Bob in a simpathetic way, but without hiding your strong dissatisfaction and soreness, is the only way to save the friendship, the game and maybe something else.

I do not want to teach nothing to anyone. I wrote this only because I understand that you, Sipex, are in this state since years, so I infer that the person has some importance for you.

Toofey
2011-04-22, 11:34 AM
I would just like to repeat the part of my response that came from the better angels of my nature.

You're not helping your friend by cooperating in enabling Bob. If Bob is bad to your friend you owe it to them to not accommodate Bob. They may not like it at the time, but you there's no good that comes from treating people well who treat you and your friends badly.

Note: Bob being a girl changes nothing!

CalamaroJoe
2011-04-22, 12:06 PM
there's no good that comes from treating people well who treat you and your friends badly.

Agreed. But, expecially with friends, there's more good in treating them well while at the same time firmly oppose their bad behaviour.
That said, I'm not sure that Bob here is a friend...


Note: Bob being a girl changes nothing!

It depends. Women and men are equal, but are not the same.

Gamer Girl
2011-04-22, 01:07 PM
Compare the sort of "altering the game" I propose from that suggested by Gamer Girl. Here, I encourage DMs to alter their game to make it more fun/less annoying for Problem Players. They're not bad people; they're just acting out. Gamer Girl's suggestions are tailored towards sidelining or punishing Problem Players - using the power of the DM to coerce a Problem Player to change his ways. This is using a game to make someone's life more difficult; I can only see this making the Problem Player lash-out more (in-game) increasing their disruptive behavior in an attempt to throw off the shackles of DM oppression.

That Bob might not be a bad person is the point. And note that they have already talked to Bob and can't just kick him out, as stated in the first post.

It's not about punishing a person, it's about not giving them attention. If your a parent you will encounter the time your kid learns a 'bad word'. The kid will use the 'bad word' all the time..and why? Because of the reaction the kid gets from everyone. If the kid says 'apple', everyone ignores it, but if the kid says '%$^&*' then everyone reacts and goes crazy. So the kid says the word all the time. And a very easy way to get the kid to stop, is to not react. And then the bad word loses it's power and it's no fun. And suddenly the kid won't use the word anymore..after all their is no point. This is not punishment(that would be washing their mouth out with soap) it's just control.

And the same thing works for 'bad' players. If they like to 'steal all the time', make the town poor and only have wood coins(100 wood=1 copper). Suddenly they won't be stealing any more.

It does not automatically work, of course, and like I said it only works on about 60% of people...but I've gamed 10,000 or so RPG's so I can say that it does work.

Solaris
2011-04-22, 01:36 PM
It depends. Women and men are equal, but are not the same.

While somewhat true, I'm afraid I have to disagree. If Bob's a gal that doesn't mean she gets treated with the kid gloves. That's how you get girls who refuse to empathize with other people, as they've never had to encounter a situation where simply being female didn't get them a free pass. 'Consideration' went out the window about the same time Bob demonstrated a consistent and persistent refusal to consider others.

Thus, my advice does not depend on whether or not the bits between Bob's legs dangle. Grow a pair and lay down the law. You don't have to be a jerk about it, and in point of fact that would be counterproductive, but you do have to be firm about it. Bob's killing the fun for the group, so he doesn't deserve to play with the group. If Jack persists in indulging Bob's tantrums, that's Jack's problem. I wish them both the best even as I laugh at them. The campaign might survive, it might not, but going the way you are seems untenable. Either you get rid of the good player, or you get rid of the bad player, but you can't keep both.

Flame of Anor
2011-04-22, 01:41 PM
Women and men are equal, but are not the same.

A sensible and frustratingly hard-to-find attitude, I must say. Not that it means that OP should let a woman be a jerk to him more than a man, of course.

Jarawara
2011-04-22, 03:48 PM
Major Edit: Gamer Girl, I directed this post at you, and I realize now that I got very rantish. I apologize, I do not mean to crucify you. However, I'm not changing the post, because I feel very strongly about this and I don't know a better way to phrase it. So I apologize again if I sounded unduly harsh of your ideas, but....

*~*~*


It's not about punishing a person, it's about not giving them attention.

Oh we understood, Gamer Girl. We understood completely. We just completely reject your idea. Sorry about being unduly direct about this, but your proposal is just... a really bad idea.

See, what it boils down to is a slighty modified version of "That'll teach ya!". You know how young kids young adults a whole bunch of people will have the habit of, when resolving inter-personal conflicts, take action against others without actually directly speaking to them? They instead will punish the other in some way, and then mutter under their breath "That'll teach them to mess with me!"

News flash: It doesn't 'teach them' anything. Unless the person is given a clear indication of cause and effect, they won't recognize the connection of the punishment and the sin.

Example: Boyfriend flirts with another. Girlfriend gets revenge by slashing boyfriends tires, but otherwise stays silent. Says to a mutual friend (who doesn't pass it on to boyfriend), "That'll teach him not to flirt with others when he's with me." Boyfriend finds his tires slashed. Thinks it must be random vandalism, curses up a storm, but otherwise doesn't learn a damn thing, continues on with his normal actions.

I see this kind of behavior in people all the time. And being the recipient of this behavior, this 'teaching method' on several occasions, (all incidences in gaming situations), I can tell you your method may work 60% of the time... but the other 40% of the time it utterly pisses off the recipient without any useful benefit.

A couple of classic examples of mine: I have just spent the last nine years running a campaign where the party split on regular occasions, often for long intervals. We ran multiple ongoing storylines, with focus going from one character to the next for periods of time. So I kinda see that as 'normal'.

So I join a different campaign, and I see the opportunity to step to the side for a moment while the other characters are busy. This other group, however, has a long standing policy against splitting the party, and sees anyone who does so as selfish attention whores. A long standing policy... but they didn't bother to state the policy. So I wander off on my own for a moment - and the DM plops a monster in front of me and eats my character. He grins at me, the other players smirk, and play resumes while I have to make up a new character.

What did I learn? That my new group is a bunch of jerks. I didn't even know there was a 'policy' against splitting the party until much later. I didn't associate my wandering off with my getting killed. I didn't associate the punishment with the sin. All I knew was that as soon as the 'new guy' (me) tried to do anything, the 'old guys' curb-stomped me into submission.

