PDA

View Full Version : Roleplay - but not like that please!



WarKitty
2014-11-30, 07:50 PM
A line I've wanted to utter a few times! Is there a polite way to say it? Usually what I want to say is something like "please roleplay a less idiotic character." Or possible "please roleplay a character that doesn't annoy the hell out of the rest of the party." Or "please roleplay a character that doesn't make a career of messing up the DM's plots."

:biggrin:

azoetia
2014-11-30, 08:20 PM
I take care of that early, before the campaign even begins. We set expectations and ask everyone to come to an agreement on what kind of game we'll play. It can be hard to get people to change approach halfway through if they're having fun.

Nowadays I tell my players, "Yes, this is a roleplaying game, but while you're investing yourself into the roleplaying part, don't forget the game part. We're here to have fun. Don't make it a chore for everyone else to sit at the table with you and then say you were just being true to your character."

jedipotter
2014-11-30, 08:37 PM
I just come right out and say it. It works the best.

If they are just pretending to be an jerk, it's amazing to watch the light get turned on in their head and they just stop acting like that. If they just are jerk, well the door awaits....


And if you need to walk the line, like Joe is a jerk but he is buying four deluxe pizzas for dinner, all you need to do is alter the game to block the jerk stuff.


So if Joe the Jerk is a thief who has to ''pick pockets'' like a madman.....he will find the streets empty, as folk in town go to bed at sunset.

I also find the fast paced game and fear of character death keeps a good lid on the idiotic stuff. Like when Joe will say ''ok,ok, Joe-Dar will gather some cow dung and put it into some sacks and then------'' DM cuts Joe off ''Several gargoyles swoop into town shooting arrows!'' Joe-"Wait! What! No fair let me finish my thing, it will be so funny!'' DM-''Joe-Dar is hit by four arrows for 51 points of damage!'' Joe-"Arrrggh! Joe-Dar attack!"

Hiro Protagonest
2014-11-30, 08:51 PM
Jedi, those first three sentences you wrote weren't bad, then it just went downhill...

I also find the fast paced game and fear of character death keeps a good lid on the idiotic stuff. Like when Joe will say ''ok,ok, Joe-Dar will gather some cow dung and put it into some sacks and then------'' DM cuts Joe off ''Several gargoyles swoop into town shooting arrows!'' Joe-"Wait! What! No fair let me finish my thing, it will be so funny!'' DM-''Joe-Dar is hit by four arrows for 51 points of damage!'' Joe-"Arrrggh! Joe-Dar attack!"

Because improvising unexpected encounters way out of their league is the best way to solve the problem of a guy behaving like every video game RPG player ever.

jedipotter
2014-11-30, 08:57 PM
Because improvising unexpected encounters way out of their league is the best way to solve the problem of a guy behaving like every video game RPG player ever.

Well, it does work. Few things get a player to focus more and not be an idiot or a jerk like character death. The thought that the character that they spent hours (or days or weeks) creating might die is a powerful motivator. Have a character get taken down to like four hit points, and suddenly, the player will act right and play the game.

Extreme...sure.....but it works.

Ionbound
2014-11-30, 09:00 PM
The problem with that is that some people actually want their characters to not die, while at the same time not being jerks (at least not intentionally). Aaand I think we've had the rest of this discussion before so I'll leave it there.

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-30, 09:02 PM
On disruptive play: When disruptive play occurs, look across your table at the player and say "Look man/lady... can we just not?" If they understand exactly what you're talking about, you have an uncomplicated situation. Either the player stops being disruptive or you can boot him/her. Easy.

If you do this and the reaction is a sincere "'not' what?" without that ****-eating grin that actually means "I know exactly what you're talking about, but welcome to troll town," then you have a complicated situation. You will have to find some way to tell the player nobody thinks his/her antics are funny without being condescending or arbitrary or all those things that would make you think it's easier to just drop it.


On the more general idea of what to say to people who roleplay in a manner you don't like: I'm really of the mind you shouldn't say anything. There are a thousand and one ways to roleplay, and everybody has a different idea of what makes good roleplay. All you're doing when you try to make another player roleplay the way you want is to increase the joy of your experience at the expense of your friend's, and the kicker is your friend might not even know what exactly you want out of them because it's very difficult to describe what you envision good roleplay looks like. Like, are you going to say "we're playing a gritty game, but that's too gritty. At this table, we draw the line at Z, even though X and Y are okay. And they're okay but Z isn't okay because... well, you know, that's how it is in gritty media." Absolutely silly, right? You'd get "but I read ____, and that's a great example of the genre, and they Z all the time in it" or "But there's nothing in the game setting to prevent me from Z'ing, though, right?" In my opinion, it's just best to make peace with the way your partners roleplay. Absolutely don't tell them they're doing it wrong, or tell them they're doing it poorly, or even worse, passive aggressively turn the game world against them whenever they do something you don't like.

jedipotter
2014-11-30, 09:26 PM
The problem with that is that some people actually want their characters to not die, while at the same time not being jerks (at least not intentionally). Aaand I think we've had the rest of this discussion before so I'll leave it there.

