PDA

View Full Version : How should we deal with a Troublesome Player?



Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-17, 01:14 AM
Ok, so me and some friends got together and started a GURPs group.

I'll refer to the other players as Player A, Player D, Player T and Player Z.

Though is basically about Player D.

Whats happening is we used the Dawn of Worlds system:

http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf

To make our world, however it's a space genre game so we tweaked it to allow the creation of planets and such.

So it starts with me, Player A, Player T and Player Z all using our imagination to create new and interesting species for our galaxy. Player D just makes generic humans and creates three sub species out of them...

1. Oghren (Ripped off directly from 40k)
2. Cyborgs (War Priest ripped directly from 40k)
3. Chamelon-men (Thin men ripped directly from X-Com Enemy Unknown

But the lack of creativity is just a minor issue and not one I would bother posting about alone.
However, he is aiming for them to be highly sneaky and stealthy and his goal being to kidnap, immitate and replace everyone leader of every other race and organization in the galaxy.

Note: His previous experience was stealth was basically him in d&d saying "I activate my sneak skill" and making no attempt to hide

Now right at the start of the game (before world creation even) we all agreed to keep it PvE and not PVP. Player D says he recognizes it but all his actions are directly PVP.

For example my race made an order called the Federation, basically whose goal is to be the Galactic Police. They were given some advanced skills in surveillance as a result and Player D pretty much throws a tantrum and claims I'm meta-gaming against him.

He's also trying to claim that his army is easily the best and can conquer my guys easily... Except using the army mechanic in Dawn of Worlds above my race has around a score of 30 while Player D's humans has a score of 7. He claims that just means I have more numbers and that he has better quality so he would win... even though my race is the one who specialized in warfare and such and whose allies provide them with top of the line weapons.

He is getting infuriated with me bringing up points that go against him easily controlling the galaxy and asks Player A to speak with him privately in another room to discuss things he doesn't want the rest of us to know. Afterwards when Player D leaves Player A reveals Player D's plans... which were the most troubling and problematic thing.

Now to start with, I should describe we're using GURPs, and GURPs has a thing called tech levels. We are at tech level 9 for everything but weapons which is tech level 8. Basically technology to settle on planets is fairly new and we still use modern weapons like in the TV show Firefly.

Player D is outright breaking this rule, by having a portal to an alternate dimension. He claims the portal comes from the other dimensions and not the humans though so it doesn't count towards the tech level. And with this portal is where the Oghren and War Priest had came from... directly out of the 40k universe.

Secondly he is also using fem scout from TF2 (Note: In a previous d&d campaign where he quit he basically built and players the TF2 Sniper) who works for the humans and since is from the TF2 universe will infinitely respawn and come back. He also plans to unleash things such as reapers (From Mass Effect) to exterminate the galaxy we made if the humans can't get their way for some reason.

Thirdly, he hates the fact me and Player Z are taking advantage of disadvantages to gain more points. He claims we're just power gaming and min-maxing, seeing our characters as pure stats instead of characters (even though he gave his guy a third arm for no reason other than to shoot more in combat). And since we all helped make a world we have a system where those who want to can DM when we encounter a part of the Universe that the certain player created assuming they have some sort of idea planned for it. And Player D is threatening that when he's DM he'll strip away some of the disadvantages and make us refund our points.

He also claims he has us 'under control' in that he's the one who owns all the GURPs books, so he can quit at any time and effectively end our campaign. Or so he thinks, because we have pdfs for it and can easily keep playing may he quit or not.

Lastly his personal character is a Warpriest, and he likes to claim his character is better than the others because being a machine he doesn't need to eat, need to breathe or need a doctor ever (even though he still has an organic human brain). And he gave his character a secret identity, as himself. So we're worried about what will happen when the character dies whenever he tries to overthrow everyone else... Because in an earlier campaign he has barged off and cried for three hours straight for a character death that he barely developed or put effort into, even though he was told that the player would be revived at the end of the encounter.

So basically, me and the rest of the group are wondering what people on here think of the situation and what advice you guys may have.

eggynack
2013-07-17, 02:14 AM
Well, it seems like this is a usual problem with the usual solutions. You can talk to him, if you think that'll work, or you can kick him out, because your group will survive without him. There are also the combo plans, like where you talk to him, and if it doesn't work out he gets the boot, and the one where you kick him out, and talk to the other people in the group about how great of an idea it was. It's a lot of kicking and talking. There's basically never a nifty in game solution, and if there were one, it'd still be the wrong one to use.

icefractal
2013-07-17, 02:18 AM
Honestly, he sounds like an *******. How does he "secretly" have a portal (and other things) anyway, if portals are against what you agreed on? If this is a collaborative-GMing thing, then bring it up with the whole group. Unless he can convince other people he should get an exception, he gets no portals, no immortal scouts, and no reapers.

But moreso than that, he sounds like he's trying to control everything by threatening to take his ball and go home. I would call him on that, because his leaving sounds like the better outcome.

And finally, I would not let him GM this game at any point. Even if it wasn't a collaborate world that he'd be screwing up, he sounds like he'd make a terrible GM, and a sufficiently bad GM can break up a group.

Coidzor
2013-07-17, 02:19 AM
You don't like him and don't want to play with him. The solution seems simple enough.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-17, 02:38 AM
Honestly, he sounds like an *******. How does he "secretly" have a portal (and other things) anyway, if portals are against what you agreed on? If this is a collaborative-GMing thing, then bring it up with the whole group. Unless he can convince other people he should get an exception, he gets no portals, no immortal scouts, and no reapers.

But moreso than that, he sounds like he's trying to control everything by threatening to take his ball and go home. I would call him on that, because his leaving sounds like the better outcome.

And finally, I would not let him GM this game at any point. Even if it wasn't a collaborate world that he'd be screwing up, he sounds like he'd make a terrible GM, and a sufficiently bad GM can break up a group.

The issue here is the main issues such as the portal, the take his book and go home etc was stuff he told secretly to one of our players that he didn't want the rest of us knowing.

If he becomes aware we are all aware of what he discussed then he knows his secret was spilled and he'll just get furious at everyone and then accuse us all for not respecting privacy and meta-gaming.

Though, Player Z did state that Player D had asked him if his group would work on portals (without stating that he himself planned on it) and Player Z said 'Maybe', as in it's definitely something the group would aim towards as a scientific group but it most likely wouldn't ever be something the discover in the game.

Me and Player Z are thinking of him casually mentioning to me he's considering working on stuff like dimension doors and portals, and me pretty much telling him no because it's broken, it doesn't respect the rules we set up etc.

That way Player D will hear and know right there his portal plan is not allowed or approved and hopefully without him realizing his secret was spilled.

But I'm unsure of how likely such a plan is to work. And then there's still the rest of the problems mentioned.

Knaight
2013-07-17, 02:47 AM
So, basically there is a bunch of juvenile nonsense, mostly centered around wanting to dictate everything then pulling the "I'm taking my toys home so nobody plays with them" stunt? Why do you want to play with this person in the first place? For that matter, why do you interact with this person in the first place?

eggynack
2013-07-17, 03:02 AM
The issue here is the main issues such as the portal, the take his book and go home etc was stuff he told secretly to one of our players that he didn't want the rest of us knowing.

If he becomes aware we are all aware of what he discussed then he knows his secret was spilled and he'll just get furious at everyone and then accuse us all for not respecting privacy and meta-gaming.

Though, Player Z did state that Player D had asked him if his group would work on portals (without stating that he himself planned on it) and Player Z said 'Maybe', as in it's definitely something the group would aim towards as a scientific group but it most likely wouldn't ever be something the discover in the game.

Me and Player Z are thinking of him casually mentioning to me he's considering working on stuff like dimension doors and portals, and me pretty much telling him no because it's broken, it doesn't respect the rules we set up etc.

That way Player D will hear and know right there his portal plan is not allowed or approved and hopefully without him realizing his secret was spilled.

But I'm unsure of how likely such a plan is to work. And then there's still the rest of the problems mentioned.
I don't see how any of this is that big of a problem. If you want to just kick him out, you can leave out whatever parts of the explanation you want. In fact, if the other players are generally in agreement with you (It doesn't look like there's a DM. If there is one, this all probably falls within his wheelhouse.) there's no onus on you to say anything. If you want to do the talking thing, you also don't have to mention this. You can just say, "We want you to stop being crazy buns all the time." If he threatens to leave the group during that conversation, give him a detailed map telling him where the door is. If he didn't say something to you, it didn't effect you, so you shouldn't bring it up. It effected this Z fellow, so he can bring it up if he wants, but it's not really a you thing. This all seems like an aspect of the problem that can be solved around.

Arkhosia
2013-07-17, 03:12 AM
I don't see how any of this is that big of a problem. If you want to just kick him out, you can leave out whatever parts of the explanation you want. In fact, if the other players are generally in agreement with you (It doesn't look like there's a DM. If there is one, this all probably falls within his wheelhouse.) there's no onus on you to say anything. If you want to do the talking thing, you also don't have to mention this. You can just say, "We want you to stop being crazy buns all the time." If he threatens to leave the group during that conversation, give him a detailed map telling him where the door is. If he didn't say something to you, it didn't effect you, so you shouldn't bring it up. It effected this Z fellow, so he can bring it up if he wants, but it's not really a you thing. This all seems like an aspect of the problem that can be solved around.

I totally agree. I think every single member of the gaming group asking him to stop is probably going to be taken more seriously than if it was just you asking, if its possible for that to make a difference.

eggynack
2013-07-17, 03:17 AM
I totally agree. I think every single member of the gaming group asking him to stop is probably going to be taken more seriously than if it was just you asking, if its possible for that to make a difference.
Eh, I don't know if that's the case. I was mostly just saying that Z is really the only person who can talk with him about this one thing. Getting everyone together to tell him something is a good way to make him feel cornered. It might work, though I'm not too familiar with the intervention style of problem solving. I was figuring that if you're kicking him out, there should be a consensus about it. If there's no single DM, there's not a real authority that can make these decisions unilaterally. It might be a good idea to gain an understanding of everyone's opinion on this, to see if it matches your own. Those opinions should inform the things that you talk to him about, as well as whether you're just strapping on the +5 mighty boots of booting.

Scow2
2013-07-17, 08:37 AM
Have everyone agree to kicking him out. Don't hide that Z "Spilled the Beans" - if he accuses of "not respecting privacy" remind him that he's disrespected everyone else's sense of fair play, and his "Secret" was of a nature that everyone needed to know. If he accuses you of "Metagaming", point out that this is a metagame problem in need of a metagame solution. If he takes his ball and goes home, try not to party too hard.

RFLS
2013-07-17, 08:45 AM
So, to sum up:


Talk to him. Explain that he's doing a fairly good job of destroying the game and see if you can get him to see the error of his ways.
If he doesn't listen, boot him. It doesn't sound like you'd lose much.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-17, 09:39 AM
So, basically there is a bunch of juvenile nonsense, mostly centered around wanting to dictate everything then pulling the "I'm taking my toys home so nobody plays with them" stunt? Why do you want to play with this person in the first place? For that matter, why do you interact with this person in the first place?

There's a few reasons we either want him in or just keep him around.

1. No one wants to be too quick to get rid of members, since we also recently had all quit a d&d group because the DM who we're friends with in RL was being a massive ****/control freak so we're already one player less.

1a. He also seems to be taking the fact we left him as being DM personally. Long story short, last time he was being a bad DM he blamed me for his campaign ending and then sabotaged mine as a result, so when we left him this time I voted not to let him in GURPs so he wouldn't try to sabotage this one as well, and if what happened yesterday while a number of us were hanging out counts for anything... he took us leaving his group as a personal '**** you'.

2. He does have as much a hand in our universe as the rest of us having helped made it and all. Though if we were be kicked I'm guessing we'd take the world back to the drawing boards, remove his creations and replace it with one or two more creative ideas from the rest of the group.

3. We also just don't want to kick people out in general, it's a ****ty thing to do to someone.

4. Outside influence. Currently d&d is held at my place, and Player D was a person who I knew growing up in autism therapy groups (Him and I both have autism). As a result, my Mom has known him for a number of years now and gives him a ton of sympathy for the autism, claiming he is 'unable to handle conflict' or 'struggles to stay calm', basically excusing his behaviour as if it's not him but his autism... But I know Player D well enough to know he's at the point it's not his autism but him and he and my Mom are just too willing to use the autism as an excuse.

However, this has lead to my Mom seeming to care about Player D a lot. Far more than any of the other group members (and me too from how she's chosen to act about this whole situation) and basically claims that if Player D were to leave the group and not by his own free will that (or if she feels we did something to push him to the point of quitting) that we're all just a group of people who 'chose to hurt someone and kick them out of a group for own ease of play and enjoyment and were insensitive' and wouldn't allow us to play at my place anymore.

Player Z's house does serve as a back up though. (Player T's and A's would have the issue of disturbing the families too much and lack of room/privacy to RP in) but even his place is more cramped and his parents run the risk of wanting us to go home mid-session rather than at my house where going home mid-session never once was an issue.


