PDA

View Full Version : DM Help A sociopatic player



HoboKnight
2021-02-07, 05:40 AM
Alrighty. The title is a bit clickbaity, but the problem is - the word "sociopathic" splendidly describes the player I have in mind. We're currently not playing due to covid, so I have the time to address this issue and ask for some advice here.

The group I'm running consists of five people, let's say they are A, B, C, D and E. B, C and D are cool guys, great players. A is a "super invested, really interested in NPCS, cares about the world and setting" player. E is the guy with sociopathic tendencies.

Let me first explain, why I picked this word for him. As per definition: a sociopath is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour. Ok. SO, for this guy, I'd edit this to a much milder version of "a disorder manifesting itself in mild but firm antisocial attitudes and behaviour."

Why is his behaviour antisocial? In short - for him, everything is a calculation, an assessment, a numbers game. While B, C and D enjoy investigating barkeepers' backstory and A is totally invested in "those chickens his little girl lost last night", E is total "will this help me optimize the problem solution?".

And why is this a problem, you ask? Because, when I had the time, I realized, E's coldness and non-immersion into the game, started to grind B, C and Ds gears. And there were several fights between E and A, because "NPCs are just stats"(E did not say that, but his entire attitude over the games showed that clearly). I mean ... they are - but it started to ruin the game for some.
I'd say "for some" - because guy still IS roleplaying, at least from my point of view as a DM. Problem is, I get the feeling, he is roleplaying himself. He's a fair guy, I'd say, he's really good with numbers and an honest dude, but I have a feeling, he has a Chinese wall of logic between real him and us and in the weirdest way possible this started to bother the team. He is not impolite, he cooperates with the team, he backs down, when A gets into a fight regarding being invested in the game, it's just that ... he's, always off, you know? Your feel, that behind those eyes, there definitely are feelings, but there is so much CALCULATION there, the guy is unable to invest in the game and it feels. Heck, I even think, other players sometimes feel a bit VULNERABLE because, they have fun and let their guard down, while he never does. I really think this is the crux of the problem.

Covid will last for a while more and I'll definitely talk to the guy eventually, but you can see this is A LOT for me to wrap my head around. Thus, I ask here for your advice and possible experience.

thanks

Quertus
2021-02-07, 05:54 AM
Maybe try making the stakes something that E will feel is worthwhile, rather than "those chickens his little girl lost last night". That might help get *everyone* to be invested in the game.

Mastikator
2021-02-07, 06:04 AM
If he's actually a sociopath then there's nothing you can do. HOWEVER from the way you describe the quest it sounds more like he's bored and doesn't care about chicken. If that's the case then I empathize with him, if I joined a game only to find out that the quest is some MMORPG level 1 "kill these rats in my basement" quest I'd probably not care and nope out.

Mechalich
2021-02-07, 07:44 AM
Why is his behaviour antisocial? In short - for him, everything is a calculation, an assessment, a numbers game. While B, C and D enjoy investigating barkeepers' backstory and A is totally invested in "those chickens his little girl lost last night", E is total "will this help me optimize the problem solution?".

Rather than describe this behavior as sociopathic, this sounds like a player inclined to player tabletop like its a single-player video game RPG. And to do so in particularly low-immersion, objective oriented fashion. Some additional pieces of information that would serve to corroborate this diagnosis: is the player new to tabletop? do they play a lot of single-player RPGs? Do they have a very objective-oriented play style and have they built a character with a very objective-oriented concept like a mercenary who's only in it for the money or an assassin? Does the player's investment level spike when dealing with clear objective based scenarios like combat or a skill challenge?

Assuming any of this is true, what you have is a player with a significantly different playstyle than the rest of the group (they may also be legitimately antisocial to a degree, that's hardly uncommon among gamers, doesn't mean it's anything close to actual sociopathy). Some players have a very objective-oriented approach to tabletop, they want to roll dice, crush enemies, get phat loots and hot XPs, and that's basically it. That's a perfectly okay playstyle, but it's a poor fit for groups actually interested in highly immersive character-driven gameplay.

There may simply be a fundamental mismatch between what this one player wants from tabletop and what you and the rest of your players want. That's hardly uncommon.

Tanarii
2021-02-07, 10:57 AM
That is not sociopathy, stop trying to diagnose your players via pop culture psychology.

