How to deal with a player who doesn't play the game?

[Nettlekid]

I'm in the process of DMing a newbie campaign, and although it's going pretty well so far, there is a pretty severe chasm between three players who are really into the roleplaying and actual gameplay element of it, and two who just aren't. One of those two I've played with before and so I'm used to his very passive style, and it doesn't bother me much. But the other one I've been in one game with, and in that one as well as this one they just don't actually play the game.

For example, they never actually make any decisions. When it came to character building, they'd ask for things like feats or daily spell choices, I'd suggest a couple that I thought were either flavorful or worked well for the character, and every time this player would pick the very first thing I suggested, without even thinking about it, just because it probably sounded good. In the game, they only either make a (lower) skill check when someone else has just made the same check, or just wait and do whatever the party members tell them to do. The character is a Druid with an interest in Necromancy. I am inclined to believe that the interest in Necromancy only arose because they saw Slaying Arrows in the DMG (before they realized those were far too expensive to buy) and since they are Necromancy-based, it set that idea. The player's sparse backstory didn't really fit with my world too well but it didn't necessarily break it either, but I keep telling them that it doesn't make sense for a Druid in an isolated area, taught by other Druids of the might of nature and the powers of the elements, to be interested in Necromancy without any teachers of Necromancy. Druids get like 30 Necromancy spells out of the 1000 or so Druid spells released, and most involve rotting and disease as opposed to soul-tearing like Clerics and Wizards. Despite professed interest in Necromancy, this Druid keeps preparing Positive Energy spells and plant growth spells, which is sort of the opposite. The whole character feels patched together, the player never fleshed out a personality and so there's no chance of the player actually getting into the feel of the character, and their "I'll just do whatever" attitude is annoying me as a DM because of the lack of regard that they're giving to the structure of the world I made.

Before anyone suggests it, yes, of course I've brought this up to them, and they insist that it all makes sense and works and their general intent is to be dysfunctional and useless. I've asked why they want this, and suggested that it's not all that fun both to play, interact with, or DM for a character like that (which I think now about two months into the campaign they're realizing) but they don't even say "No I won't do anything different," they simply don't. It's really getting on my nerves, and I'm not sure how to alter it.

[molten_dragon]

I'm in the process of DMing a newbie campaign, and although it's going pretty well so far, there is a pretty severe chasm between three players who are really into the roleplaying and actual gameplay element of it, and two who just aren't. One of those two I've played with before and so I'm used to his very passive style, and it doesn't bother me much. But the other one I've been in one game with, and in that one as well as this one they just don't actually play the game.

For example, they never actually make any decisions. When it came to character building, they'd ask for things like feats or daily spell choices, I'd suggest a couple that I thought were either flavorful or worked well for the character, and every time this player would pick the very first thing I suggested, without even thinking about it, just because it probably sounded good. In the game, they only either make a (lower) skill check when someone else has just made the same check, or just wait and do whatever the party members tell them to do. The character is a Druid with an interest in Necromancy. I am inclined to believe that the interest in Necromancy only arose because they saw Slaying Arrows in the DMG (before they realized those were far too expensive to buy) and since they are Necromancy-based, it set that idea. The player's sparse backstory didn't really fit with my world too well but it didn't necessarily break it either, but I keep telling them that it doesn't make sense for a Druid in an isolated area, taught by other Druids of the might of nature and the powers of the elements, to be interested in Necromancy without any teachers of Necromancy. Druids get like 30 Necromancy spells out of the 1000 or so Druid spells released, and most involve rotting and disease as opposed to soul-tearing like Clerics and Wizards. Despite professed interest in Necromancy, this Druid keeps preparing Positive Energy spells and plant growth spells, which is sort of the opposite. The whole character feels patched together, the player never fleshed out a personality and so there's no chance of the player actually getting into the feel of the character, and their "I'll just do whatever" attitude is annoying me as a DM because of the lack of regard that they're giving to the structure of the world I made.

Before anyone suggests it, yes, of course I've brought this up to them, and they insist that it all makes sense and works and their general intent is to be dysfunctional and useless. I've asked why they want this, and suggested that it's not all that fun both to play, interact with, or DM for a character like that (which I think now about two months into the campaign they're realizing) but they don't even say "No I won't do anything different," they simply don't. It's really getting on my nerves, and I'm not sure how to alter it.

It tends to get brought up too quickly on here sometimes, but I think asking them to leave the group might be the best solution. You've talked to them about it and things haven't improved. You aren't having fun with them in the group, and from your description it doesn't sound like they're enjoying it all that much either. I don't really see any good arguments for continuing to play together if no one enjoys it.

[Nettlekid]

It tends to get brought up too quickly on here sometimes, but I think asking them to leave the group might be the best solution. You've talked to them about it and things haven't improved. You aren't having fun with them in the group, and from your description it doesn't sound like they're enjoying it all that much either. I don't really see any good arguments for continuing to play together if no one enjoys it.

I worry that they'll get really pissy if I ask them to go (they're the kind of person that does that) and it would look really weird to the rest of the group of newbies that I'm trying to get into playing D&D if I kick someone out like that. I should mention that they asked to join the group; I didn't invite them. I wasn't too worried about it, but the "useless" element (in and out of character) is getting on my nerves more than I thought it would.

Oh, they also metagame a LOT. And they preface it with "Oh sorry if this is metagaming" or the like. It's not too difficult because they know nothing about, like, monster abilities or how anything works mechanically, but it's obnoxious all the same.

[Z3ro]

You really only have three options: 1) Ignore the bad play 2) force the player into situations where they have to make decisions, or 3) kick them out. I would make the decision based on what's best for the group.

Quick anecdote: I had a player for years just like you described. Never cared about his characters, barely knew the rules, didn't contribute in combat, refused to make decisions. If cornered, he'd just agree with whatever the last person said. It was supremely frustrating at first, but after a while I just ignored it. I prepared encounters as if he wasn't there, wouldn't ever ask him any questions or force any decisions from him. Almost completely ignored him.

He played with us for years, never once complaining. I asked if he enjoyed himself and he assured me he did, and he kept coming. I don't know what he got out of it, but it must have been something. If the group doesn't mind and you can ignore it, then let him be. If he needs help, offer it. Otherwise, no sweat if he plays passively. At least, that's my experience.