I don't see how any of this is that big of a problem. If you want to just kick him out, you can leave out whatever parts of the explanation you want. In fact, if the other players are generally in agreement with you (It doesn't look like there's a DM. If there is one, this all probably falls within his wheelhouse.) there's no onus on you to say anything. If you want to do the talking thing, you also don't have to mention this. You can just say, "We want you to stop being crazy buns all the time." If he threatens to leave the group during that conversation, give him a detailed map telling him where the door is. If he didn't say something to you, it didn't effect you, so you shouldn't bring it up. It effected this Z fellow, so he can bring it up if he wants, but it's not really a you thing. This all seems like an aspect of the problem that can be solved around.

It was Player A who was told all this in secret, not Z.

Z was simply asked about dimensions specifically by D and without D even stating he planned to do so. It was more of a "Hey Z, what do you think your group will do about dimension portals?", and since Z said it would be a goal of the group (even though he says that he'd never unlock it in the game, just that IC it would make sense to research) that we can use it as a way for Z to bring up portals as if he's planning to use it without alerting D to that his secrets were revealed, so Z can pretend to suggest we use portals so I can tell him no, in front of the group so D is aware it is not allowed and there is a specific ruling against such a thing.

Though I will admit we probably have enough grounds on the anger of players having any kind of edge and his threats for 'when' he's DM that we can tell him that's too much right there.

Alejandro
2013-07-17, 09:54 AM
There's a few reasons we either want him in or just keep him around.

1. No one wants to be too quick to get rid of members, since we also recently had all quit a d&d group because the DM who we're friends with in RL was being a massive ****/control freak so we're already one player less.

1a. He also seems to be taking the fact we left him as being DM personally. Long story short, last time he was being a bad DM he blamed me for his campaign ending and then sabotaged mine as a result, so when we left him this time I voted not to let him in GURPs so he wouldn't try to sabotage this one as well, and if what happened yesterday while a number of us were hanging out counts for anything... he took us leaving his group as a personal '**** you'.

2. He does have as much a hand in our universe as the rest of us having helped made it and all. Though if we were be kicked I'm guessing we'd take the world back to the drawing boards, remove his creations and replace it with one or two more creative ideas from the rest of the group.

3. We also just don't want to kick people out in general, it's a ****ty thing to do to someone.

4. Outside influence. Currently d&d is held at my place, and Player D was a person who I knew growing up in autism therapy groups (Him and I both have autism). As a result, my Mom has known him for a number of years now and gives him a ton of sympathy for the autism, claiming he is 'unable to handle conflict' or 'struggles to stay calm', basically excusing his behaviour as if it's not him but his autism... But I know Player D well enough to know he's at the point it's not his autism but him and he and my Mom are just too willing to use the autism as an excuse.

However, this has lead to my Mom seeming to care about Player D a lot. Far more than any of the other group members (and me too from how she's chosen to act about this whole situation) and basically claims that if Player D were to leave the group and not by his own free will that (or if she feels we did something to push him to the point of quitting) that we're all just a group of people who 'chose to hurt someone and kick them out of a group for own ease of play and enjoyment and were insensitive' and wouldn't allow us to play at my place anymore.

Player Z's house does serve as a back up though. (Player T's and A's would have the issue of disturbing the families too much and lack of room/privacy to RP in) but even his place is more cramped and his parents run the risk of wanting us to go home mid-session rather than at my house where going home mid-session never once was an issue.



It was Player A who was told all this in secret, not Z.

Z was simply asked about dimensions specifically by D and without D even stating he planned to do so. It was more of a "Hey Z, what do you think your group will do about dimension portals?", and since Z said it would be a goal of the group (even though he says that he'd never unlock it in the game, just that IC it would make sense to research) that we can use it as a way for Z to bring up portals as if he's planning to use it without alerting D to that his secrets were revealed, so Z can pretend to suggest we use portals so I can tell him no, in front of the group so D is aware it is not allowed and there is a specific ruling against such a thing.

Though I will admit we probably have enough grounds on the anger of players having any kind of edge and his threats for 'when' he's DM that we can tell him that's too much right there.

I am guessing from your statements here that you are all fairly young and live with your parents/families. Well, consider this an excellent learning experience for what the 'real world' will be like.

No one will really care what someone's excuse is for being a giant jerk (note that I am not denigrating autism, I am only saying that there will be plenty of people who simply don't care) they will simply get rid of the jerk.

It doesn't matter that he helped create your game world. People help create businesses every day, and still get fired or laid off later. That's how it goes.

It's not a crappy thing to kick someone out of a group if they are actively harming that group's ability to function and have fun. If he pulled this behavior on the job, they would fire him and not care whether his feelings were hurt.

As for places to game, have you ever seen if your local library has rooms the public can use? Most do, and you could arrange to have your game there. Or even start a gaming club there, our city has one at the library. Or, many gaming stores provide gaming space to their clientele, although that often has noise or sharing issues. You can also game at any coffee shop with tables, as long as you are respectful and not loud, and buy something from them. Check with a manager.

If you really want to give this person a chance, then standard courtesy applies: Talk to them, tell them how they are bothering you/the group, and see what they say. Be respectful on both sides. But I am pretty sure what result you will get, so for the sake of having fun, get rid of the person if this fails.

P.S. It sounds like he just wants to play 40K and is being passive aggressive about it.

hymer
2013-07-17, 10:01 AM
There's really no miracle cure. As has been said, it's either put up with it, work it out, or break it off. I'm very much with you on not wanting to kick people out, but if you guys are not compatible in gaming, there's really not much to do.
As for the whole "It's him or it's his autism", there's no real way to know what's what, nor does it really make sense to think it must be one or the other. In the end, the question is whether the behaviour can change or not. If it can't, well, no matter how sympathetic you are to the person's plight, you can't do magic. Playing an RPG with someone with that attitude isn't fun, probably not for them either, and if you want to keep seeing each other, you'll have to find something to do which doesn't bring out the bad stuff.

Zerter
2013-07-17, 10:09 AM
Try pushing him to his limits before booting him. That way you have some stories to tell.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-17, 10:40 AM
I am guessing from your statements here that you are all fairly young and live with your parents/families. Well, consider this an excellent learning experience for what the 'real world' will be like.

No one will really care what someone's excuse is for being a giant jerk (note that I am not denigrating autism, I am only saying that there will be plenty of people who simply don't care) they will simply get rid of the jerk.

It doesn't matter that he helped create your game world. People help create businesses every day, and still get fired or laid off later. That's how it goes.

It's not a crappy thing to kick someone out of a group if they are actively harming that group's ability to function and have fun. If he pulled this behavior on the job, they would fire him and not care whether his feelings were hurt.

As for places to game, have you ever seen if your local library has rooms the public can use? Most do, and you could arrange to have your game there. Or even start a gaming club there, our city has one at the library. Or, many gaming stores provide gaming space to their clientele, although that often has noise or sharing issues. You can also game at any coffee shop with tables, as long as you are respectful and not loud, and buy something from them. Check with a manager.

If you really want to give this person a chance, then standard courtesy applies: Talk to them, tell them how they are bothering you/the group, and see what they say. Be respectful on both sides. But I am pretty sure what result you will get, so for the sake of having fun, get rid of the person if this fails.

P.S. It sounds like he just wants to play 40K and is being passive aggressive about it.

I'm the oldest's by a few months and am 19 living with my parents atm.
No one in our group lives on their own yet, but Player A and T will in a bit more than a months time when they start college and get a dorm, I just go to school close enough to home I don't the economic reason in moving out so soon.

Anyways, I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole 'How real life works' examples though because table tops are meant to be a fun get away/fantasy from reality, not a constant reminder of it. Besides, I highly doubt Player D will look back and go "I remember ______ happened here, so I better be like _____ there".

The main thing we learned about Player D over the past year or so (which I never had known about him until we started table tops) is that he is a massive glory hog. He wants to be the center of attention, the one doing all the awesome stunts and the others are in awe of etc. And he hates challenge to get there, he always wants to succeed and in the best way possible. To the point that the slightest hint of challenge or opposition tends to infuriate him.

Hence why he gets so mad with me and Z having effective abilities and my group being good in federation which would compete with his stealth. At one point in d&d we had a DM who was sympathetic enough to allow him to cut scene his introduction, so Player D did stuff like back flips, smoke screens, assassinations etc. Yet he always got mad when no one was impressed by it or referred to it as one of the campaigns epic moments... and that was because there was nothing cool or epic about it. He just listed what he wanted and it happened, no risk, no dice rolls, nothing.

As for locations, we have an issue generally being very loud, very messy (we clean up afterwards, but the room is in awful shape in-game), and lasting to be very late. Most public places would be closed long before we end or thrown us out long ago for noise. Now by noise I don't mean disruptive chaotic noise. But we naturally get excited in game and can better enjoy the game and role play when people aren't telling us to try to be quiet.

We do plan to talking it out first though and not just kick him out with no warning.

And I do agree, he does constantly go on about a 40k group he's in at a game store.
Though Player D has a tendancy to just rip characters off of things like TF2 or 40k and Player A once asked why.

Player D's response was basically he be more immeresed and interested/has more fun when it's all characters he's familiar with and knows well.

But the issue is here when everyone else tries to be creative and make an immersive world, he just does really bad impersonations of game characters with almost no personality and expects us to like it just as much as the rest of the world and characters made.


There's really no miracle cure. As has been said, it's either put up with it, work it out, or break it off. I'm very much with you on not wanting to kick people out, but if you guys are not compatible in gaming, there's really not much to do.
As for the whole "It's him or it's his autism", there's no real way to know what's what, nor does it really make sense to think it must be one or the other. In the end, the question is whether the behaviour can change or not. If it can't, well, no matter how sympathetic you are to the person's plight, you can't do magic. Playing an RPG with someone with that attitude isn't fun, probably not for them either, and if you want to keep seeing each other, you'll have to find something to do which doesn't bring out the bad stuff.

I know what you mean with the autism.
As stated above I have it too. But having known Player D personally for a long time, I know it is mostly just him hiding behind autism as an excuse to explain away the problems or having been raised where others would just claim all his autistic traits aren't even problems.

Where my Mom, even though she worked very hard to have me recover in therapy so I can interact better, she's Player D of having gone too long without therapy (He's 3 years younger than me and had quit therapy years before I did) to make a full recovery and so just uses autism to excuse much if not all of his issues.


Try pushing him to his limits before booting him. That way you have some stories to tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08

The Glyphstone
2013-07-17, 11:17 AM
Anyways, I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole 'How real life works' examples though because table tops are meant to be a fun get away/fantasy from reality, not a constant reminder of it. Besides, I highly doubt Player D will look back and go "I remember ______ happened here, so I better be like _____ there".
]

IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/five-geek-social-fallacies.html) list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Alejandro
2013-07-17, 02:21 PM
The Glyphstone has put it more eloquently than I. This isn't an ingame issue at all, but an out of game one, and thus my comparisons, and recommendation for what you must do.

By all means, be friendly and talk about it first. But if that doesn't work, and you want to continue to have a fun experience, the offender has to go.

DM Rage
2013-07-17, 04:14 PM
DM Doug Douglason - Instant 10d6 lightning bolt - no saving throw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-sCNfE0bM

Angel Bob
2013-07-17, 05:20 PM
IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/five-geek-social-fallacies.html) list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

^^ This. It's not going to be easy, confronting Player D and your mom like that, but it has to be done if your group wants to continue having fun. From what you've said, it sounds like the best thing long-term would be for Player D to go back to therapy, but beyond suggesting it to his parents, there's not much you can do about that. Besides, that's thinking about fixing his life, rather than your game, and is unrelated. The crucial thing here is to just remove him from the gaming group. It won't be easy, but I'll repeat that it has to be done.

Lord Torath
2013-07-17, 08:04 PM
So he wants all of his plans and actions to succeed? Talk with the other guys in your group, and see if they'd be willing to go along with that for a few sessions. Whoever's DMing lets any action attempted by any of the players succeed completely with no dice rolled. Another group tried this (it's on one of the threads on this forum somewhere - I'm sure the author will comment if he sees this), and even the most diehard Don't-Challenge-Me-But-I-Must-Be-The-Most-Awesome players got bored of it in about three sessions or so. It may take Player D a few more sessions to get this out of his system. At which point, he'll see the thrill in having to work for his victories.

This may not work. If it doesn't, you've wasted a month or two (depending on how often you guys play) and still have the dilemma of what to do with Player D. If it does work, you'll have prevented the need to boot him from the group, and taught him how to be a better player.

