Dealing with players.. help

[Kerilstrasz]

How would you deal with a player that every other choice his group has to
make CRUCIAL or not, makes an assumption without been certain or having
knowledge of the subject and convinces the rest of the group to join his
decision?
for example...
DM.. You come across a crossroad..
PC X tracks...
DM.. You find a trail of footprints going west & 1 going east, the west one seems
like a dozen of heavy armed humanoids passed this point 3-4 hours ago, walking in
2 straight lines. The east one seems like 2 really heavy humanoids, with flat
& deep footprints passed this point about 3 hours ago.
PC- Oh... iron golems.. they didn't kidnap the 2 women we r looking for... those
npcs bk at village said there were humans.. we should run west!

*Things they know*
the kidnap happen just after the army patrol left the village.
the tracker had found a pair of tracks going in the house but not as deep.
the kidnappers probably paralyzed their victims according to traces of poison
the group's rogue found.

and that's just an example of many...
and the highlight of every single time this thing happens the player in question
is protesting "why? how should we know? it should be as i say! you are wrong!
the world i supposed to be built according to PCs!!!! there is no reason at all
to be smthing there if it is of no use to PCs"

so? how would you deal with him?

Consider that "get him aside and talk" is not very good idea, i ve tried that
number of times but most of the times there is no conclusion cause it will lead
into a fight..

[rockdeworld]

I don't totally understand your argument because of the bad grammar. It sounds like you're saying that your PC is using out-of-character knowledge while in character, but then you provide an example where he uses in-character knowledge to solve a problem in-character. What's your problem with this player?

On another note, "get him aside and talk" is always a good idea. It precedes option 2: tell him to GTFO.

[Studoku]

In between the line breaks and the terrible grammar, it's hard to tell what you're saying.

If the problem is just the player/their character making dumb assumptions and the other players following it, let them follow through on them a couple of times. Let them be wrong and have them suffer for it until the other characters learn to stand up to the other character.

Actually, how do the others react to his suggestions? Do players just go along with them to avoid an argument? Does anyone try to argue?

I think later in your post you tried to say the player has such a level of entitlement that he expects you to change the game based on what he says happens. There are games that run in a collaborative fashion like this but they typically don't use D&D 3.5 and require a little more maturity than your group has.

You need to deal with this out of character by talking to the player. If the player is that immature that he can't handle a conversation, is there a reason why you can't kick them from the group?

[Krazzman]

So your player jumps to the wrong conclusions and demands you to fix it so he is right?
I wouldn't change my "campaign" only because he thinks deeper footprints can only be done by things out of Iron... If he isn't the Partyface/Leader the other players should do something against this. At least the tracking one. Maybe next time give the players an int or wis skill check to determine to recollect on the hints they got when they stand before such decisions.

Maybe it works out in the end but... in your example you could have the "military group" have set camp 1 or 2 hours in on this track, so the PC's reach them rather "soon-ish" and see: damn we took the wrong way.

Sometimes players can be rather... dull/dimwitted or other things and can't for the love of all that is holy think properly... sometimes this happens to DM's too... I had one campaign where an Orc waved with a Fencepillar at us so the DM could give us an obvious hint to go in a certain direction.

I can see this will be able to sort itself out as soon as the other players getting frustrated that everytime he dictates a course of action that the outcome is abyssmally.

[Regitnui]

I think the player in question is making wild assumptions...

You know what I do? When my players try something unusual, I roll with it. Say, as above, your player takes the path that's not the one you intended. Run with it. Let that one assumption lead the party further away from their goal. It can be frustrating, but perhaps you need to limit his options. Like when you come to the crossroads, give them one option. If people complain about being railroaded, tell them that the other choice is that particular player leading them off course.

[UndertakerSheep]

Show them his decisions can lead to severe consequences. When he convinces the party to follow the wrong tracks, have them find nothing that has to do with kidnapping. When they go back and take the other route, they've wasted too much time: the kidnapped person is now in a more dire predicament, like held in a heavily fortified location or about to be sacrificed for some ritual.

