How to deal with a problem PC

[Sir cryosin]

So I have a player that all of his PC's had no movation to go adventuring or follow any plot hooks. So last night the party I DM for. Just got to a point in the campaign to were they have complet freedom. They just got registered with the adventure's Guild. Also made of out of the country that most of the party is wanted in. So I figured that now that I got them out of the village and into the world they would take jobs and explore. No his character just wants to go back to the village. His excuse is that she's been advertising before and just want to go back. In a different game we don't play as players he has a character that has his own agenda. And there is no room for anything else. The DM is running storm kings thunder my character got introduce to the party and was tasked to bring them to the Harper's and no matter what we did we couldn't get him to go. In my last campaign he had a character that want take to any hooks and I didn't know what that character motivation. So how do I deal with this kind of player.

[blurneko]

Don't play with him. Because it certainly sounds like he does not want to play with you and the rest.

[Arkhios]

Clearly this player needs to be reminded what kind of game D&D is (or is supposed to be): co-operative game, not a one-man's-show. When reminded, make it clear that he/she should reconsider the motives to play in such a game. If it's just a misunderstanding, you should give him/her a chance to either change the style of play, or leave the group on his/her own terms.

[Mhl7]

So I have a player that all of his PC's had no movation to go adventuring or follow any plot hooks. So last night the party I DM for. Just got to a point in the campaign to were they have complet freedom. They just got registered with the adventure's Guild. Also made of out of the country that most of the party is wanted in. So I figured that now that I got them out of the village and into the world they would take jobs and explore. No his character just wants to go back to the village. His excuse is that she's been advertising before and just want to go back. In a different game we don't play as players he has a character that has his own agenda. And there is no room for anything else. The DM is running storm kings thunder my character got introduce to the party and was tasked to bring them to the Harper's and no matter what we did we couldn't get him to go. In my last campaign he had a character that want take to any hooks and I didn't know what that character motivation. So how do I deal with this kind of player.

Talk to him. Tell him that this is not fun. I always tell my players that dnd is a cooperative game and that they are supposed to have characters that want to go on adventures.

If he insists that his character wants to go back to the village just tell him: 'alright, you are back there and spend all your days drinking at the inn. Nothing interesting happens.' than proceed with the story for the other players.

[KorvinStarmast]

If he insists that his character wants to go back to the village just tell him: 'alright, you are back there and spent all your days drinking at the inn. Nothing interesting happens.' than proceed with the story for the other players. This. We have a player who doesn't give a crap about plot hooks and stories, he's very much "whack them with an axe" with some occasional RP interaction with NPC's. The rest of us worry about all that other crap, and we all adventure together. It works well because we like playing together.

[sir_argo]

I always tell my players that dnd is a cooperative game and that they are supposed to have characters that want to go on adventures.

I can't agree with this more. I suggest to my group that they come up with a rationale as to why they are with the group and why they stay. If you can't do that... then your character probably shouldn't be there. We've all see the player that wants to play a severely antisocial character with violent, homicidal tendencies, who doesn't want to follow any rules (and they always pick Chaotic Neutral). Honestly, that character wouldn't join any party of adventurers.

[Simetra Irertne]

It's hard to deal with a player who refuses plot hooks. Who could resist the call for help from the old man at the tavern?

On a more serious note, I agree with the others. Remind them that they can't split the party just to do what they want. Usually the other players can help convince them as well. If all else fails, rocks fall. It's harsh, but if they refuse to play and just want to sit in a village, they can not play and sit at their house. D&D is above all a multi-player game, and it's rare to find a game with actual human contact away from the internet. At the table everyone matters, and one bad player can ruin the game for everyone.

[mgshamster]

My general rule for every game I run:

Your character must want to be with this group on this adventure. Do whatever it takes for yourself to figure out why.

If you play a character who refuses to be with this group, then my time will be spent focused on the rest of the group - and not you.

If you play a character who refuses to be on this adventure, then I'll remind you that we all agreed to play this game before we made characters. And then I'll ignore you while I run the game for everyone else who actually want to play this game.