Just something to think about.

eggynack
2013-07-17, 08:53 PM
IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/five-geek-social-fallacies.html) list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
I was planning to link that exact thing, but checked the other posts first. It's basically a perfect description of what's happening here. You're playing a game, and that game is supposed to be fun. You have no obligation to let anyone who wants to play into your game, and it's not a mean thing to kick someone out. You aren't the person who created a problem by kicking him out. He's the person who created the problem that necessitated a booting. If you feel that it will work, you could always make him remaining in the party conditional on him being less crazy. If he refuses, or blows up, you can use that as the immediate impetus for kicking him out of the group, which should defer responsibility from you to him somewhat. He's the person who's actually responsible for his actions, so he's the person who should shoulder that responsibility in the first place, but it can look different from that in the moment, and having something that you can directly point to as the place where things broke down can be useful. It's not a necessary thing, but it's a nice thing to have access to.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-17, 11:09 PM
IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/five-geek-social-fallacies.html) list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Also at everyone else who answered in reference to the list.

I don't think Player D is suffering from #5, but is for sure under #2 and my Mom is for sure suffering from #1.

There is Player Z's place as a back up, we're just worried about sessions being cut off early there.

Though the group is now divided on what to do... but not in the same way as before.

Last time in D&D where Player D had issues we were divided on letting him stay or getting rid him. Now we're divided on getting rid of him or giving him a warning first we are sure he wouldn't listen to anyways. I could tell my Mom before hand he's causing issues and purposely cheating for an edge, but there's a good chance she'll just want to 'talk it out' and 'give him more time' like last time which never worked.


So he wants all of his plans and actions to succeed? Talk with the other guys in your group, and see if they'd be willing to go along with that for a few sessions. Whoever's DMing lets any action attempted by any of the players succeed completely with no dice rolled. Another group tried this (it's on one of the threads on this forum somewhere - I'm sure the author will comment if he sees this), and even the most diehard Don't-Challenge-Me-But-I-Must-Be-The-Most-Awesome players got bored of it in about three sessions or so. It may take Player D a few more sessions to get this out of his system. At which point, he'll see the thrill in having to work for his victories.

This may not work. If it doesn't, you've wasted a month or two (depending on how often you guys play) and still have the dilemma of what to do with Player D. If it does work, you'll have prevented the need to boot him from the group, and taught him how to be a better player.

Just something to think about.

We aren't, especially since his plans is controlling all the planets and organizations we worked so hard to create. He just wants to take over and have everything in the solar system for himself. And the issue with spending a few weeks to a month to kill the craving is that we only have a little more than a month left before people leave for college, and we don't want to spend the summer trying to fix an issue for a campaign that will most likely end when college starts anyways.

Gamgee
2013-07-18, 01:47 AM
You don't like him and don't want to play with him. The solution seems simple enough.

This, though it would be amusing to see the Q unleashed on him.

Jornophelanthas
2013-07-18, 06:41 AM
I was planning to link that exact thing, but checked the other posts first. It's basically a perfect description of what's happening here. You're playing a game, and that game is supposed to be fun. You have no obligation to let anyone who wants to play into your game, and it's not a mean thing to kick someone out. You aren't the person who created a problem by kicking him out. He's the person who created the problem that necessitated a booting. If you feel that it will work, you could always make him remaining in the party conditional on him being less crazy. If he refuses, or blows up, you can use that as the immediate impetus for kicking him out of the group, which should defer responsibility from you to him somewhat. He's the person who's actually responsible for his actions, so he's the person who should shoulder that responsibility in the first place, but it can look different from that in the moment, and having something that you can directly point to as the place where things broke down can be useful. It's not a necessary thing, but it's a nice thing to have access to.

I think I remember the OP posting about this same player about a year ago. If it is indeed the same player, then I doubt this approach will work, because this problem player has never learned how to take responsibility, and has actually been receiving therapy that taught him that not taking responsibility for his actions is the best way of dealing with his autism.

My advice is to the OP is the following:

- If I recall correctly, you have become a surrogate older sibling over much of Player D's life. Determine whether you still want to be this person's friend, or just want to stop roleplaying with him, or whether you are willing to have your roleplaying activity remain therapy sessions for Player D for the remainder of the summer.

- Check with the rest of the group (except Player D) how they feel about the situation, and see whether you can agree on what approach you could/should take as a group. Do not act on it immediately, because you first need to talk to other people involved (see below).

- Once you know exactly where you stand, and what the group wants, have a talk with your mother, telling her that there are problems within the game, that Player D is the central focus of these problems (and in what way), and that it is draining your enjoyment of the game. Ask her for her opinion first, and after she has given it, tell her your opinion (and how you reached it). Make sure from the start that she is aware that this is a conversation between adults, and that she should respect your position. If she wants you to be a member of Player D's autism support group "because you've always been such good playmates", like what she has been actively encouraging you to do for years, let her know that you are an adult and that you have your own opinion about where you put your limits.
(Maybe you agree with her and want to be there for player D, but you should also make it clear to her that you are no longer willing to sacrifice ALL your own enjoyment in roleplaying just to help out Player D.)
The point is, your mother should know that you are no longer a child, and she should no longer treat you like one. (Specifically, she should no longer have a say in who you should play with and when.) This is, of course, assuming that you are indeed ready to take this step. Hopefully, you will be able to find an agreement with her.

- Once you know where you stand, and where the rest of the group stands, and hopefully have your mother's blessing, you can confront Player D (alone or with the entire group) and tel him what you have all (jointly) decided to do. If you feel it is appropriate, and you know his parents, you could contact them and discuss the issue with them first. After all, Player D is a child (who is explicitly treated as a child by his environment), so talking to his parents is not a strange step at all. If I recall correctly from a previous thread, your parents and his know each other quite well, and at one time jointly decided that you could be a good influence on him. If you have convinced your mother to respect your own position, maybe she could even contact Player D's parents instead (as long as she does not make any promises on your behalf that you do not want to keep).
Hopefully, this will result in a solution for the problem, and improve the game to be more pleasant.

- Whatever you do, stand your ground. Do not grant favours ("for Player D's sake") to him, your mother or his parents, unless you have considered and decided in advance that you would be willing to grant those. If you are confronted with an argument you have not considered in advance, do not answer immediately, but tell them that you will think about it. Then think about it when you are by yourself and able to take all the time you need to make up your mind, and get back to them the next day (or after lunch, or the next week). Otherwise, you might feel pressured to do something you don't really want.

- If no agreement could be reached, you can do one of two things (in accordance with the rest of the gaming group):
1. EITHER suck it up for a month to let the game run its natural course (even though it is not as enjoyable as it could be) if you don't think it's worth the effort to improve it if there is no viable solution everyone can agree on. In this case, make sure that the parties you could not agree with (e.g. your mother, Player D's parents, Player D himself) know that you are doing this as a special favour to them.
2. OR decide (along with the rest of the players) to cancel the game, if the effort to keep the game going outweighs the enjoyment you (all) get from it (if any). In this case, inform the parties you could not agree with afterwards that you are not being spiteful towards Player D or anything, but that you were simply not enjoying yourself at all. So why keep it going?

Alejandro
2013-07-18, 08:37 AM
Also at everyone else who answered in reference to the list.

I don't think Player D is suffering from #5, but is for sure under #2 and my Mom is for sure suffering from #1.

There is Player Z's place as a back up, we're just worried about sessions being cut off early there.

Though the group is now divided on what to do... but not in the same way as before.

Last time in D&D where Player D had issues we were divided on letting him stay or getting rid him. Now we're divided on getting rid of him or giving him a warning first we are sure he wouldn't listen to anyways. I could tell my Mom before hand he's causing issues and purposely cheating for an edge, but there's a good chance she'll just want to 'talk it out' and 'give him more time' like last time which never worked.



We aren't, especially since his plans is controlling all the planets and organizations we worked so hard to create. He just wants to take over and have everything in the solar system for himself. And the issue with spending a few weeks to a month to kill the craving is that we only have a little more than a month left before people leave for college, and we don't want to spend the summer trying to fix an issue for a campaign that will most likely end when college starts anyways.

If there's only a month left, then just stop playing the game, and do something else fun with your friends. Include D if you want, just make sure it's not something he can exert special control over.

Or, if you want to spend that month playing the game, then you have to cut D out.

Jay R
2013-07-18, 11:44 AM
There are only three options:
1. Play with him as he is.
2. Convince him to change.
3. Don't play with him.

Pick one of these. There's no other option.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and cannot convince him to change, you must stop playing with him.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and won't stop playing with him, you must convince him to change.

If you cannot convince him to change, and won't stop playing with him, then you will play with him as he is.

So you must make the hard choice. And by the way, not making a choice is in fact making the third choice. Until you choose something else, you have in fact chosen to play with him as he is.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-18, 11:41 PM
I think I remember the OP posting about this same player about a year ago. If it is indeed the same player, then I doubt this approach will work, because this problem player has never learned how to take responsibility, and has actually been receiving therapy that taught him that not taking responsibility for his actions is the best way of dealing with his autism.

My advice is to the OP is the following:

- If I recall correctly, you have become a surrogate older sibling over much of Player D's life. Determine whether you still want to be this person's friend, or just want to stop roleplaying with him, or whether you are willing to have your roleplaying activity remain therapy sessions for Player D for the remainder of the summer.

- Check with the rest of the group (except Player D) how they feel about the situation, and see whether you can agree on what approach you could/should take as a group. Do not act on it immediately, because you first need to talk to other people involved (see below).

- Once you know exactly where you stand, and what the group wants, have a talk with your mother, telling her that there are problems within the game, that Player D is the central focus of these problems (and in what way), and that it is draining your enjoyment of the game. Ask her for her opinion first, and after she has given it, tell her your opinion (and how you reached it). Make sure from the start that she is aware that this is a conversation between adults, and that she should respect your position. If she wants you to be a member of Player D's autism support group "because you've always been such good playmates", like what she has been actively encouraging you to do for years, let her know that you are an adult and that you have your own opinion about where you put your limits.
(Maybe you agree with her and want to be there for player D, but you should also make it clear to her that you are no longer willing to sacrifice ALL your own enjoyment in roleplaying just to help out Player D.)
The point is, your mother should know that you are no longer a child, and she should no longer treat you like one. (Specifically, she should no longer have a say in who you should play with and when.) This is, of course, assuming that you are indeed ready to take this step. Hopefully, you will be able to find an agreement with her.

- Once you know where you stand, and where the rest of the group stands, and hopefully have your mother's blessing, you can confront Player D (alone or with the entire group) and tel him what you have all (jointly) decided to do. If you feel it is appropriate, and you know his parents, you could contact them and discuss the issue with them first. After all, Player D is a child (who is explicitly treated as a child by his environment), so talking to his parents is not a strange step at all. If I recall correctly from a previous thread, your parents and his know each other quite well, and at one time jointly decided that you could be a good influence on him. If you have convinced your mother to respect your own position, maybe she could even contact Player D's parents instead (as long as she does not make any promises on your behalf that you do not want to keep).
Hopefully, this will result in a solution for the problem, and improve the game to be more pleasant.

- Whatever you do, stand your ground. Do not grant favours ("for Player D's sake") to him, your mother or his parents, unless you have considered and decided in advance that you would be willing to grant those. If you are confronted with an argument you have not considered in advance, do not answer immediately, but tell them that you will think about it. Then think about it when you are by yourself and able to take all the time you need to make up your mind, and get back to them the next day (or after lunch, or the next week). Otherwise, you might feel pressured to do something you don't really want.

- If no agreement could be reached, you can do one of two things (in accordance with the rest of the gaming group):
1. EITHER suck it up for a month to let the game run its natural course (even though it is not as enjoyable as it could be) if you don't think it's worth the effort to improve it if there is no viable solution everyone can agree on. In this case, make sure that the parties you could not agree with (e.g. your mother, Player D's parents, Player D himself) know that you are doing this as a special favour to them.
2. OR decide (along with the rest of the players) to cancel the game, if the effort to keep the game going outweighs the enjoyment you (all) get from it (if any). In this case, inform the parties you could not agree with afterwards that you are not being spiteful towards Player D or anything, but that you were simply not enjoying yourself at all. So why keep it going?

Yes this is the same player, I still find it shocking how well he's remembered.

The main issue with my Mom is that she basically takes the position of "He can't help it, and if you don't give him proper time to change (which when put into practice she means, until he changes no matter how long) you're friends are all terrible human beings who aren't welcome anymore" so I doubt I'd get her to change her mind. It's become pretty apparent now that she likes Player D more than me even, so he is her favourite in the group too.

As for the group, Player Z and T are outright voting to kick him out now.
Me and Player A atm delayed our votes, planning to warn Player D there's a problem and he needs to fix them or we can't keep playing.

If he fails to fix it (probably in that week, given our lack of time and 50% of the group outside of him wanting him gone) then we'll have to remove him.

I've suggested just ending the group, but the others are too attached to the world we created to let that happen.
They suggested the idea of 'ending' it though just so Player D thinks it's over and then restarting it without him.

But I voted against it because that's dishonest and there's the chance he'll learn of the group anyways and we would of only caused a bigger mess. Plus my Mom would start to ask why Player D is no longer around. And even if we lied to her successfully she'd learn the truth next time she spoke to Player D's Mom.


There are only three options:
1. Play with him as he is.
2. Convince him to change.
3. Don't play with him.

Pick one of these. There's no other option.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and cannot convince him to change, you must stop playing with him.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and won't stop playing with him, you must convince him to change.