Keltest
2021-02-07, 11:13 AM
That is not sociopathy, stop trying to diagnose your players via pop culture psychology.

This. Your player is bored. That doesnt make him a sociopath, that just means your campaign isnt engaging him much.

I agree with the others who say that you should probably have more interesting quests than missing chickens.

False God
2021-02-07, 11:23 AM
So the problems here are, if I read them correctly:

Lack of noticeable investment.

Interpersonal conflict.

If I'm reading you right, the latter seems to stem from the former. I'd just go with a straight "Hey man, last game we played I got the feeling you weren't really invested, if I'm right, is there anything I can do to help get you into the game?"

Don't assume he isn't invested or interested. He might just not be the most expressive sort. Maybe he is a cold and calculating guy, but that doesn't mean he isn't invested or enjoying the game, it just means he's not responding in the enthusiastically emotional manner that you're looking for or used to seeing.

I'm unclear if the interpersonal conflict you're describing is player conflict or character conflict. The former is a problem. The latter might not be, especially if as you describe the "psychopath" player backs down, goes with the group, etc...

Pex
2021-02-07, 11:57 AM
He's not "sociopathic". He's playing Chess while the others are playing House. Give him monsters to fight. The next time someone loses their chickens or sheep or dogs, the reason is because a werewolf lurks in the woods and will escalate to killing and eating children if not stopped. Perhaps there's a murder mystery. The murderer is secretly a vampire and let that player figure it out even if he metagames it a little. He will enjoy bringing him to Justice with aggressive negotiations. The other players still need to figure out who the vampire is and get enjoyment from that. Have a good old fashion treasure hunt. The party is Indiana Jones. He's looking forward to the loot.

icefractal
2021-02-07, 02:54 PM
I wouldn't call that sociopathic, but it does seem like a legitimately clashing play-style for the rest of your group. While it's possible that he'd get more invested with different hooks, it's also possible that low-investment (not the same as low engagement) is how he plays even in ideal circumstances.

I don't think there's a zero-awkwardness way to handle it. This is unlikely to be something you can address indirectly, so you'll have to talk to him, with no guarantee that he can or wants to become more emotionally invested.

Also, while it too may be awkward, I'd advise talking to the other players. You're perceiving that it grinds their gears, but do you know that for sure?

HoboKnight
2021-02-07, 03:37 PM
is the player new to tabletop? do they play a lot of single-player RPGs? Do they have a very objective-oriented play style and have they built a character with a very objective-oriented concept like a mercenary who's only in it for the money or an assassin? Does the player's investment level spike when dealing with clear objective-based scenarios like combat or a skill challenge?

Yes on the last one. The second one … interesting thing is, I KNOW he loves playing casters. But he took a cleric, »because the party needed one«. I asked the guy like thrice, why not play something, he enjoyed, but was "this party niche needs to be filled". Yes, he loves single-player RPGs(well, »loves« is a strong word – I don't know if this guy »loves« anything). I know he likes to optimize in games too.

Covid gave me the time to think and … IMHO, optimization is not a problem. I played with optimizers. It's the barrier. Somehow, guy does not open to the group and in five or six sessions we had between the first and second Covid wave here, it really showed.


Some players have a very objective-oriented approach to tabletop, they want to roll dice, crush enemies, get phat loots and hot XPs, and that's basically it. That's a perfectly okay playstyle, but it's a poor fit for groups actually interested in highly immersive character-driven gameplay.

Yes. And I had players like this. But not THIS cold and calculating. (not calculating in a bad way)


Also, while it too may be awkward, I'd advise talking to the other players. You're perceiving that it grinds their gears, but do you know that for sure?

I talked to them and especially A expressed a lot of frustration over »E not being part of a team«. I'm a bit older than the others and it took me quite some time to estimate, what is wrong. E always cooperated. But you never really feel, he's genuine about his play.

I just never faced something like this …

Pex
2021-02-07, 06:00 PM
I wonder then if he's a That Guy. There are two types, those who play to spite the other players and those who play despite them. He would fall under the latter but still unusual. Those who play despite the others are into the roleplay but only care about their own character. They like to split from the party to have their own minigame of encounters. They adore passing secret notes with the DM. They talk to NPCs but only so far as it affects them. They never help party members unless it directly helps themselves or they like to boast they're rescuing the party "Again!". They never tell the party information they learn. The other type of That Guy actively disrupts the game. He'll steal from the party, cause combat to happen when it wasn't necessary nor the point of the encounter, and include party members in harmful area effects. Your player is not doing that.