I left the group, angry, and didn't learn till later what their 'lesson' was supposed to be. Or that there even was a 'lesson' I was supposed to be learning.

And I have many, many examples of that, going back 30 years. People never learn, that to 'teach a lesson', you have to actually spell out the issue.

*~*

So how does this relate to your example?

Player spends his time wandering off and robbing banks. Rest of party goes off to slay the dragon. The local banks seem to have their vaults down to a minimum, having only 25 copper peices and a bunch of worthless wooden coins. Rest of party slays dragon, brings back a huge horde of cash.

Does the player then realize that it's much more profitable to slay dragons? Yes, 60% of the time.

But the other 40% of the time, the player only realizes that the DM is out to get him, pulling a total asspull with him, making the banks unreasonably poor while probably bumping up the dragon just as punishment for not 'following the railroaded plot'. Heck, if the player is a tad paranoid, he might even believe that the 'joke' is that the dragon's horde is not that big, that the other players are in on the joke, that the DM said the dragon had 100,000 gp but the players know to only record a tenth that amount. And the banks easily have that amount, but the the DM was just picking on the player because he doesn't like the like player for whatever reason.

Lesson learned: DM and players are all jerks. Player either leaves, angry, or stays and tries to 'get even' by continuing his actions further. Or worst of all, he simply feels victimized, but thinks it's the only game in town and/or he has low self esteem, and so he stays.... but he doesn't learn a god-damned thing, having never associated the 'crime' with the punishment.

*~*

Solution: Tell the player exactly what the player is doing wrong. If player does not change behavior, take action against the player, making it clear to the player that the action is due to the player's continuing the previously stated problem.

In short - talk to the player. Do not use in-game actions to resolve out of game problems. It may work 60% of the time... but it pisses off the other 40% without ever clarifying them to what the issue really was.

"That'll teach ya"... rarely works.

Kylarra
2011-04-22, 04:33 PM
It does not automatically work, of course, and like I said it only works on about 60% of people...but I've gamed 10,000 or so RPG's so I can say that it does work.Unless you've been gaming for the past 28 years straight, I find this a tad hyperbolic.

CalamaroJoe
2011-04-22, 05:00 PM
...
So how does this relate to your example?


Not much.
They already asked Bob not to try to take all attention. The policy (even if not so strict as in your giggling old group) has been clearly stated.

Quietus
2011-04-22, 07:31 PM
I'd just like to point out that the earlier idea of handling Bob's rolls for him is one I heartily endorse. If their problem is that they don't know how to handle their attacks and damage, then keeping a cheat sheet of your own that handles their abilities and holds their numbers will cut down a lot on their time-wasting. I would, however, as recently noted, make it clear to them what you're doing and why. Tell them clearly, "You seem to be worried about damaging your materials, and won't keep them out during game time. So I've got my cheat sheet here, which will let me speed up combat. You're welcome to provide alternatives, but you're taking as much time every round as everyone else combined, and this seems to be the easiest way to make sure everyone gets equal time, okay?"

Perhaps worded a little better, as that's pretty much off the top of my head, but keeping the gist of it ought to be useful.

Solaris
2011-04-22, 07:51 PM
...
"That'll teach ya"... rarely works.

I declare you a patron saint of common sense, foe to all passive aggressive weaseling out of an actual solution to a problem.


Unless you've been gaming for the past 28 years straight, I find this a tad hyperbolic.

I find it more than a 'tad' hyperbolic. That'd require playing a game a day every day for a little over twenty-seven years.

The Glyphstone
2011-04-22, 08:06 PM
I declare you a patron saint of common sense, foe to all passive aggressive weaseling out of an actual solution to a problem.



I find it more than a 'tad' hyperbolic. That'd require playing a game a day every day for a little over twenty-seven years.

Or 3 games per day for 9 years. Or 10 games simultaneously every day in two shifts for roughly 17 months...that's it! GG is actually a cyborgian RPG-playing supercomputer!

Acanous
2011-04-22, 08:30 PM
Society does treat men and women differently. It's why there's significantly more male-to-female transsexuals than female-to-male.

If Bob is male, he's a drama queen. Not bothering to learn the rules of the game and hanging out just to be an attention whore smacks of a controlling, unhealthy relationship and you need to take Bob aside and tell him what needs to change, why, and what measures you're going to bring in to remind him of what's going on. Buy a chess clock. Click it whenever Bob's in the spotlight, and whenever anyone else the rest of the group combined has someone in the spotlight. Do this for one session and SHOW Bob what a diva he's being. Keep bringing the clock, and start ending his turns if he's taking too long. I'd define "too long" as around a minute and a half.

If he says it's unfair, tell him that he needs to learn the rules if he wants to keep playing the game, because it's unfair to dump this on you.

If Bob is female, it's likely she's used to being treated as the center of attention by males, especially the "Nerdy" type who play DnD. She may actually feel that being present at your sessions is giving you some kind of prestige, that you're running a game with a girl in it, and that you should be happy to have her.

Tell her that she needs to know the rules. Go over them WITH her. If she won't learn the rules, use the cheat sheet suggestion.
If she insists on being in the spotlight, turn that into not-always-a-good-thing.
Assassins go after the ones calling all the shots. They kill kings, not guards. Draw this comparison for her as you let her know that the more she does, the more the bad guys will take notice of her.

As for the dice soft-cheating, meh. We all like to keep our good rolls and dislike the bad. At least she's not claiming "Nat 20!" on anything below a 4.
This one's a bit peevish, and not actively disruptive. Let it go, regardless of Bob's gender :p

Men respond better to solid proof and logic. Women respond better to empathy and possibility. Use accoardingly.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-23, 07:02 AM
Society does treat men and women differently. It's why there's significantly more male-to-female transsexuals than female-to-male. [...]
Men respond better to solid proof and logic. Women respond better to empathy and possibility. Use accoardingly.

I decided to respond to this reply. I've kept the two points I'd like to make comments on.

About MTF and FTM transgender folks:
That mere social treatment "causes" some men to transition into women is nonsensical. To use mere social treatment as a factor differentiating between MTF and FTM trans folks, is even less sound, and not supported by the literature.

To be brief, some folks who eventually think about transitioning sexes go through the following: they are (1) born intersexual ("hermaphrodites"), (2) have their sex/gender chosen (incorrectly) for them at birth by doctors / parents (often with surgical intervention), and then have to (3) reassert and reorient themselves towards their appropriate sex/gender, presumably towards the sex/gender they always really were.

