Trekkin
2011-12-01, 09:25 PM
This has actually been bugging me for some time, but I have a golden opportunity to perhaps set it right, and I thought I'd ask the Playground for advice. This is going to be a very long post.
The titular minmaxer actually isn't, at least not mechanically, but they are when RPing. While not mechanically superior, they are mechanically unique, and the player will never back down on two points:
1. If they are capable of doing it, they are the best choice to do it, bar nothing. Got the party sharpshooter ready to cover the whole party from the rooftops with a rapid-fire sniper rifle? no, no, it's much better to have this guy chucking knives, because it's quieter. Said player will then turn around and brag about how versatile they are.
2. Their character has no flaws. I have to stop here and say that because of the hidden complexities of the system, my fellow DM and I built the characters in conference with the players, and in the process we threw in a fairly detailed backstory designed not to inhibit their future character development but rather to give them a well-rounded basis from which to explore a very complex world. This guy was a stage magician who was an organized crime lord on the side, and basically was addicted to having absolutely everyone in his town either love him or fear him; the crowd loved his shows, and the powers that were feared his organization. Now, whenever we bring this up in-game, he's always pleased to see his char's name recognized whenever he's dumb enough to use it (there's a reason the guy left the city to tromp around with a circus troupe), but refuses to believe he actually has any enemies, alleging "my character wouldn't have done that" despite having enthusiastically embraced "being a big enough badass to have made my empire" and loving the backstory we'd handed him that explicitly said he had powerful enemies, as well as something of an inferiority complex. I'm all for players liking their characters and building idealized characters, but this is Deadlands, and character flaws are a major part of the game--one he's missing, and one he's losing out on the equivalent of XP--as per the rules--for not roleplaying, much to his frequently voiced indignation. Even out of character, he's a step away from doublethink regarding his character, and utterly refuses to acknowledge that the possibility exists that he could fail to do something.
This kind of shameless bragging annoys me, but more to the point it annoys the rest of the group, and it seriously drags down the roleplay when there's this guy running around saying "not to worry! I'll just do everything!" and even sneaking around sabotaging those efforts of the group he felt were detrimental to the party.
Now, I've brought this up with him out of character before, asking him to tone down the bragging and the overtaking of over players' roles, and he's like this with everything, so of course he's blind to suggestions that he the player is playing the game in a way that makes it less fun for the party. I could, in theory, just remove him from the game, but I don't know if this merits that yet, especially since he's not doing it maliciously. He's just similar to a megalomaniac, and both his playing and his GMing of other campaigns reflects that, since all of his NPCs are idealized versions of him.
This makes me curious about the possibility of an ingame solution, one uniquely possible because
he's a Harrowed, so I can spend fate chips to take over his character. Typically, this is used for murderous rampages, but I've used it far more judiciously and to greater effect in the past. The party is heading into a complicated, difficult engagement that they know is going to be absolutely dreadful. I was going to take over this guy for one of the more difficult battles to complicate it, but I've been considering taking him over for a longer period and actually playing him as a team player and using him to make things easier. See, the party knows that Harrowed normally get controlled for things in line with the goals of the BBEGs, so this should make them very suspicious, but I'm fairly sure if they knew how much he could support the party, they'd start trying to get him possessed, since they've thrown the possibility around when he's been annoying in the past. "The manitou may kill random people, but at least he's quiet about it."
Naturally, this isn't my first choice, although it's certainly my most entertaining. Thus, then, my questions: First, is there a better intermediate step between talking to a player hurting the game and kicking that player out of the game, and second, if I go through with this, how in general would I optimize shutting down an insufferable character and giving the rest of the party a bit of relief? I'm torn between being quietly supportive and having the guy become openly humble.
The titular minmaxer actually isn't, at least not mechanically, but they are when RPing. While not mechanically superior, they are mechanically unique, and the player will never back down on two points:
1. If they are capable of doing it, they are the best choice to do it, bar nothing. Got the party sharpshooter ready to cover the whole party from the rooftops with a rapid-fire sniper rifle? no, no, it's much better to have this guy chucking knives, because it's quieter. Said player will then turn around and brag about how versatile they are.
2. Their character has no flaws. I have to stop here and say that because of the hidden complexities of the system, my fellow DM and I built the characters in conference with the players, and in the process we threw in a fairly detailed backstory designed not to inhibit their future character development but rather to give them a well-rounded basis from which to explore a very complex world. This guy was a stage magician who was an organized crime lord on the side, and basically was addicted to having absolutely everyone in his town either love him or fear him; the crowd loved his shows, and the powers that were feared his organization. Now, whenever we bring this up in-game, he's always pleased to see his char's name recognized whenever he's dumb enough to use it (there's a reason the guy left the city to tromp around with a circus troupe), but refuses to believe he actually has any enemies, alleging "my character wouldn't have done that" despite having enthusiastically embraced "being a big enough badass to have made my empire" and loving the backstory we'd handed him that explicitly said he had powerful enemies, as well as something of an inferiority complex. I'm all for players liking their characters and building idealized characters, but this is Deadlands, and character flaws are a major part of the game--one he's missing, and one he's losing out on the equivalent of XP--as per the rules--for not roleplaying, much to his frequently voiced indignation. Even out of character, he's a step away from doublethink regarding his character, and utterly refuses to acknowledge that the possibility exists that he could fail to do something.
This kind of shameless bragging annoys me, but more to the point it annoys the rest of the group, and it seriously drags down the roleplay when there's this guy running around saying "not to worry! I'll just do everything!" and even sneaking around sabotaging those efforts of the group he felt were detrimental to the party.
Now, I've brought this up with him out of character before, asking him to tone down the bragging and the overtaking of over players' roles, and he's like this with everything, so of course he's blind to suggestions that he the player is playing the game in a way that makes it less fun for the party. I could, in theory, just remove him from the game, but I don't know if this merits that yet, especially since he's not doing it maliciously. He's just similar to a megalomaniac, and both his playing and his GMing of other campaigns reflects that, since all of his NPCs are idealized versions of him.
This makes me curious about the possibility of an ingame solution, one uniquely possible because
he's a Harrowed, so I can spend fate chips to take over his character. Typically, this is used for murderous rampages, but I've used it far more judiciously and to greater effect in the past. The party is heading into a complicated, difficult engagement that they know is going to be absolutely dreadful. I was going to take over this guy for one of the more difficult battles to complicate it, but I've been considering taking him over for a longer period and actually playing him as a team player and using him to make things easier. See, the party knows that Harrowed normally get controlled for things in line with the goals of the BBEGs, so this should make them very suspicious, but I'm fairly sure if they knew how much he could support the party, they'd start trying to get him possessed, since they've thrown the possibility around when he's been annoying in the past. "The manitou may kill random people, but at least he's quiet about it."
Naturally, this isn't my first choice, although it's certainly my most entertaining. Thus, then, my questions: First, is there a better intermediate step between talking to a player hurting the game and kicking that player out of the game, and second, if I go through with this, how in general would I optimize shutting down an insufferable character and giving the rest of the party a bit of relief? I'm torn between being quietly supportive and having the guy become openly humble.