If you refuse to do both of those on a long term basis, and our open and honest communication about why this is happening doesn't solve it, I won't invite you to my games anymore.

[Silfazaris]

If you play a game, you should have motivations and reasons to stick with the party. D&D is meant to be a group if you play with a group.

As a DM, I spend hours of some of my days planning the adventures and yes, I try to include all characters by giving them good reasons to go in the adventures.
I was having a problem similar to yours, but it was a bit different. One of my players was acting just like this one you mentioned: acting like a star.
Everyone was trying to work on a day where everyone could play. Two of my players are married, have children. One of them is divorced but he has a daughter. They work like crazy and they still are interested in the game and in playing. This one I mentioned never cared about the game, he plays when he has nothing else to do. We all (players included) have to send him messages even though we have a whatsapp group we use to talk about the game. He feels like he's more important because he knows there will be no game without him. What did I do (yesterday)? I DMed without him after EVERYONE in the group tried to call him, sent him messages and he just ignored. Today after I woke up I just booted him from the game and from the whatsapp group.

You guys are probably having fun and seem interested, but he/she is clearly messing with your fun. Talk to him/her out of a game session and tell him/her that he/she is ruining the game. He/she will probably say "if you think I'm ruining the game, DM without me" just like the friend I mentioned did. Just boot him/her from the game.

He/she sounds like a selfish player who likes to play solo OR who feels he/she is more important than the others. Or he/she likes to have all attention into him/her.

Now I recall of another problem more similar to yours once. Everyone made their backgrounds, everyone were interested. And one of the guys just gave a f*** about making a background and was not interested. I don't waste 5 hours in a day preparing a session to deal with childish or non-interested players.

Again, my advice, talk to him ONCE, if it doesn't solve, boot him. Simple like that.

[Finback]

Is it wrong that I would go, "fine!"

And then every so often, cut back from the adventure to him - "You are in the village. There is a man selling a chicken, and some children playing tag. What do you do?"
"I ask about the chicken!"
"He says it's worth 5 silver pieces, as she has been an excellent layer."
"I buy it!"
"OK. Meanwhile, back at the main plot..."

[Arkhios]

Is it wrong that I would go, "fine!"

And then every so often, cut back from the adventure to him - "You are in the village. There is a man selling a chicken, and some children playing tag. What do you do?"
"I ask about the chicken!"
"He says it's worth 5 silver pieces, as she has been an excellent layer."
"I buy it!"
"OK. Meanwhile, back at the main plot..."

Be sure to award experience points accordingly:
The other group thwarted an orc raid, 500 XP each.

That One Guy in the village, bought a chicken. 25 XP for at least trying to roleplay.

Maybe that helps That One Guy to see the errors of his playstyle :smallbiggrin:

[NovenFromTheSun]

Have the bad guys threaten the village, can't go back to it without saving it.

[Verisichilli2de]

I'm always surprised when I hear about a player who doesn't want to take story hooks or otherwise engage in adventuring. Obviously there is more to the game than just going on quests, but that it is in essence the core concept.

I wish I could remember who I heard this from, but I think it was another DM. "Your character should not be Frodo in the Shire, you should be Frodo at Rivendell." IE, your character should be motivated and engaged proactively in being an adventurer, not some guy who wants to sit around at home, or someone who wants to just wait for something to happen to them. If the character you're playing doesn't want to be an adventurer there is a really simple answer for that, they don't have to be. You can retire the character, and roll a new one, only catch is, the new one has to actually want to adventure.

As always, flesh all this stuff out in session zero. If they don't want the play the game you're going to run then they should honestly just look for another table that is more their style.

[Sir cryosin]

So I was talking to him and I was listing off this character's that are or didn't take any hooks or said why that's not something he/she would go do. His response was " With pc1 it wasnt that he didn't go adventuring he just saw a situation that didnt concerned him & or would be really annoying bec he disliked cults. Then he gos on to text again this. Pc2 loves adventures hes a monster hunter. There are adv who like specific kinds of adv not every adv is a monster slayer or dungeon delver lol. As for pc3 its more of its been more of a recent thing of being arrested such not really adventure. So shes thinking about it but is not sure just yet. Also while PC 1 situation is basically wat i said above i was also writing him out cuase i wanted to switch char as he was made as a pair with another char my friend plays and he wasn't as fun without his brother char.