Generalizing whole genders based on vast and broad norms like "logic vs. empathy" is a foolish practice. Sexism and stereotype certainly reinforce this practice, but they aren't reliable constructs. We can't depend on them to make accurate predictions about individual people's thoughts and actions.

In other words, we're not so predictable and easy to generalize.

Quietus
2011-04-23, 09:09 AM
I decided to respond to this reply. I've kept the two points I'd like to make comments on.

About MTF and FTM transgender folks:
That mere social treatment "causes" some men to transition into women is nonsensical. To use mere social treatment as a factor differentiating between MTF and FTM trans folks, is even less sound, and not supported by the literature.

To be brief, some folks who eventually think about transitioning sexes go through the following: they are (1) born intersexual ("hermaphrodites"), (2) have their sex/gender chosen (incorrectly) for them at birth by doctors / parents (often with surgical intervention), and then have to (3) reassert and reorient themselves towards their appropriate sex/gender, presumably towards the sex/gender they always really were.

Generalizing whole genders based on vast and broad norms like "logic vs. empathy" is a foolish practice. Sexism and stereotype certainly reinforce this practice, but they aren't reliable constructs. We can't depend on them to make accurate predictions about individual people's thoughts and actions.

In other words, we're not so predictable and easy to generalize.

Perhaps not, but there IS a bell curve, which leans in one way for men, and another for women. As genders, we're wired differently, and as people within those genders, there's massive variation. So yes, Man X may be more empathetic/less logical than Girl Y, but in the general sense that's less likely.

Of course, none of this has to do with the OP, so..

FatJose
2011-04-23, 09:18 AM
Perhaps not, but there IS a bell curve, which leans in one way for men, and another for women. As genders, we're wired differently, and as people within those genders, there's massive variation. So yes, Man X may be more empathetic/less logical than Girl Y, but in the general sense that's less likely.

Not to mention the technology isn't there yet where a proper man can be built from a women like you can the other way around.


Of course, none of this has to do with the OP, so..

Yeah, the details on the gender of Bob is completely irrelevant. If Bob is a guy and Jack is a girl, Bob's an jerkass. If they're both male then Bob is a gay jerkass. And if Bob is a girl...well.. I think it's pretty obvious...
jerkass

Kiero
2011-04-23, 11:55 AM
I simply don't believe in this so called rule. Mechanics can solve just about any Out of Game Problem.

A good 60% of people do respond to 'positive in game mechanics' and will change their ways, and at least another 20% will simply go along with them. So that is a good 80% of players that you can 'fix'.

Sure you could follow the 'rule' and hop up on a soapbox and decree ''Thou Shalt Not Game At My House Evermore!''. Or you can take 1.2 seconds to put a little mechanical fix in the game and have a happy player and game.

Sorry, you're flat-out wrong. This sort of passive-aggressive means of avoiding real resolution of problems just lets them rankle and fester.

You fix out of game problems by dealing with them like a mature adult: by talking to the person concerned. If a resolution can't be reached you part ways.

Vladislav
2011-04-23, 07:04 PM
About MTF and FTM transgender folks:This is officially the worst thread derailment in the history of the internets. Congratulations, you win the Eighty Boxcar Pileup prize!

On topic, while passive-agressive treatment may cure the sympthoms, it will never get to the root of the problem. Of course, for some people, curing the sympthoms is enough. Remember, you're not married to those people, you just game with them once a week. So, while Oracle Hunter is right, that still doesn't make Gamer Girl all-wrong.

DabblerWizard
2011-04-23, 08:26 PM
This is officially the worst thread derailment in the history of the internets. Congratulations, you win the Eighty Boxcar Pileup prize!

On topic, while passive-agressive treatment may cure the sympthoms, it will never get to the root of the problem. Of course, for some people, curing the sympthoms is enough. Remember, you're not married to those people, you just game with them once a week. So, while Oracle Hunter is right, that still doesn't make Gamer Girl all-wrong.

Vladislav - Feel free to view Acanous' post right above mine. Responding to another person's derailment isn't as bad as creating the derailment in the first place... :smallwink:

Assertiveness is the way to go folks.

Mutazoia
2011-04-24, 10:25 PM
Personally, we've had a player in our group who wasn't as bad as "Bob" but was bad enough. Temper tantrums when things didn't go his way, etc. We "took a break". Basically we said we were not meeting for a few weeks because a couple of players had to go out of town, and we would send out e-mails when we were getting together again. We continued to meet weekly, we just never e-mailed him. Eventually he found a new group to pester.

This might be a little harder for you since Bob and Jack are together. I would see if Jack could make some excuse to meet with out Bob ...say since the group isn't meeting for a while he's going to use the time for jogging/guitar lessons/what ever.

Kiero
2011-04-25, 04:01 AM
Personally, we've had a player in our group who wasn't as bad as "Bob" but was bad enough. Temper tantrums when things didn't go his way, etc. We "took a break". Basically we said we were not meeting for a few weeks because a couple of players had to go out of town, and we would send out e-mails when we were getting together again. We continued to meet weekly, we just never e-mailed him. Eventually he found a new group to pester.

This might be a little harder for you since Bob and Jack are together. I would see if Jack could make some excuse to meet with out Bob ...say since the group isn't meeting for a while he's going to use the time for jogging/guitar lessons/what ever.

That's also a pretty passive-aggressive and underhand solution. Would it really have been so difficult to just say outright to the guy "sorry you're not a good match for this group, we think it best if you didn't come back"?

Mutazoia
2011-04-25, 08:01 AM
That's also a pretty passive-aggressive and underhand solution. Would it really have been so difficult to just say outright to the guy "sorry you're not a good match for this group, we think it best if you didn't come back"?

We had tried talking to him about his various problems in the past and he was always super defensive about the whole thing. In the end it was the general opinion that ousting him that way was better than sitting through a major blow up and screaming bout

Solaris
2011-04-25, 08:53 AM
We had tried talking to him about his various problems in the past and he was always super defensive about the whole thing. In the end it was the general opinion that ousting him that way was better than sitting through a major blow up and screaming bout

But significantly less fun.

Sipex
2011-04-25, 09:43 AM
Wow, busy busy weekend. I had assumed this thread was done. I'll try to get all my replies in order.

