PDA

View Full Version : Player Help Disruptive Player, With a Twist



Kesnit
2018-12-02, 11:37 AM
My wife and I have been in a LARP for over two years. Recently, one of the players has become disruptive and self-centered, and just about everyone would like to see her gone. Normally, this would have an easy answer. However, there is a twist..


Nathan - ST
Jackie - Assistant ST, and sometimes player (when she isn't being an ST.
Jane - Disruptive player
Cindy - Nathan's business partner
Matt - Cindy's husband
Ann - My wife
Patty - My mother-in-law
3 guys - The other three players, who only recently joined the LARP

Nathan and Jane dated for about 4 years, and have a 3 year old son, Munchkin. They broke up in September, and Jane moved out in late October. Jackie is a long-time friend of Nathan, and moved in with Jane and Nathan just before Munchkin was born. It was intended to be short-term, but turned into Jackie being a nanny/housekeeper.


The LARP is a mixing pot oWoD. Everyone except the three guys have been in this LARP for years. In addition to LARP, we also play tabletop games together. Jane has been an annoying player pretty much the entire time we've known her. She wants to be the center of attention in any plot, and sulks when another PC is leading the plot. (In the LARP in mid-November, one of Cindy's characters had something related to her overarching plot and asked the other PCs for help. We all jumped onboard, including Jane, but Jane kept trying to bring up a quest she wanted to do, that we had all helped her with many times in the past. (Jane's PC is a Dreamspeaker Mage, and treats spirits like Pokemon - gotta collect them all. This quest was another "I have a spirit I want to find. Who wants to help me?")

In tabletop, she will sit and play on her phone and not pay attention. When her turn comes around, we have to fill her in on what has happened since she has not been paying attention. Then we have to wait for her to decide what she is going to do, and then look up what spell she is going to cast. (As an aside, she is playing a prepared caster in a Pathfinder game that Jackie is running, but I've realized that she is not actually preparing spells in advance. Instead, when it is her turn, she goes through the book to pick her next spell.) Even when we set things up to give her a starring role, she does not engage. (My wife is running a Scion game on weekends when Nathan and Cindy are out of town. Jackie and I came up with a solution to a quest that put Jane's character in the spotlight, but she refused to be involved in planning. Finally, since Jane wouldn't help, we switched to a plan that involved only my character and Jackie's.)

Over time, we've realized that Jackie is the one who is raising Munchkin. Nathan's business is expanding, and he has been working long hours keeping up with his existing work and laying things out for the expansion. Jane works normal hours, but even when she is home, she let's Jackie take care of Munchkin. When Jane moved out, she took Munchkin with her, though Jackie still watches Munchkin during the day while Jane is at work.

At the mid-November LARP, Jane showed up with Munchkin, but Jackie ended up watching him for the entire game. Ann and I both told Jackie later that she can't let Jane do that - that Jackie needs to stand up for herself.

The first December LARP was last night. Jane again showed up with Munchkin, which in and of itself is not an issue. Jackie again got stuck watching over Munchkin, though at least she got to be involved in game somewhat. Plot developed, and a rather chaotic combat ensued. (Ann was fighting an NPC. Matt and my PCs ended up fighting each other, although everyone else became collateral damage. After two rounds of combat, however, Jane snapped because Munchkin was asking her for something and she screamed something about "too loud." She went outside to cool down (putting the game on pause because she was not there), then came back in and used her "nuke in her pocket" - a very powerful spirit who takes everything to 100. Ann's PC died, and most of the others only survived because she had called out a unicorn spirit to heal them. (Matt and I had PCs that could survive the spirit nuke. Ann suspected even before game started that her PC would die, given what she was planning.)

While we were doing wind-down from the combat, Jackie tried to put Munchkin to bed. (He had a pack-and-play that he sleeps in when at game.) Munchkin refused to go to bed, and started screaming and having a fit. Jane did very little to try to calm him down because by this point, her phone, which Munchkin had been watching cartoons on, was almost out of battery. Finally, one of the new guys offered his phone, Munchkin calmed down, and game started back up.

With that situation resolved, the party got back together elsewhere because Jane wanted to go looking for a new spirit. (I switched PCs because the one that got blown up is a rather sensitive person, and was freaked out by what he had done. Think of him as kind-of like The Hulk.) At some point, I heard Jane say "this is my one evening when I can have fun. The rest of my time is all 'work' or 'Mommy.'"