[Nettlekid]

You really only have three options: 1) Ignore the bad play 2) force the player into situations where they have to make decisions, or 3) kick them out. I would make the decision based on what's best for the group.

Quick anecdote: I had a player for years just like you described. Never cared about his characters, barely knew the rules, didn't contribute in combat, refused to make decisions. If cornered, he'd just agree with whatever the last person said. It was supremely frustrating at first, but after a while I just ignored it. I prepared encounters as if he wasn't there, wouldn't ever ask him any questions or force any decisions from him. Almost completely ignored him.

He played with us for years, never once complaining. I asked if he enjoyed himself and he assured me he did, and he kept coming. I don't know what he got out of it, but it must have been something. If the group doesn't mind and you can ignore it, then let him be. If he needs help, offer it. Otherwise, no sweat if he plays passively. At least, that's my experience.

This is what I think I might end up doing, though I'm kind of thin-skinned and get irritated that they don't seem to care about the effort I'm putting into the world, or aren't really respecting my remarks or decisions as a DM. One problem is that because they're so ready to do nothing, the other party members basically use them as a scout and variable wand, and this player just does whatever is suggested. I may try to force party splitups where they're going to actually have to do things on their own, and forbid the rest of the party from making suggestions.

It's also bad of me, but I'm thinking about playing really passive-aggressively and maybe heighten the roleplaying part at some point so that the players who really know their characters and are into the game work well, and this one will flounder because they won't have anything to actually use.

[Telonius]

When conflicts come up in the game, I always try to follow one primary rule: do not attempt to use in-game solutions to address out-of-game problems. This is (primarily) an out-of-game problem.

[Z3ro]

It's also bad of me, but I'm thinking about playing really passive-aggressively and maybe heighten the roleplaying part at some point so that the players who really know their characters and are into the game work well, and this one will flounder because they won't have anything to actually use.

I'd be careful with this approach. You said you were reluctant to kick him out because of the message it might send; what kind of message are you sending if you make him quit?

[Amphetryon]

OP, provided that the Player in question is having fun, can you explain why his chosen method of having fun bothers you so much? I'm having a hard time not reading this as "he's not using his imagination the right way."

[Nettlekid]

I'd be careful with this approach. You said you were reluctant to kick him out because of the message it might send; what kind of message are you sending if you make him quit?

If they quit because they don't like the game, that's their prerogative. If they quit because they aren't enjoying a roleplaying game in which you have to roleplay, and a creative thinking game in which you have to think creatively, they can do so. I was more concerned about the message it sends to the newbies if it's like "You're not playing the way I want you to, get out." But if I set up the game so that everyone's playing the same way, and the people who actually care about whatever they're doing are being rewarded for their efforts and enjoying themselves, then it's pointing out that this player basically just doesn't want to play D&D in the first place and shouldn't have joined in. It's not like I plan to hand out magic items and give lame cheap ones to this player, or DM fiat something to shut down anything they do try to do. It would force them to either play the game and involve themselves, or sit their being bored with their own lack of interest, or leave.


OP, provided that the Player in question is having fun, can you explain why his chosen method of having fun bothers you so much? I'm having a hard time not reading this as "he's not using his imagination the right way."

As they never speak or act, I don't think they are having fun. They aren't actually playing, they're watching a bunch of other people play and occasionally moving a character on a board where they're told to. It's not a matter of "not using imagination the right way," it's "not using imagination at all." It's making a character based on half-understood suggestions from various online guides and trying to justify the patchwork with a flavorless backstory that clashes with the world. Not to mention they're flippant at best and disrespectful at worst of my efforts as a DM, which upsets me.

[Yawgmoth]

Do not be passive-aggressive. It has never in the history of cognizant human life ever led to an improved situation. Tell them straight up "look, you being useless and dysfunctional is not fun for me to DM and not fun for the other players to have to deal with. Either you put a little effort into actually playing, or you find something else to do with your [whenever your game is]."

The point of the game is to have fun. They are ruining your fun. The answer is obvious. You wouldn't keep inviting a guy who stands motionless on the corner of the field to play on your soccer team, would you?

Edit: and if they're being disrespectful to you when you try to get them involved, then I wouldn't even give them the extra chance. They obviously don't want to contribute to the game or the group's enjoyment, and you have absolutely zero obligation to keep them around.

[Amphetryon]

As they never speak or act, I don't think they are having fun. They aren't actually playing, they're watching a bunch of other people play and occasionally moving a character on a board where they're told to. It's not a matter of "not using imagination the right way," it's "not using imagination at all." It's making a character based on half-understood suggestions from various online guides and trying to justify the patchwork with a flavorless backstory that clashes with the world. Not to mention they're flippant at best and disrespectful at worst of my efforts as a DM, which upsets me.
Do you think they aren't having fun because they said so, or because you would not be having fun if you were behaving as they are? Not everyone enjoys the same thing in the same way for the same reasons.

How, exactly, does a "flavorless" backstory "clash with the world?" That sounds like complaining about the color of the glass in the window, or - to extend the flavor analogy - complaining that tofu's flavor (rather than its texture) didn't mesh well with the dish.

If they're disrespectful, talk to them about it.

[Nettlekid]

Do you think they aren't having fun because they said so, or because you would not be having fun if you were behaving as they are? Not everyone enjoys the same thing in the same way for the same reasons.

How, exactly, does a "flavorless" backstory "clash with the world?" That sounds like complaining about the color of the glass in the window, or - to extend the flavor analogy - complaining that tofu's flavor (rather than its texture) didn't mesh well with the dish.

If they're disrespectful, talk to them about it.

The person in question is pretty mopey in general, and they don't react positively to anything that's happening.

The backstory is both flavorless, and clashes with the world. Those aren't the same. (Also your analogies are apt; color of glass in a window would indeed lower the quality of the window, and poor flavor would lower the quality of a dish.) Because there's no flavor to it, it makes it harder for me to build a world which incorporates all the characters (and hopefully intertwines them in some ways) for a fuller fantasy game experience. It clashes with the world because in order to justify thing they toss in comments like picking up lost books of Necromancy found on raids, which I have told them doesn't work because there are not likely to be many lost tomes lying around (as I know the BBEG of the campaign is a vampire with a wide-reaching family, and so there's going to be a lot of Necromancy in plot stuff, they wouldn't just let Necromancy get out there) and I've told them that I'd prefer their race (the Killoren) to be fierce defenders but not crusaders, which doesn't work with the "raids" their family is making. The PC didn't consult me before or after the story to ask if these decisions would be okay, and hasn't changed them when I asked.

More importantly, it's about a level of respect with regard to the effort I'm making in crafting a story for them to participate in, and it's upsetting to me when someone invites themselves into the group and then doesn't participate. This is meant to be a campaign for newbies, so I wasn't planning on inviting this person who's been in a couple of short campaigns (and was similarly passive.) There's a system by which the DM is the boss. Rule 0. The DM knows things the players don't, and so the DM is the one who decides how things work and what goes and what stays. This player simultaneously disregards the dynamic between the DM's world and the characters in it, and then doesn't do anything except metagame and get pushed around. The fact that I'm upset with it, and that they haven't changed when spoken to, means that something is amiss and it's not simply a matter of "they're playing the game differently." Playing the game differently is playing a Samurai when everyone else is a Wizard. I have one party member whose backstory is that they're a shoemaker with basically no adventuring history, and I made it work. This is not that.

[TheIronGolem]

I may try to force party splitups where they're going to actually have to do things on their own, and forbid the rest of the party from making suggestions.

The best possible outcome of this approach is "Absolutely nothing changes".

You have a passive player in your group. Either accept it or ask him to leave. If he didn't change his behavior because you asked him to, he won't change it because you tried to "force" him to.

[Troacctid]

Are they paying attention to the game? If they're spending the session fiddling with their phones or the like, that's definitely a problem.

[Kesnit]

I'm going to second the question of whether the player is having fun.

I run a non-D&D game for a long-standing gaming group. One of the players tends to play quiet, stealthy characters. He knows his role and his powers, but never really steps up and takes the lead in anything. When the party says "this is what we're doing," he goes along with it, plays his PC, and does what he has to do. And he's happy playing this way.

Said player got sent to talk to a powerful NPC in our last game session. It was the first time I've ever seen him have to act on his own, and it was clear he was a little out of his element. It got funnier when he RP-ed himself into being in charge of another NPC they had just found.

[John Longarrow]

Nettlekid,

Any way a player enjoys running their character should be fine.

When you said "Not to mention they're flippant at best and disrespectful at worst of my efforts as a DM, which upsets me." is when I perked up.

If someone is being disrespectful, talk to them about it. Talk to your group about it afterwards, if needed. If their behavior is upsetting to you, ask them to leave. This has nothing to do with "There is ONE way to play the game". I has to do with "There is a proper way to behave towards others".

Make sure the rest of your players understand that you this individuals actions disrespectful and that you are trying to work it out with them.

If you do have to ask them to leave, the rest of your group should understand why.

[hemming]

More importantly, it's about a level of respect with regard to the effort I'm making in crafting a story for them to participate in, and it's upsetting to me when someone invites themselves into the group and then doesn't participate.

I've felt this way about passive players before too - I worked really hard to make all this stuff and you just ignore it!

The guy just didn't want to RP anything and it drove me a little nuts

But this guy was just a hack and slasher - I ended up doing lots of party splits for heavy RP/politics (which the other players were into) and letting him choose to go with the party or split for a bit

Game mostly took place in a single setting - so I gave him a kind of boxing club/arena he could fight random stuff in whenever the other party members were off seducing a duke or gathering information at the docks

[Amphetryon]

More importantly, it's about a level of respect with regard to the effort I'm making in crafting a story for them to participate in, and it's upsetting to me when someone invites themselves into the group and then doesn't participate.
My emphasis. Are they compensating you for your time? Because complaining about the lack of respect for the amount of work you're putting into DMing both trivializes any time the others spend thinking about their Characters or the game in general, and makes it sound like you're doing them a favor in running the game.

If you're running the game to 'do them a favor,' that's probably not going to be very satisfying for you, unless you enjoy altruism for its own sake. If you do, you're probably not going to complain about the lack of 'respect' they're showing for your time.

If you're running the game because they're compensating you for your time, then they're paying for the privilege of treating you like an employee.

If you're not running the game to do them a favor, and you're not running the game because they're compensating you for your time, then why is the time you're spending playing the game (and, honestly, crafting the story is part of playing the game for Player and DM) more valuable than another Player's?

[Nettlekid]

My emphasis. Are they compensating you for your time? Because complaining about the lack of respect for the amount of work you're putting into DMing both trivializes any time the others spend thinking about their Characters or the game in general, and makes it sound like you're doing them a favor in running the game.

This is entirely the case, though. This is a newbie campaign that a friend asked me to put together for a D&D newbie who wanted to play, I asked around and recruited a couple more newbies, got one more experienced but mellow friend to join as well, and then this problem player joined in. I AM doing it as a favor to them. And in the same way that I put time and effort into the world, and am glad for the appreciation it gets, I appreciate the time and effort players put into their own characters for the sake of playing this game that I'm teaching them. This problem player is not putting effort into their character, and not acknowledging the effort I'm putting into the world, and as such they are not playing the game.

[Amphetryon]

This is entirely the case, though. This is a newbie campaign that a friend asked me to put together for a D&D newbie who wanted to play, I asked around and recruited a couple more newbies, got one more experienced but mellow friend to join as well, and then this problem player joined in. I AM doing it as a favor to them. And in the same way that I put time and effort into the world, and am glad for the appreciation it gets, I appreciate the time and effort players put into their own characters for the sake of playing this game that I'm teaching them. This problem player is not putting effort into their character, and not acknowledging the effort I'm putting into the world, and as such they are not playing the game.

I am still at a loss to know how you're certain that this Player is not putting in effort based upon what's been said here so far. All that we have is your assertion that this is the case.

As I said before, if you're running the game just to do them a favor, you're unlikely to find that satisfying, unless you enjoy altruism. It sounds like you're running the game in order to get them to 'acknowledge the effort' you're putting in, which isn't the same thing as doing them a favor.

[hemming]

Have you tried having a session/adventure that is heavily centered around this guys character to draw him in? I've had some success with this in the past

Maybe there is an NPC or two that would prefer to/only deal with his character for some reason
- or perhaps he is the spitting image of someone else and is the best one in the party to impersonate them
- or he meets another weirdo necromancer druid and they make a pack of undead wolves (or whatever necromancer druids are into)

Try engaging him on his terms and linking it to your story - maybe you can help him better develop a character and draw him in a little?

[Crake]

If you want them to engage, why not have the party spend some time in a town or something. When the party splits up to go do their own thing, like go to the pub, go to the local church to pray, or just get a good night's sleep, ask him what he's doing, and run with it. Spend a good amount of time just putting him in situations where he needs to decide (on his own) how his character would act in a given scenario. If you can, get the other players to go take a break and get some snacks while you do so, so the player needs to answer these questions on his own. Doesn't even need to be anything important, it could be as simple as an NPC hitting on them in a bar, or a beggar begging them for money, or they witness a crime from afar (do they help the victim after the mugger gets away? do they attempt to chase down the mugger? do they report it to the authorities?)

I've found that this approach, if done in a tasteful manner, can get players to come out of their shell, even if it's just during those short one on one periods. Even if the other players never see it happen, or even ever hear about it, at least the two of you will know, and it might ease your nerves on the issue as well.

[Nettlekid]

I am still at a loss to know how you're certain that this Player is not putting in effort based upon what's been said here so far. All that we have is your assertion that this is the case.

As I said before, if you're running the game just to do them a favor, you're unlikely to find that satisfying, unless you enjoy altruism. It sounds like you're running the game in order to get them to 'acknowledge the effort' you're putting in, which isn't the same thing as doing them a favor.

Exactly what else do you expect to get when I'm here telling you things? They player doesn't come up with any ideas on their own. They either are given ideas by teammates to do, or pointlessly reroll checks that other characters just made, but they spend like two minutes explaining what they're doing, only for it to be the same as what just happened with a lesser result, which in turn drags out the session. Knowing the player as a person, I can see where "inspiration" for character choices came from, and then the very half-hearted attempt to back up those choices. Yeah, that's my assertion. Are you going to ask them yourself, or take my word for it?

I am finding great satisfaction in playing the game with people who want to play the game. It's not a favor to those people, it's a pleasure to interact with eager newbies who want to learn the game. It was a favor to let this person play, and I'm regretting it because (as I've gone into great detail about) they aren't playing, just slowing things down, getting in the way, and being generally disrespectful to me as a DM.

[hemming]

If you want them to engage, why not have the party spend some time in a town or something. When the party splits up to go do their own thing, like go to the pub, go to the local church to pray, or just get a good night's sleep, ask him what he's doing, and run with it. Spend a good amount of time just putting him in situations where he needs to decide (on his own) how his character would act in a given scenario. If you can, get the other players to go take a break and get some snacks while you do so, so the player needs to answer these questions on his own. Doesn't even need to be anything important, it could be as simple as an NPC hitting on them in a bar, or a beggar begging them for money, or they witness a crime from afar (do they help the victim after the mugger gets away? do they attempt to chase down the mugger? do they report it to the authorities?)

I've found that this approach, if done in a tasteful manner, can get players to come out of their shell, even if it's just during those short one on one periods. Even if the other players never see it happen, or even ever hear about it, at least the two of you will know, and it might ease your nerves on the issue as well.

I have almost posted this in different threads several time before Crake - but your games always sound really fun (I'm a super RP heavy player)

[Nettlekid]

If you want them to engage, why not have the party spend some time in a town or something. When the party splits up to go do their own thing, like go to the pub, go to the local church to pray, or just get a good night's sleep, ask him what he's doing, and run with it. Spend a good amount of time just putting him in situations where he needs to decide (on his own) how his character would act in a given scenario. If you can, get the other players to go take a break and get some snacks while you do so, so the player needs to answer these questions on his own. Doesn't even need to be anything important, it could be as simple as an NPC hitting on them in a bar, or a beggar begging them for money, or they witness a crime from afar (do they help the victim after the mugger gets away? do they attempt to chase down the mugger? do they report it to the authorities?)

I've found that this approach, if done in a tasteful manner, can get players to come out of their shell, even if it's just during those short one on one periods. Even if the other players never see it happen, or even ever hear about it, at least the two of you will know, and it might ease your nerves on the issue as well.

There has been a lot of town-time. They always just say "I follow X's character" or something to that effect. Or they just sit around petting a horse until other people finish doing their thing. I always ask if there's something they want to do in the town, and they always say no. Any time I try to put a plot hook or even general event hook of any kind, they just wave it off and keep doing nothing.

[Troacctid]

If you want them to engage, why not have the party spend some time in a town or something. When the party splits up to go do their own thing, like go to the pub, go to the local church to pray, or just get a good night's sleep, ask him what he's doing, and run with it. Spend a good amount of time just putting him in situations where he needs to decide (on his own) how his character would act in a given scenario. If you can, get the other players to go take a break and get some snacks while you do so, so the player needs to answer these questions on his own. Doesn't even need to be anything important, it could be as simple as an NPC hitting on them in a bar, or a beggar begging them for money, or they witness a crime from afar (do they help the victim after the mugger gets away? do they attempt to chase down the mugger? do they report it to the authorities?)

I've found that this approach, if done in a tasteful manner, can get players to come out of their shell, even if it's just during those short one on one periods. Even if the other players never see it happen, or even ever hear about it, at least the two of you will know, and it might ease your nerves on the issue as well.

That strikes me as the opposite of what you should do. Let's take the players who want to do stuff, tell them that they're not allowed to play, and give a solo adventure to the one guy who doesn't like making decisions?

[TroubleBrewing]

That strikes me as the opposite of what you should do. Let's take the players who want to do stuff, tell them that they're not allowed to play, and give a solo adventure to the one guy who doesn't like making decisions, that ought to be fun for the whole group.

That's not what was suggested. What was suggested was to use time when the other players would be otherwise engaged, or taking a break from the table.

I think that's a great idea. It will give you some indication of his preferred style of interaction, and it might train him into making actual decisions with the rest of the group there.

[Vogonjeltz]

The person in question is pretty mopey in general, and they don't react positively to anything that's happening.

The backstory is both flavorless, and clashes with the world. Those aren't the same. (Also your analogies are apt; color of glass in a window would indeed lower the quality of the window, and poor flavor would lower the quality of a dish.) Because there's no flavor to it, it makes it harder for me to build a world which incorporates all the characters (and hopefully intertwines them in some ways) for a fuller fantasy game experience. It clashes with the world because in order to justify thing they toss in comments like picking up lost books of Necromancy found on raids, which I have told them doesn't work because there are not likely to be many lost tomes lying around (as I know the BBEG of the campaign is a vampire with a wide-reaching family, and so there's going to be a lot of Necromancy in plot stuff, they wouldn't just let Necromancy get out there) and I've told them that I'd prefer their race (the Killoren) to be fierce defenders but not crusaders, which doesn't work with the "raids" their family is making. The PC didn't consult me before or after the story to ask if these decisions would be okay, and hasn't changed them when I asked.

More importantly, it's about a level of respect with regard to the effort I'm making in crafting a story for them to participate in, and it's upsetting to me when someone invites themselves into the group and then doesn't participate. This is meant to be a campaign for newbies, so I wasn't planning on inviting this person who's been in a couple of short campaigns (and was similarly passive.) There's a system by which the DM is the boss. Rule 0. The DM knows things the players don't, and so the DM is the one who decides how things work and what goes and what stays. This player simultaneously disregards the dynamic between the DM's world and the characters in it, and then doesn't do anything except metagame and get pushed around. The fact that I'm upset with it, and that they haven't changed when spoken to, means that something is amiss and it's not simply a matter of "they're playing the game differently." Playing the game differently is playing a Samurai when everyone else is a Wizard. I have one party member whose backstory is that they're a shoemaker with basically no adventuring history, and I made it work. This is not that.

The first paragraph sounds like you have written a play, and are upset that the players aren't creating characters like you thought they should.

The problem is that D&D games are not screenplays. These are collaborative events where the DMs role is to create a scenario, and it is the Players role to explore that scenario however they see fit.

The passive players may grab at straws, as in character creation, because they do not know better. If you have no experience with sushi, and go to try some with someone who is very experienced, you are likely to rely on their experience to guide you. In that same way, it sounds like these players were trusting you to supply them with good options.

In regards to the metagaming, players who don't know more can't metagame. Don't let them look at the DM materials (DMG and MM), bar use if phones at the table, and pass notes instead of saying things out loud that only one player actually experiences (visions and the like). If someone is blatantly looking up information their character shouldn't have, penalize them as the arbiter of the game.

[roguemetal]

Have you posed the player's playstyle to be boring or noninteractive to the player? It sounds like they don't have any character in general.

Some people pick it up slower than others, he may need more hand holding. In most games I try to roleplay every character the players meet, such that it forces them to respond in character. If they respond with, "I tell him..." which is a common new player response, I prompt them to respond as their character would.

Perhaps they're actually afraid of looking dumb so they're taking a back seat. D&D hasn't had the best rep over the years. If this is the case, I strongly suggest hyping them up before game.

Take a few minutes prior to game to start chatting with them about sports, news, games, whatever the player is into, using comparisons to the game you're running. For example, I had one player who was unenthusiastic until I started comparing their character to the Terminator, at which point their character became immediately more fleshed out. I don't know what your players are into, but just feed D&D into whatever discussion you're having in a positive light. Be nostalgic about neat roleplay moments. Get them excited to play the game. If they generally aren't, ask if they're enjoying their time at all, and if the answer is no, tell them nothing's keeping them there.

[Nettlekid]

The first paragraph sounds like you have written a play, and are upset that the players aren't creating characters like you thought they should.

The problem is that D&D games are not screenplays. These are collaborative events where the DMs role is to create a scenario, and it is the Players role to explore that scenario however they see fit.

The passive players may grab at straws, as in character creation, because they do not know better. If you have no experience with sushi, and go to try some with someone who is very experienced, you are likely to rely on their experience to guide you. In that same way, it sounds like these players were trusting you to supply them with good options.

I see how it sounds that way, but really it's more like: I have a general plot of what a bad guy is doing, and the setup of the world. I made this before the players even knew their characters, because I needed prep time. Players then presented me with their characters and backstories, and I both checked to see if anything that they had drastically conflicted with something that would be plot-crucial (such as maybe reference to racial wars that never happened, or the like) and then took whatever they made and worked it into my world. For example, one character wanted to have ties to a mafia-esque family in Elven country. I thought that was really cool, so I fleshed out the mafia organization so he could have contacts and better NPC interactions. One wanted to be a noble from another country whose parents were murdered by her younger brother and she was cast adrift on this continent, and I liked it, so I made her brother a midBEG (tweaking that midBEG's powers to better suit what the player described her brother as being in the backstory) and also shifted her story 500 years back. Her player and character don't know it, but she was locked in Quintessence. Another player wanted to be a very humble shoemaker, but whose mother was a wizard who went missing. I've begun having them find the mother's journals (though they don't yet know it's the mother) foreshadowing what will happen, because I've had the mother go back in time to stop the second player's character from becoming the second midBEG, following suit of that character's brother. So it'll link characters' fates and histories, engage the characters into the world, and hopefully improve the experience they have as D&D newbies. I'm trying to be very flexible with my world, asking for little tweaks to backstories to make them work. This problem character gives me little to work with (and isn't being creative with it, instead just using backstory as a means to justify what the player perceives as powerful and broken equipment they want to use) and is utterly inflexible in the process. THAT is (part of) what's annoying me.


In regards to the metagaming, players who don't know more can't metagame. Don't let them look at the DM materials (DMG and MM), bar use if phones at the table, and pass notes instead of saying things out loud that only one player actually experiences (visions and the like). If someone is blatantly looking up information their character shouldn't have, penalize them as the arbiter of the game.

There's no way I can stop them. They already are looking at those books, and I gave them all the books I have to better flesh out their characters (DMG for magic items, Races of X books for races, etc). I've been using Skype to send secret messages and the like, which works decently, but it's more like this player just saying "Hey this is metagaming but-" and then asking players to do things that the character doesn't know the other characters can do. It's also just little things, like calling the Psion in the party a Psion when the character doesn't know the other is a Psion, which breaks the feeling of immersion in-and-out of game.

[Taffimai]

It is entirely possible that they aren't interested in playing the game per se, but enjoy being there nonetheless. For instance, because they really like to see the story unfold. Or because they have a crush on one of the other players (or even you).

You could always pretend that their lack of initiative is a character choice, because they want their characters to be meek/surly/shy/what-have-you.

Either way, you seem to have a game intended for newbies with three newbie players that are enjoying themselves and are participating. Well done! Focus your efforts on these players when developing new story lines and encounters, and ignore the dead weight. After all, without them, your "real" party would have to depend on hirelings for certain services.

[Yawgmoth]

It was a favor to let you play, and I'm regretting it because you aren't playing, just slowing things down, getting in the way, and being generally disrespectful to me as a DM. Here you go. This is what you say to this person. I even went ahead and changed the appropriate pronouns for you. Now read my sig.

[MadGreenSon]

I had a very passive, non-engaging player in all of my games for awhile. This individual did not detract from the games per se. But their presence didn't add anything either.

This tendency got worse until the player was more "spectator with a character sheet" than a player.

So. I took the character sheet away. Turns out the player was having fun watching the other lunatics in the game.

They still play in one of the games I run, much less passively than before and my other games have an interested, quiet, audience of one that gets us snacks and drinks while we're playing.

Everyone won.

Maybe this individual would rather spectate?

[Larkas]

Newsflash: generally, players won't recognize the effort you're putting in the game, let alone be thankful for it. They might be thankful for the game and excited by the story, but don't expect them to recognize your effort (the main exception is the player who's a seasoned GM, and even that's not a given).

With that out of the way, keep in mind that you, as a GM, should be playing the game for your own fun, not for recognition from others. If you can find people who also have fun with what you're doing, great! You've found a good group. If not, keep tweaking the group and looking for players so that you, as a group, are constantly having fun together.

Regarding the "problem player", ask yourself this: why is he even playing? Is it to spend some time with his buddies? Is it because he doesn't have better things a to do with his time? Is it because he genuinely enjoys the game, even if in a way you can't wrap your head around? Is it because he just want to mess with you? Only when you have the answer can you set upon a course of action. While you're at it, ask yourself if you're not being selfish or excessively intolerant by thinking he is "playing the game the wrong way". The main selling point of tabletop RPGs is, after all, how free form they are. It's hard to imagine a way to play the game incorrectly while not trying to be actively disruptive.

How you'll deal with this will also largely involve how old you are on average. If you have to bump on the guy you're thinking of cutting off every day, it might be best to try a more diplomatic approach. :smallsmile:

[Amphetryon]

My SO brings up the point that the 'problem Player' may have an issue with Social Anxiety that makes attending the game a small but meaningful personal victory, regardless of perceived participation level.

[Rejusu]

Wait it out. These kind of players tend to get bored and drop out on their own before long.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Nettlekid, I suggest you do something slightly radical.

Get the problem player to change his character to a Master of Masks.

The class is in the Complete Scoundrel handbook. (If you want to be heavy-handed, change his name to Gogo, too.)

This is a class well-suited to doing (apparently) just what the character is already doing. You might want to let the other players know that this is the character's schtick; Mimicing other people's actions.

They should be treating the guy like a resource, rather than The Load.

As for metagaming, well... Just have NPCs lying a lot more often. A lot more. All the time. If the party has a bad reputation, this just further plays into it.

[Z3ro]

his problem character gives me little to work with (and isn't being creative with it, instead just using backstory as a means to justify what the player perceives as powerful and broken equipment they want to use) and is utterly inflexible in the process. THAT is (part of) what's annoying me.

Just want to highlight this a little bit; not everyone is good at or comfortable writing impressive backstories. Despite being an actual author, I hate writing backstories; most of my character's background are little more than "decided one day to be a rogue". That character's story is what's happening in the game.

Writing a backstory is hardly a necessary part of the game, and not fun for some people. Just something to consider.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah and if they do that, you directly punish them by changing reality as is the DMs right.

[hemming]

It does sound like the player is just kind of ignoring the setting completely - If the DM says you don't just find tomes of necromancy lying around, the player can't just say "yes, I do!" and keep on playing as if he had

That's not really trying to work with you or even really trying to play the game - the DM/player relationship is a two-way street

[Mootsmcboots]

Well, as always his place seems to put all the fault on the player.

However if you read through all the op's posts, a few things become obvious. One, I wouldn't want to play at his table. Two, Hhs concern seems not so much the fun of the group, but more about how disrespected/unappreciated he feels regarding the world he built.

Read those posts again. Petty, aggressive, under handed, decietful. More concerned with him recieving his dues as a DM. "Don't appreciate my work....disrespects my word as a DM" Blah blah blah.

If I was say, a bit socially awkward/socially anxious, new to the game, or both, based on the op's attitude, I'd have zero reason to believe he would aide in over coming either one of these issues, let alone both. He would be a negative factor. Would provide the kind of experience that would make someone put down a PHB and not pick it up again.

Way to go. I wonder if your other players know how arrogant, coniving, and self involved their DM is. Or maybe they just haven't disrespected you enough yet.

Sometimes the DM is the problem too, you know.

As a player who struggles with social anxiety, this topic miffed me badly.

[Seto]

There's no way I can stop them. They already are looking at those books, and I gave them all the books I have to better flesh out their characters (DMG for magic items, Races of X books for races, etc). I've been using Skype to send secret messages and the like, which works decently, but it's more like this player just saying "Hey this is metagaming but-" and then asking players to do things that the character doesn't know the other characters can do. It's also just little things, like calling the Psion in the party a Psion when the character doesn't know the other is a Psion, which breaks the feeling of immersion in-and-out of game.

Oh, so at least there's some investment. Maybe not in the actual roleplay, but in learning how the game is played.
As for the rest... I don't mean to go all "stop that you're a tyrant" on you, but when I started play I kinda resembled this guy. I was playing with other persons, some of whom had experience with D&D. I didn't know the mechanics (still having trouble with some). So when other players suggested a spell or a move, I assumed it was a clever option and I went with it. I was kinda awkward and didn't really know how to roleplay interaction. This is a problem I sometimes still have : when the DM asks me "So what do you say to the NPC that has just spoken to you", I go like "Huh.. huh... wait, I need some time". This is not because I'm not invested in the game, or because I haven't worked on my character, but I'm just not that straightforward or spontaneous a person. But I try, and I wouldn't like to be called a "problem player".

[Mental-State]

Role playing is about being the star, the hero. Some people do not want to be. I played a homebrew game that my friend made, which still in beta is awesome and quite blanced as everything has a counter but are counter in different ways. but anyway, he said it was going to be a really low powered game (nope wasn't low powered) dealing with everyday life but with some supernatural powers. It was set at a uni. So I made a stoner who was unequipted to deal with anything that happened in game. My highest skills where to do with pakuar which was pointless as I could teleport (by mind game I teleported light years).

Ok im rambling but the point is this charater was not a hero but was there for the ride. He got dragged into things and ended up saving the universe by deciding for the 1st time to not meddle. He didnt do it by defeating a great evil but gaining self control. But I loved the game. I didnt do much, all the other charater did all the amazing stuff but I enjoied the story. The game. There was sessions where most of it was based on my charater (he was being played by Loki in a dream state so he could own my soul). Others where I did barely anything.

Maybe they enjoy watching the game. I bet they would have as much fun just being there listening but if you asked they wouldnt realise that.

If that is wrong what if they just want to hang out and have some friends. They are pthere doing something they dont like and they invited themselves. Sounds like a person who just wants friends

[Mootsmcboots]

I disagree that role playing is about being the hero or the star. Role playing is about playing the role of whatever character your imagination conjured.

You can role play anything, a rock, a peasant, an orc etc.

[Amphetryon]

I disagree that role playing is about being the hero or the star. Role playing is about playing the role of whatever character your imagination conjured.

You can role play anything, a rock, a peasant, an orc etc.

Yep. I'm currently playing a Character who defers in all matters to another team member, through a combination of low CHA and justifying the party getting together and staying together.

[Mental-State]

as I said I played a charater who was not a hero. Im playing a evil d&d game now. Games like vampire you don't. You could role play a rock yes but I dont know anyone who would. In d&d the player guide has fighters wizards and bard. Not commoners, nobles etc. that in the dm guide. I got a guy in my game playing a expert/noble/wizard. yes you can ply them but the way the game is written expect you to be a hero. I'm not saying you hav to be. But fighting monsters, exploring tombs.
This is the things heroes do (and people who wants loot). Role play is playing a role, anything yeah but a game like demon the fallen you are expected to play an anti-hero but you can play working for the big bad.

d&d excepts you to play an elf, half-orc etc but you can play a orge mage if you want

[Nettlekid]

I'm going to reiterate: This isn't a player who's choosing to play a quiet and reserved character, who rarely speaks because the character rarely speaks and is getting into the role of that character. This is a player who claims to want to do things and want to play, and then does absolutely nothing and either wastes time or acts like an Eternal Wand of Druid spells. This is not about stardom or being a hero. Like I said, one of the newbies wanted to be an Elven Shoemaker. They are very much not playing a hero role, and I'm working with that and making the adventure fun for them regardless of the role they're playing. Because THEY'RE PLAYING.

[The Grue]

I'm going to reiterate: This isn't a player who's choosing to play a quiet and reserved character, who rarely speaks because the character rarely speaks and is getting into the role of that character. This is a player who claims to want to do things and want to play, and then does absolutely nothing and either wastes time or acts like an Eternal Wand of Druid spells. This is not about stardom or being a hero. Like I said, one of the newbies wanted to be an Elven Shoemaker. They are very much not playing a hero role, and I'm working with that and making the adventure fun for them regardless of the role they're playing. Because THEY'RE PLAYING.

I've noticed you're doing a lot of repeating things you've previously said and using Caps Lock.

My suggestion would be to calm down a bit. Heck, if you're getting this worked up over a pen-and-paper roleplaying game you might want to consider retiring from DMing entirely. This is not healthy.

[Seto]

I'm going to reiterate: This isn't a player who's choosing to play a quiet and reserved character, who rarely speaks because the character rarely speaks and is getting into the role of that character.

And if the player, not the character, is quiet and reserved, is that a problem ? and if he isn't familiar enough with the game to play a Druid other than a spellbot, is that really that much of a pain to you ?

[Nettlekid]

I've noticed you're doing a lot of repeating things you've previously said and using Caps Lock.

My suggestion would be to calm down a bit. Heck, if you're getting this worked up over a pen-and-paper roleplaying game you might want to consider retiring from DMing entirely. This is not healthy.

I'm repeating things because people seem to dismiss them quite readily, or continue down trains of thought under false assumptions that I already refuted, and so clearly bear refuting again. Before I said that, the last few posters started rambling on about "roleplaying should be a hero's job maybe they don't want to be a hero" and the like, which is an irrelevant tangent because of what I just repeated, and what I said previously.

And come on. Caps lock? Like using capital letters describes an emotional state. It's for emphasis in tone. I'm using capital letters because it's slightly less of a hassle than italicizing it, which would put a similar tone on it. How on earth could you possibly consider yourself an apt judge of health and mental state basing such an analysis on a complete strangers capitalization habits?

EDIT: Okay, you guys seem to be approaching this as though I don't even know the player as a person and am judging their personality traits based solely on their gameplay. I know what they're like! They never shut up in a social setting, are frequently rude (but hide behind the curtain of cultural difference so they're excused from being rude, even though insults are pretty cut and dry no matter where you're from) and are wishy-washy enough to let other people have ideas for them while being forceful enough to push into the game that I didn't even invite them to. You're operating on assumptions you've made, while anything you actually know about the person is what I've told you. You keep calling them "he" for god's sake.

[Mental-State]

the point i was making is maybe they just want to take it all in. Sit there and watch the other players do their thing.
dont rage becuase people are taking time out their day to trying to be helpful.

a DM is there to create a fun world if he says he is enjoying it leave him to it. create some plot for him. His parent come to vist or a ncp from before. it doesnt need to be a quest or anything just a bit of one and one role play. if he doesnt talk have people the charater should know come and make convo with him.

[Amphetryon]

I'm repeating things because people seem to dismiss them quite readily, or continue down trains of thought under false assumptions that I already refuted, and so clearly bear refuting again. Before I said that, the last few posters started rambling on about "roleplaying should be a hero's job maybe they don't want to be a hero" and the like, which is an irrelevant tangent because of what I just repeated, and what I said previously.

And come on. Caps lock? Like using capital letters describes an emotional state. It's for emphasis in tone. I'm using capital letters because it's slightly less of a hassle than italicizing it, which would put a similar tone on it. How on earth could you possibly consider yourself an apt judge of health and mental state basing such an analysis on a complete strangers capitalization habits?

EDIT: Okay, you guys seem to be approaching this as though I don't even know the player as a person and am judging their personality traits based solely on their gameplay. I know what they're like! They never shut up in a social setting, are frequently rude (but hide behind the curtain of cultural difference so they're excused from being rude, even though insults are pretty cut and dry no matter where you're from) and are wishy-washy enough to let other people have ideas for them while being forceful enough to push into the game that I didn't even invite them to. You're operating on assumptions you've made, while anything you actually know about the person is what I've told you. You keep calling them "he" for god's sake.

We keep calling the Player 'he' because the male pronoun has taken on a nearly gender-neutral connotation when used to describe a person whose gender is otherwise not described. This is particularly true in a gaming community notorious for its masculine bias. If we've been misusing the gender pronoun, it's because we've not been given enough information by the OP (that's you) to assign the proper gender, and defaulting to 'he.'

[KorbeltheReader]

I think part of my problem in helping you, at least, is I don't really understand what this player is doing. How is s/he acting at the table? I know you said s/he's metagaming, being disrespectful, and just doing what people tell her/him to do, but what about the rest of the time? Does s/he look bored and spend a lot of time looking out the window/texting/nodding off, or is s/he tuned in but just not contributing? How exactly is s/he being disrespectful? Is it just that s/he isn't doing what you ask or is s/he snickering at you or making fun of the story or something?

Is it possible s/he's there mainly just to hang out with y'all and doesn't much care what y'all do? If so, is that a problem? A lot of tables have such a person and basically they only take part in combat.

[Nettlekid]

We keep calling the Player 'he' because the male pronoun has taken on a nearly gender-neutral connotation when used to describe a person whose gender is otherwise not described. This is particularly true in a gaming community notorious for its masculine bias. If we've been misusing the gender pronoun, it's because we've not been given enough information by the OP (that's you) to assign the proper gender, and defaulting to 'he.'

OR, you shouldn't make assumptions about things you don't know. I've been referring to the player as "they." It's only fitting you do so as well, since I am your sole source of information on this player, and you'd be best served following my lead.

[Mental-State]

you are asking us to give advice on a person we do not know. we can only assume. I have played with different people who dont talk up in games, all for different reasons. you can expect us to just be able to guess the reason right.

from what you said, it doesnt seem that the peson will change (again im assuming) so there is not much you can do

[Nettlekid]

you are asking us to give advice on a person we do not know. we can only assume. I have played with different people who dont talk up in games, all for different reasons. you can expect us to just be able to guess the reason right.

from what you said, it doesnt seem that the peson will change (again im assuming) so there is not much you can do

I've been saying that the person pays little attention to the game, and doesn't seem to care (which annoys me as a DM, since I'd hope players care about the game I'm making for them) except enough to keep showing up, and then not do anything but waste time. My original and persisting question is what's my best course of action? Unless they start actually playing, I don't want to play with them, but I don't want to kick them out for fear that it'll send a bad message to the newbies whose company I'm enjoying.

[Mental-State]

you dont want want him there but you will not get rid of him?

[Nettlekid]

you dont want want him there but you will not get rid of him?

If it was a group of closer friends who I've played with before and was comfortable with, and then this person, then I'd be fine with telling them to leave the group. But two of the newbies are shy socially-awkward types who are doing a great job getting into the spirit of the game, and I think it would be harsh for them to hear someone getting kicked out.

[The Grue]

I've been saying that the person pays little attention to the game, and doesn't seem to care (which annoys me as a DM, since I'd hope players care about the game I'm making for them) except enough to keep showing up, and then not do anything but waste time. My original and persisting question is what's my best course of action? Unless they start actually playing, I don't want to play with them, but I don't want to kick them out for fear that it'll send a bad message to the newbies whose company I'm enjoying.

In real life there is seldom a "correct" decision. Most of the time, and this is one of those times, you have to pick between a variety of undesirable options.

There's no magic button you can press to solve this problem. You have to decide whether you'd rather kick the player and risk sending a "bad message" to the rest of the players, not kick the player but deliberately sabotage the game for him so that he quits (which, by the way, will send a worse message), or do nothing and rage quietly while this player refuses to acknowledge your brilliance and generosity in running this campaign for him.

[The Grue]

I don't always post, but when I do I make sure it's double post.


If it was a group of closer friends who I've played with before and was comfortable with, and then this person, then I'd be fine with telling them to leave the group. But two of the newbies are shy socially-awkward types who are doing a great job getting into the spirit of the game, and I think it would be harsh for them to hear someone getting kicked out.

Here's an idea: instead of kicking the player out (publicly in full view of all other players during a session), have you considered politely asking the player to leave (in private, after/before a session)?

[Mental-State]

best thing to do is wait a few weeks and then introduce the idea to the players so it not a shock. Im not saying talk behind his back but explain what you going to do
like "im really impressed in how you been picking up the game but player x is making it really hard for me to run, if in a few weeks he doesnt get more involed I dont think i can run for him"
this way the players will try and help player x get involved and hopeful that might change it or two if it does come to getting rid of player x then it will not be shock and that ou did give them a chance as from what i read you hav been.

[A.A.King]

If your concern is how the other players would react to you kicking out your problem players, might it be an idea to ask their general opinion as to the play style of their fellow players.

Either ask them each individual or ask the group (minus the problem players) how they are currently feeling about the game as a whole and the other two players in particular. If you are worried about their social anxiety you might want to start the (possibly individual) conversation with that you like how they play the game. The point is to see if they share some of your opinions regarding the other players. They cannot possibly share your problems with them regarding the crafting of the world and the main story line but they might also find their lack of participation annoying. If they tell you that they noticed how the problem players aren't participating or even tell you that they find it somewhat annoying that they effectively have to deal with 2 PCs where the N might as well be added then that could make it easier for you to say adios to your problem players.

In summary, to my understanding your big problem with dealing with your big problem players is how it would affect your other players. So if you ask how they feel about the other players (without making it obvious you are thinking of maybe kicking those out of the game) you might find that they also noticed the problem and that they might even share some of your frustrations. That might make it easier to say goodbye to the problem players without ruining the game for the players who are actually playing

[hemming]

The other two options (outside of the boot) are ignore him and play as if he wasn't there only insofar as he contributes (or) work really, really hard to engage him without stepping on the other players in the process