1) Bob is not legally mentally handicapped in any way but in truth we'd have no way of knowing as none of us are qualified to assess him and he's never been (nor would ever willingly be) tested. That said, some bits of his personality come off as mental deficiencies but others are just 'Bob is sometimes a jerk.'

2) We spend a lot of time with Bob out of session actually, Bob and Jack are a couple I hang out with regularly and the five of us all hang out together doing other things (bowling, birthdays, movies, etc). This is actually what I meant when Andrew said he'd "Limit his exposure to Bob" since it wasn't just in game that was bugging him about Bob, but out of game as well. So yes, this is 'my group of friends is going to fall out' just as much as my game.

3) Yes, I've ranted about Bob before and I did refer to him as female, I won't confirm whether Bob is actually a man or a woman though. To protect identities I like to swap up gender and names regularily just in case. Have an internet for being so observant!

4) Bob isn't as stupid as some of my posts may have made him seem. If I had to put it into D&D terms I would say Bob has lower int but higher wis. If I simplified the game for Bob he'd know and feel offended because I'm dumbing the game down for him. The other players would also get pretty ticked off about any blatant favouritism too. This also applies to anything passive aggressive, but add on that he'll blame me for the poor outcome.

That said, a cheat sheet of my own with Bob's modifiers on them is an excellent idea. I think it's subtle enough that he won't care.

5) I'm unsure if talking to Jack will do anything but I could try it. My only fear is it'll kill things between us for a bit

6) If this does kill the campaign I'd rather have it die then end it premature. It's at a point where things would be VERY obvious that I'm ending it prematurely. From there I can either let everyone in on the remainder of the story or judge to see if this is just some sort of break.

7) We have an hourglass for timing stuff, it was originally implemented for Jim because he'd talk through the battle and then waste time choosing his turn. Fortunately Jim is an incredibly fast learner and now has his turn planned out, ready to roll and can talk in a casual way during the off time between turns. We keep it mainly for Bob now but once in a while it's needed for others.

Sorry if I missed your reply!

Jornophelanthas
2011-04-26, 11:23 AM
3) Yes, I've ranted about Bob before and I did refer to him as female, I won't confirm whether Bob is actually a man or a woman though. To protect identities I like to swap up gender and names regularily just in case. Have an internet for being so observant!

Thank you for the internet.

Here is some advice I have to offer. I'm not sure if it's anything really useful for your situation, though.

1. I get the impression that Bob leads a generally unhappy/stressful life and uses D&D to vent all his frustrations, and does so in a very extreme way. I'm guessing Bob spouts a lot of adrenaline at the table. I'm suspecting Bob needs his character to have all the attention and be good at everything because of dissatisfaction with real life issues, which also explains the defeatist attitude and the sulking if things don't go the way Bob wants.

(It could also be possible that the game is intellectually beyond Bob's reach to play well, which (along with the desire to play well) leads to frustration, stress and venting. Perhaps your using a cheat sheet of Bob's combat modifiers may reduce this.)

2. Talk to Andrew. His irritation with Bob is also part of the problem. Try to get Andrew to try his patience, or advise him to have a calm conversation with Bob (if you expect Andrew can keep things civil, even if Bob doesn't). If you do this, prepare Bob in advance to let the idea of Andrew's criticism slowly sink in. Get Jack to help with this, if you think it's necessary. Also, offer to be a sort of mediator if this talk does take place. Do not take sides, though.

3. Here's a possible solution scenario that could keep all friendships intact, but may require more effort on your part.
Remove Bob and Jack from the campaign at a suitable story-ending point, by offering to DM a campaign just for them. (If your story and setting allow it, they could even keep their old characters, such as having the party split up permanently, with each pair of players undertaking their own quest.) This new game would then be all about Bob (and Jack), where Bob doesn't need to share the spotlight with 3 others (only with Jack), where you can tailor encounters to Bob's play level, and where Bob and Jack may play multiple characters (if you so agree). Meanwhile, continue playing with Andrew and Jim in your regular game, and recruit a few new players to fill the gaps. It is essential that you can fully enjoy DM-ing both campaigns, though.
Is this enabling Bob's ego? Yes, but is this a bad thing if everyone has a good time? Bob is not a team player, so give Bob a roleplaying experience that doesn't involve a team of players. Besides, if Bob gets what he wants (i.e. attention and success) he might be far more pleasant to game with and it could be more enjoyable for all involved (including you).

Doc Roc
2011-04-26, 11:39 AM
It is also possible that no one ever really taught Bob to play, you know. There's a chance that at least some of the tension could be defused by investigating this, enough to end the campaign without bricking your peergroup. If you lived in RVA, I might know some people who are trained mediators. But...

Kiero
2011-04-26, 11:59 AM
Sounds like some people have fallen foul of the Geek Social Fallacies...

Jolly
2011-04-26, 12:14 PM
Sounds like some people have fallen foul of the Geek Social Fallacies...

I was thinking the same thing...

Lord Vampyre
2011-04-26, 12:18 PM
Sorry, you're flat-out wrong. This sort of passive-aggressive means of avoiding real resolution of problems just lets them rankle and fester.

You fix out of game problems by dealing with them like a mature adult: by talking to the person concerned. If a resolution can't be reached you part ways.

Unfortunately, Passive-Agression like everything else has its place. Direct resolution of a problem doesn't always work, even it is the most favored way of dealing with things. Some people are just really sensitive to criticism. For these people, a more subtle means of control has to be instituted.

Sure, it is easy for everyone not involved to simply say kick "Bob" out. But the OP seems to actually care about his friendship with "Bob" and "Jack". Simply kicking "Bob" out, or dealing with him/her directly (as the OP has done before) could severly jeopardize that friendship.

In Gamer-Girl's defense, she is punishing the actions directly with in-game solutions. Since the out of game actions are effecting the in-game, this is a fairly reasonable method. Having someone constantly going off on their own, slows down the game and reduces the "fun" for everyone else. There are two possible ways of dealing with this, kill their character (ie getting caught robbing the bank) or make sure they don't profit from their excursion (ie the bank vaults are empty).

Now, I understand many people on these boards are against what is generally termed "railroading" the plot. Maybe this is due to the nature of many PbP games, I'm not sure. But what I do know is that when one person is constantly taking the spot light from everyone else, the game starts becoming less enjoyable from the players they are taking the spot light from.