It is hard to cure a That Guy but not impossible. Still, he wants to play the tactical game. You can work on that. Have NPCs show him appreciation for defeating the monster. Of course everyone in the party gets the praise, but include him in a direct way. Have NPCs specifically like him and want to talk to him. Show him how his victories are affecting the NPCs and gameworld. He's making a difference. Definitely have bounties put on his head from a BBEG and let him defeat those who try to collect. Make him motivated to hate the BBEG. Have the world react to him.

Spriteless
2021-02-07, 07:08 PM
Hmm, you got to talk to E. Maybe he doesn't have it in him to be part of a tribe, or he doesn't have the energy (spoons?) to be part of a pretend tribe on his time to recharge.

He might be better suited for a more structured game, like a 1-2 shot with a heist, or other clear cut job. Or a campaign where the team is like the Suicide Squad, the Seven Samurai, or the A Team. Or, an order of knights, or attached to any number of patrons listed in Tasha's book (or the Eberron book). Give the team with him a mission, to accept or betray. Maybe force everyone to fill out their bonds and ideals on the character sheet, and grab those for hooks whenever someone looks bored.

If you want to get the E to change his behavior, rather than give 'em his own campaign, well, talk with him like mature people. Maybe offer him something about his character that can't be optomized, but can be played with. Maybe everyone has a secret, a-la Icewind Dale, Ice of the IceGirl. The Eberron book has newspapers as a patron, which might encourage him to optimize for storyfullness. Maybe ask him to roll up a long lived race, and tell him to take it slow like a ghoul with a brand new identity in Fallout New Vegas. Your character doesn't have to be in a rush, you've got all the time in the world! Or, ask him to play an exceptionally short-lived race, so his impatience will make sense. Where are those tri-kreeen stats... or Arcana Unleashed.

Or maybe give his character an offer to betray the party. It worked to make me like Rainbow Dash without making her less a jerk. Oh, but he might take it. Well, good way to introduce his new character.

AdAstra
2021-02-07, 08:40 PM
Yes on the last one. The second one … interesting thing is, I KNOW he loves playing casters. But he took a cleric, »because the party needed one«. I asked the guy like thrice, why not play something, he enjoyed, but was "this party niche needs to be filled". Yes, he loves single-player RPGs(well, »loves« is a strong word – I don't know if this guy »loves« anything). I know he likes to optimize in games too.

Covid gave me the time to think and … IMHO, optimization is not a problem. I played with optimizers. It's the barrier. Somehow, guy does not open to the group and in five or six sessions we had between the first and second Covid wave here, it really showed.



Yes. And I had players like this. But not THIS cold and calculating. (not calculating in a bad way)



I talked to them and especially A expressed a lot of frustration over »E not being part of a team«. I'm a bit older than the others and it took me quite some time to estimate, what is wrong. E always cooperated. But you never really feel, he's genuine about his play.

I just never faced something like this …

Well, does he not enjoy it? Some people have enough character ideas that any class is fine to play, and some people really just don't particularly care.

But I think overall, is this person having fun? Are you having fun playing with him? Why are the other players bothered that he won't "open up"? What does being "genuine" in one's play mean to you? If this guy is just someone who likes moving pieces around on a board, is that a problem for the group, and why?

I get that people like to play with others that have similar playstyles, but I do tend to feel a bit weird when it's insisted that everyone must enjoy the same parts of the game for the same reasons. I am especially wary at the way pretty benign behaviors are being described in very serious medical terms, because while I'm sure you're sincere in your desire to help your players have fun, pathologizing someone's play is not likely to help.

Basically, it is very much is possible for people who have very different playstyles to enjoy the same game. You do not have an obligation to cater to this one player's tastes, but there is also a significant possibility that this player is not a problem at all. I would be wary of the fact that a lot of other players' main beef seems to be somewhat, counter to how you describe him? Again, more info would be appreciated.

icefractal
2021-02-07, 09:21 PM
If this guy is just someone who likes moving pieces around on a board, is that a problem for the group, and why?I can't speak for HoboKnight's players, but I can see why this one could be a problem.

Say you're someone who's into the immersive side of roleplaying, and in getting emotionally invested in what happens IC - so you (the actual player) are sad when that NPC you know dies, or joyful when they reunite with their lost love. In that case, someone being too obviously detached can interfere with that, by tearing down the curtain and reminding you "none of this really matters, it's just words and numbers".