These are all texts that I copied and pasted. I like to play with the guy for the most part it just. Every now and then he make characters that. Just won't take hooks.

[BW022]

Sir cryosin,

Most players are typically friends, so... I'll recommend you look at the situation in the "best possible light". Specifically ask yourself...


Did the group/DM make the expectations of the campaign clear?
Did the group do a session 0? Did you discuss and agree upon the expectations?
Did the group maybe discuss 'concept' parties or at least given the opportunity to participate in the party setup? (i.e. work together on backgrounds, how they know each other, etc.)
Did the DM put in reasonable character creation guidelines to prevent conflicts, alternate goals, etc.? (i.e. ban certain alignments, ensure everyone starts in specific areas, etc.)
Did the DM review and approve the other character?
Did the DM talk with the player and ensure that his character has some goals, motivations, personality, etc.?
Did the DM put any starting hooks into the game to ensure that each PC had buy-in?
Have you talked with the player? Is everything Ok at home, work, family? Do they just need a more combat? Maybe a couple weeks break would be helpful?
etc.


I'm not saying that the player might not be 'bad', but when dealing with friends, some of the onus is on the group and DM to set expectations, ensure they are clearly communicated, and to take reasonable (and sometime for friends extraordinary) steps to ensure that the party should be working together.

Ultimately, all these situations come down to "Either you are going to play with the group... or you can leave the game." However, most people see that as a threat... even though they are in fact using your friendship to blackmail you avoiding the obvious consequences of not playing with the group. As such, this tends to work better if you make extraordinary steps to avoid the situation in the first place or to at least set out expectations prior to play so that such conversations come down to "You agreed to X".

So my advice...

If this is a good friend... talk with the other players, end the campaign and start a new one. Look at the above -- session 0, clear guidelines, agree upon conduct, look at concept or working together to form a party, add hooks to force folks together, etc. If he isn't a group player... he'll probably balk at the idea and gracefully (or not) withdraw. If he is willing to play nice... the structure, hooks, expectations, etc. might help. If it doesn't... at least if you (and the group) decide... asking him to leave the next campaign would be easier. Again, "You agreed to X."

If this isn't someone that close... I'd still take some steps. Having the DM talk to him and ask "Are you enjoying the campaign?", "If there something you would change in the campaign?", and then "You realize that by leaving the group you are leaving the game? I'm not going to run multiple sessions or divide up table time. I can't force your PC to stay with the party, nor will I force them to follow your PC. So... what do you think is a reasonable solution to this?" If you do end up asking him to leave... be polite and inclusive. "I'm sorry this isn't the campaign for you. Would you like to be invited if the group starts another campaign?"

[wilhelmdubdub]

Be sure to award experience points accordingly:
The other group thwarted an orc raid, 500 XP each.

That One Guy in the village, bought a chicken. 25 XP for at least trying to roleplay.

Maybe that helps That One Guy to see the errors of his playstyle :smallbiggrin:

Then burn the village and capture the chicken.

[Finback]

then burn the village and capture the chicken.

the chicken is a phylactery!

[NovenFromTheSun]

As an "outsider looking in" for TRPGs, I don't really see how this is so difficult a dilima. The player controls the character, the GM controls the world; so working together it shouldn't be too hard to work out a reason the character doesn't have much of a choice than to stick with the party.

[Pex]

The Drama Queen. The annoying player who constantly asks "What's my motivation?" and needs to monologue how the world just doesn't get him no matter how hard he tries. "It's all about me!"

You solve the problem by not indulging him. If his character doesn't want to adventure, then he doesn't. Let him mope in whatever town he's currently in and play the game with everyone else. When the player asks what's happening in town say "nothing special". When he wants to initiate some interaction with an NPC, just say "fine, that happens" and get back to the actual game with the other players. The player will eventually decide to either engage in the actual game or self-righteously leave in a huff. Either way, win-win.