Although I will agree that dealing with a problem in the most direct manner is the ideal solution, I still believe that passive-agressive tactics have their place.

Sipex
2011-04-26, 12:24 PM
Doc and Jorno both make good points and I won't go into breaking it all down but I think you're both right. Bob does seem to use D&D as a way of measuring success (and as an escape from the bad parts of real life) and he also learned how to play D&D in a very laid back environment where I suspect it was more or less free form roleplaying based on how he describes it.

Confrontation on how to make Bob a better player and reduce bad habits will be difficult though as Bob is unlikely to want to talk about it and then it is unlikely he'll actually listen (even though he'll be present and responding to our concerns he won't actually try to learn and will try to turn it around on us, this has happened before).

That said, I have no better options so it's worth a damned shot, I'll see if I can get some buy in from the other players.

Also, what are the Greek Social Fallacies?

The Glyphstone
2011-04-26, 12:26 PM
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

Doc Roc
2011-04-26, 12:39 PM
http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

Oh, that's rather lovely! :: bookmark ::
I definitely see how it relates, but I'm not sure we have enough information to make a judgment on the matter one-way-or-another. Basically, yes, I could see why you might argue a couple of those are in action here, on either side of the problem at hand, but again, we see through a GM screen, darkly.

Sipex
2011-04-26, 12:41 PM
I feel learned.

I was also able to attribute several of those fallacies not only to Bob but to myself and some of the group as well. Crazy.

Doc Roc
2011-04-26, 12:46 PM
I feel learned.

I was also able to attribute several of those fallacies not only to Bob but to myself and some of the group as well. Crazy.

Remember! A social screw-up takes two.*


*Offer not restricted to two parties, no purchase necessary, redemption not available in all countries or states of mind.

Sebastrd
2011-04-26, 02:09 PM
I'm willing to bet a considerable amount of money that Bob has a personality disorder. Although it's doubtful she'll listen, you ought to encourage her to get professional help. Said help is only as effective as her desire to get better, of course.

On the other hand, if you look into it and learn to understand her disorder, you can deal with it more easily instead of grasping at straws as you're doing now. The bottom line is that if she has a personality disorder, and I'm sure she does, you and your group are woefully underqualified to try and "fix" things at the gaming table.

Kiero
2011-04-26, 05:09 PM
Although I will agree that dealing with a problem in the most direct manner is the ideal solution, I still believe that passive-agressive tactics have their place.

I disagree. In a world of grown-ups, we should be seeking to take the most mature and direct way to resolve these sorts of situations, not duck them because we find confrontation or conflict difficult.


Doc and Jorno both make good points and I won't go into breaking it all down but I think you're both right. Bob does seem to use D&D as a way of measuring success (and as an escape from the bad parts of real life) and he also learned how to play D&D in a very laid back environment where I suspect it was more or less free form roleplaying based on how he describes it.

Confrontation on how to make Bob a better player and reduce bad habits will be difficult though as Bob is unlikely to want to talk about it and then it is unlikely he'll actually listen (even though he'll be present and responding to our concerns he won't actually try to learn and will try to turn it around on us, this has happened before).

That said, I have no better options so it's worth a damned shot, I'll see if I can get some buy in from the other players.

The problem here, in my eyes, is that you think this is about making Bob a better player. It isn't, Bob doesn't sound simply broken in their approach to this game, but in their entire motivation for gaming. They're using it in an extremely unhealthy manner to validate their own self-esteem. You don't legitimate and encourage that sort of thing if you're really this person's friend as you believe.

Maybe I have a low tolerance for toxic people in my life, but I'm not seeing much here to recommend Bob staying in the group at all. Bob is a tag-along who contributes little in and of themselves, worse still sours the experience for everyone else around the table. As other people have said, it actually sounds like Bob needs professional help.

Lord Vampyre
2011-04-26, 06:08 PM
I disagree. In a world of grown-ups, we should be seeking to take the most mature and direct way to resolve these sorts of situations, not duck them because we find confrontation or conflict difficult.

As a recovering idealist, I understand your sentiment. However, reality never seems to play out the way we feel it should. Too often, I've seen those who do the right thing get punished, and those who do the wrong thing get rewarded. It is no wonder for me then, when people try their hand at more subtle manipulations.


Maybe I have a low tolerance for toxic people in my life, but I'm not seeing much here to recommend Bob staying in the group at all. Bob is a tag-along who contributes little in and of themselves, worse still sours the experience for everyone else around the table. As other people have said, it actually sounds like Bob needs professional help.

In Bob's defense, I would like to point out that we know very little about Bob. All we know so far is some of Bob's issues with the group he/she games with. Bob could be a really decent individual outside of game. We can't make that judgement. If s/he is toxic then it will up to his/her group to deal with it as they see fit.

Jornophelanthas
2011-04-26, 07:32 PM
Maybe I have a low tolerance for toxic people in my life, but I'm not seeing much here to recommend Bob staying in the group at all. Bob is a tag-along who contributes little in and of themselves, worse still sours the experience for everyone else around the table. As other people have said, it actually sounds like Bob needs professional help.

I gave my advice under an important assumption and an essential condition.

The important assumption is that Bob is a friend of Sipex in more respects than just roleplaying, and more than just Jack's SO. He has stated that the same group of people (including Bob) also gathers for other activities.

The essential condition is that all involved actually will enjoy the proposed solution. Therefore, Sipex will need to find the idea of being DM for just Bob (and Jack) in addition to the "regular" campaign (which may need replacement players for Bob and Jack) not merely worthwhile, but fun as well, since it requires a lot of extra work. (With the possible added bonus that a game tailored to meet Bob's play style should make Bob a more pleasant player.)

Any issues of mental health, personality disorders or learning disabilities cannot and should not be addressed at the gaming table. If any of such issues might give Bob's personal friends cause for actual concern about the well-being of Bob or his environment at their discretion, then it needs to be addressed in some way unrelated to gaming. But I don't see such a vibe anywhere in Sipex' posts (the ruler incident being a possible exception), and the rest of us only have second-hand information.

Metahuman1
2011-04-26, 08:29 PM
I'd let the game die, wait about six weeks too two months, and start a new game.

New game should be the old game form the start with minor tweaks.

Start with new group. New group is old group, + one or two new people (that's gonna be the tricky part, digging up a couple of extra gamers.), and - problem player.