Right. See good players one to four have their characters back at the inn, sleeping, waiting for the next day to start so they can leave town and head to the Caves of Chaos for some real adventure.

But Joe, has Joe-Dar the Barbarian, sneaking around farms and gathering up cow pies and flour so he can make his ''poop bomb'' and cover the inn with it.

And sure Joe does not want his character to die....that is the whole point. Joe even work out a great back ground: his beloved wife to be was last seen going towards the caves as a body guard for a wizard. He really wants to find her, get married, and get his wedding gift from the chief: A sword +5 of sharpness! Needless to say Joe is super excited. But then he does the idiotic bomb thing...

And Joe does not want to hear something like : "The gargoyles rip open Joe-Dar's chest and he falls flat on his back..as the blood and life force slowly flows out of him. One of the gargoyles kicks the 'bomb bag' right on Joe-Dar's face....so the last thing he sees before he dies is the thing that cost him his life. Later, Joe-Dar finds himself on Limbo, in Warrior's Rest, the Divine Realm of Tempus himself.....and Joe-Dar is put to work cleaning the cow pastures with a shovel and watching the other, real warriors, go off to battle.................''

It's a huge motivator....

JusticeZero
2014-11-30, 09:27 PM
Mostly I make it clear to everybody that the characters are under no obligation to bring a character that annoys or endangers them along. If a character makes themself unwanted, the party drops them and the trouble player gets asked to make their replacement character more of a team player.

Coidzor
2014-11-30, 09:56 PM
A line I've wanted to utter a few times! Is there a polite way to say it? Usually what I want to say is something like "please roleplay a less idiotic character." Or possible "please roleplay a character that doesn't annoy the hell out of the rest of the party." Or "please roleplay a character that doesn't make a career of messing up the DM's plots."

:biggrin:

Please have a character that is compatible with playing the game with other people and not only being tolerated by and surviving an encounter with the rest of the party but actually capable of contributing and being willing to actually do so.

A_Man
2014-11-30, 10:01 PM
I take care of that early, before the campaign even begins. We set expectations and ask everyone to come to an agreement on what kind of game we'll play. It can be hard to get people to change approach halfway through if they're having fun.

Nowadays I tell my players, "Yes, this is a roleplaying game, but while you're investing yourself into the roleplaying part, don't forget the game part. We're here to have fun. Don't make it a chore for everyone else to sit at the table with you and then say you were just being true to your character."

Oh my god this is sooooooo important. In the pbp site I use, we have some amaizing players, but there is some sort of horrific tendecy by two of them that they have to play standoffish or antagonistic characters. And they always end up either threatening to kill another PC, or trying to do just that. Roleplaying should be fun for everyone, being a jerk, OOC or IC, is not good, unless you're really good at playing.

Thy Dungeonman
2014-11-30, 10:13 PM
A Man - Ya too damn right. I GM PbP and some players are fun, while others play humorless hardasses that are always making stuff a total drag. They all want to be the "guy that never takes **** and tells it how they sees it," and don't want to deal with the consequences of having people like that around.

WarKitty
2014-12-01, 12:00 AM
My biggest problems have been sorts of characters that end up taking a disproportionate amount of time. And that can come in two ways - both taking attention away from the other characters, and taking more time and energy than I have available to spend on DMing. Or just putting all the attention on fixing that character's screwups instead of advancing the plot. I do as a DM expect a certain amount of cooperation with my plot, on the grounds that you don't want to spend 3 hours running around an empty grid. Especially if you're going to call out any inconsistencies or look for weirdnesses in the world to exploit.

So my biggest pet peeve is actually silly characters. I have never seen this done well. Most of the time what I've seen is that the silly character ends up acting up in ways that force them to be the center of attention all the time, while often making it difficult for other characters to get anything done. Usually they're not that funny either.

Another one I've had is the hyper-paranoid character. The character that's so paranoid that it's too hard to get them to do anything. Running intrigue is frankly not my forte, it takes several extra hours per game session for me to do so. That's time I don't always have. Ignoring every single plot hook because you're convinced anyone more powerful than you is out to get you is...mostly annoying. So is ticking off all the people more powerful than you repeatedly because you're always trying to figure out their real agenda.

