PDA

View Full Version : Player argument, game in danger



Noedig
2011-11-28, 11:23 PM
So I was Dming an impromptu session for my campaign and gave what I thought was an innocuous task of basically negotiating. Out of nowhere one of my players (player A) got immensely aggravated. Player A said that both IC and OOC he couldn't negotiate worth a damn and flat out did not want to do this task. I tried to pacify him and explain that he or his character didn't have to if he didn't want to, but one of the other players (Player B) took issue with him.

The main issue that player B had was the Player A was completely unwilling to try at this task, and that Player A was throwing a fit because the campaign had taken a direction he wasn't good at, or didn't agree with. Some heated words were exchanged and before I could intercede and explain the situation, player B left very aggravated.

Now I know both players very well, but I was not expecting such a poor response to what I had so hurriedly planned. Advice please?

ILM
2011-11-29, 03:46 AM
Either one or both of the players need to take their meds, or there's something else going on here. What are you not telling us?

Hand_of_Vecna
2011-11-29, 04:56 AM
There could be little else going on here I've seen something similar in a game myself.

In this game absolutely everything had to be haggled over and I found it very intimidating as the one "city boy" in the group. In my case it was made worse by me being teased about it a little and the DM insisting on Rping out things that should have been handwaved and often not presenting any normal items for sale leaving comically beat up items and disgustingly embellished items.

There was eventually a bit of a blow up when after much misery I asked what skill covered haggling so I could just take a few ranks and start rolling it. When I was told that it wasn't a skill I responded that it must be a personality trait so I wrote "is good at haggling" on the back of my character sheet under my physical description in a dramatic fashion.

I could see the same happening over any form of "negotiation".

Mastikator
2011-11-29, 05:16 AM
Maybe player A and/or B were having a really bad day. It happens; what's important is that they realize how they were acting, apologize to the rest of the group and remember to take a chill pill before every session.

Knaight
2011-11-29, 05:28 AM
Maybe player A and/or B were having a really bad day. It happens; what's important is that they realize how they were acting, apologize to the rest of the group and remember to take a chill pill before every session.

I'm inclined to agree. Stuff happens, and even if they don't give some sort of formal apology, it isn't a big deal. Moreover, being willing to hand wave over things that a character does but a player doesn't want to play through is a good idea.

Shadowknight12
2011-11-29, 05:43 AM
This is why you talk to your players before a campaign begins and find out what kind of things they aren't willing to do, what aggravates them, what strains the boundaries of their comfort zones and so on.

So that you don't see them flip out when you inadvertently touch a nerve.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-29, 10:40 AM
Just what were they supposed to be negotiating?

Jay R
2011-11-29, 11:35 AM
Player A has convinced me of one thing, at least. I agree that he cannot negotiate well.

Rorrik
2011-11-29, 01:19 PM
Player A has convinced me of one thing, at least. I agree that he cannot negotiate well.
Well said. Honestly, I love roleplaying games because I'm not good at negotiating and the like. I consider it an opportunity to build those skills. He must have just been having a bad day. I'm sure normally he's open to obstacles.

Noedig
2011-11-29, 03:59 PM
Thanks for the advice. I've got another session planned for this evening and I hope it goes better. I have Player A and Player B handling different tasks entirely now, mainly to give A something to do while B does the talking. I will post again once the session ends.

jackattack
2011-11-29, 05:36 PM
I've never been at a gaming session where something didn't come up that at least one player and/or character wasn't good at, or didn't enjoy (as much as other things). Diplomacy/negotiation, riddles, stealth rolls, combat, whatever.

The traditional response is to sit back and let somebody else('s character) handle it, and wait for the focus to change back to something you enjoy and/or excel at. It's also a decent excuse to raid the fridge, go outside for a smoke, take a bathroom break, check the news, or whatever.

eulmanis12
2011-11-30, 08:04 AM
tell them to negotiate using the Good PC Bad PC routine. That give the one that can negotiate something to do, and lets the other guy roll a bunch of intimidate checks.

Rorrik
2011-11-30, 12:09 PM
tell them to negotiate using the Good PC Bad PC routine. That give the one that can negotiate something to do, and lets the other guy roll a bunch of intimidate checks.
I like, I like. That's what the rpg's about, teamwork. A good team can come up with a creative solution to the problem.

Noedig
2011-11-30, 12:23 PM
It turned out ok. I had player B do the talking, and sent player A off to burn down the guys office and steal incriminating documents in order to blackmail him into agreement. Everyone's happy now.

GungHo
2011-12-01, 05:05 PM
Ok. So, he's not a bargainer, he's a sociopath.

*scoots back from the table slowly*

Lord Vampyre
2011-12-01, 05:26 PM
Ok. So, he's not a bargainer, he's a sociopath.

*scoots back from the table slowly*

He's an adventurer (they're all sociopaths). :smallwink:

Shadowknight12
2011-12-01, 05:28 PM
He's an adventurer (they're all sociopaths). :smallwink:

Murderous, sociopathic hobos, to be exact.

hamishspence
2011-12-01, 05:30 PM
What made BoED interesting to me was it presented (at least as an ideal, even though it didn't always live up to it perfectly) the idea of Good adventurers being required to not act like this if they wished to stay Good.

"the mere existence of evil orcs is not just cause for war against them, if they have been doing no harm" - the emphasis on redeeming enemies if possible, and so on.

Shadowknight12
2011-12-01, 06:20 PM
What made BoED interesting to me was it presented (at least as an ideal, even though it didn't always live up to it perfectly) the idea of Good adventurers being required to not act like this if they wished to stay Good.

"the mere existence of evil orcs is not just cause for war against them, if they have been doing no harm" - the emphasis on redeeming enemies if possible, and so on.

That sort of thing is completely unnecessary, because the kind of people that scoff at the 'murderous, sociopathic hobos' stereotype (*raises hand*) already know that, and are already integrating moral complexity to their campaigns; while the people who like the 'murderous, sociopathic hobos' sterotype will utterly ignore that part of the book.

Not to mention the part that it heavily depends on the delivery to avoid triggering massive rage. If it's presented as a suggestion, I hardly think anyone would actually care. If it's presented in a "This is how Good works. If you don't do Good this way, you're doing it wrong" fashion, you're pretty much going to piss everyone off (save the small sector that happens to agree with you).

Noedig
2011-12-02, 01:36 AM
Well to be fair, Player A is an enforcer type for the local thieves guild, and player owed the thieves guild a favor. It also helps that most of them hover the in the LN to N range.