It was finally decided that everyone would go to a location, with Jane and a few others looking for her spirit, and the rest of us going after a minor demon. Again, while this conversation was going on, Jane yelled out that everything was "too intense." Before I caught myself, I said (calmly) "You are right. You are too intense. Maybe you should calm down before you go spirit hunting." Jane stalked off again.

While Jane was outside, Nathan commented he was confused about what had happened. I told him what Jane had said. When Jane came back in, Jackie ran the scene with the spirit hunt, and Nathan ran the demon hunt (which I was doing). Game wrapped after that.

As we were driving home, my wife told me that I should not feel bad for what I said to Jane - that everyone wanted to say it, and I was just the one who said it first. She also told me I was very polite, which is more than she would have been if she had let loose at Jane.

The end result is that, with the possible exception of the 3 new guys, everyone wants Jane out of game. I also suspect she won't be welcome at the Pathfinder game, and Ann is already making plans to adjust the Scion game to play without Jane. If Jane was anyone other than the mother of Nathan's child (and a narcissist), this would not be an issue. However, she is both of those things. Nathan does not want to deal with her (and would happily wash his hands of her if it wasn't for Munchkin). But there is Munchkin, which means Jane. And Jane does not realize how disruptive she really is since - to be honest - we've all just humored her and let her do what she wants.

Any tips on how to approach this situation?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-12-02, 12:21 PM
Say all this to her.

Nifft
2018-12-02, 12:35 PM
The end result is that, with the possible exception of the 3 new guys, everyone wants Jane out of game. I also suspect she won't be welcome at the Pathfinder game, and Ann is already making plans to adjust the Scion game to play without Jane. If Jane was anyone other than the mother of Nathan's child (and a narcissist), this would not be an issue. However, she is both of those things. Nathan does not want to deal with her (and would happily wash his hands of her if it wasn't for Munchkin). But there is Munchkin, which means Jane. And Jane does not realize how disruptive she really is since - to be honest - we've all just humored her and let her do what she wants.

Any tips on how to approach this situation?

I don't really see how Jane being the DM's ex-wife is a reason to let her stay in the game when everyone wants her to leave.

The easy answer is to end the game, and make a new game with a different ST so the previous ST has no power to include Jane -- and that's a relief for him since apparently he also wants her out of the game.

In a few months, if the drama has subsided and Jane has a new source of spotlight-hogging narcissism-affirmation in place of the game, you can propose that you re-start the "old game" (which is the one where Jane had a character), but without Jane.


Basically you orchestrate a temporary break from the ST's current game, don't tell Jane that it's temporary, and then go back to the "old game" (current game) once Jane has moved on -- which may take months or years, so make sure the temporary replacement game is also awesome.

The Jack
2018-12-02, 12:48 PM
Have the three year old play her spirits. WoD Spirits were almost designed for three year olds.

'I AM Fire, GIVE ME THINGS TO BURN. '

I traumatised a player with ratatosk, the adorable trickster squirel spirit in fenrir's brood. He'd bring that squirel spirit back whenever he ran games for me as revenge, complete with new innane/trap/prank quests that went nowhere. children are perfect for this.

I have no practical advice that i could safely say regarding the player.

Darth Ultron
2018-12-02, 01:32 PM
I don't really see the ''twist''.

Jane is a disruptive player....ok, then get rid of her. The end.


And, ok, outside the game some players have a ton of soap opera drama...well, ok, so what?

Pleh
2018-12-02, 01:50 PM
Jane works, thus has income. Can she not hire a babysitter for Munchkin for a single evening? You didn't mention any compensation to Jackie for all the time she's watching Munchkin while Jane works (presumably, she affords it through accomodations with Nathan).

But Jackie is unavailable for the same reason as Jane. Jane is the one primarily responsible for Munchkin, so if the normal sitter is unavailable, you look for another. Be willing to pay $15-20 an hour for up to 4 hours. It's not unreasonable for the luxury of getting away from work and motherhood periodically and she won't be inconveniencing other players.

But, if she is a true Narcissist, then she would rather inconvenience you because that is actually more her goal: to make everything revolve around herself.

Bottom line, you can recommend a babysitter. Go the extra step and find good sitters FOR her so she has no excuse. If the money's really a problem for her, the group can offer to split the babysitter fees (just a suggestion).