If problem player wants in, just say "Sorry, but I met these two new guys in the mean time and really wanted too have them in a game after I got too know them for a while, so were full up, and I'm not kicking anyone out. I'm sorry, better luck next time."

If possible, also schedule so that problem player has IRL stuff that takes precedent over gaming going on during every session, unlike everyone else, which will make it a bit easier too turn him away by also pleading that the logistics just flat didn't go in his favor that time and it's nothing personal, just got dealt a bad hand by fate that time, happens to everyone.

Garwain
2011-04-27, 02:48 AM
Have Bob to do a very special mission: playing a video game with god mods and cheat codes on while the rest of you role play.

or

Invite 2-3 more players to your campaign so that Bob has no longer the emotional dominance.

Kiero
2011-04-27, 03:59 AM
I gave my advice under an important assumption and an essential condition.

The important assumption is that Bob is a friend of Sipex in more respects than just roleplaying, and more than just Jack's SO. He has stated that the same group of people (including Bob) also gathers for other activities.


And I say this is the gateway to the specific Geek Social Fallacies about having to involve everyone in a group activity just because they are "friends". Not all friends are well-suited to every activity a subset of friends might want to engage in.

Bob wants to tag along, but doesn't sound like a good fit for the group as a player. That they are someone else's SO is kind of irrelevant, if they don't fit, they should be finding something else to do with their time that isn't souring everyone else's fun.

Jornophelanthas
2011-04-27, 05:29 AM
And I say this is the gateway to the specific Geek Social Fallacies about having to involve everyone in a group activity just because they are "friends". Not all friends are well-suited to every activity a subset of friends might want to engage in.

Bob wants to tag along, but doesn't sound like a good fit for the group as a player. That they are someone else's SO is kind of irrelevant, if they don't fit, they should be finding something else to do with their time that isn't souring everyone else's fun.

I've read the linked article on GSF. From Sipex' comments, I am presuming that Sipex is not prone to this particular social phallacy, but Bob certainly is. Furthermore, Bob comes off as someone who does not cope well with anything that is even remotely perceived as criticism, including being pointed towards social phallacies.

The article does not say that geek social fallacies should be aggressively counteracted in others, only that readers be made aware of them in order to deal with people who have adopted social fallacies (and to improve their own proneness to them).

I am assuming that Sipex wants to remain friends with not just Jack, but also with Bob. The problem is that Bob is likely to take being removed from the gaming group as a friendship-ending insult, and will force Jack to choose between him or the others.

Bob is the dysfunctional one, and there is little to nothing that Sipex can change about this. Nor should this be tried.

If Sipex wants to remain friends with Bob (which I assume is the case), Sipex should avoid anything that Bob perceives as a "friendship test'. Pandering to a person's faults is not necessarily a bad thing.

Kiero
2011-04-27, 06:37 AM
I've read the linked article on GSF. From Sipex' comments, I am presuming that Sipex is not prone to this particular social phallacy, but Bob certainly is. Furthermore, Bob comes off as someone who does not cope well with anything that is even remotely perceived as criticism, including being pointed towards social phallacies.

The article does not say that geek social fallacies should be aggressively counteracted in others, only that readers be made aware of them in order to deal with people who have adopted social fallacies (and to improve their own proneness to them).

I am assuming that Sipex wants to remain friends with not just Jack, but also with Bob. The problem is that Bob is likely to take being removed from the gaming group as a friendship-ending insult, and will force Jack to choose between him or the others.

Bob is the dysfunctional one, and there is little to nothing that Sipex can change about this. Nor should this be tried.

If Sipex wants to remain friends with Bob (which I assume is the case), Sipex should avoid anything that Bob perceives as a "friendship test'. Pandering to a person's faults is not necessarily a bad thing.

Pandering to someone's faults when they are relatively harmless isn't a bad thing.

But when those faults are fun-ruining to everyone else, then as far as I'm concerned it is a bad thing. Bob is dysfunctional and won't be changed, so the only way to deal with them is exclude them no matter what the fallout.

If that means losing Jack as well, and having to re-recruit some more players, so be it. Thems the choices really, deal with Bob and the fallout for potentially more fun for everyone.

Or don't deal with Bob and suck up crappy gaming experiences as they constantly sour things.

Jornophelanthas
2011-04-27, 08:01 AM
Pandering to someone's faults when they are relatively harmless isn't a bad thing.

But when those faults are fun-ruining to everyone else, then as far as I'm concerned it is a bad thing. Bob is dysfunctional and won't be changed, so the only way to deal with them is exclude them no matter what the fallout.

If that means losing Jack as well, and having to re-recruit some more players, so be it. Thems the choices really, deal with Bob and the fallout for potentially more fun for everyone.

Or don't deal with Bob and suck up crappy gaming experiences as they constantly sour things.

Have you misread my suggestion to the OP?

I was talking about pandering to Bob's wishes by removing Bob (and Jack) from the main campaign and setting up a private campaign (just for them) on the side, while the main campaign continues without Bob's disruptions and aggravations.

As long as the DM is happy to do this (and starting a new campaign on the side is a big "if"), I don't see any losers.

Vladislav
2011-04-27, 08:34 AM
Nah, won't work. The Bobs of this world aren't happy unless they have someone to annoy. A private campaign will not fit the bill. Bob will very soon become bored and angry at having no one to annoy. Or will just annoy the DM to the point of ragequit.

Angelmaker
2011-04-27, 08:49 AM
Let one after another all of Bobs character into the gaming group. before the next session call Bob to tell him, his characters are a group of themselves, so you need to split up the party. Gaming times for Bob will be on thursday, Jack and the gang play fridays. :smallbiggrin:

Kiero
2011-04-27, 08:50 AM
Have you misread my suggestion to the OP?

I was talking about pandering to Bob's wishes by removing Bob (and Jack) from the main campaign and setting up a private campaign (just for them) on the side, while the main campaign continues without Bob's disruptions and aggravations.

As long as the DM is happy to do this (and starting a new campaign on the side is a big "if"), I don't see any losers.

So you want the OP to have to do extra work to make a special accomodation to Bob? Sod that for a lark. The loser is the OP having to run two campaigns, including a small one for an annoying player, rather than just one.