If you cannot convince him to change, and won't stop playing with him, then you will play with him as he is.

So you must make the hard choice. And by the way, not making a choice is in fact making the third choice. Until you choose something else, you have in fact chosen to play with him as he is.

Well... aren't you blunt? :p

I'm not complaining though, I like it people are blunt and honest with the situation. Saves time by addressing the facts and usually solves things faster.

Atm half our group is voting for #3, with the other half voting for #2 but leaning towards #3.

Arkhosia
2013-07-19, 12:09 AM
This may be due to my opinion on how to treat people with conditions such as ADHD, asbergers, Down syndrome, autism, etc, but I would deal with him as you would anyone else when it comes to dealing with this problem.
Basically, unless it has something to do directly with him dealing with being autistic, treat him as you would treat any other person.

JusticeZero
2013-07-19, 02:11 AM
Gwazi, it should say something that I read a title about a problem player, immediately thought, "Gwazi must be gaming around this time of week", checked the thread and discovered that you were in fact the author....
Seriously, you need to find a different group of peeps. Awfulness is incurable. It isn't all that hard to find other games, really.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-19, 02:43 AM
Gwazi, it should say something that I read a title about a problem player, immediately thought, "Gwazi must be gaming around this time of week", checked the thread and discovered that you were in fact the author....
Seriously, you need to find a different group of peeps. Awfulness is incurable. It isn't all that hard to find other games, really.

To be honest it was basically always about this one player.

Him and one other, but that other was basically DM issues and we've already taken care of it, though the DM one is choosing to take it personally and avoiding us (or at least me, but effectively us since I'm always hanging out when the others are) in real life.

But... this did highlight something, we already did get rid of a problem member. It's kind of silly we're afraid to do it again, granted the last time we removed a problem player it lead to out of d&d issues (like detailed above), but that's a result of them personally choosing to put d&d over friendships, and honestly someone willing to do that is a ****ty friend anyways.

Jornophelanthas
2013-07-19, 06:28 AM
The main issue with my Mom is that she basically takes the position of "He can't help it, and if you don't give him proper time to change (which when put into practice she means, until he changes no matter how long) you're friends are all terrible human beings who aren't welcome anymore" so I doubt I'd get her to change her mind. It's become pretty apparent now that she likes Player D more than me even, so he is her favourite in the group too.

You need to deal with this too if you intend to remove Player D from the group at some point. To be honest, you make it sound like your mother is a terrible parent, if she is more attached to the kid she hand-picked to be her child's "best friend", than to her own child. (Although a one-sided argument can easily skew the situation to appear far more extreme than it really is.)

Whatever you do, make sure not to damage your family relations over a roleplaying game. However, if your family is (indirectly) spoiling the enjoyment of your roleplaying hobby, let them know and ask them to stop. That is why it is important that your mother knows and understands exactly where you stand.

Some arguments you could use to get your mother back on your side could be:

- You are 19 years old, and capable of making your own decisions, and taking responsibility for them too. If you no longer want to associate with Player D (while roleplaying), she should respect that.

- As people grow up, friends may drift apart. Instead of liking Player D's company, you have moved on to merely tolerating him, and you have found other friends that you like to spend more time with. This is a natural process, and nobody can stop this (unless both you AND Player D make the effort to maintain the friendship, which HE is not doing).
(And if your mother argues that he can't help it because of autism, you could argue that a friendship where one person does all the effort is abusive towards that person.)

- Perhaps your mother treats him as her (and your) favourite charity, believing that both she and you are Good Persons(tm) for helping the less fortunate (him) in the way that you do. If this is the case, you could explicitly consider finding another charity to pursue, to compensate for reducing your involvement with Player D (even if you still intend to spend time with Player D outside of roleplaying).

- Whatever you do, do not allow yourself to be lured into feeling guilty that you are dealing with your autism better than he is, so that you owe it to him to be his most bestest friend forever-and-ever. The fact that you are where you stand now has nothing to do with him, and it does not entitle him to your assistance until he somehow manages to catch up with you. Any aid that you give him should be voluntary, not guilt-ridden.

If you worry that you will not get through to your mother no matter what, you could consider first talking to someone else you know and trust, who could try to mediate, or broach the subject to her in a better way. (e.g. an uncle, grandmother, spiritual leader, autism counselor, etc.)

Segev
2013-07-19, 08:47 AM
In my admittedly limited experience (as I only have one mother of my own - a statistically common phenomenon and surely a sign of the degeneration of society </tongue in cheek>), I have found that moms more develop a...pattern of thinking about their children, than they do develop a "preference" for others. I doubt she actually prefers him to you, though I easily believe that she seems to act like it. After all, she expects better from you; you're her son, and she knows you're doing well, that you are handling and have handled your own autism like a champ.

She looks at your friend in a "there, but for the grace of God, goes her beloved baby [you]" sort of way. And she doesn't want to see you as behaving like "those other cruel children" that she always feared would (and perhaps sometimes did) pick on you for your differences. In pursuit of trying to guide you towards living the golden rule, she has made the mistake of actually doing your friend a terrible, horrible disservice.

She views him as helpless. "Enablers" are a known phenomenon. The truth about them is rarely that they're meaning harm. Worse, though, they are engaged in a kind of prejudicial cruelty. "He can't help himself" is a good thing to know when it's genuinely, honestly true. It is good to encourage patience with people who have genuine disabilities. But just as those who lack said patience often feel superior and justified in ostracizing those who can't or don't "act normal," it is quite common for those who react with a desire "to be a good person" will feel superior for their smug patience. I use the word "smug" deliberately, here. They, even more than those who refuse to have patience, are engaged in dehumanization of the misbehaving individual. The moment you start excusing behavior and coddling it because "they can't help themselves," you are dehumanizing them.

Again, understanding their difficulties is one thing. It takes tremendous patience and strength of character to not only have patience with such things, but to then firmly but kindly correct them. It's harder, because you have to put up with the individual you're working with perhaps resenting it. And, because you're viewing them as people, your empathy makes that resentment sting.

It's much easier to view them as...well, a sort of unusually human-like pet. They aren't really human, so they can't be expected to act like it. But, like many "crazy" individuals who over-humanize their actual pets, if anybody doesn't show exactly the level of patience and appreciation for your "project" person, you know they're awful people who hate animals people with special needs.

I don't say any of this to be cruel to your mother or to malign her. I am actually certain that this is almost a parody of her own behavior towards your friend. I say it because I think, if you can run it through a trusted relative in a safe way, this line of argument may help show her that her own behavior is that of an enabler, is actually HARMFUL to your friend, and is actually treating him the way she's afraid you, her baby boy, will be (mis)treated. (And don't doubt that you will ALWAYS be her baby boy to her; I'm over 30, living several states away, and her oldest child, but I'm still my Mom's "baby boy" in her heart, as are all my brothers...it's just how Moms are.) Her mistreatment is just more insidious because it disguises itself as kindness, and enlists the victim in perpetuating his problems.



And, if you take nothing else from my screed, here, take this: I can think of nothing crueler and more dehumanizing than to say of another, "He just can't help himself."

He can. People with his problems do, all the time. YOU have done it. Does she think him less human than you? There's a reason we stand up and applaud in the cheesy scene at the end of a movie when the crippled, handicapped, special-needs person struggles and fights to do something that he could much more easily just let the room full of people who are there to help him...do for him. It's the same reason we cheer when the footrace hero who broke his leg 20 feet from the finish line CRAWLS the last several yards over the finish line, even though he comes in at a place that earns no official award.

It's human to struggle to overcome your problems. Even if you need help, it's the struggle - and the recognition by others that you must be supported in that struggle and encouraged NOT to give in - that makes you human. To discourage that effort, to excuse a failure to make it as "he can't help himself," is to make the person you're "understanding" less than human.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-19, 11:28 AM
You need to deal with this too if you intend to remove Player D from the group at some point. To be honest, you make it sound like your mother is a terrible parent, if she is more attached to the kid she hand-picked to be her child's "best friend", than to her own child. (Although a one-sided argument can easily skew the situation to appear far more extreme than it really is.)

Whatever you do, make sure not to damage your family relations over a roleplaying game. However, if your family is (indirectly) spoiling the enjoyment of your roleplaying hobby, let them know and ask them to stop. That is why it is important that your mother knows and understands exactly where you stand.

Some arguments you could use to get your mother back on your side could be:

- You are 19 years old, and capable of making your own decisions, and taking responsibility for them too. If you no longer want to associate with Player D (while roleplaying), she should respect that.

- As people grow up, friends may drift apart. Instead of liking Player D's company, you have moved on to merely tolerating him, and you have found other friends that you like to spend more time with. This is a natural process, and nobody can stop this (unless both you AND Player D make the effort to maintain the friendship, which HE is not doing).
(And if your mother argues that he can't help it because of autism, you could argue that a friendship where one person does all the effort is abusive towards that person.)

- Perhaps your mother treats him as her (and your) favourite charity, believing that both she and you are Good Persons(tm) for helping the less fortunate (him) in the way that you do. If this is the case, you could explicitly consider finding another charity to pursue, to compensate for reducing your involvement with Player D (even if you still intend to spend time with Player D outside of roleplaying).

- Whatever you do, do not allow yourself to be lured into feeling guilty that you are dealing with your autism better than he is, so that you owe it to him to be his most bestest friend forever-and-ever. The fact that you are where you stand now has nothing to do with him, and it does not entitle him to your assistance until he somehow manages to catch up with you. Any aid that you give him should be voluntary, not guilt-ridden.

If you worry that you will not get through to your mother no matter what, you could consider first talking to someone else you know and trust, who could try to mediate, or broach the subject to her in a better way. (e.g. an uncle, grandmother, spiritual leader, autism counselor, etc.)

I'm explaining it wrong then if I make her out to be a terrible parent.

She basically is not much of a rational or logical thinker. Emotion and sense of doing good almost fully drive her goals at the cost of everything else such as realism. Unless if you interrupt her when reading or watching a movie, then she basically just wants you to get the hell away from her no matter what. Someone would have to be bleeding out on the floor dying to make her stop her book/movie :p.

I wouldn't see family or other autism experts helping though. Most of my family is completely uninvolved with this kind of stuff in the slightest. My immediate family would probably just end up causing more fights (Me, my dad and sister all tend to disagree and argue with her when opinions clash).

As for autism experts, all the ones who I know would work I haven't spoken with for a year, and are the same ones who Player D left a long time ago.

Brief History: Me and Player D were in the same therapy for a number of years. But it got to a point where as the nature of therapy goes, we were both impatient, angry and wanted out. Basically kicking and screaming as kids to get out of there. My Mom just said no and kept me in till the end. Player D's parents listened and pulled him out.

Player D (and his family) see's the old experts who I would trust as ineffective, overly strict, too demanding etc.
While the therapist Player D went to afterwards are the ones who are probably half responsible for his issues today (where you had stated earlier from past thread knowledge that it taught him not to take responsibility) so if anything they'd worsen it by saying he's doing nothing wrong and telling the rest of the group to just have fun.

As for the suggested arguments:

-The age argument has served me well in the past when it came to things like how much and how long I can be out of the house where it got me able to be out whenever I felt like with no deadline since around 15. So I could try it, but I'm expecting that she'll see it as me using my age as 'an excuse to be mean to him'.

-This... would never work. Because she's already reacted negatively to far less extreme case of this. There was one time where I told her I had three friends who I trusted more than anything. She automatically got a smile on her face and said (assumingly) Player D was one of them. I corrected her saying he wasn't, and she instantly went to sad, annoyed, disappointed, hurt etc. simply because he wasn't one of my absoloute closets friends.

Though she has also claimed that he apparently see's me as his best friend, and that if I were to ever leave a group he would because I'm apparently the reason he's there... But I proved those false before. There was one time I quit a group before it started and he was still plenty willing to join. Also Player A was recently at a Warhammer 40k event with Player D, and Player A had told me afterwards that apparently Player D spent most of it complaining/bad talking me to the rest of his d&d group.

-I doubt it. She's emotionally invested in both him and his mother who she's best friends with so she'd probably see his removal from the group as basically a betrayal.

-I don't feel guilty about it, and any guilt I did have died when he constantly hid behind his autism as an excuse, claimed I hated autism for calling him out on it, and getting mad at me and other players for doing things in table tops where he's done the exact same thing.


In my admittedly limited experience (as I only have one mother of my own - a statistically common phenomenon and surely a sign of the degeneration of society </tongue in cheek>), I have found that moms more develop a...pattern of thinking about their children, than they do develop a "preference" for others. I doubt she actually prefers him to you, though I easily believe that she seems to act like it. After all, she expects better from you; you're her son, and she knows you're doing well, that you are handling and have handled your own autism like a champ.

She looks at your friend in a "there, but for the grace of God, goes her beloved baby [you]" sort of way. And she doesn't want to see you as behaving like "those other cruel children" that she always feared would (and perhaps sometimes did) pick on you for your differences. In pursuit of trying to guide you towards living the golden rule, she has made the mistake of actually doing your friend a terrible, horrible disservice.