It's not an invalid play style (heck, I'm usually closer to that than to full emotional immersion myself), but it can be incompatible. Like, "watching a horror movie to actually feel scared" and "watching a horror movie to examine and talk about the cinematography and special effects" are both valid ways to enjoy it, but someone doing the former probably doesn't want to sit next to someone doing the latter.

gijoemike
2021-02-08, 12:30 AM
I have read the OP post 3 times now. I fail to see any issue with player E at all. Notice I state player E, that is important a bit later.

Player E sounds like a problem solver. This has been mentioned in other posts. I almost envision Sherlock Holmes who is a bit of a sociopath. "You aren't interesting to me, leave."

Also, He probably expects this to be like a D&D campaign. I don't mean medieval fantasy I am talking about the group will move on to a new city/town and these NPC's will never be mentioned or referred to again. Of course he isn't invested a farmer's little girl and her missing chicken. This farmer and family cannot assist in combat or assist in the defense of a city. They cannot give us the clue about the mob boss or thief of the crown jewels.

Not every player will rush to the aid of every NPC because they respect the time and effort of their PC. If 10 ppl need help I will assist the two who pay the most.

Why should E care so much about an NPC when B,C, & D care to that level, double that in the case of A? Why should he ask 20 questions of the npcs when he knows B and C have already questioned them. I assume B,C, D are competent at investigation?

When I play...

I don't redo the same action as another player as it takes time away from the group as a whole. If Bobby questions an NPC, I will not come behind him and do the exact same. I will not tarnish Bobby's time to shine.

If we go as a group to question an NPC and Steve and Bobby get caught up asking questions I won't complicate the matter and slow down the game further if I think they are doing a good job. I don't always have to get in the last word or be in every scene.

I don't get attached to every single NPC unless we have seen them several times and they are central to a quest at some point.

You seem have a quite and more reserved player who is a problem solver. This isn't a problem. His character as written seems like an accountant or merchant or his family has some sort of history with risk assessment. Can i get money from this? What is the probability of Jack being a murder? Who broke the vase? He asks the questions. The adventure is in solving them.

But you do seem to have a problem.
That is players B, C, and D. Dear OP, HoboKnight, You have not 1 but 3 players that take issue and are offended by how E plays his character? Not just the character but how he PLAYS the game via his character. You didn't describe any actions of Player E that disrupt the game or foil the in game plans of any player. He shows up REGULARLY and plays. The game completes. He doesn't interfere and appears to go with the flow. I base that on him playing the cleric. He acknowledges the other party members and wants to make sure the bases are covered.

Maybe he rolls the dice and tells you a number instead of saying "ok folks I am betting it all on this roll, I need a 12+ to hit!"
Maybe he doesn't make a bunch of small talk to distract from the game?
Maybe he doesn't speak directly to players that often because of too much metagaming?
Maybe he says I swing my short sword instead of " I stab low and upward trying to bury my blade to the hilt in it's stomach, while cursing in Elvish."

Player E sounds like they are having fun. He keeps showing up doesn't he? Is He cold or just curt and to the point?
Your post also makes it seem like players B,C and D are trying to ruin the fun of player E. "He isn't playing the way I want him to."

Mutazoia
2021-02-08, 12:53 AM
This thread kind of reminds me of the "Real Men, Real Role-players, Loonies and Munchkins" bit.

It sounds like you have a bunch of Real Role-players and one guy who likes role-playing games.

While A-D are all running around getting immersed in little girls and their missing chickens, E is waiting patiently for some actual plot to happen. He's trying to work out the problems that the DM is presenting him like this is some sort of game, while A-D are having a grand old time with their collaborative storytelling sessions.

Neither style of play is wrong, but they seldom mix well without the right people.

Tanarii
2021-02-08, 01:01 AM
While A-D are all running around getting immersed in little girls and their missing chickens, E is waiting patiently for some actual plot to happen. He's trying to work out the problems that the DM is presenting him like this is some sort of game, while A-D are having a grand old time with their collaborative storytelling sessions.
This seems exceptionally likely given the OPs description of what they've got planned for their next 4 hour session.

Edit: I seem to have gotten the OP mixed up with someone else.