Sipex
2011-04-27, 10:02 AM
While I appreciate the effort the whole 'your own campaign' thing will only work for a couple sessions at most before Bob wants to play with our group of friends again. Even then he'll insist on sitting in on the other session just to be with the group, and while he won't have a character he SHOULD be playing he'll definitely try to introduce his other character (and resist when I say no) then result to tactics which will annoy the other players (although I believe he doesn't realise these tactics are annoying but confrontation on them will still lead to Bob sulking at the table).

Also, Jorno, you really understand the situation and Bob actually. You're pretty much 100% right on almost all accounts. If Bob gets kicked it will be a 'friendship test'. Hell, on a bad day Bob considers your inability to talk to him on the phone RIGHT NOW a 'friendship test' and gets moody for a couple days.

The only thing you didn't get right is Bob and I aren't all that close. We're civil, we can talk but we really don't have much in common outside the game and Jack. Bob and Andrew are pretty close though and that's also part of the reason why Andrew's patience is waning the fastest.

...

Also Jim is a good friend to all of us, he gets along well with everyone.

Vladislav
2011-04-27, 10:21 AM
What can I say, you need to be more selective about the kind of people you let into your social circle. Not too late for a remedy though ...

Kiero
2011-04-27, 10:26 AM
While I appreciate the effort the whole 'your own campaign' thing will only work for a couple sessions at most before Bob wants to play with our group of friends again. Even then he'll insist on sitting in on the other session just to be with the group, and while he won't have a character he SHOULD be playing he'll definitely try to introduce his other character (and resist when I say no) then result to tactics which will annoy the other players (although I believe he doesn't realise these tactics are annoying but confrontation on them will still lead to Bob sulking at the table).

Also, Jorno, you really understand the situation and Bob actually. You're pretty much 100% right on almost all accounts. If Bob gets kicked it will be a 'friendship test'. Hell, on a bad day Bob considers your inability to talk to him on the phone RIGHT NOW a 'friendship test' and gets moody for a couple days.

The only thing you didn't get right is Bob and I aren't all that close. We're civil, we can talk but we really don't have much in common outside the game and Jack. Bob and Andrew are pretty close though and that's also part of the reason why Andrew's patience is waning the fastest.

...

Also Jim is a good friend to all of us, he gets along well with everyone.

Boot Bob. Seriously, this is a toxic person who is adding no value to your life.

If Jim is a good friend, then after the dust is settled they'll be cool with you, regardless of whether or not they still play with you.

Sipex
2011-04-27, 11:07 AM
Nah, I'm not going to boot Bob specifically as that results in the whole 'friendship test' thing with Bob possibly trying to get Jack to choose him over friends (I can't confirm that he'll do it, we've never seen it happen yet so I'm not going to make the assumption Bob is like that until he does it, he does really really seem like the type though. Either that or I believe he'll be distant and passive agressive about any attempt Jack makes to see us).

Besides, booting Bob has the same effect on the campaign as a player exploding on Bob or the campaign simply dying, and that is...the campaign dies. I think my primary objective will be to let the campaign die if it comes down to it, that way we all get to keep our friendships and can ruin them the old fashioned way if we really wish.

Kiero
2011-04-27, 11:43 AM
Nah, I'm not going to boot Bob specifically as that results in the whole 'friendship test' thing with Bob possibly trying to get Jack to choose him over friends (I can't confirm that he'll do it, we've never seen it happen yet so I'm not going to make the assumption Bob is like that until he does it, he does really really seem like the type though. Either that or I believe he'll be distant and passive agressive about any attempt Jack makes to see us).

Then you've left yourself with no options but to continue to accept un-fun gaming and possible growing resentment from everyone else. And attendant risk of someone blowing up at Bob and causing a much worse fallout.


Besides, booting Bob has the same effect on the campaign as a player exploding on Bob or the campaign simply dying, and that is...the campaign dies. I think my primary objective will be to let the campaign die if it comes down to it, that way we all get to keep our friendships and can ruin them the old fashioned way if we really wish.

There are clean breaks where things can be picked up again, and messy ones leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth making a resumption unlikely. Booting Bob is likely to be a lot cleaner than someone saying things they might regret later to Bob and exploding things.

Are you actually motivated to do anything about this? Because it doesn't sound like you're prepared to do anything about the situation, just vent.

Sipex
2011-04-27, 11:47 AM
Oh yeah, I've actually taken a lot of the advice to heart and mentioned a few things posters here have mentioned that I will try.

But the main purpose of this thread was originally 'This is probably going to happen, how do I deal with the fallout when it does happen?'

Lord Vampyre
2011-04-27, 12:16 PM
What can I say, you need to be more selective about the kind of people you let into your social circle. Not too late for a remedy though ...

This is easy in theory, but difficult in practice when you have a small social circle to begin with. The difficulty in practice comes in to play when close friends of yours begin to introduce their new SOs.


There are clean breaks where things can be picked up again, and messy ones leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth making a resumption unlikely. Booting Bob is likely to be a lot cleaner than someone saying things they might regret later to Bob and exploding things.

Honestly, if you had actually been listening, either way Sipex is going to end with the same messy fallout. The only sensible option to avoid the fallout is to end the game, something the OP doesn't really want to do.


But the main purpose of this thread was originally 'This is probably going to happen, how do I deal with the fallout when it does happen?'

If you really don't want to end the game, and are willing to deal with the fallout when it finally does happen. You can try and deal with it in a mature manner, by having everyone involved sit down to discuss it. However, based on your analysis of "Bob" and "Jack". I don't really believe that this will work.

Other than that, you can start a new campaign with others to replace "Bob" and "Jack". Jim and Andrew will more than likely still be willing to attend a game without "Bob". Finding new players that will fit your group is sometimes difficult. You can probably even revise your campaign to begin shortly after you finished to allow for the change in players.

Until your either ready or forced to deal with the situation you might as well pray, wish on a star, and keep your fingers crossed. Waiting for the shoe to drop tends to be more stressful than dealing with the situation at hand. I would suggest that you do something soon to save your sanity.

Vladislav
2011-04-27, 01:22 PM
This is easy in theory, but difficult in practice when you have a small social circle to begin with.
Who said it was easy? However, in my humble opinion, the reason he has a small social circle to begin with is because he devotes so much of his time and energy to this one person, who, let's face it, gives back very little, if anything at all. Ok, he "gives back" a negative amount. A very large negative amount.

