PC problems

[Farlen]

Does anyone else have that one PC that try’s the be the leader in every campaign and only decision maker for the group even if they play a character not really build too? If you did at one point how did you resolve it?

Edit: thanks for all the reply’s! okay I realised putting low intelligence was a bad move, I just meant that he doesn’t make characters that would be leaders and I didn’t have too much time to write this properly. (since I was on break) after reading a few comments let me go a little deeper, it is all time and even if it is a quest from one of the other PC’s background instead of letting that PC do it he will try to tell them what to do and how to it. And if they are explaining something and he doesn’t like the way they are doing it he cut them off and retell it. Just starting to get annoying really.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I ask every player what their character do.

I talk to the players in order to make sure that everyone is ok with it and if they have a problem I ask the problem player to give the others a chance at doing stuff.

[ATHATH]

Does anyone else have that one PC that try’s the be the leader/only decision maker for the group even if they play a low intelligence character? If you did at one point how did you resolve it?
Why would having a low INT interfere with decision making? If anything, that'd be WIS (or CHA for the leader part)? Furthermore, saying "you can't do that, because you don't have an arbitrarily chosen mental ability score that will always be your lowest mental ability score above the arbitrary value required to escape my railroading defeat my Mary Sue BBEG not fall into my incredibly obvious "clever" trap think of that/share that with the group" sounds like a pretty @#$& move. I'm not saying that you do any of those crossed out things, but they're definitely what I'd think the DM was doing if they sprung this ruling/"issue" on me(,) and it's pretty feasible that you could start to subconsciously do them.

Do the other group members voluntarily let this one guy lead? Are they at all feeling overshadowed or drowned out?

[JNAProductions]

Talk to the other players.

If the other players are cool with the one leading, then there's no issue. If not, then talk to the leading player and tell them something like "Hey, I know you like to be in charge, but it's making it less fun for the other players. Could you try to let others take the fore more often? You don't have to be totally passive or anything, just don't always be the leader."

[GlenSmash!]

Does anyone else have that one PC that try’s the be the leader/only decision maker for the group even if they play a low intelligence character? If you did at one point how did you resolve it?

Low int people become leaders all the time. Leadership is not directly related to Int.

Still I do as BloodSnake'sCha does and ask each player "What do you do?" so everyone gets even spotlight time.

[Trustypeaches]

Does anyone else have that one PC that try’s the be the leader/only decision maker for the group even if they play a low intelligence character? If you did at one point how did you resolve it?What does their INT have to do with anything?

Are you saying the player is playing / strategizing / decision-making with much more intelligence than their character would? Or is he making Is it effectively RPing a low INT character while being in charge of group decisions, causing problems?

[Crushgrip]

Does anyone else have that one PC that try’s the be the leader/only decision maker for the group even if they play a low intelligence character? If you did at one point how did you resolve it?

This was actually one concept I had for a character of mine. High STR, high'ish CHA, low WIS and low INT. He was filled with bad idea's but would always try to persuade everyone else with his CHA skills! Was always fun and created a bit of levity in the group. If other characters had a better idea and could persuade my character, then it was all good!

As others have said, I would check with the rest of the group. Sometimes bad idea's can be fun for the DM too.

Cheers!

[ATHATH]

I just finished making a large edit to my post/reply, so you might want to reread it if you've read it/the first version of it already.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Not pointing fingers at anyone in here, but every player I've ever known that got annoyed at another player for being the leader ended up being a problem player.

I've also never run into any "shut up you idiot we're using my plan" players, aside from one that has been something of a running joke for how no one takes him seriously.

Meanwhile, I've seen games descend into absolute madness because there wasn't a good leader. Either because the best player(s) for the job refuses on roleplaying principles or you end up with too many egos butting heads. Sometimes both. And the fix has always been to introduce a player that's a strong leader, even if they've always been there, didn't build to be a leader, and were purposely avoiding it beforehand.

[GlenSmash!]

Not pointing fingers at anyone in here, but every player I've ever known that got annoyed at another player for being the leader ended up being a problem player.

I've also never run into any "shut up you idiot we're using my plan" players, aside from one that has been something of a running joke for how no one takes him seriously.

Meanwhile, I've seen games descend into absolute madness because there wasn't a good leader. Either because the best player(s) for the job refuses on roleplaying principles or you end up with too many egos butting heads. Sometimes both. And the fix has always been to introduce a player that's a strong leader, even if they've always been there, didn't build to be a leader, and were purposely avoiding it beforehand.

My 9 Int 8 Cha Barbarian has emerged as a leader in our current group, largely because I try to have him talk to NPCs before the other players can stab them, steal from them, or set them on fire, unless we have an established reason to stab them, steal from them, or set them on fire at first sight. Then he Rages.

[Keravath]

Honestly, it depends on the player taking the leadership role and the preferences of the other players at the table.

Usually, the DM can tell the difference. However, if one player is simply saying "This is what the group does" and HASN'T asked everyone else if that is what they want the party to do ... then the player is making decisions for other players and that will eventually cause a problem.

Either the player acting as the leader OR the DM has to give all the other players the opportunity to contribute to any plan of action, to object to a plan of action or to decide on their own plan of action. If the player in the leadership role is not explicitly doing this then the DM needs to gently shut them down by going around the table and asking each player what they want to do.

Some players are quiet, some are shy, some are noisy, some argumentative, some opinionated, but either the players or the DM have to ensure that everyone has a voice.

Thus, as mentioned, if the player acting as spokesman polls the other players, asks the quiet ones for input, allows folks to put in their opinion then turns to the DM after a consensus is reached and says "This is what the group does" then it should be fine most of the time. If not, then the DM has to step into the discussion and make sure all the voices are heard.


---------------

Now ... on to the role playing aspect. Is an 8 int character capable of coming up with a brilliant strategy? The player may certainly be capable of it. However, does the player need to NOT mention their great idea because the character is generally not smart enough to figure it out? What about solving puzzles in the game? Should a low int character have trouble solving a problem that is trivial for the player?

I've seen it go both ways .. players who contribute irrespective of their int/wis/cha stat and those who take it into consideration and moderate their great ideas with role playing based on the character stats. Is there one correct way to do this? No. Is there a rule that says you can't come up with good ideas when your character has 8 int? No.

Some folks express the viewpoint that the ONLY constraint of mental stats is when you have to execute a saving throw or ability check related to those stats ... otherwise they do nothing. You might find some intellectual challenges in game that are expressed by a die roll to be more difficult but it has no effect on your ability as a player-character to come up with and contribute ideas.

Others are of the opinion that low stats should actually be reflected in the overall role playing aspects of the character behaviour. A low wisdom character might be expected to take more risks for example or to make more ill considered decisions. A low charisma character might be brusque and offensive (or physically unattractive).

How your group decides to play is up to you but it may be just up to the player how they want to play the character and whether they want any of the character attributes to affect how the player can contribute (this is why I really try to avoid having an 8 int even on characters for which it is a dump stat).

[DarkKnightJin]

For some reason even I am not aware of.. my 8Cha EK has been kinda made into the party leader for some reason.

He's smart enough to ask for everybody's input before making any calls, though. And he doesn't stop them from getting into trouble if they really want to. Just advises them against it if he can.

For some reason, both groups I play with don't really have "the leader" at the table, and everything atill works out because we talk to eachother before we plunge into a situation. Or as best we can, anyway.

[Unoriginal]

Does anyone else have that one PC that try’s the be the leader/only decision maker for the group even if they play a low intelligence character? If you did at one point how did you resolve it?

How do they "try to be the only decision maker for the group"?


Are they trying to make other who have their own ideas and/or decisions shut up?

[jdolch]

Usually the PC that has thee most proactive player takes the lead. That doesn't really have anything to do with the stats of the PC, but with the personality of the Player.

That can be negative, but you can just as well put it another way:

"Hey, i have high CHA and high INT, my character should be the leader"

"But you never come up with any plans, and you never follow through or tell anyone IF you have an idea"

"Yeah, but, but ,but, my high INT score..."

Sorry to say it, but it's a roleplaying game. And your Character can have the highest Stats in all the realities, if you, as a player, are a shy introvert with no initiative, your character is not gonna be the leader, or the face.

[GlenSmash!]

Thinking about this more in my work, the smartest guy is by no means the leader of the team.

Lack of experience, or interest in Leadership roles, or any number of other factors could influence that.

Heck good leaders don't even need to be above average intelligence, if they listen to sound advice.

[Tawmis]

Low int people become leaders all the time.

I know, right?

For the player who takes leadership - as long as it's not ruining the fun for other players (like someone who is deciding for everyone else), then I don't see it being an issue.

Low intelligence, sadly, doesn't mean that they can't somehow become leaders.

So my rule is... if they don't... shall we say, trump, everyone else's decision making, then it should be good.

[jdolch]

Heck good leaders don't even need to be above average intelligence, if they listen to sound advice.

Leaders don't need intelligence or sound advice at all. All a Leader needs is confidence. (Which under D&D would probably be CHA)

People don't follow people because they are right. People follow people because they can successfully convince them that they think they are right.

"Confidence is the Appearance of Certainty" not Certainty itself, which would require Intelligence, Knowledge, Information etc. all of which you almost never have because you can't look into the future. All you need to do to be a Leader is to appear like you know what you're doing. Whether or not you actually know what you're doing is completely and utterly irrelevant.

[GlenSmash!]

Leaders don't need intelligence or sound advice at all. All a Leader needs is confidence. (Which under D&D would probably be CHA)

I did qualify my statement with good leaders, which I do think requires more than just confidence :smallbiggrin:. But I certainly agree with your point.

[holywhippet]

In the group I play in, many of the players do this. The gnome barbarian PC who interrupts my diplomacy check with an intimidate check - on a child. The lizardman rogue/warlock PC who takes the DM's bait and stabs a guard in the neck after he snatched something from him. The fighter PC who broke the news of an NPCs father having died like he was mentioning that the sky was getting a bit cloudy outside.

Sometimes players just do something stupid and it's up to the rest of the party to deal with the fallout.

I will also note our regular DM, when he plays as a character while someone else is running a one shot, generally always plays a stupid ****. If we run into an obviously cursed or dangerous magical item his response is always the same "mine".

[Darth Ultron]

Well....ah....low intelligence people can be leaders. Happens all the time.

And a lot of low Int characters...well, they don't ''know" they are low Int (and they have low Wis).

Really though if the character has an ''average" Int of around 10, that is likely the Int the player is playing the character as anyway..

[Farlen]

How do they "try to be the only decision maker for the group"?


Are they trying to make other who have their own ideas and/or decisions shut up?

Yes pretty much

[JNAProductions]

Yes pretty much

That is a problem. There’s a chance they don’t realize they’re being a problem, which is the best case scenario. However, if they know it’s mean and do it anyway...

You might have to drop the player.

Talk to them first. Hopefully that can resolve it.

[jdolch]

I mean it goes back to the old problem that you can fake being stronger, more agile or more sturdy than you are in real life. But you can't roleplay being more intelligent, more charismatic or more wise then you are in real life. Your RL score acts like a limit. (If the low throughput of information doesn't limit you anyway. Nobody would pass the MENSA entrance test if the attendant would slowly read the exercises to them.) It's really up to the DM to force Situations where a high mental stat character can thrive beyond what any of us could actually accomplish because we don't have stats of 20 and our Character has.

Examples:

Have the high WIS Character actually know stuff that the player doesn't know.
"You actually remember that you read somewhere, that there is an old mineshaft somewhere in this area."

Have the high CHA Character actually seem more charismatic than the player is able to act.
"You realize that the Miller's Daughter looks at you when she thinks you don't realize it and when you catch her, she looks away and blushes"

Have the high INT Character actually seem smarter than the player is able to act.
"You immediately recognize that something with this room you're in doesn't seem right. You are pretty sure the inner dimensions of this room are smaller then they should be, going by the the surrounding rooms and walkways."

I think it's very important that the DM does this unprompted, at least every so often. So the character realizes that it is recognized by the "world" (as represented by the DM) that the Character is special. And the player doesn't get this feeling that: Great i have a stat of 20 and it gets totally ignored while the stupid socially retarded Barbarian goes around kicking doors in just for giggles.

[Tawmis]

That is a problem. There’s a chance they don’t realize they’re being a problem, which is the best case scenario. However, if they know it’s mean and do it anyway...

You might have to drop the player.

Talk to them first. Hopefully that can resolve it.

^ This pretty much sums up my feelings, when it's someone overstepping everyone else's character.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Seeing the edit from the OP-

I've seen that sort of player crop up before. They weren't really being a leader, per se, just being bossy. And yeah, they're annoying.

In one case, the DM's intervention was asking me to take charge. It didn't stop them from trying to circumvent the choices of other players, but as the DM's 'agent' I could properly talk to the other players and prevented the worst abuses. If you're the DM, see if you have a trustworthy friend to do this.

In another, three players ended up butting heads because one got annoyed at one of the others for metagaming murderhobo behavior, and the third didn't understand the events and ended up coming to the defense of the problem player when the bossy one started overruling the murderhobo. I was the DM. I held this one together by altering the adventure so that the murderhobo couldn't be all that disruptive, removing the sort of elements they were frustrating the party with. This worked to allow the adventure to complete in a satisfying manner, but it caused some bad blood between the three of them. Two of them still, to this day, won't play together.

Because I didn't deal with that murderhobo then, I sometimes call this the 'madman rising incident'. He went on to become the worst player I have ever seen in my time as a TTRPG player, and only recently has settled back down into a much better 'kind of bad'.

The morale? Sometimes, you should really just kick a player. But I'd try diplomacy first.

[Farlen]

Seeing the edit from the OP-

I've seen that sort of player crop up before. They weren't really being a leader, per se, just being bossy. And yeah, they're annoying.

In one case, the DM's intervention was asking me to take charge. It didn't stop them from trying to circumvent the choices of other players, but as the DM's 'agent' I could properly talk to the other players and prevented the worst abuses. If you're the DM, see if you have a trustworthy friend to do this.

In another, three players ended up butting heads because one got annoyed at one of the others for metagaming murderhobo behavior, and the third didn't understand the events and ended up coming to the defense of the problem player when the bossy one started overruling the murderhobo. I was the DM. I held this one together by altering the adventure so that the murderhobo couldn't be all that disruptive, removing the sort of elements they were frustrating the party with. This worked to allow the adventure to complete in a satisfying manner, but it caused some bad blood between the three of them. Two of them still, to this day, won't play together.

Because I didn't deal with that murderhobo then, I sometimes call this the 'madman rising incident'. He went on to become the worst player I have ever seen in my time as a TTRPG player, and only recently has settled back down into a much better 'kind of bad'.

The morale? Sometimes, you should really just kick a player. But I'd try diplomacy first.

Thanks for the tip

[Farlen]

I think its more on a subconscious level but sometimes I think he knows he’s doing it but he wants to use his plain only so it can be a little tricky sometimes

[Keravath]

I think its more on a subconscious level but sometimes I think he knows he’s doing it but he wants to use his plain only so it can be a little tricky sometimes

As the DM, you specifically ask each player what they want to do and completely ignore the input from this character until every other character has been explicitly consulted. If the problem player jumps in and tries to speak for another player then again ignore him, ask him to be quiet and speak to the character whose turn it is. The DM doesn't yell, doesn't get angry ... just calmly says that everyone can decide what their character is going to do ... if you have a plan you would like to share then talk to the other players, listen to their feedback and let everyone decide what they are going to do.

This is a player personality issue and can usually be resolved just by talking it out a bit and giving the other players some support in expressing their ideas too. Usually, the balance will shift a bit and the bossy player will still be able to express their ideas but won't be as anxious to quickly force the game in a certain direction since they realize that the DM will step in and make things go even slower from his perspective. He will be better off asking for input from the group and letting them respond and then once everyone has said something the revised plan can go ahead.

[Farlen]

As the DM, you specifically ask each player what they want to do and completely ignore the input from this character until every other character has been explicitly consulted. If the problem player jumps in and tries to speak for another player then again ignore him, ask him to be quiet and speak to the character whose turn it is. The DM doesn't yell, doesn't get angry ... just calmly says that everyone can decide what their character is going to do ... if you have a plan you would like to share then talk to the other players, listen to their feedback and let everyone decide what they are going to do.

This is a player personality issue and can usually be resolved just by talking it out a bit and giving the other players some support in expressing their ideas too. Usually, the balance will shift a bit and the bossy player will still be able to express their ideas but won't be as anxious to quickly force the game in a certain direction since they realize that the DM will step in and make things go even slower from his perspective. He will be better off asking for input from the group and letting them respond and then once everyone has said something the revised plan can go ahead.

Thanks I will definitely try this out!

[jdolch]

I have a question: When this player takes the lead and makes plans. Are they good plans and is he a good leader? As in: If everybody would just do what he wants, would you consider this a successful group?

[Mordaedil]

One solution is to completely disconnect ones roleplaying from the mental stats one rolls for the character.

Having a high intelligence seems to most people to imply that you are the smartest person on planet, or at least try to pretend to be, but it could just be that your intelligence is entirely ground in the mechanics and represents an inuition, not a dictate of knowledge.

Likewise, having high wisdom seems to imply to most people that they have to act sage, but it could just be that they have a fairly strong mentality when faced with controversy. Perfectly represented mechanically by the amoung of resistance they have against Wisdom saving throws.

Charisma based ones are a bit stranger, but you just have to adjutate it a bit as a DM and approach conversations a bit differently. Not everything a player says or does to an NPC has to be a check, only if they make a persuasive argument, but you're not entirely sure the NPC would be sold on it should you request a charisma based check. If they make a case that the NPC finds convincing, let them convince him. If they fail to make a good argument, let them fail without a roll.

You can completely disconnect roleplaying from the stats they have. Consider them your players stats being reflected in the characters they play, while the stats you roll are there for things they don't possess, like how we don't demand people dodge an arrow from 10 feet or lift 200 pounds and carry it around for 2 days. Similarly the ability scores you roll could represent the facets you can't just show via active roleplay, as a phantasmal killer spell isn't scary to you, the player, but it is terrifying to the character in the game.

Consider this train of thought if you experience this kind of disconnect a lot.

[Unoriginal]

Talking to the guy and explaining why his behavior is bothersome should be the first step.

[jdolch]

One solution is to completely disconnect ones roleplaying from the mental stats one rolls for the character.

Having a high intelligence seems to most people to imply that you are the smartest person on planet, or at least try to pretend to be, but it could just be that your intelligence is entirely ground in the mechanics and represents an inuition, not a dictate of knowledge.

Likewise, having high wisdom seems to imply to most people that they have to act sage, but it could just be that they have a fairly strong mentality when faced with controversy. Perfectly represented mechanically by the amoung of resistance they have against Wisdom saving throws.

Charisma based ones are a bit stranger, but you just have to adjutate it a bit as a DM and approach conversations a bit differently. Not everything a player says or does to an NPC has to be a check, only if they make a persuasive argument, but you're not entirely sure the NPC would be sold on it should you request a charisma based check. If they make a case that the NPC finds convincing, let them convince him. If they fail to make a good argument, let them fail without a roll.

You can completely disconnect roleplaying from the stats they have. Consider them your players stats being reflected in the characters they play, while the stats you roll are there for things they don't possess, like how we don't demand people dodge an arrow from 10 feet or lift 200 pounds and carry it around for 2 days. Similarly the ability scores you roll could represent the facets you can't just show via active roleplay, as a phantasmal killer spell isn't scary to you, the player, but it is terrifying to the character in the game.

Consider this train of thought if you experience this kind of disconnect a lot.

Couldn't disagree more. I think it's the DMs Job to help these Players express their stats better. Either by coaching new players a little bit behind the scenes or by giving players "Mirrors" to play off of. e.g. Have your NPCs behave differently towards a high CHA PC than they would towards a low CHA PC. Or do you honestly think a Heidi Klum or Tom Cruise is treated like just any plain person off the street? I highly doubt that.

[Mordaedil]

Couldn't disagree more. I think it's the DMs Job to help these Players express their stats better. Either by coaching new players a little bit behind the scenes or by giving players "Mirrors" to play off of. e.g. Have your NPCs behave differently towards a high CHA PC than they would towards a low CHA PC. Or do you honestly think a Heidi Klum or Tom Cruise is treated like just any plain person off the street? I highly doubt that.

Hey, if your group can pull off the acting and behave in immersion, props to you and your group, and ours is the same. I wrote that as a consideration for when you have people on board that can't really pull it off.

Not every group is the same and some really struggle with this and if this can help them work around the game when they otherwise can't, isn't that a good thing?

[Farlen]

I have a question: When this player takes the lead and makes plans. Are they good plans and is he a good leader? As in: If everybody would just do what he wants, would you consider this a successful group?

Sometimes but not always, sometimes he forgets to include important things in his plans or thinks that he knows what’s happening in the background and try’s to plan for that (and most of the time there is nothing happening in the background) but no most of the time they fail. and he is known for dealing the most team damage by accident with spells, so most don’t trust his plans

[jdolch]

Ok, never mind then. I thought he might just be an ENTJ. They can be hard to deal with, but their plans usually work...