[Hrugner]

As a player I try to think of why my character didn't retire on his starting character gold, it keeps me from running into the no motivation problem. If I had players who did have that problem, I'd make answering that question part of character creation.

[Decstarr]

In no way I am defending this player's behavior, but he probably has reasons for it. So my suggestion:

1) Talk to the player and ask him why he is not interested in the hooks. Maybe he thinks they are too cheesy, too generic, too crazy, too humorous or whatever. This is a problem that can easily be fixed by creating a hook that is targeting this specific player and trusting that the other players, who are not as picky as him, will just play along. If he just doesn't like the story part of the game, he might to try out other games...

2) Help the player to find reasons for his PC to be more invested in your hooks. We've had a problem that was solved this way: Our xenophobic human was the only human in the group, he's pretty young and hot headed and has a deeply rooted mistrust of other races. So naturally he was pretty unwilling to follow his fellow adventurer's plans/suggestions if they ever so slightly conflicted what he thought was right. He split up from the group several times in our first sessions, which was pretty frustrating for me as a DM and for the players. We solved this by having his PC realize that he's entirely screwed without the others, he ran into situations that would've gotten him killed and was saved by his teammates, who were following him to make sure he doesn't do anything stupid. These "acts" helped his PC to realize that maybe his xenophobic views aren't the best thing in the world and helped him adapt. He IS young after all, so there is room for change. I find that it helps a lot if you manage to remove the problem in game, given that the player is actually open to changing and not just playing the wrong game.

3) Talk to the other players and see how they feel. I often felt that one player was kind of dominating the game and was worried but when asking the rest, everyone was entirely fine with it and it was just my subjective perception. If they agree with you however, sit down together with the guy and analyze how you can improve the situation together.

4) If all fails, remove him from the group. The game is meant to be fun and most people I know invest a lot of time in it to play and if one person ruins this fun, he should go.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So I was talking to him and I was listing off this character's that are or didn't take any hooks or said why that's not something he/she would go do. His response was " With pc1 it wasnt that he didn't go adventuring he just saw a situation that didnt concerned him & or would be really annoying bec he disliked cults. Then he gos on to text again this. Pc2 loves adventures hes a monster hunter. There are adv who like specific kinds of adv not every adv is a monster slayer or dungeon delver lol. As for pc3 its more of its been more of a recent thing of being arrested such not really adventure. So shes thinking about it but is not sure just yet. Also while PC 1 situation is basically wat i said above i was also writing him out cuase i wanted to switch char as he was made as a pair with another char my friend plays and he wasn't as fun without his brother char.


These are all texts that I copied and pasted. I like to play with the guy for the most part it just. Every now and then he make characters that. Just won't take hooks.
Sounds like they're interested in the "reluctant hero" archetype, which is not very compatible with the more open-ended game you're running. A couple suggestions:

First, show him this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)-- particularly the "decide to react differently" section. It's the DM's job to create a world and plot hooks; it's the player's job to come up with a reason to bite at them.
Let his current character retire, and have him bring in a new one who's set up to be interested in the kind of adventures you're running. In the future, make sure he's on the same page during character creation so he doesn't make a "reluctant hero" in a game for "ambitious conquerors" (or vice-versa).

[Corran]

I'm always surprised when I hear about a player who doesn't want to take story hooks or otherwise engage in adventuring. Obviously there is more to the game than just going on quests, but that it is in essence the core concept.

Generally, while I agree with this, let me be the devil's advocate here.
The DM has a responsibility to ensure that the various side quests will appeal to the players' characters (or at the very least, they wont go against characters' motivations).
Here is an example from my own experience.

