How to deal with a particular player

[BeastofMadness]

Alright, well, I just recently started Dm'ing, followed some suggestions of the people here on the board, and would like to say thanks to you all. This however, is not why we are here, as per the title.

Now, this player is a good friend of mine, however I have caught him in some situations that are starting to erode away my trust in him as a DM. I allowed him a free ride on a half celestial [pf]swashbuckler/monk gestalt. No problem, I handled it well, and had no problem with it. He wanted to use something new, wanted to build around a concept, and I had no problem letting him do it.

I do however, take issue that he does not have enough Pinache for the several times that he was using his parry and counter attacks. Pinache is like grit for gunslingers, and his charisma was nowhere near the amount, let alone he was using a 7th level pinache deed. He did apologize for the 7th level shenanigans, and I accepted the apology. However, I cannot let this slip by simply because of the fact he has been irritating other people at the table.

Now, I can accept some gloating over a victory from a character [but this is also coming from him as a player], but others are plotting to end him should the opportunity arise. He however, has stepped over some lines and I need a way to re-assert that some things I will not be taking lightly if he is going to blatantly disregard the trust I had given him.

His character will not refuse a sword fight, and I want to teach some humility to his character, and give him a chance to shape up at the table. I don't want to do anything to terrible to him, but the idea of removing his wings has crossed my thought. Any input would be nice.

[Kudaku]

I believe assassination is the most reasonable approach. Preferably quick and painless.

Should that option, for whatever reason, be unavailable I'd start off with the obvious things. Ask the players for their character sheets occasionally and look them over - doublecheck the math, make sure they don't have any mistakes, real or pretend.

Personally I use a Dropbox folder where each player uploads his character sheet - if anyone happens to forget their sheet we can reprint it on the spot, and it gives me easy access to their Perception/Saves/HP/equipment list in case I'm planning something particularly devious.

As far as the duel goes... In general it's a bad idea to solve an OOC problem IC - humbling his character is unlikely to make him humble. As is the case in so many of these situations, the best approach to solving this is to take it up with him, politely, outside the game.

[Sir Pippin Boyd]

snip

There are 2 kinds of player infractions at the table. There are the kind that happen out of ignorance or accidentally, like some minor build flaws, taking too long to take their turn, being generally considered annoying, or sometimes even lesser degrees of rules lawyering.

Then there are the kind that are completely inexcusable, like cheating, being openly disrespectful to the DM or other players, or willfully trying to throw things off track.

For the former, there are some talks to be had about the precise manner in which to deal with it. Sometimes it requires a delicate touch and some patience/perspective. For the latter, you can only politely inform the player that he is no longer welcome.

[Red Fel]

There are 2 kinds of player infractions at the table. There are the kind that happen out of ignorance or accidentally, like some minor build flaws, taking too long to take their turn, being generally considered annoying, or sometimes even lesser degrees of rules lawyering.

Then there are the kind that are completely inexcusable, like cheating, being openly disrespectful to the DM or other players, or willfully trying to throw things off track.

For the former, there are some talks to be had about the precise manner in which to deal with it. Sometimes it requires a delicate touch and some patience/perspective. For the latter, you can only politely inform the player that he is no longer welcome.

I agree in part, although I don't like resorting to "no longer welcome" when other options are available. But I'd also like to point out another dichotomy.

There are two types of infractions at the table - those which are committed in-character, such as constantly breaking alignment, killing NPCs and harassing PCs; and those committed out-of-character, such as metagaming, cheating your stats, and harassing players. In-character actions merit in-character consequences; out-of-character actions merit out-of-character consequences; in both cases, misconduct merits a conversation.

In the instant case, your post indicates the following:

1. He wanted to try a gestalt build. You allowed him, and seem to suggest this is a good thing. No problem.

2. He lacks the Panache (sp?) to perform his various techniques. You caught him in the act, and he apologized; has he done it since? Or was the apology a sincere mistake?

3. He has been annoying other people at the table, apparently gloating over his victories, and now they want to kill him.

... Wait, what?!

Point #3 is where I have some whiplash. Up until that point, everything you described was mild. He asked for a gestalt, he fudged some numbers, okay, but he apologized, sure.

And now they want to kill him.

I feel like you're leaving a lot out here. Players don't ordinarily decide to kill a PC for "gloating." It usually takes a lot to get to the "let's just kill this guy" place. Either your players are extraordinarily sensitive or intolerant, or this guy has done a lot worse than "gloating." You list some minor infractions, then say things like "blatantly disregard the trust," and it makes me wonder just how many babies this guy had to kill to cheese everyone off.

Could you elaborate a little?

[Barstro]

I agree in part, although I don't like resorting to "no longer welcome" when other options are available.

---------
...And now they want to kill him.

I feel like you're leaving a lot out here.

I agree on both of those. "No longer welcome" is the last step. It might be the only step that will work, but try some other things first.

Is he the only Gestalt? Is he too powerful? Is he too powerful because he doesn't understand the rules and/or fudges numbers?

You cannot do too much for a player (or perhaps a PC) who gloats over victories. But someone who gloats over a victory won by cheating is another story.

Possible scenarios and solutions;
1) His sheet is just plain wrong
He needs to fix his sheet

2) He is misusing the rules
He needs to reread the rules and play accordingly

3) He is getting away with using loopholes.
YOU need to shut down the loopholes

4) His Gestalt is too powerful
No longer allow him to advance as Gestalt
OR; start making some fights that attack his weaknesses. This is not Dues ex Machina, it is BBEG doing his research on uppity heroes in his realm.

5) He's a glass cannon who is always a cannon and you feel bad about making him glass.
Kill him, but fudge the roll so he is only -9. Advise him in private that he did die, but you gave him a free rez and next time you will not cheat for him. I'd like my DM to do that. My party makes a lot of bad decisions because nobody has died from their mistakes.

6) He's just a rude immature child.
Talk to him, and be prepared to let him go.

[BeastofMadness]

3. He has been annoying other people at the table, apparently gloating over his victories, and now they want to kill him.

... Wait, what?!

Point #3 is where I have some whiplash. Up until that point, everything you described was mild. He asked for a gestalt, he fudged some numbers, okay, but he apologized, sure.

And now they want to kill him.

I feel like you're leaving a lot out here. Players don't ordinarily decide to kill a PC for "gloating." It usually takes a lot to get to the "let's just kill this guy" place. Either your players are extraordinarily sensitive or intolerant, or this guy has done a lot worse than "gloating." You list some minor infractions, then say things like "blatantly disregard the trust," and it makes me wonder just how many babies this guy had to kill to cheese everyone off.

Could you elaborate a little?

Well, let me elaborate a little further. The in-character gloating is honestly going to come back to bite him in the hind end, after all, you don't gloat within ear shot of townspeople. Word can get around, quick, and you never know who might be listening. After all, word might get around and you might have to throw down with someone.

As for the Pinache thing, I can forgive that, but he used one that was clearly not for his level. I feel a little betrayed, but I can forgive it. Mistakes happen, he probably got too excited, etc.

Now, as for the gloating, it has rubbed the goblin and the kender the wrong way. The kender [it was a variant of some sort, they can know fear] has given his reason, as such being that he doesn't like bullies and he took the gloating as being a passive aggressive thing. That, and the fact that said Half Celestial used intimidate to press a foreman of a city into resigning. He also tried to essentially push said kender around telling him what he would and would not do, so he has a valid reason.

The goblin, however, is in league with the kender. They are friends, they help each other, despite the goblins goal [subjugation of all of the small races]. He figures that if he helps the kender, it furthers his own goals also, and that if they are rid of one half celestial that they both benefit from not having someone who can't keep their trap shut.

[Red Fel]

Well, let me elaborate a little further. The in-character gloating is honestly going to come back to bite him in the hind end, after all, you don't gloat within ear shot of townspeople. Word can get around, quick, and you never know who might be listening. After all, word might get around and you might have to throw down with someone.

Okay. So gloating can make him unpopular ICly. Fine.


As for the Pinache thing, I can forgive that, but he used one that was clearly not for his level. I feel a little betrayed, but I can forgive it. Mistakes happen, he probably got too excited, etc.

Okay, mistakes happen. Long as it doesn't happen again, we live, we learn, we move on. Fine.


Now, as for the gloating, it has rubbed the goblin and the kender the wrong way. The kender [it was a variant of some sort, they can know fear] has given his reason, as such being that he doesn't like bullies and he took the gloating as being a passive aggressive thing. That, and the fact that said Half Celestial used intimidate to press a foreman of a city into resigning. He also tried to essentially push said kender around telling him what he would and would not do, so he has a valid reason.

Hello, new information. So it's not just gloating, it's also using an Intimidate check to get an NPC to resign. Interesting choice of problem-solving technique. I personally don't have a problem with it.

And then there's the pushing around. Hmm. See, here's where the line blurs. Is the player telling the kender's player what to do or not do, or is the character telling the kender character what to do or not do?


The goblin, however, is in league with the kender. They are friends, they help each other, despite the goblins goal [subjugation of all of the small races]. He figures that if he helps the kender, it furthers his own goals also, and that if they are rid of one half celestial that they both benefit from not having someone who can't keep their trap shut.

See, this I understand. PCs banding together against a common threat is an understandable thing.

But usually, the players won't band together against another PC unless there is out-of-character reason as well as in-character reason. In my experience, even if a PC is a jerk, my parties have usually hung onto him as long as he proves useful. It's only if he crosses a moral event horizon, or if his OOC conduct is abhorrent, that the PCs consider turning on him.

Here, again, I'm not clear, because you only give these half-nuggets of information. So let me make it plain. Are the other PCs thinking of killing off this PC because of his in-character behavior, or are the other players thinking of killing off the PC because of his table conduct?

If it's the former, PCs versus PCs, then I can't help but feel we're still missing something. All you've told us is that he gloats, he used an Intimidate check to boss around an NPC, and that he bosses around the kender. (Admittedly, that last one's just rude; it's like kicking a puppy.) Those alone may be annoying to PCs, but I can't imagine them as a basis for planning a killing.

If it's the latter, you're definitely leaving something out, because the only table conduct you've mentioned is the gestalting and the misuse of abilities, both of which have been dealt with.

Either there's more to the story than this, in which case I really can't give any advice with an incomplete picture, or that's the whole deal, in which case you've got some awfully trigger-happy players.

[BeastofMadness]

See, this I understand. PCs banding together against a common threat is an understandable thing.

But usually, the players won't band together against another PC unless there is out-of-character reason as well as in-character reason. In my experience, even if a PC is a jerk, my parties have usually hung onto him as long as he proves useful. It's only if he crosses a moral event horizon, or if his OOC conduct is abhorrent, that the PCs consider turning on him.

Here, again, I'm not clear, because you only give these half-nuggets of information. So let me make it plain. Are the other PCs thinking of killing off this PC because of his in-character behavior, or are the other players thinking of killing off the PC because of his table conduct?

If it's the former, PCs versus PCs, then I can't help but feel we're still missing something. All you've told us is that he gloats, he used an Intimidate check to boss around an NPC, and that he bosses around the kender. (Admittedly, that last one's just rude; it's like kicking a puppy.) Those alone may be annoying to PCs, but I can't imagine them as a basis for planning a killing.

If it's the latter, you're definitely leaving something out, because the only table conduct you've mentioned is the gestalting and the misuse of abilities, both of which have been dealt with.

Either there's more to the story than this, in which case I really can't give any advice with an incomplete picture, or that's the whole deal, in which case you've got some awfully trigger-happy players.

Well, there have been some tensions before simply because the player tries to rules lawyer things. And while, I don't have a problem with that, because of my dm'ing being able to over ride any rule that is in the books. However, they want to kill him for in character reasons, and that is the main reason. He was a good character, who says that he is championing justice and goodness, and then intimidated a foreman into resigning, despite the only thing he knew what he was holding food from commoners because they weren't working. His general in character behavior has been pretty bad towards the party, using his body guard [another pc] to protect himself despite him saying that he is better than the rest of them.

I think it is grinding on in character and out of character nerves, and while he is going to have his gloating bite him, I honestly don't feel I should step in after he has bullied the Kender. He practically called the Kender worthless, calling him out for not doing much in combat. I just don't feel right not giving the Kender his chance should he see it appear.

[Red Fel]

Well, there have been some tensions before simply because the player tries to rules lawyer things. And while, I don't have a problem with that, because of my dm'ing being able to over ride any rule that is in the books. However, they want to kill him for in character reasons, and that is the main reason. He was a good character, who says that he is championing justice and goodness, and then intimidated a foreman into resigning, despite the only thing he knew what he was holding food from commoners because they weren't working. His general in character behavior has been pretty bad towards the party, using his body guard [another pc] to protect himself despite him saying that he is better than the rest of them.

I think it is grinding on in character and out of character nerves, and while he is going to have his gloating bite him, I honestly don't feel I should step in after he has bullied the Kender. He practically called the Kender worthless, calling him out for not doing much in combat. I just don't feel right not giving the Kender his chance should he see it appear.

Well, now, this is a bunch of new information. It sounds like this player has an ongoing in-character attitude problem. In that case, yeah, it sounds like there are some in-character consequences coming his way.

Does this player know that his character has infuriated the other characters to the point of homicide? Does he care? Does he use the "it's what my character would do" excuse?

Also, do you think any party is being unreasonable? From your description, it sounds like you agree that this character has crossed certain lines and is inviting a response through his actions. Do you feel that the other PCs are justified? Do you feel that the player (not the PC) deserves a second chance?

Lastly, what do you see as your job as DM? Are you simply the architect of the world, in which case how characters interact is of no concern to you? Or are you the table peacekeeper, in which case you feel a need to prevent inter-player or inter-character conflict?

Either way, as previously mentioned, this starts with a conversation. You probably want to discuss:

1. The rules-lawyering.

2. The in-character behaviors.

3. The fact that the other PCs want to kill his PC.

Remind him that, but for these items, you enjoy his contributions to the table (if true) and want him to continue to participate (again, if true), but that these are areas of concern. Inform him explicitly whether you will or will not be interceding during play on his behalf - don't leave him thinking you'll save his bacon if you don't plan to. Make suggestions as to how he can correct his negative behaviors, and ask if he has any plans of his own. Gauge whether he intends to improve, or whether things will proceed as-is.

Because it seems that the bulk of the conflict is in-character, in-character consequences are fitting. The PC has to either learn not to offend his partymates, or else be ready to defend himself from kender fury.

[Karoht]

"...And now they want to kill him..."
Yeah, I need further info. Was this just a descriptor of how mad they are, or have they actually talked about doing this in character, in game?

If the former, fine. Hyperbole is what it is.

If the latter, I must say I'm not too surprised. I've had people want to do worse to me just for being an effective character and/or team player.
IE-Saved the party 3 sessions in a row with abilities I took due to conscious build decisions. Party cries OP, characters suddenly want to murder me. Truthfully, I was more angry that I didn't get a share of loot (that I earned and they largely did not), and that they didn't even say thank you for saving their lives.

If the latter, my advice is some divine intervention. He has the Half Celestial template? Would it destroy his build if it were removed? Is there perhaps a god who might be a little annoyed at him? Can he complete a quest/sidequest to attone for this misdeed? Perhaps something that benefits the whole party, not just him. So while you wouldn't perhaps be bestowing the Half Celestial template on the whole party, maybe give them all the Celestial Touched template as an end reward. It would be great if his character AND his player could go through this, rather than just either or.

That, or sit the entire party down and hash it out, take a vote, etc.

[DrDeth]

Ok, folkss, let us all say it together: "You cannot solve a OOC problem IC!" . Teaching him a lesson by killing his PC will do neither.

You guys need to all sit down like adults and discuss this OOC.

[Barstro]

Well, there have been some tensions before simply because the player tries to rules lawyer things.

The way Johnny Cochran rules-lawyered for OJ, or the way Sir Isaac Newton rules-lawyered for gravity? The former is annoying and wrong, the second is trying to keep the game consistent so that strategies can by made.

But, that's probably off topic.

[BeastofMadness]

Alright, addressing the rules lawyering, he does it so that the rules explicitly benefit him. He will even rules lawyer away to try and drop other characters power so that he can remain in place at the top of the food chain.

I personally see myself as the architect of a story, and as such, intend to have the world react to the characters interactions. If the Kender murders the Half Celestial, I have to say that while some characters might be concerned, they wouldn't stop him after seeing the behavior he has put up with.

I won't stop the Kender from his fury, I told the party there would be pvp if people caused wrath on themselves. Well, said player has invited the thunder, and it may happen, but I personally have a way to humble his character in the game, for in game behavior. Yes, it involves taking part of his template away, and there will be a way to restore it down the line should he choose to partake in it.

[Karoht]

Alright, addressing the rules lawyering, he does it so that the rules explicitly benefit him. He will even rules lawyer away to try and drop other characters power so that he can remain in place at the top of the food chain.Right, but if the rules don't support such a thing, how is he getting away with it?

NOTE-I am not in the mindset that you are in any way a bad DM, nor should anything I say from this point forward imply as such.
Rules lawyering only works if the rules allow for it and if the player can make the case for it AND if the DM lets it go. Is he arguing that another player should be nerfed because [reasons] or is he arguing that another player has not been playing by the rules and therefore isn't as powerful as one thinks?
Moreover, you are the DM? You have every power and right and privilage to say 'rule zero, no, this works this way' at any time. Don't forget this. I'm not advocating rule zero as a solution, but don't let this guy get away with stuff just because he makes a case for something you don't understand. Especially if it involves other players and their characters.
Example-"I don't fully grasp what you are getting at, so for the time being we will proceed this way, and I will research what you are saying between this session and next, and rule on it then."


I personally see myself as the architect of a story, and as such, intend to have the world react to the characters interactions. If the Kender murders the Half Celestial, I have to say that while some characters might be concerned, they wouldn't stop him after seeing the behavior he has put up with.

I won't stop the Kender from his fury, I told the party there would be pvp if people caused wrath on themselves. Well, said player has invited the thunder, and it may happen, but I personally have a way to humble his character in the game, for in game behavior. Yes, it involves taking part of his template away, and there will be a way to restore it down the line should he choose to partake in it.I'm cool with the consequences for actions thing and all that, but I honestly thing a deity interveining (either directly or through an agent) and stripping him of the template would be more interesting than just killing this person. Note that I say 'more interesting', and not 'a better solution.'

[Monk of reason]

Alright, well, I just recently started Dm'ing, followed some suggestions of the people here on the board, and would like to say thanks to you all. This however, is not why we are here, as per the title.

Now, this player is a good friend of mine, however I have caught him in some situations that are starting to erode away my trust in him as a DM. I allowed him a free ride on a half celestial [pf]swashbuckler/monk gestalt. No problem, I handled it well, and had no problem with it. He wanted to use something new, wanted to build around a concept, and I had no problem letting him do it.

I do however, take issue that he does not have enough Pinache for the several times that he was using his parry and counter attacks. Pinache is like grit for gunslingers, and his charisma was nowhere near the amount, let alone he was using a 7th level pinache deed. He did apologize for the 7th level shenanigans, and I accepted the apology. However, I cannot let this slip by simply because of the fact he has been irritating other people at the table.

Now, I can accept some gloating over a victory from a character [but this is also coming from him as a player], but others are plotting to end him should the opportunity arise. He however, has stepped over some lines and I need a way to re-assert that some things I will not be taking lightly if he is going to blatantly disregard the trust I had given him.

His character will not refuse a sword fight, and I want to teach some humility to his character, and give him a chance to shape up at the table. I don't want to do anything to terrible to him, but the idea of removing his wings has crossed my thought. Any input would be nice.

I've read the new information but I have a few problems.

1) why can't you let it go with his mistake/cheating? It was caught and no real problems seemed to have arose. This is D&D and you shouldn't have money or anything riding on it. So there is no real reason to get upset. Sometimes players either make mistakes and sometimes they will try and cheat the rules to see what they can get away with. It is your job as the DM to correct their mistakes and to catch them if they cheat. If they cheat once I usually let it slide with a warning. If they do it a second time then I will tell them very firmly that if it happens again they will be removed from the game and then on the third attempt I kick them out. I've never had to kick anyone out of my campaigns and I've had dozens of people play in them at some point in time.

2)Annoying characters suck. If there is in game reason to kill him then let the PC's kill them unless you have a strict no PVP rule in place. And if you do play something against his weakness and take him out. It doesn't have to be an insane obvious "btw your dead" but it can be a battle where it just so happens that the boss attacks him first.

[Jornophelanthas]

After reading the additional information about the other players and their characters, I am suspecting that there may be more to their discontent.

Could it be that the other players believe that the Swashbuckler player is being favoured by the DM? Perhaps they believe that you are too lenient on him, and are deciding to take the matters into their own hands?