She views him as helpless. "Enablers" are a known phenomenon. The truth about them is rarely that they're meaning harm. Worse, though, they are engaged in a kind of prejudicial cruelty. "He can't help himself" is a good thing to know when it's genuinely, honestly true. It is good to encourage patience with people who have genuine disabilities. But just as those who lack said patience often feel superior and justified in ostracizing those who can't or don't "act normal," it is quite common for those who react with a desire "to be a good person" will feel superior for their smug patience. I use the word "smug" deliberately, here. They, even more than those who refuse to have patience, are engaged in dehumanization of the misbehaving individual. The moment you start excusing behavior and coddling it because "they can't help themselves," you are dehumanizing them.

Again, understanding their difficulties is one thing. It takes tremendous patience and strength of character to not only have patience with such things, but to then firmly but kindly correct them. It's harder, because you have to put up with the individual you're working with perhaps resenting it. And, because you're viewing them as people, your empathy makes that resentment sting.

It's much easier to view them as...well, a sort of unusually human-like pet. They aren't really human, so they can't be expected to act like it. But, like many "crazy" individuals who over-humanize their actual pets, if anybody doesn't show exactly the level of patience and appreciation for your "project" person, you know they're awful people who hate animals people with special needs.

I don't say any of this to be cruel to your mother or to malign her. I am actually certain that this is almost a parody of her own behavior towards your friend. I say it because I think, if you can run it through a trusted relative in a safe way, this line of argument may help show her that her own behavior is that of an enabler, is actually HARMFUL to your friend, and is actually treating him the way she's afraid you, her baby boy, will be (mis)treated. (And don't doubt that you will ALWAYS be her baby boy to her; I'm over 30, living several states away, and her oldest child, but I'm still my Mom's "baby boy" in her heart, as are all my brothers...it's just how Moms are.) Her mistreatment is just more insidious because it disguises itself as kindness, and enlists the victim in perpetuating his problems.



And, if you take nothing else from my screed, here, take this: I can think of nothing crueler and more dehumanizing than to say of another, "He just can't help himself."

He can. People with his problems do, all the time. YOU have done it. Does she think him less human than you? There's a reason we stand up and applaud in the cheesy scene at the end of a movie when the crippled, handicapped, special-needs person struggles and fights to do something that he could much more easily just let the room full of people who are there to help him...do for him. It's the same reason we cheer when the footrace hero who broke his leg 20 feet from the finish line CRAWLS the last several yards over the finish line, even though he comes in at a place that earns no official award.

It's human to struggle to overcome your problems. Even if you need help, it's the struggle - and the recognition by others that you must be supported in that struggle and encouraged NOT to give in - that makes you human. To discourage that effort, to excuse a failure to make it as "he can't help himself," is to make the person you're "understanding" less than human.

Hmmm, yes. You only have one mother. I'm sorry but I don't think you're experienced enough for this. :p

I could understand if it's simply her afraid he'd be rejected the same way I was in my earlier days (as in Grades 3-5).
I was kind of already aware this was part of the issue, but it seems more than just that with how she constantly seems extremely disappointed and angry at me and all my friends, for trying to deal with the issues Player D is causing without going the most Player D focused approach possible.

As for the 'smug' part. I can see what you're saying here. The good doers may not mean harm, but in trying to feel better about themselves by helping people they are in fact just harming those people while giving themselves a pat on the back for it. But this only get's worse when those who choose to treat them just like any other human being get attacked and dehumanized for 'being insensitive' and 'not caring about them' bla bla bla *insert bad label and social stigma here*.

As for the humanized pet... that is a great way of putting it actually.
I never thought of it that way... but that does explain it perfectly.

I doubt I can get another relative to help, with them either being complete un-involved with this or will probably just argue with her when viewpoints clash. I might be able to get the humanized pet point across to her though, but she'll still see removing him from the group if he can't fix the issue soon as 'unfair to him and without sufficient warning'.

Last time an issue like this came up, she and Player D's mom said it was basically as if "Player D was on trial".

Sadly though with the whole struggle thing, she rides heavily on the fact that the older someone gets the more wired their brain gets and the less effective therapy is. Which is true. But she rides this to the point that she rules that people over a certain age are simply stuck with always having most of their issues and will never get to close to a full recovery, Player D being at the age where she doesn't think it's possible anymore for him. Make a bit of progress? Yes, but not enough it would fix the issues he is having now.

I personally disagree with her with this, just because a persons brain is more wired doesn't mean the potential to get over the issues isn't impossible. But that is how she see's it, probably from seeing so many families with older children putting in a half-assed effort and fail as a result when she used to run an autism chapter.

Now, she still believes in full recoveries from very low functioning (non-verbal, not feeling pain, no social development) to being unable to tell the difference between typical people. But it has to be from a very young age like 3 and without long breaks or times away from therapy, and constant effort and reinforcement in the right direction. And she's right in that this is the best and most likely way for a child to fully recover.
But the issue being once it hits a certain point, age, gap etc she just declares it basically impossible which is where we end up disagreeing.

Snails
2013-07-19, 12:27 PM
I would suggest explicitly asking ALL the players what it is that they think would be fun to get to do in the game. If this particular player is a glory hog, it is plausible to regularly feed him an occasional easy victory he gets to stomp all over. But he needs to understand that to other players get their shot at glory, too. Try to get him to understand that if he can work constructively with other players for a shared victory, instead of getting the limelight ~25% of the time, he might get a piece of the limelight 50% or more of the time. "Cleverly" steering the game so that he pretends to cooperate and then screws over another player is eventually going to get the players to want to steer him away from their fun (boxing him into only 25% of the fun) or cause the campaign to die off entirely.

You will probably need to be pretty explicit here.

You do not need to make it about his bad behavior, but you will need people to say out loud "I want to get to do X", and have everyone loudly that every single player gets a crack at the kind of thing they want to do.

If he is not willing to say out loud "A, T, Z get to do their thing some of the time. We will take turns", you are screwed.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-19, 02:10 PM
I would suggest explicitly asking ALL the players what it is that they think would be fun to get to do in the game. If this particular player is a glory hog, it is plausible to regularly feed him an occasional easy victory he gets to stomp all over. But he needs to understand that to other players get their shot at glory, too. Try to get him to understand that if he can work constructively with other players for a shared victory, instead of getting the limelight ~25% of the time, he might get a piece of the limelight 50% or more of the time. "Cleverly" steering the game so that he pretends to cooperate and then screws over another player is eventually going to get the players to want to steer him away from their fun (boxing him into only 25% of the fun) or cause the campaign to die off entirely.

You will probably need to be pretty explicit here.

You do not need to make it about his bad behavior, but you will need people to say out loud "I want to get to do X", and have everyone loudly that every single player gets a crack at the kind of thing they want to do.

If he is not willing to say out loud "A, T, Z get to do their thing some of the time. We will take turns", you are screwed.

We could try, but past cases of him being glory hog include...

1. Cutsceneing because he hates the lack of glory a bad roll gives him
2. Stealing Plot device items
3. In this GURPS game, planning everything in the background to take over, control and/or destroy everyone else's creations for his own glory and enjoyment
4. Outright tantrums and threats when other players build their characters well
5. Outright panicking/about to cry when an enemy is announced before hand that is fairly dangerous and challenging

Also, Player A reported that apparently in a Call of Cthulu game Player D was able to set off a bomb, in a car, with him still in it and survive while holding the bomb. But 5 cultists around him (who are farther away) all die from it.

Essentially Player A see's it as the other groups DM is having to throw him bones to keep him happy, bones that completely break the reality and immersion of a campaign setting like Call of Cthulu.

And before someone asks why he wasn't removed from this group, it's a public one at a game shop. They have to try to deal with players even if disruptive because it's their job. And even then and with around 30 years of table top experience, the DM there is seemingly having to resort to outright god/mod immersion breaking stunts to keep him invested.

And I know our group doesn't want to have to break the reality of our world so one player can feel a bit more awesome.

Knaight
2013-07-19, 02:33 PM
It sounds like the main problem here is that your mom appears to think that not sharing one hobby with someone is some sort of horrible ostracism (GSF 5, basically). If you can explain that you do this particular hobby differently enough that it doesn't work to do it together, but that you are still friends with D and still will do other things with him it might work - particularly as you probably have a number of other examples of this with different people. Even if you don't, you could try to explain it via analogy - two people might both like film and novels, but if one of them almost exclusively watches dark tragedies where half of the cast has died in a number of tragic ways and the other one almost exclusively watches idealistic and lighthearted animation they aren't going to be able to watch films together very well. This is no more a problem than, say, not going on bike rides with someone when there is a 20 km/hr preferred speed difference.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-19, 02:39 PM
It sounds like the main problem here is that your mom appears to think that not sharing one hobby with someone is some sort of horrible ostracism (GSF 5, basically). If you can explain that you do this particular hobby differently enough that it doesn't work to do it together, but that you are still friends with D and still will do other things with him it might work - particularly as you probably have a number of other examples of this with different people. Even if you don't, you could try to explain it via analogy - two people might both like film and novels, but if one of them almost exclusively watches dark tragedies where half of the cast has died in a number of tragic ways and the other one almost exclusively watches idealistic and lighthearted animation they aren't going to be able to watch films together very well. This is no more a problem than, say, not going on bike rides with someone when there is a 20 km/hr preferred speed difference.

Hopefully trying to explain it that way helps.

Though since Player D doesn't want to quit (or he wouldn't be playing) we would still be removing from something he wants to be apart of, which she may have issue enough with. And the unavoidable eruption/tantum of Player D if he does have to leave won't help at all.

zorenathres
2013-07-19, 02:42 PM
well it kinda looks like a conundrum from my point of view, seeing as how your Madre cannot realistically acknowledge Player D's inability to play constructively with the group & Player D cannot for the life of him change his ways to better fit in with the group.

I would appreciate the fact that you have a regular playgroup (seeing as how where I live its a near-impossibility unless I resort to gaming at a game-store, the nearest one of which notoriously has the rudest employee & player base in the entire region), & try to salvage what you can, as you can see the likely outcome as Player D leaving, take the other players & continue at another location.

As you say, you only have a month left before some leave for college, & believe me your games may not be so regular after that. Making your experience enjoyable for your friends here & now may cement your relationships later on with friends who you feel are worth your time.

Jay R
2013-07-19, 03:18 PM
The only alternative left is to play something you can all play.

Segev
2013-07-19, 04:17 PM
Two points, hope they help:

1) I have a Ph.D. in a field centered around neural networks. While this is not a Ph.D. in neurobiology, I have probably about as much knowledge on the study of the subject as you can get without being in neurobiology directly. Everything we discover as we delve deeper into the way living neurons - living brains - work tells us that, while yes, the older you get, the more set you are, the actual plasticity of the human brain is far, far greater than we think. We are able to re-rout and re-learn entire basic capabilities to get around grotesque trauma to the brain.

The short of it is this: it gets harder as you get older to change your ways, but it is never impossible.

Speaking now more on a religious side (though this is mostly only helpful if Player D and his family WANT him to change), through God and prayer and working with your loved ones and being willing to apply yourself, enormous positive changes can come about. This isn't even just faith on my part: addiction-breaking programs in prisons (a good place for controlled study of severe problems) have had their councilors who lead the programs and work with those going through them state that faith in a higher power is one of the greatest aids to fundamentally changing otherwise-insurmountable self-reinforcing mental loops.


2) On the more cruel end, if you must include him, explain to your mother what it is he's doing and what the rules of the game are. Then simply don't let him cheat. Tell him flat-out that he can't do that. If he throws a tantrum, tell him calmly that he can play the game by the rules, or he can leave, but he cannot cheat. Nor can he dictate rule changes.

When and if your mother accuses you of being mean to him, ask her if she'd be okay with him playing Monopoly and insisting that he could just write dollar amounts on pieces of paper and insist that he can pay with those. Or if she'd be okay with him re-rolling his dice until he got the space HE wanted.

Explain that this is the kind of rule-changing he's trying to do, the kind of cheating he's trying to do. It's not autism; it's bad sportsmanship.


In the end, he'll be given the option to play right or to leave, and you won't have had to kick him out. Because if he won't play right, you just ignore his actions as you would those of a monopoly player who insisted he wasn't bankrupt even though he had no money.

Arbane
2013-07-19, 06:25 PM
When and if your mother accuses you of being mean to him, ask her if she'd be okay with him playing Monopoly and insisting that he could just write dollar amounts on pieces of paper and insist that he can pay with those. Or if she'd be okay with him re-rolling his dice until he got the space HE wanted.

Explain that this is the kind of rule-changing he's trying to do, the kind of cheating he's trying to do. It's not autism; it's bad sportsmanship.




Or you could turn it around on him - everyone ELSE starts God-Moding as well. (Only try this is you WANT drama, obviously.)

Alejandro
2013-07-19, 07:22 PM
I could suggest a dozen ways to have hilarious and cruel amusement at this player's expense. But, as stated, that would be cruel. Just tell him you aren't going to game with him anymore, because his behavior is intolerable. It will be good practice down the road.