Now this is from an old campaign, and I dont remember all the details, but you will get the idea.
The party is sent by archbishop of good deity X (lets say Pelor), to investigate and deal with an undead threat that has been troubling the city of Cronohill/Rosehill/whatever. Now, keep in mind that this is following the main story arc and that there was some kind of urgency in the air (not a strict time limit so to speak, but the reports of undead activity were growing more and more warisome every time). So, the party is on the road to that city, to speak with the various relevant NPCs there, assess the situation and find a way to deal with it. On the way there, we do get attacked by some goblins (or hobgoblins, dont recall), and after defeating them we find something on one of the corpses that to the best of our knowledge was the equivalent of a dungeon map were a treasure was hidden, and it seemed like it had nothing to do with the actual objective at hand (and in fact there wasn't any connection, it was just a side quest). The group was divided (or rather, every other character wanted to go treaure hunting, and only my own character wanted to stick with the mission and leave treaure hunting for later, when our way back). After a lot of roleplaying, the group was split (or rather, I split the group), with everyone else going to search for the treasure and me continuing on to the city where we were going to begin with. Granted, I had to watch most of the time at what the other players were doing combat against (which I enjoyed, though I want deny that I would have prefered if my character was there too and I had an active part in those fights), but I was also allowed to do some stuff on my own when I reached the city that I enjoyed doing (talking to some important NPCs and recruiting -Sean Bean style, from Black Death- a small squad of fighters and a couple of clerics to help deall with the undead threat). At the start of the next session, I reunite with the party a little outside the city limits, informing them of the situation. They joined, and we ventured into that keep where all the undead seemed to be spawning from.

Now, what had happened, was that the DM had not planned for the keep (or for stuff that he would probably have wanted us to do when in the city), so he had decided to throw a random dungeon at us (making most things in the fly while at it), without tieing it with the quest at hand. He told me that after several sessions later, when a discussion we had, jumped at what was all about that random dungeon, and if I had known that, I would like to think that I would have played along without sticking too much to my character's motivations.

Bottom line, it takes an effort from the DM's part too, to progress the story (invloving various side quests) in a direction where every character can act upon it (or at least in a direction that does not go against characters' motivation). But if it rarely doesn't, well, that's ok too, assuming everyone involved can make a compromise or two, assuming they want to stick with character's rp. But yeah, it is generally much better and easier if the party always sticks together.



Is it wrong that I would go, "fine!"

And then every so often, cut back from the adventure to him - "You are in the village. There is a man selling a chicken, and some children playing tag. What do you do?"
"I ask about the chicken!"
"He says it's worth 5 silver pieces, as she has been an excellent layer."
"I buy it!"
"OK. Meanwhile, back at the main plot..."
I approve!:smallbiggrin:



Be sure to award experience points accordingly:
The other group thwarted an orc raid, 500 XP each.

That One Guy in the village, bought a chicken. 25 XP for at least trying to roleplay.

Now, with that I have some issues.
I've found that common XP/leveling helps with having your character make in-game decisions more freely, without being forced/tempted to follow the course of action that awards the most XP. Freeing up roleplaying from things like xp awards and other mechanical benefits (like inspiration dice or bennies, however you call them) is like one of the most beneficial things you can do when running a campaign. At least that is my opinion. Nothing to do with the topic at hand, but couldn't resist answering your post.




First, show him this article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)-- particularly the "decide to react differently" section. It's the DM's job to create a world and plot hooks; it's the player's job to come up with a reason to bite at them.

That article was an interesting read. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Segev]

Two things to do in response. First, ask, "What would interest your character in staying/participating?" This is important so that the ball is in his court and he can help you come up with some reason for his character to be involved.

Second, if he can't (or won't) come up with anything, let his character leave. Just make it clear that you're not following his character. His character is leaving the party and the focus of the game. Invite him to build one that is interested in what the party's doing and in joining them on it.

[Beelzebubba]

Yeah, dealt with this before.

Can I give you a bit of advice to try?

'How about we retire this character for now and you replace him/her with one that wants to be with the party?'

If the answer to that is a 'no', then firmly saying 'well, the rest of the people want to do that adventure and I'm not going to run two storylines. To keep gaming with this group, you're going to have to pick a character that wants to be a team player. If you're not feeling this campaign, no worries! I'll ping you when this campaign is over and we start a new one.'

Whatever you do, don't kick them out, give them the *choice* to join the team or leave, so if they leave, it was their decision and not you making them. It's a subtle distinction but it's important. Also, be really nice and polite here. Being angry or irritated gives them something to blame other than themselves.