If she still is uncooperative, it's almost proof she wants to be inconvenient and you should politely move to have her removed from group.

zlefin
2018-12-02, 02:44 PM
I concur that finding a babysitter should be quite doable.
You might get better answers to the larger questions in general discussion where there's relationship threads and such.

on the larger matters:
how is Jackie's relationship with munchkin? sometimes people in a nanny role bond very closely with the child.
Does Jane actually want the child? it sounds unclear how much she cares/is able to handle it. Why did she take the child when she moved out? simple social expectation, genuine love, or what? Would she be interested in giving up custody (or at least giving up primary custody, and just have him for the occasional weekend or somesuch)?

Reversefigure4
2018-12-02, 03:31 PM
A Larp, and particularly an evening one, is not a suitable environment for a 3 year old. The kid shouldn't be at the game, period. (Frankly, he must be remarkably well behaved to have caused this little disruption thus far). Whoever is responsible for their custody needs to either get a babysitter, move the game to their house so the child can go to sleep in their bed, or stop gaming. It stinks to cut into your free time, but that's what happens when you have a kid. It sounds like there's 3 people involved in the custody, so splitting the sessions is also an option.

Separately, bringing an acrimonious ex-partner to the game when the other ex is there with their new SO is bound to cause tension. If everybody can be an adult and move past it, then it's workable - if not, somebody needs to go, and since there's no game without the ST, it's obvious Jane is going to be the one who has to move.

Jay R
2018-12-02, 06:39 PM
This is not a role-playing game issue. It is a "surviving the stress of a recent break-up" issue.

Your primary focus shouldn't be the game. It should be being as helpful as possible with friends in a very difficult situation. My experience is that the first year or so, everything is going to be very tense. And that the person most "at fault" for the tension is also usually the person hurting the most from the life changes.

Jane sounds like a very difficult person to be with right now. And a person who needs support from her friends. She's at the breaking point, with stress and suddenly having primary responsibility for her child, which until recently had been a shared responsibility.

If possible, I urge you to find some time away from the game to get together with her.

I don't care if the game suffers. Do what you can to help Jane to suffer less.

And no, I am not denying that this is mostly her fault. I am asking you to rise above the very real annoyances she is causing, to support a long-term friend who needs support right now.

Pleh
2018-12-02, 07:52 PM
This is not a role-playing game issue. It is a "surviving the stress of a recent break-up" issue.

Your primary focus shouldn't be the game. It should be being as helpful as possible with friends in a very difficult situation. My experience is that the first year or so, everything is going to be very tense. And that the person most "at fault" for the tension is also usually the person hurting the most from the life changes.

Jane sounds like a very difficult person to be with right now. And a person who needs support from her friends. She's at the breaking point, with stress and suddenly having primary responsibility for her child, which until recently had been a shared responsibility.

If possible, I urge you to find some time away from the game to get together with her.

I don't care if the game suffers. Do what you can to help Jane to suffer less.

And no, I am not denying that this is mostly her fault. I am asking you to rise above the very real annoyances she is causing, to support a long-term friend who needs support right now.

I get where you're going, but the OP described her as Narcissistic. I'm not qualified to make the diagnosis and I doubt the OP is either, but it might be worth disclaiming your advise to account for the possibility that the description may be appropriate in this case.

Of course we should encourage providing Jane the benefit of the doubt as far as the OP can manage, but if Jane truly is acting in an intentionally toxic manner, bending over backwards for her will really only feed the narcissism and everything will be worse.

That was part of why my solution included a minor test built in. It expresses support for Jane (you should get a babysitter, but we'll help you find and maybe even help you pay for the service because we have valued your involvement in our group) but with boundaries that a jilted narcissist might very well find intolerable.

If Jane really is trying to make everyone else suffer because it puts her in a position of power (which is what a narcissist would probably be trying to do here), the last thing she'll want to accept is a fair compromise that makes everyone happy. A narcissist would be trying to cope with their negative feelings by taking control, making everyone else bend over backward for them, and doing everything they can to make it look like THEY are the victim and everyone else owes them this special treatment.

Which I realize we're only getting the OP's side of this story, but based on the account of Jane's actions, I can see how Jane's alleged actions have matched a general description rather eerily well.

I'm just saying, yes, compassion is great. Just be careful as you use it because with some people, it's like throwing water on a grease fire.

Kesnit
2018-12-03, 12:56 PM
Say all this to her.