Edit2: no, I didn't have them mixed up, you were right
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626675-Making-next-session-more-interesting

Xervous
2021-02-08, 08:59 AM
Does OP have more example scenarios where this perceived disconnect is evident? Based off the chicken event I’m liable to side with E if only for having suffered through multiple chicken events recently. Okay, first time was ostriches, then an ostrich that turned out to be a peacock, and the GM probably wanted us to hate the NPC who sent us on that fetch quest.

gijoemike
2021-02-08, 09:31 AM
Does OP have more example scenarios where this perceived disconnect is evident? Based off the chicken event I’m liable to side with E if only for having suffered through multiple chicken events recently. Okay, first time was ostriches, then an ostrich that turned out to be a peacock, and the GM probably wanted us to hate the NPC who sent us on that fetch quest.

Xervous is completely right. Based on what the OP has said so far it seems like B-D are the issue and several posts above (including mine) side with or defend player E. At worst Pex said this might be a That Guy player, "might" being the key word. We need far more detail to figure out what is going on.

Xervous
2021-02-08, 09:40 AM
Xervous is completely right. Based on what the OP has said so far it seems like B-D are the issue and several posts above (including mine) side with or defend player E. At worst Pex said this might be a That Guy player, "might" being the key word. We need far more detail to figure out what is going on.

To be fair my examples may not be entirely relevant. In both cases the fetch quests were gating us on plot developments. If the chickens the OP describes were plot gating it’s unfortunate (that such a dull thing was served up as plot), but if the other players chose to chase the chickens down that’s just a disconnect in desires. B-D want the tangential RP, E wants to do stuff that actually matters.

kyoryu
2021-02-08, 09:53 AM
I'm gonna jump on the "E doesn't sound invested" train.

So.... talk to him. Ask him how he feels about it. Ask about what he likes and doesn't like, and ask about what things he would find more engaging. If he could make the game about anything, what would it be about?

RifleAvenger
2021-02-08, 02:11 PM
Xervous is completely right. Based on what the OP has said so far it seems like B-D are the issue and several posts above (including mine) side with or defend player E. At worst Pex said this might be a That Guy player, "might" being the key word. We need far more detail to figure out what is going on.

No player is "the issue." The issue is that there are strongly divergent desired playstyles between B-D and E, neither of which is a problem on its own. If 3/5 of the group wants to play pseudo-Hillfolk and 1/5th wants to play something akin to an AD&D module, it's the odd one out who likely needs to find a table better suiting their needs.

Note that the GM is quite pleased with A-D's playstyle; you're asking them to warp their game and their group dynamic to suit E, out of sympathy to E's preferred playstyle. Flipping the question of "how do we get this player to change their playstyle?" into "how to do we get three or four players to change their playstyle?" is not a solution.

E would probably be much happier with an entirely different group.


To be fair my examples may not be entirely relevant. In both cases the fetch quests were gating us on plot developments. If the chickens the OP describes were plot gating it’s unfortunate (that such a dull thing was served up as plot), but if the other players chose to chase the chickens down that’s just a disconnect in desires. B-D want the tangential RP, E wants to do stuff that actually matters.

If the overall group prefers to "chase chickens," then "chasing chickens" (emergent RP) is what "actually matters."

icefractal
2021-02-08, 02:43 PM
If the overall group prefers to "chase chickens," then "chasing chickens" (emergent RP) is what "actually matters."This. I mean, the cold truth of it is - none of this "matters". You fought through hundreds of demons, united a dozen warring kingdoms, and ultimately saved the fabric of reality itself? Ok, so in other words you played some tactical dice games and collaborated on some stories. Just like if you'd spent that time chasing chickens.*

The importance is entirely where you (the players, including the GM) choose to put it. It's not "better" if the fictional things are more grandiose (it's not worse either).

*Chasing chickens may mean less on the 'tactical' side though. But not everyone cares about the tactical side, and if 4/5 of the group prefers a low-combat game that's the game they should play.

Quertus
2021-02-08, 03:56 PM
I'm gonna jump on the "E doesn't sound invested" train.

So.... talk to him. Ask him how he feels about it. Ask about what he likes and doesn't like, and ask about what things he would find more engaging. If he could make the game about anything, what would it be about?

Looking for a cure for whatever mental illness afflicts my party members, that they're wasting time chasing chickens in the middle of our "save the world" quest."?

SandyAndy
2021-02-08, 05:37 PM
It sounds like you got a wargamer. War gaming really is all about the calculations and stat blocks and probabilities, and that's where D&D came from. There's nothing wrong with playing that way if you can get it to work with the party. Maybe his character is just focused on the mission and plays the straight-man keeping the party on track. The best approach is probably a conversation with the table to make sure everyone is at least reading the same book if not the same page.

gijoemike
2021-02-08, 06:12 PM
No player is "the issue." The issue is that there are strongly divergent desired playstyles between B-D and E, neither of which is a problem on its own. If 3/5 of the group wants to play pseudo-Hillfolk and 1/5th wants to play something akin to an AD&D module, it's the odd one out who likely needs to find a table better suiting their needs.

Note that the GM is quite pleased with A-D's playstyle; you're asking them to warp their game and their group dynamic to suit E, out of sympathy to E's preferred playstyle. Flipping the question of "how do we get this player to change their playstyle?" into "how to do we get three or four players to change their playstyle?" is not a solution.

E would probably be much happier with an entirely different group.

No, the issue isn't that E isn't having fun. Or that he isn't happy. Nothing in the OP says I have an unhappy player. Players A-D's play style isn't a problem. Nor did I ever say it was.

Also, you flipped the question incorrectly. Let me be direct.

How do I change the attitude of 3 or 4 players who are bullying my 5th player demanding they play the game their way because his way (that he enjoys) is bad wrong fun?

Go and reread the OP. The players have an issue with how player E plays the game and has fun. Player E seems to be a team player and is OK with the game. He shows up and does his part. This peer pressure "our way is right" is a form of bullying. If player E wasn't having fun, or if they were That guy disrupting the game, or if they had interpreted the rules wrong, then addressing Player E is the correct thing to do. But none of that has been described in the posts thus far. If E would state this game is boring then that would be a reason to split ways.

What has been described?

Nicer words are being used but there is an underlying demand to "Play the game our way or we kick you" as an ultimatum. That is bully behavior. If the OP wants the player to come out of his reserved shell, kicking him from the game is NOT the way to do it.

BRC
2021-02-08, 06:49 PM
There can be a real frustration if the players disagree on how to approach the game.

First, check to see if he's having fun, if everybody is having fun, that's fine and good.

Secondly, figure out what he's doing that is actually causing problems. OP mentions having to "Keep your guard up", about what? What precisely is he going to do if you let your guard down.


Has he been interrupting roleplay or immersion? Showing impatience with other players "Chasing Chickens" so he can get to puzzles he's solved? Breaking RP to do "Optimal" plays like robbing the kindly peasants they've been talking to because, hey, more gold is better.

From your post it sounds like he's doing everything correctly, you're just put off by his mannerisms, and while, yeah, Bad Vibes is a thing that can make people uncomfortable, if he's not making decisions that are hurting the experience for everybody else, that sounds more like your problem than his. It sounds like he's not used to Roleplaying, and is maybe a little socially awkward when it comes to the group.

First, talk to E and confirm that, yes he's having fun, no he doesn't mind how the game is going.
Then, I'd talk to A and tell him to lay off E a little. Just because he enjoys the game a different way doesn't mean he's enjoying it Wrong. If he's content to sit there and solve math problems while everybody else talks to NPCs, that's honestly fine.


He's a guy at the table who is having trouble opening up and expressing himself. If he's used to playing single-player RPGs where RP isn't really a thing, it can take some time for him to get used to the idea of the game as something besides a set of problems to solve, especially if he doesn't have a prior social connection to the rest of the group.

Tanarii
2021-02-08, 07:23 PM
Ultimately, if you're trying to run a game about chasing chickens and talking to NPCs, you're going to encounter some players that just aren't interested in that kind of game.

Duff
2021-02-08, 07:26 PM
I'm going to go against the grain a little here...
It looks to me like the problem isn't so much how the game is played but about being around "E"

If someone makes you uncomfortable to be around socially, that's probably a reason to avoid them.
If you feel like it's a bad idea to let your guard down around a person, unless you know you have bad instincts about people, you should listen to those instincts.

OTOH, if you're perfectly happy to hang out with E outside of roleplaying (they might be fun to play boardgames with as long as you don't mind loosing more often than not...), then I've misinterpreted the OP

Saint-Just
2021-02-08, 07:56 PM
In general it seems to me that there is no identifiable problem with E's behaviour. In fact some of the descriptions sound like there might be a problem with other players. Especially given how A seems to draw others into their conflict with E.