The idiot is also a consideration. Some characters are roleplayed in ways that they're too stupid to live - or roleplayed in ways that their stats don't back them up. The fighter that won't be cowed by anyone and is always ready to defend his honor, even in cases where he's gotten every signal in the book that he's outmatched and given a way to gracefully retreat. The master thief who has a low dexterity and barely any points in actual thieving skills, yet insists on doing breakins.

Mr Beer
2014-12-01, 12:24 AM
I mean if someone insists on playing their character in a way which is completely incongruent with their continued survival, consequences are a thing. That's never really been a concern for me, it's their character, if they want to get lippy with Angrar the Mighty Barbarian/Archduke Ruthless and his large army/Orcus, that's up to them.

WarKitty
2014-12-01, 12:34 AM
I mean if someone insists on playing their character in a way which is completely incongruent with their continued survival, consequences are a thing. That's never really been a concern for me, it's their character, if they want to get lippy with Angrar the Mighty Barbarian/Archduke Ruthless and his large army/Orcus, that's up to them.

The problem I have is generally when that character's antics disrupt from other people. If characters Bertrice, Constace, and Eustace want to humbly request Angrar the Mighty Barbarian aid in fighting off the demon menace, but Fred runs in ahead of them and moons Angrar, we're going to have a problem. Because Fred is behaving in a way that puts all the attention on him and leaves the party dealing with his behavior rather than furthering the plot. And Fred's player is going to get told to either grow some brains quickly or the party has permission to take his weapons away and dump him at the nearest tavern, and then go find someone who isn't a menace to their survival to help them out.

Mr Beer
2014-12-01, 12:42 AM
The powerful NPC can also just recognise a suicidally offensive jerk when he sees one and deal with him separately and briefly to the other guys. I get your point though.

jedipotter
2014-12-01, 02:34 AM
My biggest problems have been sorts of characters that end up taking a disproportionate amount of time. And that can come in two ways - both taking attention away from the other characters, and taking more time and energy than I have available to spend on DMing. Or just putting all the attention on fixing that character's screwups instead of advancing the plot.

In general, never let a player force other players to sit around. A great thing to do is shift the focus: instead of making five players sit around and wait for one player, you make the one player sit around. ''Oh, don't worry Joe, we will get to your solo adventure....right after the rest of your group does this quest."

Fixing screw ups can be even easier:

1.What Screw up? One, don't let them happen in the first place. No matter what the screw up is....just have it not screw up in the first place.

2.Reset Button just hit reset and ignore it.







So my biggest pet peeve is actually silly characters. I have never seen this done well. Most of the time what I've seen is that the silly character ends up acting up in ways that force them to be the center of attention all the time, while often making it difficult for other characters to get anything done. Usually they're not that funny either.


Humor sure is subjective. You can tame silly characters with a more gritty and fast paced game. And setting wise, stay out of towns and such as much as possible.



Another one I've had is the hyper-paranoid character. The character that's so paranoid that it's too hard to get them to do anything. Running intrigue is frankly not my forte, it takes several extra hours per game session for me to do so. That's time I don't always have. Ignoring every single plot hook because you're convinced anyone more powerful than you is out to get you is...mostly annoying. So is ticking off all the people more powerful than you repeatedly because you're always trying to figure out their real agenda.

Oh, I get this player all the time....as I run a wild game. But there is a nice fix.....just feed the paranoia. Just go right ahead and make everyone out to get them. Then they have to do ''something'' or just have the character die.





The idiot is also a consideration. Some characters are roleplayed in ways that they're too stupid to live - or roleplayed in ways that their stats don't back them up. The fighter that won't be cowed by anyone and is always ready to defend his honor, even in cases where he's gotten every signal in the book that he's outmatched and given a way to gracefully retreat. The master thief who has a low dexterity and barely any points in actual thieving skills, yet insists on doing breakins.

Well, that fighter character would likely be dead in my game. Though maybe he might get beaten up and tossed into a trash pit. And the thief is not going anywhere...

You can do....The Spin:

Newbee fighter won't back down vs uber fighter: So uber fighter just snaps his sword in half and tells newbee ''I yeld, you win'' and walks away. Player is all happy...but when the character runs over to the tavern ''give me a free drink i defeated uber fighter guy!'' everyone is just like ''eh, does not matter''.

For the master thief.....let him break in. Have a lock made out of wood, that is not even locked. And let them find the treasure chest full of....20 copper coins!