Sith_Happens
2013-07-19, 08:10 PM
The main issue with my Mom is that she basically takes the position of "He can't help it, and if you don't give him proper time to change (which when put into practice she means, until he changes no matter how long) you're friends are all terrible human beings who aren't welcome anymore" so I doubt I'd get her to change her mind.

That attitude is painfully incorrect, and I say that as someone who's been in Player D's position. And I wasn't just kicked from gaming with the group in question, either.

Now, did the responsibility for handling things that way fall squarely on them? Sure. But in retrospect it became painfully obvious what I'd been doing to weird them out, and were I them I don't think I would have wanted to hang out with me either.

You know what the worst part was, though? Every last one of them (well, except for one, but he had anger issues so I kind of wrote him off) went a semester and a half without voicing a single damn grievance. So if anything they had been treating me the way your mom treats Player D, and the reason things ended so badly for me is precisely because of that.

So I guess, put me in the camp telling you to:
1. Explain to Player D, calmly and rationally, precisely the problems that the group is having with him, and tell him that if he can't fix them then you simply don't feel comfortable enough gaming with him to continue doing so.
2. Make it clear that you have no problems with him as a person (assuming of course that that's true), that this is purely about this one specific activity.
3. Explain to your mom exactly what you told Player D in steps 1&2, and that if she doesn't stop coddling him he'll eventually run into to people who are much less kind than you are.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-19, 09:14 PM
Thanks again for all the help guys. :)

I'm going to talk about Player A (The other player who isn't already voting to kick him out) about how we explain the situation to Player D. But for sure we're telling him the issues, and we need him to be able to fix them or he'll have to stop playing.

As for my Mom, hopefully she understands coddling him only hurts him and everyone else. But if she refuses to listen... well, we do got an alternate location and it's not the first time my Mom's been completely horrified/disapointed in me for acting realistic or not coddling people.

icefractal
2013-07-19, 10:03 PM
Actually, if kicking him isn't an option, you do have an alternative. Player D is used to claiming loudly that things happen in-game and people going along with it, so he may believe he actually controls the game. He is incorrect in this, and the rest of the group can demonstrate that fact very easily.

1) Do not let him GM. If he says that he's GMing, everyone should just ignore him and continue playing with whoever's supposed to be GMing.

2) Explain what the ground rules of the campaign are (for example, no portals), just so there's no excuse not to know it.

3) When he tries to pull out some BS, tell him that isn't happening.
Player D: I use my portal to step into your base and assassinate the general.
Target: No, we agreed there weren't portals. You don't have one.

4) If he persists in claiming that his BS stands, simply ignore it, and ignore any action he tries to take with it.
Player D: Yes I do! Anyway after your general is dead ...
Target: I think I'll send a scouting ship to Alpha Centauri. Anyone want to join in and make this a joint expedition?
Player D: Your ships are all sabotaged! You can't ...
Target: It should take about two weeks to get there, so we should know the real situation with the missing base soon.
Player D: I said, you can't ...
Other Player: Sure, I'll join in on that expedition.

Now this isn't really a friendly situation. Player D may indeed take his ball and go home - in which case, mission accomplished. But it makes the situation clear - he needs to not be a **** if he wants anyone to listen to him.

I think a lot of groups are too much into keeping things in-character, to the point that they acknowledge actions which they should simply call BS on. When I see stories about somebody making a character to immediately kill everyone else in their sleep, or rape somebody, I wonder why the GM (and the rest of the group) didn't simply stop things right then - "No, that action does not occur. That **** isn't acceptable, so you can't do it." Of course, there are reasons, like awkward situation paralysis, but I still feel that's the ideal course of action.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-19, 11:23 PM
Actually, if kicking him isn't an option, you do have an alternative. Player D is used to claiming loudly that things happen in-game and people going along with it, so he may believe he actually controls the game. He is incorrect in this, and the rest of the group can demonstrate that fact very easily.

1) Do not let him GM. If he says that he's GMing, everyone should just ignore him and continue playing with whoever's supposed to be GMing.

2) Explain what the ground rules of the campaign are (for example, no portals), just so there's no excuse not to know it.

3) When he tries to pull out some BS, tell him that isn't happening.
Player D: I use my portal to step into your base and assassinate the general.
Target: No, we agreed there weren't portals. You don't have one.

4) If he persists in claiming that his BS stands, simply ignore it, and ignore any action he tries to take with it.
Player D: Yes I do! Anyway after your general is dead ...
Target: I think I'll send a scouting ship to Alpha Centauri. Anyone want to join in and make this a joint expedition?
Player D: Your ships are all sabotaged! You can't ...
Target: It should take about two weeks to get there, so we should know the real situation with the missing base soon.
Player D: I said, you can't ...
Other Player: Sure, I'll join in on that expedition.

Now this isn't really a friendly situation. Player D may indeed take his ball and go home - in which case, mission accomplished. But it makes the situation clear - he needs to not be a **** if he wants anyone to listen to him.

I think a lot of groups are too much into keeping things in-character, to the point that they acknowledge actions which they should simply call BS on. When I see stories about somebody making a character to immediately kill everyone else in their sleep, or rape somebody, I wonder why the GM (and the rest of the group) didn't simply stop things right then - "No, that action does not occur. That **** isn't acceptable, so you can't do it." Of course, there are reasons, like awkward situation paralysis, but I still feel that's the ideal course of action.

If he does pull this in game after being warned I'm pretty sure we would do this. Just ignore him and keep RP'ing.

Though I just tried to explain the situation to my Mom, who pretty much says "We don't kick out people" and said we couldn't have it at my house anymore if he was kicked out. I did end up talking with his Mom however about the situation.

Current plan is for Player D, me and Player A to meet up early and try to defuse the situation. His mom thinks that if we re-write some of the worlds factions a bit there should be no PVP issues and therefore no more problems. But I'm unsure of how well that will work because it was Player D who came into the game with the plan to kidnap and overthrow everything, but has been going home and to his other GURPs group claiming that I'm the one causing PVP and aiming for control.

I made a faction called the Federation, basically they try to be the solar system police, government and military. But there are a number of races not under their rule, and the Federation takes no action to conquer or control them. But at the same time they aren't turning blind eyes to criminal activity going on there.

Essentially if say a very dangerous criminal was hiding out on one of Player D's worlds who want nothing to do with the Federation, the Federation would still go in, arrest the criminal and leave. Player D demands they should message him first and wait to be approved at least. I tell him that they would message, but if waiting meant the criminal getting away they wouldn't wait for the approval.

This led Player D to have a massive reaction and go all 'anti-federation' where he said he would go to war then and conquer them.
The issue there is humans have a military score of 7, federation a total of 52. The federation have no intention on attacking or controlling humans, but they won't let criminals get away from them through human planets.

And note, this was also all after everyone was away that Player D's plans was to assassinate and replace all the vital people of each race and faction.

Basically, with how eagerly he wanted to take over everything, how badly he reacted to any sign of challenge and all the rule breaking extents he's using to get there, I don't think he's going to just back down and eliminate the issues. I'm worried he fed his mom too much
"We're the ones aiming to control the word" stuff that she thinks it has to be just a misunderstanding/set-up issue.

I mean, I understand her point. But the mere fact his plan right out of the gate was to conquer everything, I doubt it's the result of the way we made our groups and I doubt it will be fixed by changing them unless if Player D has a change of heart. Which he never has in the past, he just keeps complaining when things aren't his way and simply stops when it's over with, like stops claiming the plot device should be his when it's no longer relevant, stops freaking out over a challenging foe once the foe is already dealt with.

Jornophelanthas
2013-07-20, 05:55 AM
Though I just tried to explain the situation to my Mom, who pretty much says "We don't kick out people" and said we couldn't have it at my house anymore if he was kicked out. I did end up talking with his Mom however about the situation.
Your mother use the term "we" in relation to your game. Note that she is NOT a participant in the game. Her only valid claim is that if the game takes place at her house, she can retract permission to host the game. Other than that, she can NOT make your decisions for you (unless you let her), and she has no authority at all over the opinions of players A, Z or D.


Current plan is for Player D, me and Player A to meet up early and try to defuse the situation. His mom thinks that if we re-write some of the worlds factions a bit there should be no PVP issues and therefore no more problems. But I'm unsure of how well that will work because it was Player D who came into the game with the plan to kidnap and overthrow everything, but has been going home and to his other GURPs group claiming that I'm the one causing PVP and aiming for control.
I hope this works out. Whatever the outcome, make it abundantly clear to both mothers that THIS is the attempt to correct things, that it is as far as you will go to correct things, and that this is a VERY reasonable effort.

Regardless of the outcome for this game, simply do not invite Player D for any future roleplaying games, and refuse to take part in any such game that he is also invited to. If your mother suggests that "you should have Player D join your nice little game because you are his best friend after all", refuse, and tell her that he is not your best friend.
I think your mother may be very attached to the idea that she and her best friend have children who are also best friends (and have a condition in common). Simply put, if you and Player D are best friends, she feels more connected to her own best friend, i.e. Player D's mother. Perhaps she only met Player D's mother because of your therapy, and she is afraid of losing that friendship if you and Player D ever have a falling-out. Any combination of this could make it more important to HER than to YOU that you and Player D remain best friends.

Finally, I can offer perhaps two more possible arguments to get your mother to understand your position (based on a previous post by someone else):

- Suppose that you like going to the movies every Friday night, and that you have a five-year-old little brother who also likes to see movies. You like scary horror movies, and he says he likes the same movies. However, whenever you go to see a scary movie together, he gets scared, and cries, and screams, and clings to you, and ruins the entire experience for you, because you have to comfort him all the time instead of enjoying the movie. He does enjoy himself when you go see kiddie movies about fluffy pink rainbow kittens, but then you have a terrible time because you get bored out of your mind.
It is clear that he does not like the same kinds of movies that you do, even though he believes he does. Therefore, if you want to enjoy a scary movie, you will have to go without him, even though he gets very upset and cries whenever you step into the movie theater without him.
So how should you spend your Friday nights? Should you keep taking him to scary movies without enjoying yourself? Should you only go see movies about fluffy pink rainbow kittens, and have a terrible time while he enjoys himself? Should you stop going to the movies altogether, and be bored all evening? Or should you go to the movies alone (or with other people) so that you will have a good time?
(This analogy might work especially well if your mother has regularly witnessed some of Player D's irrational tantrums.)

- Your mother cannot deny that you are further along with dealing with autism than Player D is. However, by having to accommodate him all the time, you have to continually stoop to his level of development. Has she ever considered that this might hurt your development? Okay, maybe you will not regress back to Player D's level, but being with him all the time is NOT helping you deal with the condition any better. After all, all the issues that he is struggling with now are issues that you have already dealt with yourself. You are not exploring your boundaries any more, challenging yourself to develop further, as long as you keep catering to his development level instead of interacting with non-autistic friends.
Case in point, it would not be fair of you to ask your friends to continually stoop to Player D's level either. If she makes you ask that of them, it is hurting your friendship with them, and actually sets you back in your own development.
Would your mother consider it worthwhile to (potentially) help Player D, even if it is (potentially) holding you back?

Alejandro
2013-07-20, 11:07 AM
Very soon, your mother(s) will no longer have any authority over you, assuming you aren't living in their house. They need to get used to this concept. Stop letting her control you.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-20, 11:45 AM
Your mother use the term "we" in relation to your game. Note that she is NOT a participant in the game. Her only valid claim is that if the game takes place at her house, she can retract permission to host the game. Other than that, she can NOT make your decisions for you (unless you let her), and she has no authority at all over the opinions of players A, Z or D.

I hope this works out. Whatever the outcome, make it abundantly clear to both mothers that THIS is the attempt to correct things, that it is as far as you will go to correct things, and that this is a VERY reasonable effort.

Regardless of the outcome for this game, simply do not invite Player D for any future roleplaying games, and refuse to take part in any such game that he is also invited to. If your mother suggests that "you should have Player D join your nice little game because you are his best friend after all", refuse, and tell her that he is not your best friend.
I think your mother may be very attached to the idea that she and her best friend have children who are also best friends (and have a condition in common). Simply put, if you and Player D are best friends, she feels more connected to her own best friend, i.e. Player D's mother. Perhaps she only met Player D's mother because of your therapy, and she is afraid of losing that friendship if you and Player D ever have a falling-out. Any combination of this could make it more important to HER than to YOU that you and Player D remain best friends.