By late yesterday afternoon, my wife had done just that. She didn't set out to let Jane have it; her intent was to contact Jane and see if she wanted to talk. Jane made some claims that were blatantly false, and my wife called her on it. It went from there...


I don't really see how Jane being the DM's ex-wife is a reason to let her stay in the game when everyone wants her to leave.

Nathan is, in his words, "done" with Jane. He is in part ignoring her, in part STing for everyone (not just her) and in part trying to keep an eye on Munchkin. For all those reasons, although he was aware of her explosions, he was not completely aware of how angry all of us were.

I found out yesterday that Nathan had been humoring and coddling Jane and her characters, and he has now stopped. The is part of what led to her explosions - previously Nathan would see she was getting overwhelmed, pull her aside, and run a private scene for her PC. He is no longer doing that.


Have the three year old play her spirits. WoD Spirits were almost designed for three year olds.

LOL! An interesting idea. However, Jane is used to having complete control of her spirits, and because of the way she binds them, they really do have to obey her. Also, her spirits are a little more complex than just "fire," though she does have some like that.


I don't really see the ''twist''.

The twist is the soap opera drama that adds some complexity to the situation beyond the easy "kick her out."


Jane works, thus has income. Can she not hire a babysitter for Munchkin for a single evening?

Not a bad idea. However, Jane is...bad at budgeting. She takes Munchkin to events in the nearest city (30 miles one way)*, but then does not have money to pay her bills.

*I am not saying it is bad that she gets out with Munchkin and socializes. However, she burns a lot of money paying for gas doing that, which she clearly does not have because she is already behind on several bills - one month after moving out.


You didn't mention any compensation to Jackie for all the time she's watching Munchkin while Jane works (presumably, she affords it through accommodations with Nathan).

You are right - I didn't. There is a reason I didn't say anything about payment. Apparently Jackie has been on Jane's case for years about child care assistance, but Jane would not follow up until she moved out. Also, Jackie intended to work for Nathan's company when she moved, but was unable to do that because she was raising Munchkin.


Be willing to pay $15-20 an hour for up to 4 hours.

Game runs from 2 until 11, so a bit more than 4 hours. But I do see your point. However, since Jane is already behind on bills, I am not sure she could afford a babysitter.


It's not unreasonable for the luxury of getting away from work and motherhood periodically and she won't be inconveniencing other players.

Jane does not see it as inconveniencing anyone. She sees Jackie (in Jackie's words) as an NPC - someone who is there for a purpose, but does not have their own motivations. Jackie's purpose, in Jane's mind, is to babysit Munchkin.


But, if she is a true Narcissist, then she would rather inconvenience you because that is actually more her goal: to make everything revolve around herself.

I'm not sure that is her goal, though that is part. Her goal, as best I can tell, is to get time when she does not have to deal with Munchkin.


Go the extra step and find good sitters FOR her so she has no excuse.

Honestly, I wouldn't have the first idea where to start. We live in a more-rural-than-suburban area, so there isn't a lot around.


If the money's really a problem for her, the group can offer to split the babysitter fees (just a suggestion).

Unless it is really cheap, I don't know that we could swing that. No one is rolling in money.


You might get better answers to the larger questions in general discussion where there's relationship threads and such.

I posted there previously about some non-game concerns.


how is Jackie's relationship with munchkin? sometimes people in a nanny role bond very closely with the child.

Jackie likes Munchkin, but is very firm that he is NOT her child. Her words (to Jane, as relayed to me by Nathan) were "I didn't come here to raise your child. I came here to help Nathan with his."

I wasn't in the room when Jane arrived at game, but my wife was. She said Jackie's face went from excited to "someone kicked her puppy and deflated her red balloon."

In short, Jackie is NOT good with the babysitter role.


Does Jane actually want the child? it sounds unclear how much she cares/is able to handle it. Why did she take the child when she moved out? simple social expectation, genuine love, or what?

You have hit the nail on the head.

(The following is based on what Jane, Nathan, and Jackie have told me. I did not know them when Munchkin was born.) Munchkin was not a planned child. Jane and Nathan were together about 9 months when Jane got pregnant. Although pro-choice, Jane made her choice to not have an abortion. Nathan (who already has a child who is in his teens but he never sees) chose to stay with Jane for the sake of the child. I do not know how Jackie came into the picture. I know she and Nathan had been friends for years prior to this, but she was living on the other side of the country at the time. I know she was "getting away from a bad situation," decided the best option was to move, help Nathan with his kid, and get away from whatever was going on in her last location.

As for why Jane took Munckin, I have no idea. I suspect she is in love with the idea of being "Mommy," but has never had to deal with the bad parts of it since Jackie was always there. I tend to think of her relationship with Muchkin like a favorite aunt, who spoils the kid and gives it back to its parents. My wife says Jane thinks of Munckin more like a puppy than a human being. (Both of those opinions are long-standing, and predate the break-up and the issues at game.) So Jane took Munchkin, thinking it would continue to be like it always has been, and she has had a rude awakening.


Would she be interested in giving up custody (or at least giving up primary custody, and just have him for the occasional weekend or somesuch)?

I don't know. On one hand, it would probably be the best option for Munchkin, but would put the burden back on Nathan and Jackie. Nathan has said that Munchkin will always have a home with him, and that if he has to, he will fight for custody. However, Jane is still too in love with the idea of being "Mommy," and I don't know how long it will take for that gilding to wear off.


A Larp, and particularly an evening one, is not a suitable environment for a 3 year old. The kid shouldn't be at the game, period.

He's been going to this LARP since my wife and I joined, two years ago. At first, he was young enough to be left in his pack-and-play with toys. Until recently, game was held at their house, so he could be put in his room or in front of Netflix with cartoons. The game did not more to the current location (which is much better for gaming) until November, and there have only been two games there.


Whoever is responsible for their custody needs to either get a babysitter,

I addressed a babysitter above.


move the game to their house so the child can go to sleep in their bed,

Jane's apartment is too small for gaming.


or stop gaming.

That is what all of us would like to see happen.


It stinks to cut into your free time, but that's what happens when you have a kid. It sounds like there's 3 people involved in the custody, so splitting the sessions is also an option.

Not really. Nathan and Jackie are the ST's, so have limited time to watch Munchkin. If Jane would get Munchkin on a set sleep schedule, there is a back room where he could be put down, but she won't do that.


Separately, bringing an acrimonious ex-partner to the game when the other ex is there with their new SO

I think you misunderstand the situation. Nathan and Jane are Munchkin's parents. Jackie is a friend of Nathan, but there has never been anything romantic between them. (Jackie is ace.) Cindy is Nathan's business partner, but that is the only relationship they have ever had. Matt is married to Cindy and that marriage pre-dates Nathan and Jane getting together.


Your primary focus shouldn't be the game. It should be being as helpful as possible with friends in a very difficult situation.

My wife texted Jane yesterday to ask what was going on, since Jane flipped out at game. Jane made some claims about game and her emotional state that were clearly not true, so my wife pushed a little, trying to get Jane to open up. Jane took that as an attack and lashed out, which led to my wife letting Jane have it.


My experience is that the first year or so, everything is going to be very tense. And that the person most "at fault" for the tension is also usually the person hurting the most from the life changes.

Oh, Jane is hurting, there is no question. But it is of her own making. She burned her bridges with a lot of people over the past few years and is now reaping what she sowed.

The life change is a major shock to her, true. But that's because she has never had to actually be a mother to her son. Jackie arrived the day before Munchkin was born, and somehow (I really don't know how) that transformed into Jackie being the nanny and Jane being "auntie." Now she is having to deal with Munchkin, and doesn't have Jackie to turn to. (Most of the time. Jackie is staying with Jane this week until Munchkin starts pre-school next week.)


Jane sounds like a very difficult person to be with right now. And a person who needs support from her friends.

My wife and I were more than willing to stay friends with her, so long as we didn't have to LARP with her. (When she moved, she moved close to where we live.) But we can't help her with Munchkin.


She's at the breaking point, with stress and suddenly having primary responsibility for her child, which until recently had been a shared responsibility.

It wasn't really a shared responsibility. Jackie was raising Munchkin. Jane thought she was helping, but she really wasn't. In fact, she would counteract any rules Jackie tried to set. (This is from personal observation.)


I get where you're going, but the OP described her as Narcissistic. I'm not qualified to make the diagnosis and I doubt the OP is either,

You are correct that I am not qualified to diagnose her with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. However, I can call her "an extremely self-centered person who has an exaggerated sense of self-importance," which is the dictionary definition of narcissist.


Of course we should encourage providing Jane the benefit of the doubt as far as the OP can manage, but if Jane truly is acting in an intentionally toxic manner, bending over backwards for her will really only feed the narcissism and everything will be worse.


If Jane really is trying to make everyone else suffer because it puts her in a position of power

I do not believe that is her motivation. I believe that she is overwhelmed in many ways (financially and personally) and she thought she could fall back on her old stand-by stress relief of gaming. I don't think she ever considered the possibility that showing up for game would be any different than it has always been before - she would do her thing and everything would just work. But the situation has changed in ways she was not prepared for and got overwhelmed in another way.


making everyone else bend over backward for them,

That she is doing, but making Jackie watch Munchkin, by having two players give up their phones to entertain Munchkin. (BTW, I also learned I was wrong on why Munchkin wasn't using her phone. I thought it was because her phone's battery was dying. It was actually because she wanted her phone back so she could listen to soothing sounds.)

zlefin
2018-12-03, 07:20 PM
Jackie likes Munchkin, but is very firm that he is NOT her child. Her words (to Jane, as relayed to me by Nathan) were "I didn't come here to raise your child. I came here to help Nathan with his."

I wasn't in the room when Jane arrived at game, but my wife was. She said Jackie's face went from excited to "someone kicked her puppy and deflated her red balloon."

In short, Jackie is NOT good with the babysitter role.



You have hit the nail on the head.

(The following is based on what Jane, Nathan, and Jackie have told me. I did not know them when Munchkin was born.) Munchkin was not a planned child. Jane and Nathan were together about 9 months when Jane got pregnant. Although pro-choice, Jane made her choice to not have an abortion. Nathan (who already has a child who is in his teens but he never sees) chose to stay with Jane for the sake of the child. I do not know how Jackie came into the picture. I know she and Nathan had been friends for years prior to this, but she was living on the other side of the country at the time. I know she was "getting away from a bad situation," decided the best option was to move, help Nathan with his kid, and get away from whatever was going on in her last location.

As for why Jane took Munckin, I have no idea. I suspect she is in love with the idea of being "Mommy," but has never had to deal with the bad parts of it since Jackie was always there. I tend to think of her relationship with Muchkin like a favorite aunt, who spoils the kid and gives it back to its parents. My wife says Jane thinks of Munckin more like a puppy than a human being. (Both of those opinions are long-standing, and predate the break-up and the issues at game.) So Jane took Munchkin, thinking it would continue to be like it always has been, and she has had a rude awakening.



I don't know. On one hand, it would probably be the best option for Munchkin, but would put the burden back on Nathan and Jackie. Nathan has said that Munchkin will always have a home with him, and that if he has to, he will fight for custody. However, Jane is still too in love with the idea of being "Mommy," and I don't know how long it will take for that gilding to wear off.


well, I'm largely out of notes to add.
But I do think it'd be worth exploring this avenue (obviously i'ts not something you can explore though, it's something the various they's would have to look at). Admittedly it's tricky to ask why one does such things. I'd still expect social obligation, and a sense of "it's expected" to account considerably for the choice to take munchkin.
If it would in fact be best for munchkin, it's probably better to do sooner rather than later. That it'd be a problem for nathan/jackie should be a secondary concern to the welfare of the child.

also, as a "just-in-case", it'd be good for everyone to be familiar with the basics for spotting child abuse early. Being overwhelmed with caretaker responsibilities is one of the things that can make it more likely, and some of the other described behaviors of Jane are also worrisome. It's still unlikely of course.
I don't know which sources are best; but here's one
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/child-abuse/symptoms-causes/syc-20370864

it's also just good to know in general.

Honest Tiefling
2018-12-03, 07:34 PM
Have you asked Nathan about a baby sitter? He might have younger relatives who can be bribed and he might want a say in matters.

How well do you know the host of the game, and are they in a situation where they can perhaps make a child-safe zone for Munchkin?

2D8HP
2018-12-03, 08:15 PM
Wow.

So very sad to learn about "Munckin"'s contemptible parents.

Unfortunately (against my instincts) I have to agree with Jay R's wisdom and suggest helping "Jane" as the way to help Munchkin who has been dealt a very bad deck, but the man who should be doing his utmost in helping Jane should be "Nathan" as "I'm done with her" is not a proper attitude to have towards the mother of your child as unless he is going to take sole custody it is his duty to do so for his child's wellbeing, his social life and his business are nowhere near as important as his child's welfare and he should step up.

To bad there is no one else to raise poor Munchkin.

Kesnit
2018-12-03, 09:38 PM
Have you asked Nathan about a baby sitter? He might have younger relatives who can be bribed and he might want a say in matters.

None of his family is in the area. However, he may know someone who could babysit. I haven't talked to him about that.


How well do you know the host of the game, and are they in a situation where they can perhaps make a child-safe zone for Munchkin?

Nathan is the host, in a way. The game is held in what used to be a post office, but is now owned by Nathan. He's in the process of converting it into a theater. There is a child-safe area in the back, and that is where Munchkin stays during game. However, he has to be able to get himself out so he can ask to go to the bathroom. (The water isn't turned on yet, so we use the bathroom in the building next door, which Cindy rents.


Unfortunately (against my instincts) I have to agree with Jay R's wisdom and suggest helping "Jane" as the way to help Munchkin who has been dealt a very bad deck, but the man who should be doing his utmost in helping Jane should be "Nathan" as "I'm done with her" is not a proper attitude to have towards the mother of your child

I may not have been clear. He is done with Jane, but not Munchkin. Currently, he watches Munchkin while Jane is at work, and has an area set up at his work where Munchkin can stay. During game, he is the ST, so is tied up running game. However, when Jane was unable to control Munchkin at the last game, it was Nathan who stepped in and got Munchkin under control.


as unless he is going to take sole custody it is his duty to do so for his child's wellbeing,[/qupte]

He has said that he will step in and file for sole custody if (as we suspect may happen) Jane cannot maintain custody.

[quote]his social life and his business are nowhere near as important as his child's welfare and he should step up.

Jane was quite adamant about taking Munchkin when she moved out.

The expansion to his business is a recent development, and the majority of that will be done by the new year. Munchkin can and does go to work with Nathan, although this is a new development.

Nifft
2018-12-03, 09:46 PM
He has said that he will step in and file for sole custody if (as we suspect may happen) Jane cannot maintain custody. Well there you go. Solution found.


Jane was quite adamant about taking Munchkin when she moved out.

The expansion to his business is a recent development, and the majority of that will be done by the new year. Munchkin can and does go to work with Nathan, although this is a new development. As long as someone who is actually responsible wants to take care of the kid, then I don't see any downside.


If Jane really exhibits narcissistic behavior, then she'd tend to be attention-kudzu anyway -- and having to take care of Munchkin would fall on Nathan anyway, just in a way that was uncontrollable, resistant to planning, and more stressful than it otherwise would have been.

Cut out the narcissist and everyone's situation improves (except Jane's situation but that's none of your concern).

lunaticfringe
2018-12-03, 10:28 PM
This is not a role-playing game issue. It is a "surviving the stress of a recent break-up" issue.

Your primary focus shouldn't be the game. It should be being as helpful as possible with friends in a very difficult situation. My experience is that the first year or so, everything is going to be very tense. And that the person most "at fault" for the tension is also usually the person hurting the most from the life changes.

Jane sounds like a very difficult person to be with right now. And a person who needs support from her friends. She's at the breaking point, with stress and suddenly having primary responsibility for her child, which until recently had been a shared responsibility.

If possible, I urge you to find some time away from the game to get together with her.

I don't care if the game suffers. Do what you can to help Jane to suffer less.

And no, I am not denying that this is mostly her fault. I am asking you to rise above the very real annoyances she is causing, to support a long-term friend who needs support right now.


Good advice but I don't get the vibe that OP and his wife are her friends. Dude made a post explaining her transgressions on the internet and wants her out of his group. When people don't like other people they don't empathize with them and tend to dehumanize them. Them spending more time together is helping no one in this situation.

My advice is to stay the **** out of your friend's divorce bull**** as much as possible. Listen when you have to, change the subject when it gets dark & gloomy. Go home early if they hang out together and start pecking at each other or it's weird.

Kesnit
2018-12-04, 07:09 AM
Well there you go. Solution found.

While this thread has migrated quite a bit, my initial question was how to get Jane to stop coming to LARP with Munchkin. Or actually watch Munchkin and keep him quiet and entertained.


Good advice but I don't get the vibe that OP and his wife are her friends.

If you had asked me six months ago, I would have said we are her friends. If Jane had been willing to be honest with herself and us, I would say we are her friends.

Friendship is a two-way street. When Nathan and Jane's relationship started falling apart, my wife and I tried to stay friends with both of them. I got cut out completely, probably because Jane assumed that I would side with Nathan because I'm a guy. She stayed in contact with my wife longer, but since Jane moved out (right before Halloween), she has cut off communication with my wife. We can still see Jane's posts on FB, but aren't sure if that is just before she forgot to unfriend us.