Just getting rid of this huge emotional black hole known as Game Time With Bob(TM) will, in the long run, enlarge, not reduce, the OP's social circle.

Sipex
2011-04-27, 02:58 PM
Yeah, I think my main strategy here is to go as expected for a while and see how Andrew's 'less Bob interaction time' pans out. As it is the amount of fun we have compared to the amount of frustration Bob hands out is still balanced in favour of fun.

I'll also use some of the tips here in order to try and reduce some of Bob's irritability. Like the cheat sheet for example. I'll also start prompting Bob when his turn is coming up and see if I can run a 'tactics training' session where the party visits some wizened old commander who teaches them how to play better (ie: Having dice ready...actually being effective, etc)

If Andrew reports that things aren't getting better I'll have to end things prematurely before he (or one of us) blows up. I'll make some excuse up.

Note: For those of you not in the loop or those of you who may have forgotten. Approaching the situation as adults was always the preferred solution and it has been attempted before with poor results. While I would not be to heartbroken over Bob (we're not really close friends, Bob is just Jack's SO) I am close to Jack (friends for over 10 years) and would like to be able to hang out with him regularily without Bob being PA about it.

From there we'll just hang out with Bob normally, play boardgames and the like, we can handle that and still have fun with Bob. If Bob is unbearable we'll have to handle it as adults from there.

For gaming? I'll just join Jim's gaming club (Jim is a PhD student and has good connections to the 'serious' gaming world in our city, Bob isn't interested in this) and play through those channels. Essentially separating being friends with Bob from D&D.

If things blow up before I can diffuse it? I guess I'll have to deal with it another way.

Thank you all for you help, gave me a lot of perspective.

Sipex
2011-04-27, 03:02 PM
Double post.

Kiero
2011-04-27, 03:16 PM
For gaming? I'll just join Jim's gaming club (Jim is a PhD student and has good connections to the 'serious' gaming world in our city, Bob isn't interested in this) and play through those channels. Essentially separating being friends with Bob from D&D.


To be honest, I don't know why you don't just do this now. End the uncertainty and drama in one stroke.

Sipex
2011-04-27, 03:21 PM
As I said, we're all really invested in the current campaign. It's the first serious campaign for most of us and, not to be cocky, but the story is very very compelling.

Plus it integrates all the character back stories. We saved Bob from an arranged marriage with a Lamia, Jack killed his brother and repaired his father's sword, Jim's character just broke up with his IC girlfriend and is now posessed by a strange force which is taking advantage of his sorceror roots (he's a Sorceror who was forced to train as a wizard) and Andrew's character is trying to break free of a deal he made with Torog.

Sebastrd
2011-04-28, 12:16 PM
Jim is a PhD student and has good connections to the 'serious' gaming world in our city, Bob isn't interested in this...

Two things:

1. Bob isn't interested because she knows it's unlikely she'll be able to emotionally bully and manipulate people outside your circle that have no attachment to her. She's perfectly content to emotionally bully and manipulate the four of you.

2. Since when does Bob's disinterest preclude anyone else from pursuing Jim and his connections? Sipex, you either need to realize that you guys deserve better and should stand up for yourselves, or you deserve what you get because you choose to accept the abuse.

Sipex
2011-04-28, 12:23 PM
I have no idea why Bob isn't interested, if I had to guess I would say it's because he feels intimidated since he's aware he's not the best gamer and he's also never been past high school (whereas most of the gaming circle in our city is compiled of students in university or people who have graduated).

Either way, it's not something which prevents us from looking to them for connections now, this is simply because none of us (except Jim) have time for more than one RPG. It's a bonus because then I won't have to answer the awkward question of 'why didn't you guys invite me to play.' which would be mature to answer but would inevitably make hanging out with Jack difficult after the fact.

Toofey
2011-04-29, 12:24 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Jack is really important to you than you're doing them no favors by abiding Bob.

Sipex
2011-05-02, 02:27 PM
Whelp, sounds like Andrew is about to lose it, Bob plucked some strings of his with a passive agressive facebook update and now Andrew is at the end of his rope.

Essentially at this point he's going to 'break up' with Bob so this isn't just my D&D game asplode but the friendship asplode.

I've got him calm enough that I get a chance to warn Jim about what's about to happen and that we're not going to hold it against him or make him choose Bob or us. From there? Dealing with the fallout.

Well, thanks for the advice guys...even if I didn't get a chance to use it!

Bovine Colonel
2011-05-02, 03:25 PM
:eek:

Only thing I can say is, good luck!

Jornophelanthas
2011-05-03, 08:26 AM
I'm sorry to hear that it's not going to work out.


I've got him calm enough that I get a chance to warn Jim about what's about to happen and that we're not going to hold it against him or make him choose Bob or us. From there? Dealing with the fallout.

Don't you mean Jack? I thought Jim was the one who talked too much who was friends with everyone, while Bob was Jack's SO.

Is it going to be an option to end the campaign by having a final game session with everyone except Andrew, and also to have a final game session with just Andrew? That way, all players will have some kind of closure about the campaign, which may help everyone to make the transition to new roleplaying activities, be they with old or new friends (or a mixture of both).

Also, if you're going to DM a new campaign after this, don't invite Bob.

Sipex
2011-05-03, 09:14 AM
I'm sorry to hear that it's not going to work out.



Don't you mean Jack? I thought Jim was the one who talked too much who was friends with everyone, while Bob was Jack's SO.

Is it going to be an option to end the campaign by having a final game session with everyone except Andrew, and also to have a final game session with just Andrew? That way, all players will have some kind of closure about the campaign, which may help everyone to make the transition to new roleplaying activities, be they with old or new friends (or a mixture of both).

Also, if you're going to DM a new campaign after this, don't invite Bob.

Nono, I mean Jim. Once Bob and Andrew fall out Bob will need someone to rant about Andrew to and the natural choice here is Jim (who is often the listener when it comes to problems).

I won't be warning Jack simply because he cares for Bob too much and would warn Bob which would counteract Andrew's entire well thought out email (I haven't seen it, but he assures me that he's had an impartial party check it over so he gets his points out without slamming Bob or getting too ranty).

Having a final session MIGHT work, it depends on how Bob takes this. Andrew and I are really good friends as well and if Bob makes me choose (which I won't) then he may cut me off as well, so it all depends on how this goes.

Haven't seen Jim yet so the fallout is still pending.