Do this whenever it makes sense, and at the very least the other players will stand up to him. Make sure you don't punish the players for thinking outside of what you have prepared, tho. Just make them see the consequences of making decisions based on player knowledge.

[AttilaTheGeek]

I don't totally understand your argument because of the bad grammar. It sounds like you're saying that your PC is using out-of-character knowledge while in character, but then you provide an example where he uses in-character knowledge to solve a problem in-character. What's your problem with this player?

On another note, "get him aside and talk" is always a good idea. It precedes option 2: tell him to GTFO.

I read the OP and was mentally composing a response when I came across this, which is exactly what I'm trying to say. If he's too immature to carry on a reasonable conversation out-of-character about his in-character actions, then he's too immature to be in your game.

[Trasilor]

I don't really see a problem...

In the game, the player is making wild assumptions based off of no evidence and then wants you to fix it? He then blames you for his mistake and then cries that you are bad DM?

Ok...now I see a problem....:smallamused:

Just remind him and the other players that their actions have consequence. Blindly following one player without critical thinking will cause problems (in game).

Out of game, just remind him that it is a game. A game in which the good guys don't always win - hence the excitement :smallamused:

[only1doug]

I don't totally understand your argument because of the bad grammar. It sounds like you're saying that your PC is using out-of-character knowledge while in character, but then you provide an example where he uses in-character knowledge to solve a problem in-character. What's your problem with this player?

On another note, "get him aside and talk" is always a good idea. It precedes option 2: tell him to GTFO.

I read the OP and was mentally composing a response when I came across this, which is exactly what I'm trying to say. If he's too immature to carry on a reasonable conversation out-of-character about his in-character actions, then he's too immature to be in your game.

Really? I read the OP and then when I read that I wondered if Rockdeworld had read a different OP than I had. The reason that I wondered that is that the example provided shows the player completely misinterpretting IC knowledge and assuming that OOC knowledge was accurate to create an erronius answer to the IC actions.

IC Knowledge: There were 2 light humanoid tracks entering the house where the kidnap occured.
IC Knowledge: there are two heavy humanoid tracks going one direction.
OOC Knowledge: Iron Golems are humanoid.

Players wild guess conclusion: the tracks were made by Iron Golems
GM's intended conclusion: the tracks were made by the kidnappers carrying the victims.

Proposed solution 1:
When the player makes guesses and attempts to convince the other PC's, make secret knowledge checks for the other PC's to provide evidence to counter the assumptions.

e.g. roll a die behind a scree and add Trackers Int or Know:arcana, if result is 10 or higher pass the tracker a note stating "Iron Golems are large in size, these tracks were left by medium sized creatures".

Proposed solution 2:
ensure that you leave multiple clues and evidence when laying this sort of trail (or any other sort of mystery, remember the Three Clue Rule (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule)):
e.g. a high track result might be able to identify a specific abnormality in the bootprint , perhaps a makers mark, a trapped stone creating an unusual pattern or a scar within the print where the sole has been damaged.
e.g. a tiny clue thrown out by the kidnap victim to mark the turning on the trail.

e.g. a shred of the victims clothing, caught on a twig, torn off as they passed by.

[Sylthia]

Only1doug, I clicked on your sig link and expected a song.

I'd let it play out. As a DM if I give the PCs two options, even if one seems obviously correct, I plan for both. They pick the wrong direction? They just catch up with the soldiers, who may or may not be friendly to the party. Maybe they get ambushed by brigades who happen to know the kidnappers and let you know where they went if the PCs interrogate them. You can't always count on the party to draw the conclusions you intend.

[Nettlekid]

I'm going to join in on the bandwagon "I have no idea what OP is saying." But I'll hazard a guess.

So, there were kidnappers who kidnapped two women, shortly after the army patrol had left the village. There were tracks at the scene of the crime, and traces of paralyzing poison. The PCs come to a crossroads where there are several footprints, a set going to the west made by many armed men (clearly the army) and a set of footprints from two heavy humanoids going east. The PC in question decided that the east-headed footprints weren't the ones they were looking for, and decided to go west.