All of that said, if several months from now, Jane got a babysitter and came back to game, she would be treated with caution, but would not be thrown out. If she showed she could play without disrupting the game, she would eventually rebuild some of the good graces she has lost. Many things she has done to burn people (not just me and my wife) happened long before the breakup, so would take longer to rebuild.


My advice is to stay the **** out of your friend's divorce bull**** as much as possible.

We never wanted to get involved with their breakup in the first place. (As an aside, they were never married, so there is no divorce.) My wife and I would have been happy staying friends with both of them. My problems with Jane stem largely with my frustration with her gaming (which also predates the breakup) and her bringing Munchkin to game and leaving Jackie to supervise him.

Segev
2018-12-04, 11:35 AM
If Jackie doesn't want to be responsible for Munchkin, then she should say she's not babysitting, in advance, at the next session. And everybody should make sure Jane knows she needs to take primary responsibility for him.

This may not be fair to Munchkin if Jane is a poor mother to him, but there's not a lot that can be done there without going a number of steps further. If Jane really is a bad mother, and Nathan would be a better primary caregiver, he should press for primary/sole custody. But I don't know nearly enough of the truth of the situation to say this is actually what should happen.

The "twist" here is that you've got a game that's mired in non-game-related drama. Drop the non-game-related drama if you can. If you can't, for whatever reason, address the non-game-related drama. It is probably impossible to extricate game from the lives of the players. We're not qualified to tell you how to solve your players' life problems. We do feel for you, but it sounds like you've got a complicated situation, and while we can give advice of what's good for the game, you know the answer we'd give, there, and you have reasons for being trepidatious about it that are good but have nothing to do with the game.

And we aren't qualified to give advice on those non-game reasons.

I just have to say: Poor little Munchkin.



I'm in a Rifts game on Mondays, and the GM and her husband host at their house. One other couple also comes over to game, and two other players game via Skype video chat. The GM and her husband and the other couple both have kids - the GM's just turned 1 in October, and the other couple's turns 1 this week. They both play there, and are a bit distracting, but I find them delightful and nobody has an issue with them and the disruptions they cause.

But it's not a LARP, and both sets of parents AND myself are willing to take turns playing with, watching, and taking care of the kids' needs.

If I decided I wanted nothing to do with watching the kids for some reason, none of them would insist I did. I think, the biggest reasonable thing you can do for Jackie and Munchkin is tell Jane in advance that she's responsible for watching and helping and caring for Munchkin if she brings him. Jackie is not his babysitter during game. (Nathan probably should be stepping up more, but he IS the ST, which is a demanding job.)

Nifft
2018-12-04, 12:41 PM
While this thread has migrated quite a bit, my initial question was how to get Jane to stop coming to LARP with Munchkin. Or actually watch Munchkin and keep him quiet and entertained.

Getting her to stop attending: possible, and within your control as a group.

Getting her to change her behavior (either being a better caregiver or finding a babysitter): NOT within your control.

You seem to believe that she's not going to do the right thing on her own. You can't make her do what she doesn't want to do. You can stop inviting her into your social gathering. That's the limit of your control over other people.

-- -- --

This is mean-spirited and should not be seriously considered:

How about inviting Munchkin to play, but not Jane. He can play a Spirit which someone else summons.

geppetto
2018-12-04, 01:16 PM
This is 2 separate problems.

1. Messy breakup and child custody.

This is absolutely none of your business and what you should do about it is nothing. Keep your nose out of parents relationships with their children. No good will come from involving yourself. What anyone else thinks they should do is irrelevant. They will sloppily decide what to do for themselves just like everyone else does, hopefully without courts having to be involved.
If they are friends listen when they complain, nod uncommittedly and change the subject as soon as possible.

2. The game enviroment.

The mom and possibly the dad need to drop from gaming sometimes. They should alternate weeks playing that way both have a little time off and both are helping the other parent some. I understand one is the ST. Oh well. Tough. Thats secondary to his kid so you guys are going to need a new ST on the games he's not there.

I speak from experience here, I was running a longterm game as GM when i got divorced and went through something similar. We played on weekends and I had weekend custody of my 3 small kids so I stopped playing for 2 years because dad time was far more important then game time. Thats what usually happens with small children involved and its what is going to have to happen here.