The problem I have is generally when that character's antics disrupt from other people. If characters Bertrice, Constace, and Eustace want to humbly request Angrar the Mighty Barbarian aid in fighting off the demon menace, but Fred runs in ahead of them and moons Angrar, we're going to have a problem. Because Fred is behaving in a way that puts all the attention on him and leaves the party dealing with his behavior rather than furthering the plot.

Remember you control the plot, NPC's and what happens. So:

Angrar the Mighty Barbarian looks at Fred's behind for a second and then looks away and ignores it and says ''so what demons?''

Or

Angrar the Mighty Barbarian looks at Fred's behind for a second and says ''By the Big Branch! I do say yonder Fred there does have buns of steel. Mayhap you, Fred, would agree to be my squire. I need someone to care form my horse, clean my armor and polish my sword every night."

And even:

The wizard Prudence zaps Fred with a curse ''pants of modesty'' so that he can only take off his pants when alone, and they will always reappear on him in public. And the only way to break the curse, is for Fred to find someone who truly loves him and have them wish the pants to fall off.

Sith_Happens
2014-12-01, 03:34 AM
Did anyone else see the title and expect a very different sort of thread, or is it just me?

Hazrond
2014-12-01, 09:19 AM
In general, never let a player force other players to sit around. A great thing to do is shift the focus: instead of making five players sit around and wait for one player, you make the one player sit around. ''Oh, don't worry Joe, we will get to your solo adventure....right after the rest of your group does this quest."

Fixing screw ups can be even easier:

1.What Screw up? One, don't let them happen in the first place. No matter what the screw up is....just have it not screw up in the first place.

2.Reset Button just hit reset and ignore it.






Humor sure is subjective. You can tame silly characters with a more gritty and fast paced game. And setting wise, stay out of towns and such as much as possible.



Oh, I get this player all the time....as I run a wild game. But there is a nice fix.....just feed the paranoia. Just go right ahead and make everyone out to get them. Then they have to do ''something'' or just have the character die.





Well, that fighter character would likely be dead in my game. Though maybe he might get beaten up and tossed into a trash pit. And the thief is not going anywhere...

You can do....The Spin:

Newbee fighter won't back down vs uber fighter: So uber fighter just snaps his sword in half and tells newbee ''I yeld, you win'' and walks away. Player is all happy...but when the character runs over to the tavern ''give me a free drink i defeated uber fighter guy!'' everyone is just like ''eh, does not matter''.

For the master thief.....let him break in. Have a lock made out of wood, that is not even locked. And let them find the treasure chest full of....20 copper coins!




Remember you control the plot, NPC's and what happens. So:

Angrar the Mighty Barbarian looks at Fred's behind for a second and then looks away and ignores it and says ''so what demons?''

Or

Angrar the Mighty Barbarian looks at Fred's behind for a second and says ''By the Big Branch! I do say yonder Fred there does have buns of steel. Mayhap you, Fred, would agree to be my squire. I need someone to care form my horse, clean my armor and polish my sword every night."

And even:

The wizard Prudence zaps Fred with a curse ''pants of modesty'' so that he can only take off his pants when alone, and they will always reappear on him in public. And the only way to break the curse, is for Fred to find someone who truly loves him and have them wish the pants to fall off.

Jedi, I gotta say after reading several of your posts you seem overly antagonistic with your players (your posts make me legitimately cringe as I read them). You don't have to make people feel inconsequential or make your game stupidly deadly (really what is up with that gargoyle example?) to discourage bad behavior. Have you tried just asking the player to stop?

Kesnit
2014-12-01, 09:31 AM
Right. See good players one to four have their characters back at the inn, sleeping, waiting for the next day to start so they can leave town and head to the Caves of Chaos for some real adventure.

I play in a long established group who are friends away from the table. One of the players, J, is a great guy and really good at building nWoD characters (which is what we normally play). We recently switched to D&D 3.5 because one of the other players wanted to try DM-ing it. J had never played 3.5 and has no idea how to build a PC. (One of the other players built his first and second characters - second because the first died. I've offered to build the third if necessary.)

Is J a "bad player" because he does not know how to build a 3.5 character because he's never played 3.5 before?

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-01, 09:36 AM
It's really simple. Don't be polite about it.

"<Disruptive player>, you're being a douche. Knock it off."

Good manners are important in polite society but sometimes you've just got to be direct. "It's what my character would do" is an excuse and a flimsy one at that. The appropriate response is "it's -your- character. You have absolute control over it. Make it do something different that's still within its character or change its disfunctional personality."

Then enforce consequence and remind the other players that they're free to abandon -any- character that's more trouble than it's worth, including other PC's.

WarKitty
2014-12-01, 12:20 PM
I play in a long established group who are friends away from the table. One of the players, J, is a great guy and really good at building nWoD characters (which is what we normally play). We recently switched to D&D 3.5 because one of the other players wanted to try DM-ing it. J had never played 3.5 and has no idea how to build a PC. (One of the other players built his first and second characters - second because the first died. I've offered to build the third if necessary.)

Is J a "bad player" because he does not know how to build a 3.5 character because he's never played 3.5 before?

See, in my book, J would only be a bad player if he both didn't know how to accept the system, and insisted on building a character and sticking with it despite being told his character can't do what he wants it to do, and then getting upset when everyone treats his character as a joke because he can't live up to his talk.

(It should be noted I'm pretty free with respecing, and even allowing IC justifications if you want..)


On disruptive play: When disruptive play occurs, look across your table at the player and say "Look man/lady... can we just not?" If they understand exactly what you're talking about, you have an uncomplicated situation. Either the player stops being disruptive or you can boot him/her. Easy.

If you do this and the reaction is a sincere "'not' what?" without that ****-eating grin that actually means "I know exactly what you're talking about, but welcome to troll town," then you have a complicated situation. You will have to find some way to tell the player nobody thinks his/her antics are funny without being condescending or arbitrary or all those things that would make you think it's easier to just drop it.

I think this is usually the case. Sometimes, even with expectations set out beforehand, you end up with a character that just doesn't work. They're no intentionally being disruptive. But maybe they think it would be really hilarious to play the character who runs around making fart jokes and flipping off cthulu in a horror setting, and generally ruining everyone else's ability to play a serious game with their antics (especially since in my experience no one else finds their humor funny). Or maybe they've built the paranoid thief and keep derailing the plot because they just won't go along with anything until they've figured out what the guy's real motives are. Or maybe, as I've had happen, they just have a tendency to grab the spotlight and stay in it, and do things to get it back on them when it's off (this being one of the biggest problems with silly characters).

jedipotter
2014-12-01, 02:24 PM
Have you tried just asking the player to stop?

Yes, unlike most other posters here I don't just repeat ''talk to the player'' every time anyone asks any question when they have a problem with a player. You will see tons of post that say that.

I'm the alternative to that. Go ahead and sit down and have tea and talk. If it works, then great! Game on! If it does not work....well my methods always work, so you can try them.



Is J a "bad player" because he does not know how to build a 3.5 character because he's never played 3.5 before?

No. He'd only be a bad player if he refused to even try to learn the rules and said something like ''D&D sucks, we should play Werefolf'' every five minutes or so.




Or maybe, as I've had happen, they just have a tendency to grab the spotlight and stay in it, and do things to get it back on them when it's off (this being one of the biggest problems with silly characters).

Remember that the DM always controls the spotlight. The DM controls the world, if the world does not look or react...then they get no spot light. And they can't get a spotlight...unless the DM puts it on them.

Kesnit
2014-12-01, 02:43 PM
No. He'd only be a bad player if he refused to even try to learn the rules and said something like ''D&D sucks, we should play Werefolf'' every five minutes or so.


I misread your comment. I thought you said "good players have one to four characters sleeping at the inn..." (i.e. 1-4 back-up characters that can come in at a moment's notice) :smallredface:

Arbane
2014-12-01, 04:55 PM
I misread your comment. I thought you said "good players have one to four characters sleeping at the inn..." (i.e. 1-4 back-up characters that can come in at a moment's notice) :smallredface:

From other things he's said about his game, that would be a good idea.

Tengu_temp
2014-12-01, 06:00 PM
It's really simple. Don't be polite about it.

"<Disruptive player>, you're being a douche. Knock it off."


From where I'm standing, this is polite. Being direct, honest, and to-the-point, without beating around the bush but also without rubbing it in or being rude? That's better than meandering around the issue.



I'm the alternative to that. Go ahead and sit down and have tea and talk. If it works, then great! Game on! If it does not work....well my methods always work, so you can try them.

I wouldn't call creating an unfriendly and antagonistic atmosphere at the table "working".

If you tell someone to shape up and they refuse, and keep on causing problems, you kick them out of the group. It's better to get rid of a bad player than keep them around on a chain of rules made to stop them from causing trouble. Because eventually, they will find a way to break that chain.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-01, 06:05 PM
From where I'm standing, this is polite. Being direct, honest, and to-the-point, without beating around the bush but also without rubbing it in or being rude? That's better than meandering around the issue.

A failure of text to convey tone I suppose.

Same sentence but add an accusatory finger waggle, a stern tone, and looking the problem player square in the eye with brows furrowed. It's a command, not a request.

Where I'm from it's not really considered polite to issue someone a command unless you're their boss. Calling someone a "douche" is also frowned upon, no matter how much the guy deserves it.

WarKitty
2014-12-01, 06:36 PM
Part of the issue is this sort of player, I've found, genuinely does not understand how they're being disruptive. To pick on the loony type for a minute, it's like the guy who makes what he thinks is a fun comic relief character. He thinks he's whacky and lightening the mood, while the rest of the group just wishes he'd stop making penis jokes and let them get on with things. Or the person who thinks she's making a deep, tragic character with a fondness for dramatic speeches, when everyone else just wants mr. emopants to shut up already and let someone else have the spotlight for once.

Going straight to telling a player to not be disruptive in that case doesn't work well, because they don't think that they're being disruptive. In fact they often think they're doing great.

Telok
2014-12-01, 07:02 PM
Could be worse. You could be stuck with my guy. He was an out of game friend of a couple of people in the group, comes from the mmo side of things, and while he's a decent guy his play style is all game and no role. His characters are numbered and have a build where others have names and backgrounds. He embodies the chaotic stupid meme in his play style and his characters don't have personalities, he plays himself.

Over the past couple of years he's gotten better at the math (save DCs for spells are still a problem for him sometimes) but he's never broken out of the mmo mindset. It's all boss mobs, aggro, out of character everything, and npcs are mechanical vendors or scripted quest givers.

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-01, 08:04 PM
Part of the issue is this sort of player, I've found, genuinely does not understand how they're being disruptive. To pick on the loony type for a minute, it's like the guy who makes what he thinks is a fun comic relief character. He thinks he's whacky and lightening the mood, while the rest of the group just wishes he'd stop making penis jokes and let them get on with things. Or the person who thinks she's making a deep, tragic character with a fondness for dramatic speeches, when everyone else just wants mr. emopants to shut up already and let someone else have the spotlight for once.

Going straight to telling a player to not be disruptive in that case doesn't work well, because they don't think that they're being disruptive. In fact they often think they're doing great.

Usually, in that case, telling them they're being disruptive will elicit a puzzled response. Then you calmly explain the problem and ask them to at least tone it down if it's a problem because of excessiveness more than content. If you suspect this is the case and aren't so good at reading people then follow "knock it off" with "do you know what I'm talking about?" Then it's just a matter of personal tolerance. After several warnings, add an ultimatum; "last chance. Shape up or find the door."

jedipotter
2014-12-01, 08:47 PM
I wouldn't call creating an unfriendly and antagonistic atmosphere at the table "working".


It's not unfriendly or antagonistic. Monsters attack player characters, that is just part of the game.


Part of the issue is this sort of player, I've found, genuinely does not understand how they're being disruptive. To pick on the loony type for a minute, it's like the guy who makes what he thinks is a fun comic relief character. He thinks he's whacky and lightening the mood, while the rest of the group just wishes he'd stop making penis jokes and let them get on with things. Or the person who thinks she's making a deep, tragic character with a fondness for dramatic speeches, when everyone else just wants mr. emopants to shut up already and let someone else have the spotlight for once.

Well Jokey Player is only as funny as his last laugh. So if no one laughs, and even more so, if everyone ignores the joke, that solves the problem quick. And as DM you control the world, so just have the world ignore the Jokey Character.

And...you know what is fun....go off the deep end. Just drop the whole idea that fire burns, 1+1=2 and the pearl is in the river.....and make the gameplay a ''wacky comedy movie'', but just for the Jokey Character. Think Men in Black for example, like the bit where Agent J is attacked by the squid alien having the baby, while everyone else just stands around and chats like nothing is going on.

And well Player Emopants would just get a ''oh no roll initiative!'' as soon as she started on ''Four score and seven years ago..."



Going straight to telling a player to not be disruptive in that case doesn't work well, because they don't think that they're being disruptive. In fact they often think they're doing great.

Talking does not always work? Odd, you'd think it would from the way everyone says it's so great.

WarKitty
2014-12-01, 10:36 PM
The trouble with just IC solutions is that it confuses the player, especially if the player doesn't really understand what's wrong. The player's instinctive reaction to the world not acting the way they expected in response to their antics is often to increase the undesirable behavior. The loony may think, well, people just ignore my jokes? I guess they must not have been enough, I'll have to be even more ridiculous! Or if they get a bad response that wasn't predictable IC, they're liable to come away thinking the DM isn't being fair or has something against them, rather than changing that behavior.

If the player doesn't understand what's wrong or what they're supposed to be doing, you're just not going to get there unless it's made clear what they're doing wrong. Which is also why just saying knock it off doesn't work - the player genuinely doesn't know what they're supposed to be doing and is as liable to be confused and a bit hurt as to actually change.

Altrunchen
2014-12-01, 10:41 PM
Just like with cancer, early-detection and prevention is key. Make sure you get a good idea who you are playing with beforehand. If they are selfish jerks who don't understand how to work in a team, try to get the group to talk about that if they can. If not then you may have to say the hard thing and let them know that you don't think it's going to work for them with the current group.

WarKitty
2014-12-01, 10:53 PM
Just like with cancer, early-detection and prevention is key. Make sure you get a good idea who you are playing with beforehand. If they are selfish jerks who don't understand how to work in a team, try to get the group to talk about that if they can. If not then you may have to say the hard thing and let them know that you don't think it's going to work for them with the current group.

I feel like people jump to thinking players are jerks a bit too fast here. None of the problems I've listed here are really jerk behavior, so much as behavior from players who have a different idea of what they're doing. Often they even think it would be great if everyone acted the way they did and see the other players as not being team players.

jedipotter
2014-12-02, 04:11 AM
The trouble with just IC solutions is that it confuses the player,

If the player doesn't understand what's wrong or what they're supposed to be doing, you're just not going to get there unless it's made clear what they're doing wrong.

Well....ok, then you just have one option: The Intervention.

1)Write out in great detail every single thing the player does that you want them to stop doing.
2)Read it over with the player, point by point, and make sure they understand not to do the things on the list.
3.Have them sign the list and give them a cookie.

Vitruviansquid
2014-12-02, 04:37 AM
The bright side is that making wacked out, stupid "comic relief" characters is a phase a lot of roleplayers go through, much like making special snowflake Drizzt-type characters. Chances are, your player will grow out of it on his/her own.

Have you tried just playing to that player's expectations? Comic relief characters tend to exist aside from the main plot in movies and do things to amuse viewers' children without getting in the way of the real action or drama. Maybe next time your player moons Fistnar the Great, King of Barbarica, you don't make a big deal out of it - just have Fistnar look at it, say "well, that was distasteful. Now, let's talk about our dragon problem."

Kelb_Panthera
2014-12-02, 09:27 PM
Talking does not always work? Odd, you'd think it would from the way everyone says it's so great.

It does, actually.

Remember that, "There's the door. You're no longer welcome in this game," is still talking.

Before that point, however, talking is not only the best, but the only way to get the desired result without twisting your game into near unrecognizability. Making sweeping changes to the game to discourage certain forms of behavior is both needlessly antagonistic and all too often ineffective unless your goal is to drive players away. Jedipotter here is lucky to be in an area with an apparently bottomless supply of players such that he can afford to regularly alienate those that don't conform to his taste. Most of us aren't nearly so lucky.

If a player is -intentionally- being disruptive, a few warnings followed by a showing to the door is sufficient. If they're not then you can discuss with them the problem behavior and they will most likely change their behavior to conform to the group dynamic or move on when they realize that their preferred playstyle is not a good fit.

Coidzor
2014-12-03, 05:04 PM
My biggest problems have been sorts of characters that end up taking a disproportionate amount of time. And that can come in two ways - both taking attention away from the other characters, and taking more time and energy than I have available to spend on DMing. Or just putting all the attention on fixing that character's screwups instead of advancing the plot. I do as a DM expect a certain amount of cooperation with my plot, on the grounds that you don't want to spend 3 hours running around an empty grid. Especially if you're going to call out any inconsistencies or look for weirdnesses in the world to exploit.

Well, you'll need to tell your players that you're not going to have any single one of them become the "main character" who the "plot revolves around" so they need to abandon or rework any ideas they had along those lines to fit in with what time investment you're capable of making here and by respecting the other players and not setting out to constantly steal the spotlight from the getgo.

As far as these screwups, I'd say you'd be fairly justified in glossing over what they do during down time and resolving that in side conversations or messages not during the game itself in most cases. The ones that happen while they're participating in the game with the rest of the characters, like punching the king of the dwarves they've come to form an alliance with, that's a bit more tricky but should be dealt with by telling them to cut it out with the intentionally disrupting the game and spending some time writing out "don't be a disruptive butt" as a houserule that you can then wave at people.


So my biggest pet peeve is actually silly characters. I have never seen this done well. Most of the time what I've seen is that the silly character ends up acting up in ways that force them to be the center of attention all the time, while often making it difficult for other characters to get anything done. Usually they're not that funny either.

"No Joke Characters" as a rule seems to at least take care of that on the surface. As would talking to the player and figuring out why they're acting up like that and how to get them to stop or if the only resolution is getting rid of them because they're an attention-starved primadonna.


Another one I've had is the hyper-paranoid character. The character that's so paranoid that it's too hard to get them to do anything. Running intrigue is frankly not my forte, it takes several extra hours per game session for me to do so. That's time I don't always have. Ignoring every single plot hook because you're convinced anyone more powerful than you is out to get you is...mostly annoying. So is ticking off all the people more powerful than you repeatedly because you're always trying to figure out their real agenda.

That seems like a pretty directly resolved situation where you look at the person and you say something like "Dude, we're not running an intrigue game and I'm not out to kill your characters by having quest-givers turn on you simply because they're more powerful than you are and want someone to clean out the kobolds infesting their cellar while they fry bigger fish, either decide you want to actually play the game or not instead of hemming and hawwing and eating up hours of our time on your waffling."


Part of the issue is this sort of player, I've found, genuinely does not understand how they're being disruptive. To pick on the loony type for a minute, it's like the guy who makes what he thinks is a fun comic relief character. He thinks he's whacky and lightening the mood, while the rest of the group just wishes he'd stop making penis jokes and let them get on with things. Or the person who thinks she's making a deep, tragic character with a fondness for dramatic speeches, when everyone else just wants mr. emopants to shut up already and let someone else have the spotlight for once.

Going straight to telling a player to not be disruptive in that case doesn't work well, because they don't think that they're being disruptive. In fact they often think they're doing great.

"What you just did? Knock that **** out, you're not amusing anyone but yourself and are actively working against the entertainment and pleasure of everyone else here" or "No, the last time you tried something stupid like that we ended up wasting an hour watching you fail at basic burgling because you don't have any skill points invested in burgling. That's annoying as hell and boring for the rest of us because no matter how amusing it is to watch you be hoist by your own petard and have to roll up a new character because of your foolishness, it's always outweighed by having to sit around with our thumbs up our asses while you go and get your character killed and then again while you're making a new character."


A failure of text to convey tone I suppose.

Same sentence but add an accusatory finger waggle, a stern tone, and looking the problem player square in the eye with brows furrowed. It's a command, not a request.

Where I'm from it's not really considered polite to issue someone a command unless you're their boss. Calling someone a "douche" is also frowned upon, no matter how much the guy deserves it.

Ooo, can I add in a rolled up newspaper and implied threats to rub the offending party's nose in what they just did? :smallamused:


From where I'm standing, this is polite. Being direct, honest, and to-the-point, without beating around the bush but also without rubbing it in or being rude? That's better than meandering around the issue.

It's really just all about the use of the word douche there that would cause any contention or confusion vis-a-vis politeness.


I wouldn't call creating an unfriendly and antagonistic atmosphere at the table "working".

If you tell someone to shape up and they refuse, and keep on causing problems, you kick them out of the group. It's better to get rid of a bad player than keep them around on a chain of rules made to stop them from causing trouble. Because eventually, they will find a way to break that chain.

Just like any other monster or god-killing abomination or wolf that will devour the moon or Elder Evil. Eventually they'll escape and wreak havok. That's why you don't offer an opportunity to escape and wreak havok if it's not going to be a fun adventure for 4-6 people who just happened to be in the right place with the right capabilities at the right time.


Did anyone else see the title and expect a very different sort of thread, or is it just me?

Yeah, just a bit. I was expecting something like "Ok, so I have a creep who keeps wanting to hit on my NPCs or, worse, have sex with them and I'm not quite sure if he's just actually trying to hit on me through the game. What do?"

WarKitty
2014-12-04, 04:05 PM
Part of my reluctance is that in my experience, many of these people are newer roleplayers and not the most confident. So I'm reluctant to just say knock it off. The joker in particular I've found is often the refuge of more socially awkward players. The drama queen and mr. inflexible are generally done by players who are a bit too stuck in "what my character would do".

It would be ideal in these cases, I think, if the directions could include a good bit of guidance on how to create a character that's both satisfying to the player and fits well in the game.

Thy Dungeonman
2014-12-12, 09:05 PM
That seems like a pretty directly resolved situation where you look at the person and you say something like "Dude, we're not running an intrigue game and I'm not out to kill your characters by having quest-givers turn on you..."

I have heard of this exact conversation not even working. It depends on if the player actually wants to play or is using hyperparanoia as an excuse to derail the universe around their ass so they can go play video games while leaving everybody thinking it was the GM's fault things broke down.

The example in mind was a Shadowrun game where my penniless dude actually sprang for an adventure book and the players wouldn't take the job because "it was too much money -gotta be a trap!" Explicitly stepping off the GM stand to tell them that wasn't the case didn't even work. Crappy players gonna crap.