Do you have any impression about whether the other players were annoyed by:
- him being allowed to have a powerful template, as well as be a gestalt that includes a hybrid class (that is still in playtesting and arguably already a gestalt of fighter and gunslinger in itself);
- having their characters be constantly bullied by his character;
- learning that his character was "cheating" (whether intentionally or not);
- him apologizing to make everything all right (and him keeping the advantage the "mistake" brought about);
- him actively arguing with the DM (you) that their characters should be less effective?

Perhaps the other players are annoyed by him, but feel they cannot trust you to deal with the matter (because they expect you to be too soft on him).

After describing all these in-party dynamics, I am starting to wonder what in-character reasons the group still has for associating with his character at all.

[DrDeth]

Alright, addressing the rules lawyering, he does it so that the rules explicitly benefit him. He will even rules lawyer away to try and drop other characters power so that he can remain in place at the top of the food chain.

.

Oops. OK, he's being a jerk. Talk to him or dump him.

[deathwolf669]

Ok, this guy sounds like a douche. Is he like this with the other characters he has played or is this the only one he has been bad with?

Let the other guys poison him and get rid of him or have the towns folk tear him to shreds.

[Vhaidara]

If you want to humble him, give him a rival. Make an NPC who is like 6 levels ahead of him, have the NPC challenge this upstart duelist to a VERY public (entire village and party watching), and watch him get wrecked. Then, at the end (I'm assuming these are fights to the death for this part), have the NPC refuse to kill him, saying he isn't worth the effort.

Now, the entire party has seen this guy absolutely humiliated, which means that whenever he starts gloating they can bring this up. It also gives the character a goal: become good enough to defeat the NPC duelist.

As far as the interaction with the kender, sadly, my best suggestion would be to put him in a situation where the kender saves his life and he now owes the kender. I say sadly because things seem to have reached the point where the kender would just walk away.

Rules lawyering: OoC issue, solve it OoC.

Panache-cheating-thing: may have been a legit mistake. I don't know how the mechanic works, but my aunt (playing a level 5 cleric) once converted her highest level spell (a 3rd level) into Mass Cure Light Wounds (a 5th level spell), because she thought 5ht level cleric = 5th level spells. Here's the thing, no one realized until the next session. And it saved the party from wiping. So, forgive and forget, and advise your players to do the same.

[DarkEternal]

In all of my DM career which spans a few years now, never have I felt the cheap satisfaction as when I taught a player some humility. He played a wizard that was pretty powerful(not by this board standards, but yes by the standards of the group he was in). He was "good" but acted chaotic all the time(signing his name on letters after they destroyed an encounter set on them by the imperial army, not really bothering to hide or get disguises because "who will attack them right there in the open and survive if they are a good cr rating?" and so on and so on.

So, I sent two assassins into his room where he slept like a king. Mind you, this was their own keep. And they were leaders of a budding army that caught the eye of the emperor by now. Still, nothing in terms of humility or trying to at the very least protect themselves. These assassins were probably too high a level in terms of CR(They were a level 7 and a level 6 assassin against his level 8 wizard). But he had zero in listen. Zero in spot to get through their disguise.

Basically, the assassins got into the room under the pretense and in a disguise of their own army after they stowawayed on a ship bringing supplies and killing the people they were impersonating. The bluff check went swimmingly, they entered and then they made a pin cushion out of him in the first round. One assassin was invisible by that time, the other was there. First round, mage dead. He was stunned. He was offended. This 30 something man with eyes full of tears raising hell that in all of his years of playing never has his character died like that. Every single other player said it was a great call because that was exactly what they should have expected what with being leaders of said army. Not only that, I even rolled a percentage chance in front of him and said before hand that either I go into his room or the cleric's room. So it wasn't even planned. I thought they would kill the assassins.

I don't like killing my party members if it's at all possible, but I'll be damned if I didn't feel some satisfaction with this. He started to actually consider rolling a ranger since this will "obviously" be a thing in how he'll die from now on. Everyone just looked at him and then burst out in laughter. Still, I did find that he calmed down after that. First new spell he remembered: Rope trick. Never leaves home without it. Hell, I even managed to give him a true ress. Cost the party everything they pretty much had in terms of reserves, but for a level 8 party to afford that...well, yeah.


TL;DR: Teaching your player a lesson, as long as you're not a douchebag doing it is fine in my book. Not everyone will agree, but it worked for my party.