Finally, I can offer perhaps two more possible arguments to get your mother to understand your position (based on a previous post by someone else):

- Suppose that you like going to the movies every Friday night, and that you have a five-year-old little brother who also likes to see movies. You like scary horror movies, and he says he likes the same movies. However, whenever you go to see a scary movie together, he gets scared, and cries, and screams, and clings to you, and ruins the entire experience for you, because you have to comfort him all the time instead of enjoying the movie. He does enjoy himself when you go see kiddie movies about fluffy pink rainbow kittens, but then you have a terrible time because you get bored out of your mind.
It is clear that he does not like the same kinds of movies that you do, even though he believes he does. Therefore, if you want to enjoy a scary movie, you will have to go without him, even though he gets very upset and cries whenever you step into the movie theater without him.
So how should you spend your Friday nights? Should you keep taking him to scary movies without enjoying yourself? Should you only go see movies about fluffy pink rainbow kittens, and have a terrible time while he enjoys himself? Should you stop going to the movies altogether, and be bored all evening? Or should you go to the movies alone (or with other people) so that you will have a good time?
(This analogy might work especially well if your mother has regularly witnessed some of Player D's irrational tantrums.)

- Your mother cannot deny that you are further along with dealing with autism than Player D is. However, by having to accommodate him all the time, you have to continually stoop to his level of development. Has she ever considered that this might hurt your development? Okay, maybe you will not regress back to Player D's level, but being with him all the time is NOT helping you deal with the condition any better. After all, all the issues that he is struggling with now are issues that you have already dealt with yourself. You are not exploring your boundaries any more, challenging yourself to develop further, as long as you keep catering to his development level instead of interacting with non-autistic friends.
Case in point, it would not be fair of you to ask your friends to continually stoop to Player D's level either. If she makes you ask that of them, it is hurting your friendship with them, and actually sets you back in your own development.
Would your mother consider it worthwhile to (potentially) help Player D, even if it is (potentially) holding you back?

It's not so much letting her make decisions and more she just won't hear anything that suggests him being removed.
If either me or Player A decides after warning Player D of the problem that he needs to go, he will go and what my Mom says won't matter.

What it will result in though if that happens is no longer being able to play at my house and grudge for my Mom to hold against me that she is unlikely to let go of. The only reason Player D isn't out yet is because me and Player A on our own wanted Player D to at least be warned directly he's in hot water without just dropping him into it. Before my mom was even aware of these issues happening.

I don't think that her friendship is going to be in danger if something happens between me and Player D over a table-top. But it will hurt them both. And she had only met her through the therapy.

As for the arguments:

- Comparing him to a 5 year old will only be taken by her as a direct insult to him, his intelligence and his autism. I know how you mean it, and honestly a lot of the time I'd say 5 year old is too generous, but she'd just see it as me insulting him for being autistic. Back to the whole 'Not his fault, he lacks the same ability to function and handle emotion, he can't help it etc'.

- I've been fully recovered for a few years now. I used to work in autism therapy as an assisting therapist with those who use to be my therapist and those they had hired since then (or during but never worked with me directly). So to say that Player D put me at risk of losing development is just not true. It would be just as true as Player D causing a typical person to 'catch' autism.


Very soon, your mother(s) will no longer have any authority over you, assuming you aren't living in their house. They need to get used to this concept. Stop letting her control you.

Like stated above:

It's not so much letting her make decisions and more she just won't hear anything that suggests him being removed.
If either me or Player A decides after warning Player D of the problem that he needs to go, he will go and what my Mom says won't matter.

What it will result in though if that happens is no longer being able to play at my house and grudge for my Mom to hold against me that she is unlikely to let go of. The only reason Player D isn't out yet is because me and Player A on our own wanted Player D to at least be warned directly he's in hot water without just dropping him into it. Before my mom was even aware of these issues happening.

Alejandro
2013-07-20, 11:58 AM
Well, I have found in life that many important decisions don't come without consequences, no matter what you choose. This is one of them. You have to decide what you desire less, gaming with this train wreck, or having to deal with your parent and gaming somewhere else for a little while.

Jornophelanthas
2013-07-20, 03:04 PM
It's not so much letting her make decisions and more she just won't hear anything that suggests him being removed.
If either me or Player A decides after warning Player D of the problem that he needs to go, he will go and what my Mom says won't matter.

What it will result in though if that happens is no longer being able to play at my house and grudge for my Mom to hold against me that she is unlikely to let go of. The only reason Player D isn't out yet is because me and Player A on our own wanted Player D to at least be warned directly he's in hot water without just dropping him into it. Before my mom was even aware of these issues happening.
I understand your point. The importance of convincing of your mother is primarily to avoid the grudge. Because it is a valid question to ask yourself if a game is worth an argument with a relative.


I don't think that her friendship is going to be in danger if something happens between me and Player D over a table-top. But it will hurt them both. And she had only met her through the therapy.
It's not so much whether YOU believe about this friendship, but what your mother believes about it. You have described her as unreasonably emotional at times, so perhaps she has an unconscious irrational fear that if you and Player D stop being friends, she will somehow lose the friendship with Player D's mother. (The irrational thought being: "Gwazi and D being friends is what caused me and D-Mom to become friends, so if the cause of my friendship with D-Mom is taken away, so will the friendship itself.")


As for the arguments:

- Comparing him to a 5 year old will only be taken by her as a direct insult to him, his intelligence and his autism. I know how you mean it, and honestly a lot of the time I'd say 5 year old is too generous, but she'd just see it as me insulting him for being autistic. Back to the whole 'Not his fault, he lacks the same ability to function and handle emotion, he can't help it etc'.
Then adjust the details as necessary. You have a 3-year age difference, so you could find an analogy where such an age gap would work. Like the monopoly example you mentioned earlier. Try to get the point across that some activities require a skill or ability that he currently lacks (even though he can't help it), and that it is spoiling the game for all the others.


- I've been fully recovered for a few years now. I used to work in autism therapy as an assisting therapist with those who use to be my therapist and those they had hired since then (or during but never worked with me directly). So to say that Player D put me at risk of losing development is just not true. It would be just as true as Player D causing a typical person to 'catch' autism.
Then the argument is unsuitable, and I hope I have not insulted you by presenting it.

---

Regardless, you are well aware that your mother's attitude is part of the problem in your dealings with Player D, and you seem willing to pay the price of going against her wishes. Still, even though you may believe she will not be willing to consider your opinion, you always owe her the benefit of the doubt, meaning you should at least try. I hope your father and sister (whom you mentioned) will understand better / easier.

It is not entirely clear to me who in the gaming group will be going to college after the summer, but if it is you, I can only hope that in that case you will be seeing a whole lot less of Player D, and develop a new circle of friends who are not picked out for you.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-21, 12:06 AM
Player D is the only friend in the group who I know from autism therapy in the past. All the others are those who I made friends with on my own during elementary and high school years.

The people going to college is Me (2nd year) but I'm staying at home so table top isn't an issue for me, but Player A and T are starting their first years and will both be moving into dorms.

However, unexpected turns had happened in this regard.
Player D's mom had talked to Player D before GURPs started.
I have no idea the specifics, but probably addressing the issue over all since Player D had been complaining about it constantly before hand as well.

But how it ended up in the end was Player D texting us an hour after the session was supposed to start saying he was leaving the group.

This does solve the feared in game conflict the others had, so the situation does seem to be handled even if not in the most favourable everyone resolves the issues and remains playing way... but think right from the start of the topic me and everyone here and in my group knew it wouldn't be a perfect ending.

However, my Mom although not preventing us from playing at my place anymore is seeing this as sad result of a boy of whose feelings have been hurt and broken. And then claims I had 'twisted and controlled' the rest of the group to see a problem where there was none.

I informed the group of this and we all found it ridiculous. But that seems to be the belief my Mom's keeping, and I'm use to disagreeing with her and seeing her opinions as illogical to begin with.

Thanks everyone for your help, I'm thinking from here on out the group shouldn't have any more conflicts.
And if in the future I run into a similar issue with another group I'm hoping we'll be able to resolve it ourselves and I won't need to make another topic asking about it.

Arkhosia
2013-07-21, 12:15 AM
Nice to know that one way or another,the issue was solved.

Jornophelanthas
2013-07-21, 04:14 AM
It seems the current outcome is the best result that could be expected. Apparently, Player D's parents exerted their influence to have Player D make a decision that he hopefully can agree with himself. I'm sure that his mother and your mother will talk about it (if they haven't already), so it could very well be that your mother knows more about Player D's feelings than you do. So don't discount what she says about Player D's reaction out of hand.

(For all you know, the text message coming an hour late could very well be explained by him crying about not getting to play anymore, and finally pulling himself together enough to at least notify you all, without showing how distraught he is.)

One thing you could do to take the sting out of the situation is to explain to your mother that you are not the "evil mastermind" behind the entire situation, as at least 2 others were more committed to removing Player D than you were. You just happened to (1) have made an in-game move that unintentionally caused Player D to become frustrated with you - and everyone with him, and (2) know his parents well enough to contact them on behalf of the group. If anything, you tried to soften the blow to player D without betraying your other friends.
(And who could blame you for contacting his parents, knowing that he has autism and can't be held responsible for his own behaviour? Either he is responsible for his (mis)behaviour, or his parents are. It cannot be the case that nobody is responsible and he has permanent permission to cheat at games, like your mother seems to think.)

Also, if you still consider yourself a friend of Player D, you could offer to undertake some non-roleplaying activity with him (so that he will not disfunction). He might not accept, but it's the gesture that counts, not just for him but also for both your and his parents.

Hopefully, any remaining tensions will recede with a little time.

Zerter
2013-07-21, 05:20 AM
So you did nothing long enough till the problem resolved itself. Also player D quits probably feeling like a huge victim. Many useful lessons were learned ...:smallconfused:

I do not say this to be insulting, rather to point out that I think the lesson might be to try and resolve it (a lot) sooner.

Felhammer
2013-07-21, 05:44 AM
Boot him to the curb. I'm sorry but his preferred play-style is at odds with the rest of the group. This isn't the first time he hasn't gelled with the group, nor is it the only group he is having issues with. Your life will be better without him unless he is one of the few remaining people you can game with after your other friends head off to college.

Never burn bridges because you may want to game with him in the future (for what ever reason), so be kind and gentle. Having said that, don't be shy or coy with the the explanation as to why the group collectively decided to boot him. Perhaps your explanation will help him realize what he is doing wrong and, hopefully, make him a better player in the future.

EDIT: Just read the last few posts. Well that resolved itself a lot better than it could have. :smallsmile:

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-21, 07:46 AM
It seems the current outcome is the best result that could be expected. Apparently, Player D's parents exerted their influence to have Player D make a decision that he hopefully can agree with himself. I'm sure that his mother and your mother will talk about it (if they haven't already), so it could very well be that your mother knows more about Player D's feelings than you do. So don't discount what she says about Player D's reaction out of hand.

(For all you know, the text message coming an hour late could very well be explained by him crying about not getting to play anymore, and finally pulling himself together enough to at least notify you all, without showing how distraught he is.)

One thing you could do to take the sting out of the situation is to explain to your mother that you are not the "evil mastermind" behind the entire situation, as at least 2 others were more committed to removing Player D than you were. You just happened to (1) have made an in-game move that unintentionally caused Player D to become frustrated with you - and everyone with him, and (2) know his parents well enough to contact them on behalf of the group. If anything, you tried to soften the blow to player D without betraying your other friends.
(And who could blame you for contacting his parents, knowing that he has autism and can't be held responsible for his own behaviour? Either he is responsible for his (mis)behaviour, or his parents are. It cannot be the case that nobody is responsible and he has permanent permission to cheat at games, like your mother seems to think.)

Also, if you still consider yourself a friend of Player D, you could offer to undertake some non-roleplaying activity with him (so that he will not disfunction). He might not accept, but it's the gesture that counts, not just for him but also for both your and his parents.

Hopefully, any remaining tensions will recede with a little time.

Probably. Although he did normally show up late for the games (But to be fair, EVERYONE in the group shows up late. And it get's worse when they adopt the mindset of 'well others will be late, so I can afford to be late' *grumble grumble*... I'm working on knocking the habit out of them) he has always texted before the group is supposed to start so him having texted an hour late was very odd.

I had tried to explain I'm not an 'evil mastermind' though. But the thing is, where we play is right next to her room so she was apparently able to overhear a fair amount of the group discussing and voicing concerns over Player D after he had left. But knowing how emotionally bonded she got to "Player D's plight" on his side and how she normally seems to completely miss a persons argument/point and force her own emotional thinking as solid fact... she probably took every worry, concern voiced as a manipulative attack.

For a long time (As Zerter put rather honestly), our group had issues knowing what to do about the issues and how to resolve problems with him for a while now. And since for the longest time no one had wanted to see anyone hurt or be responsible for any hurt feelings in any way people got reluctant to do anything or hoped to sit back and let it die over. I'm thinking me having voiced over time that this practice has only hurting us even more combined with me having voiced my own frustration about the group was what my Mom probably took as being manipulative.

Granted: I know when someone says they're being accused of X, and then state that the person accusing is working on what they heard the person saying that it looks pretty bad in my shoes in that the person accusing basically heard all the proof they need. I'm just trying to bring out the facts as it is and hope people take my word for it when I say "I did not ever try to manipulate anyone into doing anything".

Did my opinion probably have some weight on how others saw the situation and thought we should act? Probably, in the same way as what they voiced would of influenced how I thought and acted. But that's more the group valuing one another opinions and finding points in each of them, not trying to control one another.

