PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Help with a power Gamer that doesn't realize they're a power gamer?



Raine_Sage
2014-09-15, 03:52 PM
Alright some quick background. I have a guy in my group who's generally a pretty ok player. I know I say power gamer in the title but he's not the "break the game" optimizer by any stretch of imagination and it's not that he breezes through combat or anything like that. It's just he kind of unconsciously drifts towards combat options in low combat games.

And I say unconsciously because he never starts out as "Murder Mcdeath Man" when we all build our characters. He always starts out as something really innocuous, and then he'll get bored and start "reworking" his character by tacking on more and more combat options or buffs or whatever looks like it's going to increase his ability to make things dead. This guy can start out with what's essentially a good will diplomat from a relatively pacifist race, and end on something loaded down with 10 different types of gun, two swords, and he's actually dropped diplomacy as a skill for something more useful in combat.

While taking these options doesn't make him particularly deadly (he's really not an optimizer) it's chafing some of the other players. The problem is I don't run very high combat games. The last 3 sessions actually featured no fights in them whatsoever. Despite this, he'll always try and force conflict where he really really doesn't need to. He'll try and intimidate where he doesn't need to intimidate, and he'll "joke" about going back and killing npcs who were less than thrilled to see his character thanks to aforementioned intimidation attempts. Player A might be trying to peacefully resolve a situation while this player will sit in the background and make thinly veiled threats IC about how they'd better cooperate or else. Luckily he's never acted on these threats or else this thread would have a different topic.

Things I Have Tried
- Talking to him during character creation.
- Talking to him during the game
- Talking to him outside of the game
- Asked him if he's really having fun.

His Responses
When I point out his gravitation towards combat skills at character creation he will feign ignorance. "I don't know what you mean. I'm just playing (original peaceful concept here). There's nothing in the rules that says (original concept) can't have (combat utility)." After which he'll knock off one or two of the combat skills, replace them with roleplaying skills, then drop those skills and add the combat ones back on.

Despite trying to constantly force combat encounters he insists he's still having fun with the game. And also that he's not trying to force combat and has no idea what I'm talking about. This wouldn't be a huge problem except the other players are getting really annoyed by the constant grandstanding and one of them started making **** jokes (implying player is compensating for something) whenever he started bragging about all his sweet combat gear. They knocked it off when I told them to, but the general issue is still there.

illyahr
2014-09-15, 03:59 PM
It seems that the problem isn't so much that he plays high-combat builds but that he tries to force combat to validate a build that nobody expected or asked for. He is essentially trying to force the game to his own play style by changing his build to what he thinks the game should be like. He may not even realize he is doing it. I would have him sit down with the entire group. He may believe that your grievances are your own and doesn't realize that the rest of the group feels the same.

Tengu_temp
2014-09-15, 04:21 PM
Build a less combat-focused character together, one he'll be happy with (we don't want anyone to play a character he won't like, after all). After that, don't let him tamper with the stats. If he wants to rebuild, he has to ask for permission and tell you exactly which parts of his character he wants to change. Apply that rebuild rule to all your players - it's unfair if you treat them differently.

Raine_Sage
2014-09-15, 04:21 PM
It's funny because I'm probably the only one at the table who doesn't have a huge problem with this. People all play differently, nothing inherently wrong with combat etc etc. And it's easy to have NPCs ignore the guy muttering to himself in the corner unless he's actively trying to hold a conversation with them. I'm also fine with holding combats more often to give him a chance to put his abilities to use.

Unfortunately this guys is kind of...hm needy? Like he's one of those people who desperately needs to be liked. Which is how, aside from being DM, I got roped into the position of referee here. Since my players apparently agreed I'm the best at not sounding accusatory when I talk to people. They're afraid if they all say something he'll feel "bullied" and quit the game entirely.

Edit: @Tengu

Yeah no takebacksies is probably the way to go here. The only reason I haven't done it before now is the other players also like to mess with their characters in the weeks before the game starts and to be fair I'd need to make this a general rule rather than one specifically applied to him (see how he he's super sensitive to perceived dislike above)

illyahr
2014-09-15, 04:34 PM
Unfortunately this guys is kind of...hm needy? Like he's one of those people who desperately needs to be liked. Which is how, aside from being DM, I got roped into the position of referee here. Since my players apparently agreed I'm the best at not sounding accusatory when I talk to people. They're afraid if they all say something he'll feel "bullied" and quit the game entirely.

Edit: @Tengu

Yeah no takebacksies is probably the way to go here. The only reason I haven't done it before now is the other players also like to mess with their characters in the weeks before the game starts and to be fair I'd need to make this a general rule rather than one specifically applied to him (see how he he's super sensitive to perceived dislike above)

This is classic passive-aggressive behavior. He is using the threat of feeling "bullied" to bully the group and is not healthy. If the entire group is afraid to say anything to him to for risk of hurting his feelings, maybe he should find a group he is more comfortable with.

Fumble Jack
2014-09-15, 04:37 PM
It very much seems like this is a rule that simply needs to be set. So I'm in agreement with Tengu here. Perhaps you can get your group to work together with him on his character so it's something he would enjoy playing and can mesh well enough with the group dynamic so he doesn't feel ostracized.

Raine_Sage
2014-09-15, 06:08 PM
Hm, ok so question, how would you guys go about broaching the "no takebacks" rule to the group? This is just the first time I've ever really had to take a firm stance one way or the other about character creation.

Also I don't suppose any advice for how to inform someone that you should only really intimidate an npc when they're already hostile and uncooperative, and that "kind of disinterested in your problems" is not the same thing as hostile and uncooperative? I have a feeling part of this is he thinks he can use intimidate interchangeably with the other social skills because they all key off the same stat.

Jornophelanthas
2014-09-15, 06:25 PM
I think there could be two issues here.

The first is that this player apparently likes to play combat-heavy games, and is expecting a decent amount of combat. A combat-light game apparently does NOT encourage him to develop his character's non-combat skills, but rather to develop his combat skills in order to be able to enjoy the combat more when it finally starts.

The second issue: Are you playing D&D? If so, the game rules are very heavily predisposed to having combats, and having them frequently. Nearly every feat or spell (and skills to a lesser extent) is phrased in terms of combat utility. As the saying goes: "When you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail." What I mean to say is that if you're trying to optimize a character in this system, you will be near-automatically considering improving its combat options.

If the second issue is the case, it may even be the underlying cause of the first. Consider playing a more free-form ruleset that does not encourage players to view their character sheet as a list of combat stats and battle maneuvers. Perhaps that will encourage the player to think in a different direction.

veti
2014-09-15, 06:27 PM
As I see it, this is an IC problem, and calls for an IC approach.

The other players need to be more assertive about suppressing the character's violence in game. It's all done in-character, which means the player isn't being "bullied", his character is - you may need to point out that distinction a few times, but he should be able to handle it, and if he wants it to stop, that's entirely in his own hands.

Watch 'Firefly', and see how Mal handles Jayne - he knows Jayne is a psycho, and keeps him on a very tight leash, giving him things to do that keep him out of situations that he doesn't want to escalate. That's the way to handle this guy, IMO. Just because his character sheet says "diplomat" doesn't mean he's automatically entitled to act as party face if the others don't want him in that role; if he wants to be a diplomat, then he has to play a diplomat, not just generate one.

TheIronGolem
2014-09-15, 07:02 PM
Hm, ok so question, how would you guys go about broaching the "no takebacks" rule to the group? This is just the first time I've ever really had to take a firm stance one way or the other about character creation.
Announce it in the planning stage: "OK everyone, if you change your mind about your character build, make sure you make those changes by X day, because once we start playing your character sheets go into lockdown and you can't change anything."

