PDA

View Full Version : GM help needed - player enjoys getting party in trouble



Quertus
2019-10-08, 06:15 PM
Once upon a time, a Playgrounder told me that they have 2 types of players: the type that get the party into trouble, and the type that get them out.

Now, me, I've always had more of a "party as a team", "it's a team game", "anyone who's sabotaging the team gets the boot" kind of perspective on things. So I can't really say for sure how many "good" players I've seen try to get the party in trouble before.

All I can say is, now I seem to have one.

So far, it seems to be working well - the group is having a good time resolving both the issues inherent in the session, and the complications that this player adds. But I'm not familiar with this style of play, so any advice, pitfalls, things to watch out for, ways to make this work best, etc, would be appreciated.

Also, I know I said, "GM advice", but advice for a player perspective would probably be handy, too.

Draconi Redfir
2019-10-08, 06:24 PM
if things seem to be working out, and the other players aren't complaining, then i'd say leave it be. if it starts to become frequent, do something to punish specifically the player in question. not enough to kick them out of the game, but enough to show them their actions may have consequences, like a cone of cold to the face when they touch a magic sphere they're not supposed too.

Could also take one seemingly small bit of trouble they cause and turn it into a plot point for later if you're daring enough. Say they pickpocket a city guard. Have the guard not notice, but then have a whole search operation going through town later on to try and find the now missing peace treaty he was carrying around that would secure twenty years of peace between the kingdom and it's closest rival.

if you'd rather not though, talking to the player out of game is always the best bet. maybe you can make some plans together, give them bait or clues on minor spoilers so they can specifically get the party in trouble at that point in time to drive the plot forward. such as if the plot demands an orc attack, give them a heads up beforehand and let them pull down the pants of the orcish chief as he visits town. then say he's attacking out of revenge rather then simply a raid.

Tawmis
2019-10-08, 06:40 PM
Pull the other players (not the trouble maker) aside (or shoot them individual emails, however the case may be) - and ask them if they don't mind Player_01's actions.

They may not feel comfortable up front saying anything in the group - so an individual polling of their feeling may help.

Some people may simply enjoy D&D, and put up with the antics of Player_01, but may wish to actually move forward and not always be slowed down by the "additional" complications brought on by the player.

If folks are good, then proceed on. Simply know, as the DM, what will Player_01 do to Situation X that I've seen from them before and how to be ready for it.

Cluedrew
2019-10-08, 06:49 PM
Once upon a time, a Playgrounder told me that they have 2 types of players: the type that get the party into trouble, and the type that get them out.I think that was me who said that to you. And I have used something like that phrase to describe my group. In fact I turned to the iconic trouble maker (sitting just to my left) and told them they got mentioned. Which is to say the original quote was not actually meant to talk about a problem player, but the two forces you need to keep a player- driven campaign going.

Which is actually relevant because it doesn't have to be a problem. As long as the two sides are in balance this can keep the campaign going all on its own. If that is not the main focus of the campaign then you have to account for the trouble maker behind the screen. Which is to say the amount of trouble the PCs should make goes down because more troubles are forced on them.

Also its not exactly fixed. Some people prefer one side of the coin to the other, and some times a character lends itself to one role or the other and other times who does what can change from scene to scene. The campaigns I was referencing I was definitely reducing trouble and the trouble maker to my left was a trouble maker. Except that one time their character died to save everybody, there was that.

So yes, make sure it doesn't get out of hand and everyone is on board with it. But it isn't inherently a problem.

NichG
2019-10-08, 08:27 PM
Treasure that player, for they take half of the work of running the game off of your shoulders.

LordEntrails
2019-10-08, 10:43 PM
Let them go. These types of parties can be awesome. But they can't (shouldn't?) be controlled. Let them go where they will. Take whatever advice etc you can find about DM'ing a sandbox or not railroading, or "Don't Prep Plots".

These groups can be a lot of fun, but you will never be able to "control" them without damaging the fun. And, just because you never know where they might go, do not try and over prepare. Look up stuff like "5 minute dungeon", etc. These are techniques for prepping broad strokes with a few specific things (random tables, name and npc references) and then using improvisation to keep the story going.

weckar
2019-10-08, 11:03 PM
Yeah; what you see as making trouble, they probably see as creating plot. I love these kinds of players, takes a whole lot of work off my shoulders to make things happen.

prabe
2019-10-09, 10:42 AM
Agreed on this not necessarily being a bad thing. One of the campaigns I run has a standing "Team Gettin' into Trouble" that has made my life easier in some ways and harder in others. It makes it easier to complicate whatever the party is trying to do. So far, it hasn't been a problem (though the next session may test that, if Team Gettin' into Trouble decides to start a fight I do not believe the party can win ...).

Seriously, so long as it isn't (and doesn't turn into) an out-of-game problem, there's no reason for it to be an in-game problem.

Mordar
2019-10-09, 11:37 AM
What kind of trouble is the player triggering? Does it seem to come from holding to a characterization or does it appear motivated by something else (I would assume the player isn't a griefer or you wouldn't suggest it was working out)? Does it supplement the rest of the things that are going on (other character arcs, other game objectives/plots/adventures) or does it supplant them?

What kind of games do you enjoy running? What has the experience with these players been like for you in the past?

I think a little more information would help.

- M

Chauncymancer
2019-10-09, 03:15 PM
If your specific campaign goal is that the party address some particular problem, drama creating player is going to be a constant distraction from that problem with all the new problems they create. If your party focus is on high op, smart play, combat as war type operational operations, DCP is going to get everybody killed.
If you are going for either a more humorous or more horrific game, with more of a Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or Conan vibe where the party just sort of has to survive in a region or on a journey, then they'll be the player accidentally getting married to a local princess or suggesting the party split up to search a haunted house. Then they're a lot of fun.

Quertus
2019-10-09, 03:27 PM
Right, so… more information.

I *prefer* to run more sandboxy games - not entirely player-driven white rooms, more… "I've populated a world, things are happening whether you're there or not, and I think that this is a good time and place where some PCs could let their players have fun".

What I am currently running… has a bit more… of an episodic plot? And a few "story beats" that it has to hit (for metagame reasons, related to the purpose of me running the game). That is, what the group does with any given session is largely up to them - there's obvious impetus for action, but how it's handled is largely up to the PCs. And they have handled things very… unusually… so far.

And that's cool. Really, the only joy I get out of GMing is the party doing the unexpected.

I'm glad so many people are giving this a big thumbs up. I'm used to the concept of "it's a team game", and anyone with negative contribution - anyone running the ball in the opposite direction - clearly didn't get the memo. I've only recently (yes, thanks, cluedrew) come to accept that being a burden / getting the party into trouble / negative contribution can be valid contribution to a group game / RPG.

So, seeing a player doing this - and the group enjoying it - I created this thread, to crib on the collective knowledge and wisdom of the Playground. Because, previously, I would have responded by giving this "troublemaker" a talking to about "this is a team game". But now, I'm more open-minded, and realized that, with this player in this group, the group is enjoying the… "harmony and melody of discord" created by not just me as GM, but also them as a player, providing a continuous series of "calls to action".

I guess… hmmm… I feel I'm up to "when another player punches them in the face, I'll know it's gone horribly, horribly wrong. Until then, let them have their fun". I can do that.

But what I'd like is… warning signs for when it might be going south? Ways to keep that from happening? Things a GM could do in my position that would be horribly wrong, or wonderfully right? The wisdom to know what questions to ask?

Because I realize that I'm out of my depth here. And, unlike the Captain of the Titanic, I don't want my decades of experience to work against me.

So, I'll take anything. Even long, rambling stories about when GMs have had players like this. Whatever you can give that might help me get up to speed on how to think about running a game without the "it's a team activity", "everyone working positively towards a common goal" mindset that has served me well thus far.

False God
2019-10-09, 03:29 PM
When you say "getting them into trouble" what are we talking about here? Is it starting fights with friendly NPCs who don't kiss PC 01's patoot? Are they encouraging the party to delve deeper than usual in a dungeon? Are they "aggroing adds" the party doesn't need to fight only to bail when their antics start a real fight?

In short: are they pushing the party outside of their usual "comfort zone" level of danger? Or are they creating danger that is impeeding the party?

Further, are they pushing the characters or the players?

A character that drags the party deeper into a dungeon than they would normally go is IMO, a good thing. A character that starts unnecessary fights with NPCs is IMO, a bad thing. A player who encourages players to push further than they would normally go is again, IMO a good thing. A player who pushes players to the point that they're actively upset at Player 01 is IMO, a bad thing.

Just looking for a little clarity on which side of the player/character dichotomy is causing trouble, and the sort of trouble it's causing.

----------

Ultimately whichever way you slice it, the best option is usually to talk to the "other players" when Player 01 isn't around and see if there are IRL grievances. If there aren't, don't worry about it. If there are, and they're shared, it might be time to have a talk with Player 01.

Droid Tony
2019-10-09, 03:33 PM
You really want to talk to the other players. Sometimes it can be cool to have a trouble maker in the group, but sometimes not. And very often it gets old, very fast.

Some trouble making characters are having fun with the rest of the group, but some have fun ruining the groups fun. You really need to watch out for that type.

As GM you do have a lot of power to lessen the trouble. You should never use the trouble makers actions to screw over the whole group. Even if the trouble maker does something, just brush it aside or at least not make it a game stopper.

Like the group is eating at the kings table. And trouble maker is like ''I punch the king". The common reaction might be for a fight to break out and have the group be put in jail for royal assult. But you can also have the king just laugh it off, or just about anything else happen.

That is the real key: You never HAVE to do what the trouble making player thinks might happen. So don't.

Jay R
2019-10-09, 03:50 PM
If they are doing things that are creating chaos, danger, a need to fight or flee, and possibly more adventure, then "getting the party in trouble" means making the game more exciting. The players are playing to find chaos, danger, a need to fight or flee, and more adventure.

But if the troublemaker is just creating frustration and subverting the plans of the other players (starting a fight in the middle of negotiation, insulting the NPC whose help is needed, etc.), then it's hurting the game. The DM needs to ensure (when possible) that the trouble hits the troublemaker hardest.

When the troublemaker starts a fight with the city guard, the guards should ignore the rest of the party and just hit him back. The insulted NPC should give help to the PCs who did not insult her, etc.

Note Durkon's approach in the second and third panels here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0683.html).

Quertus
2019-10-09, 04:26 PM
Wow. Two responses while I was editing my most recent reply (and I'm not done editing yet). (EDIT: 3 by the time I wrote this) So, reading really fast, what I heard was, "they control their actions, not how NPCs respond" (which, yes, I fully agree, and it's a good reminder) and "it's on me to choose with the fun of the group in mind".

As for the type of trouble… um… picture a socially-inept lawless wild mage who likes to push shiny buttons, and ally with "all the wrong" allies? That… will at least start to point you in some of the correct directions. What's the party Paladin to do when the wild mage asks "this baby red dragon followed me home - can we keep it?". Now, instead of a simple combat encounter, the party has complex moral decisions, (NPC) redemption arcs, an esourt mission, etc. It's that type of thing. Only… moreso. And the player seems to actively enjoy causing problems for the party, likes to take primarily actions with 0 or negative impact on the party's stated goals. Although the character - much like a Wild Mage - is set up to occasionally be very helpful to the party. So not exclusively a drain on the party.

EDIT: yeah, I haven't explained what type of "trouble" they're causing well, at all. Maybe more like hosting a peace treaty… at a weapons convention? They take what could be simple, and delight in making it complex and chaotic. And, so far, the group loves it. Even though, yes, sometimes the other PCs have to throw their plans out the window.

Particle_Man
2019-10-09, 05:26 PM
Does the Wild Mage say "Puppy Power!" and call themselves Scrappy? :smallbiggrin:

prabe
2019-10-09, 05:40 PM
It sounds as though so far any tension your troublemaker is generating is remaining between the characters, not leaching out between the players. You might want to keep an eye on things, though; at some point the more-conventional (for lack of a better description) players may get frustrated if the one player keeps intentionally making things more difficult for them. I know my own threshold for that would be one-way, and once it became a problem for me (as a player) it would keep being a problem.

Good luck with it.

Satinavian
2019-10-10, 03:59 AM
But what I'd like is… warning signs for when it might be going south? Ways to keep that from happening? Things a GM could do in my position that would be horribly wrong, or wonderfully right? The wisdom to know what questions to ask?

Warning signs. That is kind of difficult. Mostly you have to recognize if the other players (and you yourself) are still having fun. Those actions are a matter of personal taste so there are no real in-game do's and don'ts that give you an indication.

But a big hint would be if other PCs try to be 'helpful' to the troublemaker PC in ways that will not solve current problems but are more aimed at preventing future trouble. That is usually a sign that the player behind might really want to avoid this future trouble at least this time.

Another warning sign is when the other PCs are starting to become a bit reluctant to help the troublemaker PC out of the problems they have caused for themself.


But if you actually have mature players, they would likely voice their concerns OT if it becomes too much for them.

King of Nowhere
2019-10-10, 07:19 AM
From your description, i wouldn't even call this guy a troublemaker. Merely a source of plot hooks and character development. Not a problem in the slightest.
At worst he may be the guy that activates the mysterious rune that everyone else was studying while crippled with indecision. He still moves the plot forward.

A real troublemaker is one who disrupts the efforts of the other players. As others habe said, pick a fight while the party wanted to try diplomacy, insult their npc allies, kill the rescued kidnapped victim, set things on fire when everyone else was going for stealth.

It reminds me a tangent form the latest adventures of talekeal, where bob fireballed during a talk for a suspicion of an ambush without consulting the rest of the team, and i said he should have talked ooc before blasting. You said there was nothing wrong with initiating combat without assent from the other players; i'm actually a bit puzzled on how you can cooperate with the others without discussing your actions (especially one affecting the plot deeply) in advance.
I would consider that to be the point where the player makes the wrong sort of trouble.
Though i admit that my group talks too much and we could use someone more willing to jump into danger to move the plot forward.

You also have to make sure the party is comfortable with the moral dilemmas standing in their way. You mentioned what to do with a young baby dragon. My table had complex debates on ethics, and some even got heated. There was never actual toxicity among the players, though; that's perhaps where you should draw a line

Jay R
2019-10-10, 08:16 AM
Warning signs are found in people’ tone of voice. When they talk about the game later, does it sound like they are describing a fun time or an annoyance?

False God
2019-10-10, 08:26 AM
Wow. Two responses while I was editing my most recent reply (and I'm not done editing yet). (EDIT: 3 by the time I wrote this) So, reading really fast, what I heard was, "they control their actions, not how NPCs respond" (which, yes, I fully agree, and it's a good reminder) and "it's on me to choose with the fun of the group in mind".

As for the type of trouble… um… picture a socially-inept lawless wild mage who likes to push shiny buttons, and ally with "all the wrong" allies? That… will at least start to point you in some of the correct directions. What's the party Paladin to do when the wild mage asks "this baby red dragon followed me home - can we keep it?". Now, instead of a simple combat encounter, the party has complex moral decisions, (NPC) redemption arcs, an esourt mission, etc. It's that type of thing. Only… moreso. And the player seems to actively enjoy causing problems for the party, likes to take primarily actions with 0 or negative impact on the party's stated goals. Although the character - much like a Wild Mage - is set up to occasionally be very helpful to the party. So not exclusively a drain on the party.

EDIT: yeah, I haven't explained what type of "trouble" they're causing well, at all. Maybe more like hosting a peace treaty… at a weapons convention? They take what could be simple, and delight in making it complex and chaotic. And, so far, the group loves it. Even though, yes, sometimes the other PCs have to throw their plans out the window.

Then honestly, I'd leave it at that.