If it was any other friend, parents would never of entered the picture and I would simply deal with the friend as a capable adult. But the issue with Player D is he doesn't act anything like an adult when faced with information that inconveniences him. He simply get's worked up, very angry, loud, agitated and them stims running around the place yelling at the person stating the info as if it's all that persons fault.

We couldn't discuss anything with him without him acting up. Now, this doesn't mean we gave up presenting him with information and warnings when needed, but it was clear that just trying to call to him about the facts wasn't going to get anywhere, and we needed an other voice unrelated to the group of some authority that he would listen too and not automatically dismiss because "Oh that's just that player, he's working against me", or "What does he know?".

+He's not my only friend with autism, but every other autistic friend I have there has never been any serious issues like these. And if they ever were to arise I'd be able to handle it by speaking with them as adults and not need to discuss it with their parents. But granted the main 2 people I'm thinking of here are respectively 2 and 3 years older than Player D, so effectively 1 year younger and same age as me.

As for out of table top activities. Hopefully, but I've found that unless if it's something like a drive-in he normally doesn't want to hang out if I'm not sleeping over the night and due to other plans and commitments I have I normally can't afford to stay at night as fun as it usually is when I am able to stay the night.

There is a warhammer 40k thing he and Player A have started going to on sundays that I've been planning going with them too (the invite was extended to me), but I'm worried that the recent table top developments would put that in jeopardy. Plus with him having constantly complained about the group (and me more specifically to them) and then showing up to them know saying he's had to quit, I doubt I'd be getting a warm welcome when joining in, even if Player A says they mostly just seem to be going "Mmhmm, ok Player D" and staying focused on whatever else they were doing whenever Player D starts to complain.


So you did nothing long enough till the problem resolved itself. Also player D quits probably feeling like a huge victim. Many useful lessons were learned ...:smallconfused:

I do not say this to be insulting, rather to point out that I think the lesson might be to try and resolve it (a lot) sooner.

XD Yes, this was a lesson we had learned a long time ago. It was largely why I wanted this issue resolved now/soon one way or another.

It got to the point where I pretty much saw it as, we need to address the issue with him and see if it can be fixed so there's no conflict with the rest of the group. If he can, great. If he can't or simply refuses too then it gets to the point where:

a) He stays, and he and the group is miserable
b) He leaves, people may feel crappy for a time but at some point the games will pick up again without constant conflict


Boot him to the curb. I'm sorry but his preferred play-style is at odds with the rest of the group. This isn't the first time he hasn't gelled with the group, nor is it the only group he is having issues with. Your life will be better without him unless he is one of the few remaining people you can game with after your other friends head off to college.

EDIT: Just read the last few posts. Well that resolved itself a lot better than it could have. :smallsmile:

I'm assuming since you said he's had problems in our group before that you saw the original thread on the d&d 3.5 forums where physical aggression with him was a concern?

Regardless of that though, I'm curious as to why you think he's had issues in other groups (unless if by that you mean our d&d group but that was all the same people). Because his other groups at a game store, although I've never been there myself to see them he claims they go very well and he never has issues with them.

But, at the same time apparently for the longest time he had been coming home from our groups and been claiming everything was great. So he maybe he just isn't talking about the issues again, but considering I have other witnesses of the group telling me as well they seem to run a bit better for him, I'm willing to believe that his other groups probably do go with less/no conflict.

Now, before people ask "Wait, if he has no issues in the other group wouldn't that mean your group is the problem?". Partially yes, but in this case I think it was more a conflict-ion of player personality and style. In our group we very strongly encourage PvE, try to avoid PVP, encourage and support roleplaying and creativity, if **** goes bad that's how the dice roll (granted the DM isn't unforgiving or uncaring... save for a 2 week long campaign where that DM fell flat on his face very early) etc.

Where Player D is more of the player who likes seeing if he can be better than the other players, likes simply putting on a very loud voice for his characters, instead of creating anything new he directly rips off of other things like Team Fortress 2, Warhammer 40k etc. and I know of a case in his group in call of cthullu where he survived a bomb he was holding right up against him but 5 cultists around him died...

In other words, our groups aims more for roleplaying (maybe not well, but we push for an honest effort to be given at least), creating new things and exploring that creativity, and if something happens you go with it. Granted we have our easy moments and we aren't a hardcore RP group go with the dice no matter what. We're more causal than that, but we still like our groups with a decent effort and feel in them.

While Player D and his other group seems to be more the 'cinematic' experience. Ignore reality, ignore certain facts saying X shouldn't work. They just do what makes them feel the most epic and continue on with that. Less roleplaying, less creativity, more "Let's be awesome and be our favourite game characters while we do it"... in other words imagine the ultimate fandom... the OTHER kind!

Nothing inherently wrong with it, but I don't think it mixed well with the rest of the groups playstyle and even then it wasn't a deal breaker. It was how Player D chose to react when these conflict-ions were brought to light that caused the issues in the group to happen.

Alejandro
2013-07-21, 12:34 PM
I am happy that, hopefully, you don't have to deal with his crap any more. But, to summarize:

- If possible, talk about issues right away, instead of letting them sit and fester, even if you don't know the exact right answer. Some pain for everyone, including him, might have been avoided.

- Your mom needs to get over herself. It sounds like she still thinks of each of you as little kids. But, this is common in parents whose children are about to go to college and start having lives independent of their family.

Felhammer
2013-07-21, 12:36 PM
I'm assuming since you said he's had problems in our group before that you saw the original thread on the d&d 3.5 forums where physical aggression with him was a concern?

I'm just going off what you said in the first post (you mentioned him making TF2 Snipers in your D&D game and "activating stealth", both of which wouldn't be of note unless they were an issue).


Regardless of that though, I'm curious as to why you think he's had issues in other groups (unless if by that you mean our d&d group but that was all the same people). Because his other groups at a game store, although I've never been there myself to see them he claims they go very well and he never has issues with them.

You said he's having trouble integrating into the Cthulu Game (the whole surviving the bomb issue and the DM being forced to bend the rules to accommodate him).


Now, before people ask "Wait, if he has no issues in the other group wouldn't that mean your group is the problem?". Partially yes, but in this case I think it was more a conflict-ion of player personality and style. In our group we very strongly encourage PvE, try to avoid PVP, encourage and support roleplaying and creativity, if **** goes bad that's how the dice roll (granted the DM isn't unforgiving or uncaring... save for a 2 week long campaign where that DM fell flat on his face very early) etc.

Exactly, different expectations for the game.

There are lots of ways to play RPGs but they all require a shared vision. Without that shared vision, the game degrades into arguments and hurt feelings. If all the players save one are on board for playstyle Y and the last player wants playstyle X, then its going to cause friction. Sadly, this often leads to that lone player getting booted if he is more obstinate than not OR the group dieing. The former is definitely preferable to the latter. If the lone player will not acquiesce to the majority's preferred playstyle (and a compromise solution has been deemed/found-to-be untenable, un-fun or unworkable), then it is for the best if the lone player is removed from the group.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-21, 03:01 PM
I am happy that, hopefully, you don't have to deal with his crap any more. But, to summarize:

- If possible, talk about issues right away, instead of letting them sit and fester, even if you don't know the exact right answer. Some pain for everyone, including him, might have been avoided.

- Your mom needs to get over herself. It sounds like she still thinks of each of you as little kids. But, this is common in parents whose children are about to go to college and start having lives independent of their family.

-That is for sure something we're going to be practicing more in the future.

-I've already been going to college for a year now, but have been staying at home for economic reasons. I see what you're saying though. But I think it's largely favoritism and the fact I don't think like she does that causes her to act like this.

*I should warn, what follows below although related does turn into a semi-rant, so feel free to skip if you want*

She see's Player D as struggiling, as always a poor and innocent victim who needs to be helped and you can't blame him for what he does usually. She thinks like she's in a perfect world where all the problems will work themselves out and no hard choices or rational thinking will be needed to resolve a problem, just big grins and constant positive preaching.

I see Player D as someone who is capable of making his own decisions, and control his own behaviour. He simply chooses not to because he has an easy scapegoat to hind behind where others around him have always accepted that as an excuse or even encouraged him using it as an excuse.

Life has taught me many times though too that walking into problems with a big grin on your face and expecting your ideal vision of a perfect positive world to rub off on the problem and make it magically vanish doesn't work. You need to think through it rationally and state out the facts how they are, and address them accordingly. And sometimes hard choices need to be made, it's best to make efforts first to not have to resort to the hard choice, but if you need to make the hard choice having people criminalize you for it does nothing to help the situation.

Infact, if there was one thing I think my Mom and Player D have in common is that they have issues with being told the truth about a situation as it is. Both them like to imagine there is no problem and if there is, a constant 'positive' attitude, or simply guilting and yelling at people enough will fix the problem. Both of them when facts with truths or facts about a situation that may not be convenient tend to act completely irrational to it, either ignoring the truth completely or getting mad at others because of the fact there is a truth in place that others are choosing to acknowledge rather than ignore.


I'm just going off what you said in the first post (you mentioned him making TF2 Snipers in your D&D game and "activating stealth", both of which wouldn't be of note unless they were an issue).

You said he's having trouble integrating into the Cthulu Game (the whole surviving the bomb issue and the DM being forced to bend the rules to accommodate him).

I'm starting to lose track as to what I've said in this thread and in the other one in the past on the d&d forums... XD
That... well that says something about the whole issue to begin with.

But as for the bomb thing, I admit I'm not 100% sure how much of that was forced and how much was just group nature.
My impression/knowledge of the other group has been changing a bit for the past while as I hear new things about it.

But if it's the former, it means Player D is willing and able to cause conflict in other groups if he doesn't get his epic moments and the group fears it enough to act accordingly to keep him happy. If it's the latter, then it's just a different kind of group environment whose style although mix better with Player D is not a style the group I'm in does so well.

I am aware of one thing in their Cthulu game though where apparently they complained about the mechanics claiming they were too hard so the DM had to change to GURPS. And this campaign having been going on for several months now... only one player as died, from a bear attack. Call of Cthulu, a game that is known for killing players or making them insane/unplayable every session. A game where you never win but break even, and that's only if you're extremely lucky...

As been turned into a almost danger free, cinematic adventure of people trying to pull epic stunts to show how awesome they are...
In other words they're playing Call of Cthulu without doing a single thing that honours the name of Call of Cthulu.

Probably for the best though.
Player D had a past case in our old d&d group where his character died, the DM immediately told him he would be revived after the fight and Player D still got furious and cried on stairs for three hours straight. He wouldn't survive a game where that happened every session.


Exactly, different expectations for the game.

There are lots of ways to play RPGs but they all require a shared vision. Without that shared vision, the game degrades into arguments and hurt feelings. If all the players save one are on board for playstyle Y and the last player wants playstyle X, then its going to cause friction. Sadly, this often leads to that lone player getting booted if he is more obstinate than not OR the group dieing. The former is definitely preferable to the latter. If the lone player will not acquiesce to the majority's preferred playstyle (and a compromise solution has been deemed/found-to-be untenable, un-fun or unworkable), then it is for the best if the lone player is removed from the group.

Agreed completely, if play styles don't match then no one gets what they want and the campaign goes into a downhill spiral.

Rosstin
2013-07-21, 04:47 PM
TC, this is interestingly very similar to an older thread about a problem player I saw in GitP forums. Is that a coincidence or is this a recurrence?

Glad that things worked out, honestly it sounds like the player quitting of his own accord is an ideal situation. Three people is just barely enough to run a stable game. Hopefully you guys manage, or can find another player.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-21, 04:52 PM
TC, this is interestingly very similar to an older thread about a problem player I saw in GitP forums. Is that a coincidence or is this a recurrence?

Glad that things worked out, honestly it sounds like the player quitting of his own accord is an ideal situation. Three people is just barely enough to run a stable game. Hopefully you guys manage, or can find another player.

Coincidence.

There is an old thread in the d&d 3.5 forums about other issues he had a while ago. But I never posted in GitP forums about it (or use it at all for that matter).

Currently we're set up with 4 players/DMs.
Since we all helped make the world and no one specifically wanted to DM for the whole thing we invented a system where is the person has a quest line planned and/or the game is taking place in one of the planets or deals with one of the races/organizations they made the player is allowed to take over as DM for the portion, and too not break group consistency the current DM's player character still remains with the group and functions as a player, the DM is just trusted to not use their DM knowledge to solve problems and allow the other characters who take the lead there.

Plus we have a 5th player, Player L who might be joining in around 2 weeks time. So we'll have 4 non-DM controlled characters at all times.

Alejandro
2013-07-21, 05:52 PM
Make sure to screen player L for being a psycho and or having psychotic parents. :)

Gwazi Magnum
2013-07-21, 07:17 PM
Make sure to screen player L for being a psycho and or having psychotic parents. :)

lol :p

He used to play with us in our d&d group, he's fine.

KacyCrawford
2013-07-22, 07:08 AM
Don't play with him.:smallwink: