Advice dealing with a player

[Azoth]

OK earlier in the week at the end of a session I had a player explode at me (the DM) and the rest of the group. This was at the end of a rather difficult encounter where half the party had gained negative levels due to fighting undead.

The party were congratulating each other on winning the fight and some good strategy and rolls they pulled off at the end to stave off dying in a tough encounter. This is common as my combats are brutal and the treat of character death looms every time initiative is rolled.

Que this particular player snapping that I held the monsters back because the party would have died otherwise, and that the party hasn't actually "won" any fight they have been in. This was then followed by a round of telling everyone where they messed up and the bad decisions they made.

This tantrum was ended by accusing me of singling out and focus firing his character every combat that has occured so far.

To be fair his character takes the brunt of enemy offense for two reasons. The first being that he is capable of one shorting appropriate CR encounters and has sacrificed defense a good bit to do so. The second being that he often runs ahead of the party and tries to fight alone, or will openly taunt the enemies present.

The player will also randomly declare (rather irately) his character walking off, continuing on, ect. if the party is "taking too long" discussing their next course of action or possibilities of a situation they are in.

Another particularly infuriating instance came when an enemy implied that it was going to harm the party's tethered mounts if the party didn't come out of hiding, and this player slid his sheet forward and walked off as if saying "I'm out."

For various reasons I can not boot this player, nor can I shift the date/time to one where he can not attend. It would also be unfair to the rest of the group to just quit running the game because of this individual.

All in all, this is making me burn out quickly on DMing. The rest of the group are cool. They like the challenge, are learning how to make the most of their classes and items, and are enjoying the story thus far. Every once in a while I get a "not cool" from one of them, because they were not equipped to handle a challenge and had to make due. This usually leads to a discussion about counters for an enemy trick that the party had but didn't realize or could easily attain and they feel silly for not realizing it sooner.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, the typical response is to talk to the player. I get the feeling this has been done and has not worked.

Can I ask why he cannot be booted? I really feel like he's not going to improve. He is complaining about monsters not holding back and yet expects it. If you continue, he will drag the game down with him. So if it is not too personal, I'd like to know why he cannot be booted to see if there is a way around THAT.

[Extra Anchovies]

For various reasons I can not boot this player, nor can I shift the date/time to one where he can not attend. It would also be unfair to the rest of the group to just quit running the game because of this individual.

Oh good lord, it's one of those groups at a game store or a school where everyone who wants to play has to be allowed to play, right? I despise the fact that some people think that sort of rule is ever a good thing, or even just not a bad thing. Anyone who thinks the DM should not have any control over who is and is not invited to their games has never played a roleplaying game in their life and has no right to tell you how to run your game.

Talk to the person in charge of things. Explain to them that an enjoyable game cannot be had if a player is disrupting the game. If they don't let you kick players, just leave and don't come back.


All in all, this is making me burn out quickly on DMing.

Then walk. You play this game for fun. If you aren't having fun, don't play this game. It may seem unfair to the rest of the group to quit, but you know what? That doesn't matter. What does matter is whether you are enjoying the game, because you can't run a fun game when you aren't having fun.

Don't be pushed around by disruptive players and draconian event organizers. Ask for the ability to kick the player who is ruining the game for you, and if you aren't given that ability, leave.

[Azoth]

It is not an event, or organization that makes it so I can't just remove this player. It is a desire for a peaceable living situation.

[Extra Anchovies]

It is not an event, or organization that makes it so I can't just remove this player. It is a desire for a peaceable living situation.

So they're a roommate of you or of one of the players? Or you're all neighbors in a dormitory or something?

If he's destroying your game, kick him out. If he starts trouble outside of the game, that's on him. Contact the proper authorities (resident assistant, landlord, the police).

[Honest Tiefling]

It is not an event, or organization that makes it so I can't just remove this player. It is a desire for a peaceable living situation.

I too assume this means a roommate. I've had to stop playing with family members. It sucks that I cannot share my love of the hobby with them, but we've just come to the conclusion that we just don't game well together. And honestly? We're better for it. We get along outside of it.

I would sit down this player and say, hey, look, you understand their complaints, but you just have different styles. It might be hard to maintain your calm, but try to convince him that having a good buddy is worth more then a game. That you aren't insulting him, but you want different things that just don't mesh together. But consider moving the game elsewhere if this is the case...

[Whyrocknodie]

Make yourself a sock puppet and put it on when your errant player begins the whining. Hold up the sock puppet at eye level, directly between your face and the target player.

At this point, work the mouth of the sock puppet in time with their own outbursts, and make a "blah blah blah blah blah" sound, using a high pitched squawk.

Once they have left the immediate area, put the sock puppet away and continue the game, only picking it up again if they return.

Finally, and most importantly of all, when asked later you must deny all knowledge of the sock puppet incident. Tell them perhaps they mistook something else for the sock puppet, such as a tin of biscuits or a heavily thumbed issue of a favoured news publication.

[Kish]

I hate to say it, but it looks like this is "Do you have any advice? I know what your advice is going to be, and I don't want to take it." It does not sound like there's room for compromise or negotiation here. Particularly, but not limited to, if he knows you're unwilling to kick him out of the group. And he's perfectly willing to threaten to leave the group as a strongarm tactic, apparently.

[Hrugner]

Ask him what he would have done differently. Who does he think the monsters would target before him, what better strategy should the evil undead have employed, that sort of thing. The person who charges in is usually my first target as a DM too, only switching if a heavier hitter makes itself known or if the charger is impossible to hit; neither seems to be the case here. As for holding back monsters from killing the party: so what, and not all enemies are going to use the best strategy anyway. I personally try to base the NPC strategy on their wisdom, intellect and charisma; are the smart enough to develop strategies, wise enough to figure out what your characters are capable of and charismatic enough to have worked together and developed a hierarchy and organization.

Obviously ignore his advice if it's crap, but I wonder what he thinks should happen.

[Yukitsu]

Make yourself a sock puppet and put it on when your errant player begins the whining. Hold up the sock puppet at eye level, directly between your face and the target player.

At this point, work the mouth of the sock puppet in time with their own outbursts, and make a "blah blah blah blah blah" sound, using a high pitched squawk.

Once they have left the immediate area, put the sock puppet away and continue the game, only picking it up again if they return.

Finally, and most importantly of all, when asked later you must deny all knowledge of the sock puppet incident. Tell them perhaps they mistook something else for the sock puppet, such as a tin of biscuits or a heavily thumbed issue of a favoured news publication.

*Warning* People who act like this sometimes get punched IRL.

[marphod]

No matter what the living situation, you need to be able to express that behavior like that at the table is unacceptable.

No in-game behavior should incite a tantrum out of character. Poor in game behavior can result in an uncomfortable out of character conversation about how people do or don't fit into the game, but hysterics are never appropriate.

If this person is a friend, hopefully you can explain to them that your friendship is more valuable than forcing bad blood on your relationship from this sort of game hostility. if it is family or a romantic partner, it sounds like time for a 'I don't feel I can be an impartial DM due to our relationship'. If it is someone upon whom your are financially dependent, it could get messy, but you need to be able to draw a line as the DM and have your players respect it.

---

If it were me, and a PC did the "I'm out" thing when the mounts got threatened, I'd talk to them in private later adn tell them if they pulled that again, they are out. Permanently. If they want to talk about feeling railroaded, that's one thing, but walking away from a table, when doing so harms the expedrience for everyone else there, is inconsiderate, rude, and antithetical to a good relationship.

[Username.]

For various reasons I can not boot this player, nor can I shift the date/time to one where he can not attend. It would also be unfair to the rest of the group to just quit running the game because of this individual.

All in all, this is making me burn out quickly on DMing. The rest of the group are cool. They like the challenge, are learning how to make the most of their classes and items, and are enjoying the story thus far. Every once in a while I get a "not cool" from one of them, because they were not equipped to handle a challenge and had to make due. This usually leads to a discussion about counters for an enemy trick that the party had but didn't realize or could easily attain and they feel silly for not realizing it sooner.

You know you're going to be told to talk to him maturely. (You also know you're going to get silly advice.) Here's the content:

1) You point out that his character's behavior is objectively tactically stupid. That would include:


refusing to plan with the rest of the party
forcing the party to stop planning
encouraging enemies to attack him when he doesn't want to be attacked



2) You point out that negative consequences, such as what he complains about, are the result of such tactical stupidity.

3) You mention that threatening the party's steeds could lead to the party retaliating against him -- and you wouldn't prevent that.

4) You also point out that his OOC behavior, even if it were not triggered by his own foolish tactics, would be unacceptable.

If he responds negatively and refuses to acknowledge any errors on his part, you don't have any good options. If the situation is as one-sided as you say, he shouldn't play with you, which, based on the (frankly unreasonable) restrictions you laid down would mean that the group would have to end.

It may be possible for this to be resolved practically. His character, in game, will likely be killed if he keeps this up. If that happens, he may leave voluntarily. You don't have to assassinate him -- just use another hard encounter or grant him an opportunity to start a fight with the party and he'll kill himself. Your only problem after that would be if he decides to make a new character.

But note that this "solution" isn't terribly mature, if not outright immature. You're still making other players suffer for what amounts to your lack of authority.

That may be the answer as well: if the other players simply refuse to play with him, regardless of your intent to run the game, then the result is a (much more mature) practical solution: if he doesn't leave, the group doesn't play, and when he does leave, the group gets together and plays anyway.

But there's really no acceptable way of dealing with this that won't involve lots of grown-up talk.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
It would also be unfair to the rest of the group to just quit running the game because of this individual.

All in all, this is making me burn out quickly on DMing.
...

Did it ever occur to you to be fair to yourself?

For the record, you are part of this group.

It is not possible for you to be fair to the group without also being fair to yourself.



You sound like you believe that this situation will go on indefinitely.

I'm informing you as a courtesy, it will not.

It's a problem for the other players. They're just being polite.

If this hasn't cost you players yet (and I suspect it already has) then it will cost you players in the future. Sooner than later.

Your campaign's survival hinges on you and this player resolving this issue.



This player is violating the social contract on which this entire game is based, and without which this entire game can't be sustained.

He (and of course it's a he...) has to let you perform your function for the game to work at all.

You have to adjudicate the rules for the game to work.

Your players have to trust your judgment.

Even if this player has decided that he is entitled to a perfect DM*, you are not capable of being a perfect DM.



I would approach the player... alone... between sessions... and make it clear that there must be a better way for him to express his opinions about how the game is being adjudicated than this.

I would find as neutral a term as I could to describe his reactions. I wouldn't call them tantrums, or fits, or anything. I wouldn't use weasel-words either. Yelling, anger, intense, severe, intimidating. I would use words like that.

I would use the word 'need'. ("I need you to find a different way to criticize how I referee the game. I can't process what you say you when you explode at me like that.") The word explode seems a fair description.

I would use the word "referee", not DM or GM or anything that implies Master.

I would make it clear that I object only to the method by which he expresses dissent and criticism, and not the criticism itself.

I would appeal to his better nature. ("I believe you can do better than this.")



I am not going to go into much more detail than this. I don't know enough about your specific situation.

I would also make preparations for when, not if, this player bails in the middle of a session. Have an NPC who could fill in this player's PC's role ready to step in at the drop of a hat.

I would also make it clear that there will be some added downtime between sessions when this behavior appears at the table. After one of these angry responses... add at least an extra week before the next session. And enforce it.

Resolve this as if your game group's existence depended on it. Because, it does depend on it.



*He isn't, but that's neither here nor there.

[Red Fel]

I hate to say it, but it looks like this is "Do you have any advice? I know what your advice is going to be, and I don't want to take it." It does not sound like there's room for compromise or negotiation here. Particularly, but not limited to, if he knows you're unwilling to kick him out of the group. And he's perfectly willing to threaten to leave the group as a strongarm tactic, apparently.

Pretty much this.

Look, I'm a big proponent of the principle that booting a player is a very final answer, after all others have been exhausted.

But here's what you have presented: This player does not take winning well. This player does not take losing well. This player barks at the other players. You, as DM, are burning out.
Now, this last one is most important, and here's the thing - even if you can't kick this player out, you can, and should, step down (temporarily) if you burn out. A burned-out DM is an unhappy DM, and an unhappy DM makes for an unhappy game.

But here's the other thing - this player is behaving entirely poorly. You say you can't kick him out, but unless you're able to explain why (which is your prerogative), the default assumption is that yes, you can. We've had people here who've had fallings-out with their roommates, cousins, siblings, parents, even significant others and spouses. If you are the DM, you can kick this person out.

I'm not saying you should. As I said, booting a player is the last response; talking is always the first, and if you've spent time in these forums, you know that. But part of what you're feeling now sounds like a sense of powerlessness and futility - you have to deal with this player's crap and you feel that you have no recourse. And that's simply untrue. You have the power. You have the final say. And even if you choose not to exercise it, keep that knowledge close, and let it give you strength and reassurance. You are not powerless here.

Now go talk to that petulant child who calls himself a player.

[Jay R]

Either he will be convinced to change, or he won't.

If he won't, you will either run the game as is or not run the game.

So the only possible outcomes are:
1. He changes.
2. The game continues as is.
3. You quit running the game.

There are no other possibilities.

So put these in your order of preference.

Obviously, you would rather that he change. The important question is this: assuming he won't change, which is preferable, continuing on or stopping.

If continuing to put up with it is preferable to quitting, then talk to him and try to get him to quit. This won't be easy, because you will have no motivation to offer him. See if you can get other players to help you convince him.

Then prepare to run your game as before, because this is not likely to work. You have no leverage, and the current situation is preferable to him then him behaving as you want him to. You may not even be able to get him to talk about it, because why would he? What's in it for him?

Alternatively, if stopping is preferable to putting up with it, then stop first, and tell the group why second. Don't make any offers that you will continue if he changes; just stop the game. If he is willing to change, he will come to you to try to talk. Don't budge on the main issue. "It's not fun for me to put up with your attitude, and it's not fair to expect it. I won't run a game with that attitude in it."

Let him try to get you to talk about it.

If the game is worth changing for, he will offer to change. Accept his offer, but only on the condition that the accusations, tantrums, and refusals to cooperate with the party will all stop - permanently.

If he agrees, don't celebrate. You haven't won yet.

The next time he does it (and don't wait for an egregious example) you must act. The first time he complains, walks away from the party, or taunts the enemy, close the books, pack up your notes, and leave (or if it's your house, put your game away). The is the crucial moment. Do not back down or accept any compromise to re-start the game that night.

Over the next few days, several players will likely suggest that you continue. Establish as a hard and fast rule that the game stops instantly the moment that behavior returns. That is the only way you will win.

You are dealing with a stubborn, opinionated, self-focused person, who has always gotten away with it. If he can talk you into continuing he will do so - every time. You will not win unless you out-stubborn him.

[Azoth]

It is a room mate situation. I am avoiding specifics in this thread because several of my players use this forum, but do not know my screen name.

I had initially hoped that he would change after a few sessions, but he has come from two other very lax DMs. One homebrewed so much that the only standing facet of the game unchanged was using a d20 for rolls, or so it seems from stories I have heard. The other is a story first, mechanics second type of DM.

I am very much so a RAW DM baring absurdities like drown healing and infinite loop combos. So there have been adjustments to get used to for being confined by the rules so strictly. I have a feeling that this is a part of the problem at large.

The second being that my games do not play like epic poems or action movies. The enemies will use tactics, they will cut loses and retreat, they will use traps/hostages/ect to win/get away.

The party has come close to death on several occassions. There have been times where the enemy used a strong trick with a fatal flaw and winning involved exploiting it.

I know that kind of game requires adjusting and a learning period for most, so I tend to be lenient with bad attitudes for the first while, because it is frustrating to have to think on your feet. This is just beyond the scope of what I normally encounter and for a longer period than usual as well.

[Keltest]

So I think it may be time to give him a reality check. Make it clear that he doesn't have to play with you guys, and you wont hold it against him if he chooses not to, but he cannot go on with what he is doing because it is negatively impacting the game experience for yourself and (presumably) the other players. Be sure to make it clear that if he feels there are legitimate issues of bias, he can talk to you about them and try and get them sorted out, but outbursts at the table are not appropriate.

[Oryan77]

My first thought is why can you not kick the player out? You admit that he is causing you DM burnout, so either he goes, or you stop DMing and nobody plays (unless someone else will DM). Which is more important to you, gaming without him, or gaming with him? I doubt anyone will care if you kick him out as long as they still get to play. They might complain, but I bet they'd still show up without him. If not, ask them to DM.

Next, you admitted that your NPCs frequently target him. Are you metagaming this aspect? Do your NPCs have a reason to know that his defense sucks and they should target him? If they are targeting him because you know he has a bad defense, then he has a right to be upset. I understand your frustration with a PC like that, but you gotta either be fair, or have in-game reasons for him being the target. As long as you can justify it in-game, they can't complain.

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend to be an optimist here and give you advice that will only help to prolong the headaches you will be dealing with. People will always give you advice like, "talk to the players". Let's be honest, very few adult gamers with bad habits are going to change for the better. Yer wasting your time with this guy. How often has "talking" to problem players worked for any DM? I guarantee you that the success rate of rehabilitating a problem player is close to 0%.

I have dealt with enough problem players and bad groups to know that the longer I put up with it, the more of my life I'm wasting. It's just not worth your time and sanity to deal with guys like this. Bad gaming is not better than no gaming. If you can't have fun DMing with a group of good players, why waste your time when you can be spending your time doing something that will be fun?

So to get to my point, do yourself a favor and either kick out the problem player or find a new group. There is no coming back from this if you continue playing with the same problem player. That's the reality when it comes to RPG groups. To be fair, I'll give a problem player one warning (politely) and let him know that disruptive players are not tolerated and will be removed from the group if they continue causing problems. In 15 years DMing, I have not had a single problem player respect that second chance and turn out to be a veteran player in our group. They always end up eventually getting kicked out.

BTW, doing things like customizing monsters to throw off metagamers that memorized monster stats is just bad advice unless you don't mind doing extra work to deal with a jerk. It already requires a lot of extra work on the DMs part. I'm not going to spend even more time just so I don't let some problem player ruin my game. A DM should be spending his time creating content so that the game is more fun for good players, not spending his time inventing ways to work around annoying habits of bad players.

It is a lot of work, but there are good players out there. I have had to weed through several dozen problem players before finally having an entire group (7 strong) of really great players. I've dealt with all the usual crap and gone through times where I pondered giving up on DMing. But I stuck it through and was determined to one day form a great group. And I can honestly say that I have a really good group of players to game with now.

[Keltest]

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend to be an optimist here and give you advice that will only help to prolong the headaches you will be dealing with. People will always give you advice like, "talk to the players". Let's be honest, very few adult gamers with bad habits are going to change for the better. Yer wasting your time with this guy. How often has "talking" to problem players worked for any DM? I guarantee you that the success rate of rehabilitating a problem player is close to 0%.

It works for me. I had a couple of players picking fights in game with each other, and it started to get really nasty, not to mention nearly getting the party killed. So I flat out told them that such behavior was unacceptable, and anyone who instigated it in the future would no longer be invited to play until I was convinced they could comport themselves properly. It worked.

[Azoth]

You see combat is all customized on my end. I will mod existing monsters, use PC races and design NPCs from the ground up, design terain/traps/ect from the ground up. Once I think I have an encounter finished, I load up my digital copies of the party's sheets and run the encounter 5 times using tactics I have seen them use or suit their prefered play styles. If they win the encounter 3/5 I am done with it. If not I go back and retweek it, and then run it again. Rinse and repeat until I get at least a 3/5 win for the party.

[ShaneMRoth]

You see combat is all customized on my end. I will mod existing monsters, use PC races and design NPCs from the ground up, design terain/traps/ect from the ground up. Once I think I have an encounter finished, I load up my digital copies of the party's sheets and run the encounter 5 times using tactics I have seen them use or suit their prefered play styles. If they win the encounter 3/5 I am done with it. If not I go back and retweek it, and then run it again. Rinse and repeat until I get at least a 3/5 win for the party.

Your command of the game mechanics is not the problem.

It's this guy.

It's not you.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/16c06f007f838ddcb96ae999d02364d4/tumblr_mhzk42zuMf1s00ervo4_r1_250.gif

[Keltest]

Your command of the game mechanics is not the problem.

It's this guy.

It's not you.

http://media.giphy.com/media/Dvw2lJqlTuJmo/giphy.gif

I (and others, presumably) would appreciate it if you started putting your gifs in spoiler tags. Its rather annoying.

[ShaneMRoth]

I (and others, presumably) would appreciate it if you started putting your gifs in spoiler tags. Its rather annoying.

In the context of this particular thread, displaying this GIF seems appropriate as a show of support for the OP's dilemma.

[Sagetim]

You see combat is all customized on my end. I will mod existing monsters, use PC races and design NPCs from the ground up, design terain/traps/ect from the ground up. Once I think I have an encounter finished, I load up my digital copies of the party's sheets and run the encounter 5 times using tactics I have seen them use or suit their prefered play styles. If they win the encounter 3/5 I am done with it. If not I go back and retweek it, and then run it again. Rinse and repeat until I get at least a 3/5 win for the party.


That sounds like an incredible amount of work to put into DMing. I'm honestly surprised that you haven't burned out just from doing that.

As to issues you've raised earlier in this thread: not all of your monsters are going to run with the tactical efficiency of a military organization, let alone with the tactics of someone who knows the rules of the game. A mid level rogue might be really good at breaking into houses, but have no real plan if his first sneak attack/volley of sneak attacks fails to kill the target (cue panicking or running away). An unintelligent target is going to operate on orders, or if it has none, it's going to hit the nearest thing. And if the opponents only have average intelligence, they can't be expected to come up with complicated plans for dealing with the party specifically unless they were hired to target the party and given substantial information. So as far as I'm concerned, you've been doing your job as a GM.

If you feel that you can't talk it out with the person in question, you might want to take a break from running the game for a bit, just to relax and maybe see if someone else wants to try running things. In one campaign I was in we didn't actually finish it until about four years after we started because the gm ran out of material, or had classes/other stressors that were a factor. To deal with that, we ran other campaigns in the interim, and sometimes just took a week here or there to hang out and watch movies, or play video games.

Everyone else seems to have gotten some good advice out already, so good luck with your problem player.

[Oryan77]

It works for me. I had a couple of players picking fights in game with each other, and it started to get really nasty, not to mention nearly getting the party killed. So I flat out told them that such behavior was unacceptable, and anyone who instigated it in the future would no longer be invited to play until I was convinced they could comport themselves properly. It worked.

That's great that you were able to resolve that issue successfully. I wish most situations could work out that well. It would make gaming so much better for everyone.

I just don't think that particular situation was as severe as what most people usually have issues with. It doesn't seem like your players were "problem players". It sounds more like they just had some in game conflicts going on that may have had more to do with conflicting characters or maybe conflicting real life personalities. Both of which don't necessarily mean that either player is a problem player. They may both be just fine playing different characters. Stuff like that is understandable and is a reason I prefer to give an initial warning like you did.

If you gave your initial warning, and things didn't change, then I'd have a different opinion. The problem player that deserves to get kicked out is the guy that disregards your initial warning and still causes problems. I don't tolerate it once it gets to that point. It truly sucks kicking players out, but I realized long ago that as bad as I feel doing it, it is totally worth it for the sake of being a gamer (or DM). You get used to it after a while. :smalltongue:

[mostholycerebus]

You sound like you believe that this situation will go on indefinitely.

I'm informing you as a courtesy, it will not.

It's a problem for the other players. They're just being polite.

If this hasn't cost you players yet (and I suspect it already has) then it will cost you players in the future. Sooner than later.

Your campaign's survival hinges on you and this player resolving this issue.

[/I]

This is a very important point. I cant count the number of player that I have seen driven off from a game, by a bad player that the GM refused to address. Typically, you will find your good players all leave and start a group of their own, leaving just YOU and the problem player. They just wont tell you they are doing that.

[Jay R]

One crucial aspect:

Evidently kicking this guy out is not an option. That means you have no tools available except stopping the game.

If it's the only hammer you have, then you must use it to pound in the nail.

[Segev]

The assumption's been made, but nobody's actually asked (that I've seen): Have you spoken to this player (presumably your roommate) about whether he wants to be in the game?

Strive not to be hostile or to make it a challenge. You're not threatening (at this stage). You're pointing out that the game's supposed to be fun, and that if he isn't enjoying it, he doesn't have to play. If he says he DOES want to play, ask him whether he'd want to play with you if you blew up at him and his friends every time things didn't go your way. If every time a rule was brought up or a tactic thought up that surprised you, you shouted and told everybody off for being "lousy powergaming munchkins," or if they didn't do your precise railroaded plot you said, "I'm out" and walked away from the table.

Try to be gentle, but let him know that's what you're seeing in his behavior.

Ultimately, you say that you're worried about a tennable living situation ending if you kick him from the game. Why isn't he worried about such a thing if he throws tantrums? It takes two to tango, so to speak.

Finally (which is different than ultimately because it's my final point rather than the ultimate grounds on which the problem lies), you do need to simply make it an ultimatum, at the end of the day: he expresses his objections politely, and possibly after the game, without tearing into anybody nor diminishing the fun people are having, or he's out of the game, and you'll figure out some other way to run it.

Solutions will exist, though they may not be easy enough to be worth it. But I think, unless he's not the sort of person you want to stay friends with, he'll understand and cooperate if you explain, calmly, how he's disrupting things. He'll either agree to tone it back and be a productive member of the group, or he'll agree he just isn't enjoying the game and bow out of it. Only if he's a toxic presence will he deliberately stay and ruin everybody else's fun. In which case...you may want to consider finding a new roommate; I've never dealt with somebody like that who wasn't a problem in most other areas of life and interaction, as well, even if they were more subtle about it for a while. (This is, of course, all up to you. I don't know the guy, nor you, nor your situation other than what you've described.)

[emeraldstreak]

This tantrum was ended by accusing me of singling out and focus firing his character every combat that has occured so far.

To be fair his character takes the brunt of enemy offense for two reasons. The first being that he is capable of one shorting appropriate CR encounters and has sacrificed defense a good bit to do so. The second being that he often runs ahead of the party and tries to fight alone, or will openly taunt the enemies present.


He's a simulationist annoyed by your gamist ways. Make sure only enemies that discern his character is the main danger target him disproportionally.




You know you're going to be told to talk to him maturely. (You also know you're going to get silly advice.) Here's the content:

1) You point out that his character's behavior is objectively tactically stupid. That would include:


refusing to plan with the rest of the party
forcing the party to stop planning




The player probably feels his character contributes the plurality if not the majority of the party's power, so planning once he has decided on a matter is pointless. OP can't do much about this, it's an intra-party problem. Either:

- the player in question will learn power =/= leadership and realize what it takes to actually lead the party
- the rest of the players will fall in line with his dictatorial style (highly unlikely)

[Gabrosin]

Players who focus hard on winning with one-shot damage and not defending themselves deserve to run into opponents who can dodge the initial attack and then hit back.

It sounds like this player's natural tactics can be used against him quite easily. Simply put together a complex situation, let the rest of the party debate it, and let him get frustrated and charge headlong to his doom.

If he rolls up another character, do it again. He'll get the idea that it's his tactics, not his characters.

Bonus points if you can repeatedly come up with situations that can only be solved with skills that this character doesn't possess. If he's all about fighting (and the other players aren't), make him sit through half a dozen sessions where there's no one to kill.

Basically, if he won't reform, prompt him to walk away for real. He threatens to leave, you don't even acknowledge it, just play on as if he weren't there.

[Keltest]

Players who focus hard on winning with one-shot damage and not defending themselves deserve to run into opponents who can dodge the initial attack and then hit back.

It sounds like this player's natural tactics can be used against him quite easily. Simply put together a complex situation, let the rest of the party debate it, and let him get frustrated and charge headlong to his doom.

If he rolls up another character, do it again. He'll get the idea that it's his tactics, not his characters.

Bonus points if you can repeatedly come up with situations that can only be solved with skills that this character doesn't possess. If he's all about fighting (and the other players aren't), make him sit through half a dozen sessions where there's no one to kill.

Basically, if he won't reform, prompt him to walk away for real. He threatens to leave, you don't even acknowledge it, just play on as if he weren't there.

I would advise against this. Yes, if his tactics are getting him killed, don't bother coddling him, but don't actually start picking on him either.

[AzraelX]

Que this particular player snapping that I held the monsters back because the party would have died otherwise, and that the party hasn't actually "won" any fight they have been in. This was then followed by a round of telling everyone where they messed up and the bad decisions they made.
If he's coming up with a ton of examples which demonstrate you're handling them with kid gloves, is it possible he's correct that you're not actually trying to defeat the players? If the enemies are not acting in their own best interests, that's certainly going to break the suspension of disbelief for some people; and it's penalizing people who are actually trying to optimize/strategize to win, since anyone else can just loaf around and the enemies won't take advantage of it.

If the enemies act like they care more about ensuring the adventurers all keep progressing than they do about picking off the weakest links when they get the opportunity, it might be an idea to start reducing the CR of the encounters and have the enemies actually try to win.


This tantrum was ended by accusing me of singling out and focus firing his character every combat that has occured so far.

To be fair his character takes the brunt of enemy offense for two reasons. The first being that he is capable of one shorting appropriate CR encounters and has sacrificed defense a good bit to do so.
So he's correct in saying that you're punishing him for metagame reasons, those reasons being that he's made some good build choices. Strong combat characters should do better in combat; the enemies shouldn't have meta-DM knowledge of how good everyone is at fighting and gang up on the guy most likely to kill them all when they're also being engaged by weaker characters who they could be easily ripping apart.

Even the best combat character is never getting higher than T4 without additional abilities or skills. Being good at combat does not an overpowered character make.

Having said that, if combat is the only thing of value in your campaign, you're doing a disservice to those in the party who are better at non-combat activities. And if it isn't the only thing of value, then let the combat characters combat.


Another particularly infuriating instance came when an enemy implied that it was going to harm the party's tethered mounts if the party didn't come out of hiding, and this player slid his sheet forward and walked off as if saying "I'm out."
This catches me as an especially strange response. Can you give more context about the circumstances leading up to it, what he did after that, and if he ever indicated a reason?

I could see someone assuming "railroading", except as presented, it doesn't sound like railroading was taking place. If the mounts were there the whole time, that seems like a perfectly valid tactic for the enemy to use. Then, if the characters don't come out, roll a die to see whose mount the enemy starts to kill first. If characters want to come out to save their mounts, that's on them; but they weren't obligated to, were they? I assume "sit back while your mounts are killed, and come out later after the threat is gone" was an option.

[Gabrosin]

I would advise against this. Yes, if his tactics are getting him killed, don't bother coddling him, but don't actually start picking on him either.

Picking on him is not the same as setting up situations where his bad behavior gets him killed. If a player is constantly storming off on his own and not working together with his party, he should face in-game consequences that will (hopefully) result in a natural change in player behavior.

The OOC issues (threatening to quit, complaining about difficulty level, and so on) have to be answered with OOC solutions, but foolish IC actions should absolutely have IC responses from the DM. When the character dies and the player complains, the DM can easily say that he prepared the encounter with the expectation that the party would tackle it together, and having one person set it off on their own and get overwhelmed is their own fault.

[Keltest]

Picking on him is not the same as setting up situations where his bad behavior gets him killed. If a player is constantly storming off on his own and not working together with his party, he should face in-game consequences that will (hopefully) result in a natural change in player behavior.

The OOC issues (threatening to quit, complaining about difficulty level, and so on) have to be answered with OOC solutions, but foolish IC actions should absolutely have IC responses from the DM. When the character dies and the player complains, the DM can easily say that he prepared the encounter with the expectation that the party would tackle it together, and having one person set it off on their own and get overwhelmed is their own fault.

As I said, don't coddle him and protect him from his own behavion, but don't deliberately set up situations just to hurt him, specifically. Let his actions do that on his own.

[Hiro Quester]

Is it possible that you are targeting him using DM knowledge that the NPCs would not have about his defensive capabilities? Are there other PCs who would look like more of a threat, that the NPCs would probably target first?

Could it be that he has a legitimate concern here? DMs are human after all, and we all have responses to situations that may be more personal than we would like if we could succeed at being perfectly objective?

[ShaneMRoth]

As I said, don't coddle him and protect him from his own behavion, but don't deliberately set up situations just to hurt him, specifically. Let his actions do that on his own.

I concur in the strongest possible terms.

The problem is the player, not his character.

[Telonius]

I really ought to put this in my sig:

Do not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.

(Call it Tel's Axiom, or figure out who said it first... )

Anyway, this is pretty clearly a case of an out-of-character problem: how that player is treating the rest of the gaming table, including you. If this person is willing to be that disrespectful to you in the game, I can't imagine that he'd be much more pleasant to have as a roommate.

You need to take some sort of action, or his behavior is going to continue. Talk it out with him, talk it over with the rest of your group, stand up for yourself, something. If you don't change what you're doing, he's not going to change what he's doing. If he's not willing to treat you (and the rest of the group) respectfully after being asked, then he is a bully. You need to be willing to enforce some consequences. If you don't, he's going to continue walking all over you.

If you're afraid of him making your living situation unpleasant, I have some cold water for you: your living situation is already unpleasant if you're afraid of him.

[Gabrosin]

To be fair his character takes the brunt of enemy offense for two reasons. ... The second being that he often runs ahead of the party and tries to fight alone, or will openly taunt the enemies present.

The player will also randomly declare (rather irately) his character walking off, continuing on, ect. if the party is "taking too long" discussing their next course of action or possibilities of a situation they are in.


While there are certainly OOC problems here, the things listed above are IC behaviors. There's zero reason the DM shouldn't be allowing those behaviors to have natural consequences. If this guy wants to run his character as Leeroy Jenkins, he should expect to meet a similar fate. In fact, it would be poor DMing if he didn't. If this PC is strong enough to take on whole-party encounters by himself and win consistently, the difficulty level of the encounters is too low, or the party has a serious balance issue.

[marphod]

In character problem: if the character is running off by themselves, it sounds like a perfect time for them to run into traps they can't solve on their own.
Out of character problem: if the player doesn't feel the other PCs are (capable of) contributing, you need to discuss game-table etiquette and acceptable behavior.

In character problem: if the character feels they are being unfairly targeted, he may be right as the character is the biggest threat. Create encounters where he isn't targeted at all (because his damage dealing isn't a threat -- the problem can't be overcome with hitting it; because he's got Other Problems; because he;s been hit with Confusion and No One wants to be near him)
OOC Problem: The player feels they are being unfairly targeted; he may be right. consider how the NPCs determine threats and targets and be as egalitarian as you can.

In character Problem: Character can one shot your combat encounters but has no defense against followups. Solution: Displacement and Mirror Image. Miss chances. Make encounters he can't one shot and target some of his 'stronger' defenses; say strength (shadows) or Fort Saves. The attacks can hurt, and may get him to find other defenses. although, don't be too afraid of catastrophic damage, either.
OOC Problem: Player only makes characters that are one-trick I Hit Hard and Fast characters: once the player needs a new character, give them a challenge to make a different type of character. give options like the Beguiler, warlock, or swordsage.
make them pick one of these character types important.

[Nibbens]

It is not an event, or organization that makes it so I can't just remove this player. It is a desire for a peaceable living situation.

Perhaps discuss with the player that his "Power Level" is too high above the rest of the party and that he's literally unbalancing the game - so in order for him to continue playing the game he needs to create a PC or alter his existing one so that he is in line with the damage and power capabilities of the other PCs.

- Compare average damage outputs with everyone and make sure their numbers are all in the same bracket would be a good way to do this. Also do this with AC saves and attack modifiers.

Then if he doesn't agree to this (when stated sensibly) then state that the burnout of having to try to balance the encounters to deal with one unbalanced player is too much and invite him (or someone else) to DM for awhile.

In truth, I'd suggest ending the game until the desire for a peaceable living situation is no longer an issue.


It would also be unfair to the rest of the group to just quit running the game because of this individual.

Yes. Yes it would. But that's on his head, not yours.

[prufock]

What would you do if this person acted this way outside the game? Are you afraid to confront him about his bad behaviour in general? Is he a bully? Are you a doormat?

You are trying to avoid an unpleasant living situation by accepting an already unpleasant living situation.

[Jay R]

It would also be unfair to the rest of the group to just quit running the game because of this individual.

No it wouldn't. They have no fair expectation that you will run a game under conditions unfair to you.

It would be annoying for them, but not unfair, unless you owe them a game independently of your desire to enjoy running one.