Send them a reminder by text or email a day or so before the game starts. Perhaps allow a little time right before the game starts for last-minute changes when everyone's physically present, but don't allow it to delay the actual game; they've had plenty of time by that point.

And of course make sure to avoid naming names in this; the rule is for everyone.

Raine_Sage
2014-09-15, 07:18 PM
I think there could be two issues here.

The first is that this player apparently likes to play combat-heavy games, and is expecting a decent amount of combat. A combat-light game apparently does NOT encourage him to develop his character's non-combat skills, but rather to develop his combat skills in order to be able to enjoy the combat more when it finally starts.

The second issue: Are you playing D&D? If so, the game rules are very heavily predisposed to having combats, and having them frequently. Nearly every feat or spell (and skills to a lesser extent) is phrased in terms of combat utility. As the saying goes: "When you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail." What I mean to say is that if you're trying to optimize a character in this system, you will be near-automatically considering improving its combat options.

If the second issue is the case, it may even be the underlying cause of the first. Consider playing a more free-form ruleset that does not encourage players to view their character sheet as a list of combat stats and battle maneuvers. Perhaps that will encourage the player to think in a different direction.

The main thing is I always announce what I'm going to be running well ahead time, general premise, and expected level of combat. So anyone who's not interested can bow out. We're a group of 10-12 people so if one person isn't gming something they're interested in, chances are someone else will hold a game to cater to the remainder. He consistently chooses my low combat games so I assume he must be getting something out of this.

And his characters always start out looking really good on paper for these games. He really does come up with interesting concepts that would synergize well with the rest of the party. It's just over time these all gradually morph into the same character, mister dark corner intimidation tactics.

And no we're not playing D&D. While D&D can work for low combat games it's definitely combat oriented. I prefer Indie games when I run, they're easier on my wallet (and by extension the group's wallet) and easier to coax people into learning since the rules are usually fairly straight forward. Currently we're looking at Eclipse Phase since another friend I play with turned me on to the system. Hardly "rules light" but combat is generally a highly lethal last resort and death is so cheap it's literally expected that players will run through bodies (called morphs) possibly faster than they can raise the money to resleeve into a new one. This is precisely why good networking skills are needed (contacts and friends will keep you in good gear and physical bodies) and why I'm looking to put my foot down on the constant character creation revisions.

Thrudd
2014-09-15, 07:27 PM
Hm, ok so question, how would you guys go about broaching the "no takebacks" rule to the group? This is just the first time I've ever really had to take a firm stance one way or the other about character creation.

Also I don't suppose any advice for how to inform someone that you should only really intimidate an npc when they're already hostile and uncooperative, and that "kind of disinterested in your problems" is not the same thing as hostile and uncooperative? I have a feeling part of this is he thinks he can use intimidate interchangeably with the other social skills because they all key off the same stat.

For the "no takebacks", just have a cutoff for character creation. By X day, everyone will turn in their characters to you for approval and so you can start planning the game. There will be no changing anything after that point, unless there is something that you feel is inappropriate for your game.

I don't think you should ask him to change the way he plays. If he wants to try intimidating everything, let him. Let the other players have IC discussions with his character if they think he is making things harder for them. Let the NPC's react to his actions accordingly. If NPC's react unfavorably to intimidation, he will maybe learn that sometimes things require diplomacy instead.

Raine_Sage
2014-09-15, 07:45 PM
Let the NPC's react to his actions accordingly. If NPC's react unfavorably to intimidation, he will maybe learn that sometimes things require diplomacy instead.


Good suggestion about the character creation bit. I do want to note though that I have had NPCs react unfavorably to his intimidation. However he usually interprets this as a sign that NPC is no longer friendly to the party at all and is now fair game to attack. This is what's been chafing at the rest of the group. Their characters have restrained his before several times. They're just annoyed they have to keep doing it.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-15, 09:18 PM
I have a feeling part of this is he thinks he can use intimidate interchangeably with the other social skills because they all key off the same stat.

To an extent you can. Intimidating an indifferent NPC into doing what you want is a perfectly legitimate tactic, you just need to be ready to accept that it can backfire in the long-term.

Raine_Sage
2014-09-16, 01:07 AM
To an extent you can. Intimidating an indifferent NPC into doing what you want is a perfectly legitimate tactic, you just need to be ready to accept that it can backfire in the long-term.

Ah yeah sorry I could have phrased that better. More along the lines of:

Assumes failed intimidation attempts work the same as failed diplomacy attempts. Namely that while a botched diplomacy roll might make the target hostile a failed intimidate roll DEFINITELY makes the target hostile. Unless you roll so badly that your attempt actually comes off as kind of hilariously ineffectual.

And that a successful intimidation roll won't usually net you an ally.

prufock
2014-09-16, 06:48 AM
This is classic passive-aggressive behavior. He is using the threat of feeling "bullied" to bully the group and is not healthy. If the entire group is afraid to say anything to him to for risk of hurting his feelings, maybe he should find a group he is more comfortable with.
Specifically, this is "sufferer" type emotional blackmail, also known as "playing the victim." If you resist, the blackmailer probably throws a tantrum (leaves the game, perhaps with harsh words). He's also unlikely to be convinced through reason that he isn't being targeted.

Set personal boundaries - decide what you will and will not do to accommodate the person. For example, you will set rules that apply to the group to curb his behaviour without making him feel targeted. Be determined to resist other unreasonable demands. Don't reward the "sufferer" behaviour.

Of course there is a fine line between real feelings and manipulation, but real feelings can still be used for manipulation even though they're legitimate. Constantly feeling victimized is not well-adjusted adult behaviour.

draken50
2014-09-16, 10:44 AM
Okay so first off. No changing the damn characters. Like.. Ever. As to making that happen, just say it. For your game, no changing the characters, if you have to hold on the the character sheets, so be it. You run a light combat game, the numbers probably matter a good bit less, and you tell them what the game is about before hand. So just do that.

As to Whiny McDarkCorners, basically tell him that you've seen him play that character in every goddamn game, and you don't want to see it again. he can play a different character or leave the game. Personally, I don't do in-game stuff to control players, I talk to them, give them opportunities, and if it doesn't work I boot them.

Segev
2014-09-16, 12:13 PM
As far as "no takebacks" goes, you have the players turn in their sheets for final approval at some point, and after that, they're fixed. No changes. You decide when that is.

If the version he hands you is not in line with what the original concept was - that is, he's "tweaked" it until it's a combat monster rather than the original diplomat - tell him that you need to see him about reworking it as you can't approve it as-is. Regardless of whether "nothing says (original concept) cannot have (combat utility)," the concepts for which your game is designed won't handle (combat utility) of this sort, so you need to rework it.

Rework it in one sit-down discussion, and no more, and rework it until it is something akin to what you had hoped to approve from the original concept.

And, again, once approved, just like everybody else, no take-backs.

Final approval happens BEFORE the game starts. Or, at most, 2 sessions in (in case players discover something they overlooked and need to change). Post-gamestart changes require GM approval.

ORione
2014-09-16, 12:41 PM
I find it weird that people are saying that fairness dictates restricting everybody the same way. It strikes me as unfair to keep someone from doing something because another person would abuse it. I mean, you still might want to make the rule apply to everyone, to avoid the guy's victim complex. But fairness isn't really the issue there.

Segev
2014-09-16, 12:55 PM
Honestly, it's fair to simply say, "changes must be approved by the GM." Then approve only the changes you think are good. For anybody.

Sith_Happens
2014-09-16, 01:46 PM
Honestly, it's fair to simply say, "changes must be approved by the GM." Then approve only the changes you think are good. For anybody.

Especially seeing as "no altering your character on a whim" is the default assumption in every game I know of.

Segev
2014-09-16, 01:52 PM
Especially seeing as "no altering your character on a whim" is the default assumption in every game I know of.

Indeed.


Indeed, says the character minimum.