Your problem with this is...um...That they used OoC information about what would have made the heavy footprints, Iron Golems, and disregarded them as a result? But you also have a problem with the fact that the PC, when wrong, cites a metagamey opinion that if the DM mentions it, then it has to be relevant. Now, the PCs class and mental scores might be very pertinent here. If he has reason to know the appearance of an Iron Golem's footprint, but maybe has low Wisdom, it makes sense in-character that he'd assume what he did. As a matter of fact, without using that metagamey opinion that I just mentioned, I might think similar. "We're looking for tracks. Here are some tracks, but they're deeper than the ones at the scene of the crime. They probably aren't the same people, so we'd be wasting our time. Maybe we should go west, to the army, to see if they noticed anyone coming into town as they were leaving," or something like that. But metagaming, I would think "Here are two sets of prints. One is for flavor, the army, that we clearly aren't meant to follow. The other set is unknown to us, but since the DM gave us this when we looked for a trail, this is the trail to follow. Let's go down this way." Which is kind of the argument you don't want the PC to have, right?

I'd like to hear some more concrete examples of situations in which the PC has protested that "The world is designed for the benefit of the PCs" and things on that note. Because while that's rather an exaggeration, it also holds a grain of truth. You as the DM aren't going to mention every bump, every crack in the earth, every worn footprint on those crossroads. You're going to mention the ones that are important for the PCs to find. So if the PC (the character, not the player) in question had a reason to think it was Iron Golems who made the tracks, then it's kind of reasonable from both an in-game perspective not to follow them, but not from a metagame perspective. Yet you're upset that he's metagaming. So there seems to be a discrepancy.

Could you explain it more, and maybe...try to put some more effort into grammar, pacing, sentence structure, and clarity in your writing?

[Kerilstrasz]

first of all im terribly sorry for my bad grammar.. english is not my native language..
some of you asked for another example..

Old tower.. bandits use it as hideout for the past 2 months...
the tower is an abandoned building used by a local baron, known for its secret
hideplaces, getaways and almost maze like corridors...
the above and some more trivial knowledge was verified facts the PCs found
via skills and research...

They go in the tower looking for the bandit's lair... as per DM description, they
manage to found their way by avoiding doors &/or corridors by noticing thick
layers of dust on the floor &/or spider webs on doors.. so...
at some point the elf (that player) notices a secret door.. the manage to pry it
open and do the usual spot & search checks... the corridor behind the SD was
dusty (as any other corridor they avoided) and there were several extended
webs on their path... 1 or 2 players stated the obvious truth but the elf said
that "hey.. that was a secret door... it is there because it has to hide smthing"
after some more real life diplomacy checks he convinced them to follow the
"secret corridor"...

ok... i understand that he maybe wanted to "just" check the corridor... but he
actually was expecting to find the bandits lair, and when they didn't (they
actually followed a corridor that guide them out of the tower) he protested about
the secret door! that if the door wasn't to be found and followed then it shouldn't
be there, cause everything is supposed to be for the PCs.. i tried to explain him
that the world, the buildings, the living and not, in general, aren't there for them..
they are part of the world! they did know that they will encounter sec.doors,
they had the wits to get a flawless path into a mazelike building but a Secr.Door
was enough to make a mess...

PS: once more i m sorry about my grammar

[Driderman]

first of all im terribly sorry for my bad grammar.. english is not my native language..
some of you asked for another example..

Old tower.. bandits use it as hideout for the past 2 months...
the tower is an abandoned building used by a local baron, known for its secret
hideplaces, getaways and almost maze like corridors...
the above and some more trivial knowledge was verified facts the PCs found
via skills and research...

They go in the tower looking for the bandit's lair... as per DM description, they
manage to found their way by avoiding doors &/or corridors by noticing thick
layers of dust on the floor &/or spider webs on doors.. so...
at some point the elf (that player) notices a secret door.. the manage to pry it
open and do the usual spot & search checks... the corridor behind the SD was
dusty (as any other corridor they avoided) and there were several extended
webs on their path... 1 or 2 players stated the obvious truth but the elf said
that "hey.. that was a secret door... it is there because it has to hide smthing"
after some more real life diplomacy checks he convinced them to follow the
"secret corridor"...

ok... i understand that he maybe wanted to "just" check the corridor... but he
actually was expecting to find the bandits lair, and when they didn't (they
actually followed a corridor that guide them out of the tower) he protested about
the secret door! that if the door wasn't to be found and followed then it shouldn't
be there, cause everything is supposed to be for the PCs.. i tried to explain him
that the world, the buildings, the living and not, in general, aren't there for them..
they are part of the world! they did know that they will encounter sec.doors,
they had the wits to get a flawless path into a mazelike building but a Secr.Door
was enough to make a mess...

PS: once more i m sorry about my grammar

Unless you, as a gaming group, have decided otherwise prior to starting this campaign (and it doesn't sound like it), GM explanations and rule calls aren't negotiable at the table. If the players want to bring something up other than quick, minor clarifications that don't affect gameplay it should be done outside of game-time.

[Joe the Rat]

"That" player seems to think every decision should take them in a straight line to their goal.

The problem isn't about clues, or interpreting them. The problem is expecting every choice they make to be the right one.

The other players are going along with Captain Compass, but it does not sound like they are upset that going the wrong direction is a possibility.

Make it clear to the group (again) that the game gives them choices, and not every choice is the right one.

[Xerxus]

Complaining like that is rather immature of him. Explain to him that you never make a world for the PCs and if he doesn't roll with it, so be it. If you don't want to kick him out of the group then just make sure that he understands the basic principles:

The DM makes the world like he/she wants it to be.

Stupid assumptions often lead to negative consequences.

[Studoku]

I'll accept that English may not be your native language but for a non-native you're typing with a pretty good vocabulary, considering your inability to grasp basic punctuation such as periods. Can I ask what your native language is? There are plenty of multilingual people here.

Could I ask one favour though? When you type and you reach the end of the message box, stop pressing enter- that's why your text looks so weird.

Back on topic, the player's assumptions sound perfectly reasonable. I'd challenge the idea of diplomacy-checking other players but I've seen entire threads on whether that works and I think that can be discussed separately, if at all. IC, a character could reasonably assume that if something's behind a secret door, it's supposed to be secret. Naturally this means it's an adventurer's job to investigate/steal/break it.

The player's attitude to finding the world is not what he's expecting is the problem. As I said before, there are collaborative games where players can create the world like that. Explain to the player that this is not how your game works. If he can't accept that, "suggest" he leaves.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Whenever he makes such an assumption, make it wrong. The tracks going right weren't iron golems, it was a multilegged stone statue with Animate Object cast on it, carrying the kidnappers.

[prufock]

ok... i understand that he maybe wanted to "just" check the corridor... but he
actually was expecting to find the bandits lair, and when they didn't (they
actually followed a corridor that guide them out of the tower) he protested about
the secret door! that if the door wasn't to be found and followed then it shouldn't
be there, cause everything is supposed to be for the PCs.. i tried to explain him
that the world, the buildings, the living and not, in general, aren't there for them..
they are part of the world!
My response to this player would be a very sarcastic "aww, poor baby, want me to get you juice box?" as I hand him a tissue. He's the one who decided to go down an obviously disused corridor for no good reason. You've explained to him (several times by the sound of it) that not all roads lead to victory, and he hasn't learned. If he has a problem with the way you run the game and he continues to complain, remind him that he knows how to find the door.


I'd challenge the idea of diplomacy-checking other players
I think "real life diplomacy" just means he convinced them with words, not skill checks.

[Bakeru]

Back on topic, the player's assumptions sound perfectly reasonable. I'd challenge the idea of diplomacy-checking other players but I've seen entire threads on whether that works and I think that can be discussed separately, if at all. IC, a character could reasonably assume that if something's behind a secret door, it's supposed to be secret. Naturally this means it's an adventurer's job to investigate/steal/break it.Actually, not really. If the secret door was the entry to the lair, it would have been used instead of covered deep in dust. They navigated the way earlier by looking for the trails in the dust, but the moment they saw a secret door, they assumed it was a short cut, no matter how unused it was.
Besides that, there was something behind it: A secret escape route. Which is entirely justified for a maze-like keep.

(And the "Diplomacy checks" were described as "Real-life diplomacy checks", so, it's probably a colourful way of phrasing "He convinced them OOC that he was right")

And in the first story, the problem wasn't any OOC knowledge. It was that he didn't apply IC-knowledge properly: A kidnaping shortly after the army left. Two (low-armoured) people entering the victim's house. Victim probably paralysed, so unable to move.
Lots of armoured people going into one direction at least three hours ago, two very heavy humanoids (a guess: Each 1.5 times as heavy as expected? As in, two characters carrying a third, paralysed one?) going into the other a while later (probably delayed because they had to carry something heavy?). The first is obviously the army, the second could easily be two people carrying a third, obvious conclusion is to go after the second group. Yet, he dismissed the heavy footprints as "Iron Golems", which isn't OOC knowledge, it's just coming out of nowhere.


Fun fact: Non-native speakers are often better at understanding other non-native speakers, even if they have no other language in common, because they aren't as heavily used to proper grammar. I can understand him perfectly fine.

[Studoku]

I think "real life diplomacy" just means he convinced them with words, not skill checks.
My bad- I saw diplomacy checks and missed the real-life bit.

[rockdeworld]

Fun fact: Non-native speakers are often better at understanding other non-native speakers, even if they have no other language in common, because they aren't as heavily used to proper grammar. I can understand him perfectly fine.
Thanks for the translation :smallsmile:

I've done a lot of roleplaying where we make up the story together as we go along. D&D isn't like that. The DM creates the world, and it's there. A secret door that leads outside is perfectly reasonable. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. I stand by my previous post.

[only1doug]

ok... i understand that he maybe wanted to "just" check the corridor.
but he actually was expecting to find the bandits lair and when they didn't (they actually followed a corridor that guide them out of the tower) he protested about the secret door.

He said that if the door wasn't to be found and followed then it shouldn't be there, because everything is supposed to be for the PCs.

I tried to explain to him that the world, the buildings, the living and not, in general, aren't there for them, they are part of the world.
They did know that they will encounter secret doors, they had the wits to get a flawless path into a mazelike building but a Secret Door was enough to make a mess...


My personal recommendation would be to remind him (in front of all the others) that the other players had all told him it was a waste of time and heading the wrong way and that the only reason they sidetracked off was because he became certain that this would lead them to the bandits.



Only1doug, I clicked on your sig link and expected a song.


Re: me & singing
I am banned from singing under the Geneva convention (cruel and unusual punishment).

Exposure to my attempts to sing has a proven link to increased levels of self induced deafness.

Posting Links to me singing has been declared a hostile act by 46 countries across the world.



first of all im terribly sorry for my bad grammar.. english is not my native language..
some of you asked for another example..
PS: once more i m sorry about my grammar



I'll accept that English may not be your native language but for a non-native you're typing with a pretty good vocabulary, considering your inability to grasp basic punctuation such as periods.

I agree, but also please try to avoid contractions (shortening words) such as Text speech.


PC- Oh... iron golems.. they didn't kidnap the 2 women we r looking for... those npcs bk at village said there were humans.. are, back


"there is no reason at all to be smthing there if it is of no use to PCs"
Something


Could I ask one favour though? When you type and you reach the end of the message box, stop pressing enter- that's why your text looks so weird.


I hadn't really noticed this until Stu pointed it out but he's right, its part of the problem.

Please see my quote above, where I edited your original text into a slightly cleaner, more readable format, whilst (hopefully) retaining your original meaning.