Some Player Troubles

[kuhaica]

So, I'd like to start off by saying that im personally against ever using DMPCs simply because of my bad experiences with them. And as a DM you are already controlling everything, which makes having a Character to call your own both challenging and unfair.

Now. As to my question and the reason behind it. For in the current campaign I've been tasked with running (just to pervent the other DM from forcing a group of people to hate everything about the game), a small problem which has quickly become a large problem has taken hold over the game. This problem being a friend of mine being forced into leadership roles, then promptly chewed out for about a quarter of our session time for being a horrible leader. As well as blaming said person for anything bad and constent hazzing. At first it was done IC and people kept it IC but others started bringing it into OOC.

I've tried speaking with the group, at first hinting that my friend doesn't enjoy it and that its wasting others time. Then i started being blunt about it. But none of this has worked as quote "It's a Roleplay thing. We are saying that stuff in roleplay" even though whenever questioned by an NPC "thats OOC Geeze DM" Mind you, it's difficult to boot the trouble players due to me not wanting to deal with the Drama as many i must see far to often. And getting in a brawl over DnD doesn't sound appealing (these are the only folk in my area who will play as well. Making it a "may as well suffer then not play")

So. I've had an inkling of a horrible idea. Throw a DMPC into the Mix, who can take the burden of 'leadership' from my friend (I've spoken to then and they don't mind) However, I still feel this is the wrong action and I'm unsure if it'll even do anything to solve the problem.

So, long story short. Should i go against my own morals and try to solve this issue with a DMPC as the players don't see it as an OOC one. Or should I try something else?

[Quertus]

Wow. An argument for a DMPC in a leadership position? Never thought I'd see that.

Well, party consent is the big thing, and you've already got that. So... give it a try? And plan to obsolete said DMPC if they manage to work out their troubles such that they no longer need him.

[Zanos]

What sort of "bad" leadership decisions have people been ragging on him for?

[kuhaica]

Wow. An argument for a DMPC in a leadership position? Never thought I'd see that.

Same, but this is life unfortunately

[kuhaica]

What sort of "bad" leadership decisions have people been ragging on him for?

Most of which make no sense to me. But a good example was a session ago where the players where being ambushed. A few botched rolls and then everyone knew about a group of enemies infront of them but not the group behind, except for a single player who didn't tell anyone for reasons? (When i asked why, they replied with "If i saw them clearly my leader did") This person being one of the three who rags on my friend.

So the 'Leader' directs the front line people to rush up and let the casters and range folk stick behind to be reactivity safe. After a few rounds of combat most of the people on the back are nearly dead from the second group. Thankfully no one died, however after it was all said and done two of the trouble players spent about 15 Minutes telling the 'Leader' how he should have known about the second group going to attack them and why he's so bad.

Other then that long winded incident, they've be hazzing him for spending time gathering information about enemies, for not being able to kill an enemy fast enough or for speaking to NPCs when asked to speak to the NPC as he's the groups leader and my favorite so far.

The party is breaking into a public library during operating hours (I still don't know why), the leader makes a decent plan. Everything is working. Then the rogue attacks an old person for reasons? Resulting in a minor fight ending with the group getting kicked out of the area and the leader paying a fine. He was then harrassed for ten minutes about how its all his fault.

Half the time i have no idea what could have occurred to have these players to verbally attack the person they forced into a leadership role. As most of the plans are sound, invole everyone and are fun. Other times its some wacky thing that you could only do in DnD making it fun. And the guy goes out of his way to insure the Party has Income and supplies. So they dont need to bother with it.

[Zanos]

I know there's always two sides to a story, but based on your description these people are asses.

[kuhaica]

I know there's always two sides to a story, but based on your description these people are asses.

They are. Half the group wants to leave. However. One is a sibling of anouther. I know said siblings parents very well. And the other two have anger issues and don't like confrontation and the last time someone said they where the problem. I had to pervent a brawl from starting.

However. They can be decent people and good friends. Which is why i dont want to just kick them out. Its just that DnD seems to bring the worsr out of them, which is a real a shame

[mabriss lethe]

There's a saying that goes around.

"No game is better than a bad game."

Seriously though. If, as you've said, it's bringing out the worst in a subset of your friends, stop the game. the problem players are ruining the fun for everyone else. No game is worth that sort of drama and damage. tell them you need a break for a while. If you want to hang out, have a pizza and movie night or something. Maybe in a few months, come back to the table, maybe with a new sort of game that doesn't push the same buttons as this one. Maybe play something like Fellowship (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177662/Fellowship--A-Tabletop-Adventure-Game) instead.

[ATHATH]

There's a saying that goes around.

"No game is better than a bad game."

Seriously though. If, as you've said, it's bringing out the worst in a subset of your friends, stop the game. the problem players are ruining the fun for everyone else. No game is worth that sort of drama and damage. tell them you need a break for a while. If you want to hang out, have a pizza and movie night or something. Maybe in a few months, come back to the table, maybe with a new sort of game that doesn't push the same buttons as this one. Maybe play something like Fellowship (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177662/Fellowship--A-Tabletop-Adventure-Game) instead.
This. So much this.

[Zanos]

I would give it at least a try then, your party seemed okay with it. From that sound of it the leadership is an excuse to mess with this guy rather than a reason, so I wouldn't expect much in the realm of results, but it could help.

[kuhaica]

There's a saying that goes around.

"No game is better than a bad game."

Seriously though. If, as you've said, it's bringing out the worst in a subset of your friends, stop the game. the problem players are ruining the fun for everyone else. No game is worth that sort of drama and damage. tell them you need a break for a while. If you want to hang out, have a pizza and movie night or something. Maybe in a few months, come back to the table, maybe with a new sort of game that doesn't push the same buttons as this one. Maybe play something like Fellowship (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177662/Fellowship--A-Tabletop-Adventure-Game) instead.


It's something I've considered. Perhaps i should.

[Crake]

Most of which make no sense to me. But a good example was a session ago where the players where being ambushed. A few botched rolls and then everyone knew about a group of enemies infront of them but not the group behind, except for a single player who didn't tell anyone for reasons? (When i asked why, they replied with "If i saw them clearly my leader did") This person being one of the three who rags on my friend.

So the 'Leader' directs the front line people to rush up and let the casters and range folk stick behind to be reactivity safe. After a few rounds of combat most of the people on the back are nearly dead from the second group. Thankfully no one died, however after it was all said and done two of the trouble players spent about 15 Minutes telling the 'Leader' how he should have known about the second group going to attack them and why he's so bad.

Other then that long winded incident, they've be hazzing him for spending time gathering information about enemies, for not being able to kill an enemy fast enough or for speaking to NPCs when asked to speak to the NPC as he's the groups leader and my favorite so far.

The party is breaking into a public library during operating hours (I still don't know why), the leader makes a decent plan. Everything is working. Then the rogue attacks an old person for reasons? Resulting in a minor fight ending with the group getting kicked out of the area and the leader paying a fine. He was then harrassed for ten minutes about how its all his fault.

Half the time i have no idea what could have occurred to have these players to verbally attack the person they forced into a leadership role. As most of the plans are sound, invole everyone and are fun. Other times its some wacky thing that you could only do in DnD making it fun. And the guy goes out of his way to insure the Party has Income and supplies. So they dont need to bother with it.

Does the player not speak back? If he's the leader, he should have authority in the party. If the party doesn't give him the authority, he's de-facto not the party leader. Why did he not instead tell off the player who didn't speak up? The reasoning "if I saw it, he did too" is the dumbest logic i've ever heard. If they continued to use the "It's an IC thing" excuse, I would, as a player, boot them out of the group, citing "It's an IC thing, your characters aren't respecting the authority of the party leader, so he wouldn't continue to be a leader for you"

[Mordaedil]

D&D is a team effort and somebody isn't playing ball.

[Scorponok]

I've got a brilliant idea! Why not split the party permanently? Have a group that doesn't mind having the leader as the leader, and the two or three ragging on the leader will just say "we're fed up, we're leaving the group."

D&D is a bit of an odd game in that regard, in that characters who do not get along (whether in-game or players out-of-game) have to stick together for the sake of the story. There's a somewhat unwritten social contract when groups get together, and one of them is cooperation among the group. When this social contract is broken, you get things like this happening, with groups that would never dream of staying together if it were real life being forced to go on adventures.

As a split party, invite players A and B to play for two hours then players C and D to play for two hours. On some nights, they can cooperate and on others, keep them apart. You as DM still get your full time playing, and the rest of the players don't need to put up with each other. Why spend 4 hours miserable when you can spend 2 good hours playing?

[Quertus]

So, the Exalted Good answer is to find out what is going on in your players' lives, that they feel the need to be bullies, fix it, possibly provide years of therapy, and your game will self correct automatically.

The "evil" shortcut is to Mind Rape them into being better people.

If you are neither Exalted Good nor Empowered Evil, your options are more limited. Try the DMPC; if that falls to produce a satisfying game, be prepared to bail.

[Elkad]

Have you considered just asking the party to rotate leaders each session?

Or quietly ask the current leader to miss a session, so one of the others has to step up?

[kuhaica]

Does the player not speak back? If he's the leader, he should have authority in the party. If the party doesn't give him the authority, he's de-facto not the party leader. Why did he not instead tell off the player who didn't speak up? The reasoning "if I saw it, he did too" is the dumbest logic i've ever heard. If they continued to use the "It's an IC thing" excuse, I would, as a player, boot them out of the group, citing "It's an IC thing, your characters aren't respecting the authority of the party leader, so he wouldn't continue to be a leader for you"

From what my friend said. Something akin to that is going to happen after a frindly fire situation killed someone and nearly killed 3 PCs. So something like that may occur.


I've got a brilliant idea! Why not split the party permanently? Have a group that doesn't mind having the leader as the leader, and the two or three ragging on the leader will just say "we're fed up, we're leaving the group."

D&D is a bit of an odd game in that regard, in that characters who do not get along (whether in-game or players out-of-game) have to stick together for the sake of the story. There's a somewhat unwritten social contract when groups get together, and one of them is cooperation among the group. When this social contract is broken, you get things like this happening, with groups that would never dream of staying together if it were real life being forced to go on adventures.

As a split party, invite players A and B to play for two hours then players C and D to play for two hours. On some nights, they can cooperate and on others, keep them apart. You as DM still get your full time playing, and the rest of the players don't need to put up with each other. Why spend 4 hours miserable when you can spend 2 good hours playing?

I've tried this before. It made those 2 hours exhausting rather then miserable. If the bad group doesn't have the goos group. They cannot function. A talking door with the riddle "Say Queen" above took them 2 hours to solve. With me telling them at several points "maybe you need the door to say it" worst part. They didn't solve it. They killed it. And i let it happen because i didn't want to spend any more time. The other group is marvelous however.


Have you considered just asking the party to rotate leaders each session?

Or quietly ask the current leader to miss a session, so one of the others has to step up?

Rotating leaders won't work very well. People will just pass the buck. As for missing a session, its happened before and the group basically spent a few hours bickering about what to do and demanding me to play a the missing players char and lead them.

[Honest Tiefling]

I know there's always two sides to a story, but based on your description these people are asses.

As the wise man said.


They are. Half the group wants to leave. However. One is a sibling of anouther. I know said siblings parents very well. And the other two have anger issues and don't like confrontation and the last time someone said they where the problem. I had to pervent a brawl from starting.

However. They can be decent people and good friends. Which is why i dont want to just kick them out. Its just that DnD seems to bring the worsr out of them, which is a real a shame.

...If at any point you don't feel safe with DnD, you should probably bail. Sweet Pelor, does it bring the worst in them.

I would just split the party. Keep making fun of someone? I guess he goes off on his own and what a shame, the party is dead. Campaign over! Time to move on. I would suggest playing Talisman or Munchkin instead, but seriously, if people start attacking each other over DnD, I wouldn't want to hang out with them otherwise.

You know what is a good time to use a DMPC? For a campaign for one person. Just saying.

[Elkad]

As for missing a session, its happened before and the group basically spent a few hours bickering about what to do and demanding me to play a the missing players char and lead them.

To which (as DM) I throw up my hands and say "not my game, what do you guys do?". Either they reach an agreement, or I throw low-CR random encounter at them, we eat more pizza, and go home. Which they will probably manage to turn into the difficulty of a boss fight due to ineptness, but that's fine too.