Try to flip "sociopathic" bit from the player to character. Would you and your players be ok with someone playing a "loner", "doesn't really care", "only in it for the money" character? Assuming, of course, that there are some underlying rules that are obeyed (e.g. character will not actually betray the team for the large amount of money offered by an NPC, will not hog the spotlight even if character is self-centered etc.). If no, and all characters must be a band of brothers then there is an underlying assumption that E is not able to go with; If yes, however, then he roleplaying himself should not be an in-game problem.
Adiitionally: "you never really feel, he's genuine about his play" - again is not one the purposes of the roleplay is to pretend to be something that you are not? In fact it seems like it contradicts the idea that "he is playing himself".

RifleAvenger
2021-02-08, 08:35 PM
No, the issue isn't that E isn't having fun. Or that he isn't happy. Nothing in the OP says I have an unhappy player. Players A-D's play style isn't a problem. Nor did I ever say it was.

Also, you flipped the question incorrectly. Let me be direct.

How do I change the attitude of 3 or 4 players who are bullying my 5th player demanding they play the game their way because his way (that he enjoys) is bad wrong fun?

Go and reread the OP. The players have an issue with how player E plays the game and has fun. Player E seems to be a team player and is OK with the game. He shows up and does his part. This peer pressure "our way is right" is a form of bullying. If player E wasn't having fun, or if they were That guy disrupting the game, or if they had interpreted the rules wrong, then addressing Player E is the correct thing to do. But none of that has been described in the posts thus far. If E would state this game is boring then that would be a reason to split ways.

What has been described?

Nicer words are being used but there is an underlying demand to "Play the game our way or we kick you" as an ultimatum. That is bully behavior. If the OP wants the player to come out of his reserved shell, kicking him from the game is NOT the way to do it.

Differences in play style is justified grounds to not have someone in a group, if it is interfering with the desired focus and playstyle of the group.

If I am playing Chronicles of Darkness and want to play an occult superhero while everyone else wants to play through interpersonal character drama and personal horror, I run the risk of disrupting that group (probably by shifting the mood of the game or anti-climatically resolving issues meant to instigate drama). It does not matter if my character is a "team player" oriented towards meeting the IC goals of the group: my approach and attitude are a poor match to the desired mood and flow of the chronicle.

If I am playing Chronicles of Darkness and want to play a broken individual slowly losing their connection to their former humanity, and everyone else wants to be supernatural superheroes, I may be disrupting that group as well (probably by inserting melodrama over them using their cool powers). It does not matter if I still pitch in to help when an action scene starts: my approach and attitude are a poor match to the desired mood and flow of the chronicle.

My playstyle is not wrong in and of itself in either case, but it is wrong for the group. I could well be having fun despite this, but if the group dislikes my influence on the game I need to find a compromise. Or leave for one where I'm a better fit.

If player E's disinterest and cold approach towards the game's events is making things worse for the rest of the table, they are under no obligation to keep player E around. They clearly have a preferred and expected way to play and engage with the game, and player E seems unwilling or unable to engage in that manner.

gijoemike
2021-02-08, 09:51 PM
Differences in play style is justified grounds to not have someone in a group, if it is interfering with the desired focus and playstyle of the group.

If I am playing Chronicles of Darkness and want to play an occult superhero while everyone else wants to play through interpersonal character drama and personal horror, I run the risk of disrupting that group (probably by shifting the mood of the game or anti-climatically resolving issues meant to instigate drama). It does not matter if my character is a "team player" oriented towards meeting the IC goals of the group: my approach and attitude are a poor match to the desired mood and flow of the chronicle.

If I am playing Chronicles of Darkness and want to play a broken individual slowly losing their connection to their former humanity, and everyone else wants to be supernatural superheroes, I may be disrupting that group as well (probably by inserting melodrama over them using their cool powers). It does not matter if I still pitch in to help when an action scene starts: my approach and attitude are a poor match to the desired mood and flow of the chronicle.

My playstyle is not wrong in and of itself in either case, but it is wrong for the group. I could well be having fun despite this, but if the group dislikes my influence on the game I need to find a compromise. Or leave for one where I'm a better fit.

If player E's disinterest and cold approach towards the game's events is making things worse for the rest of the table, they are under no obligation to keep player E around. They clearly have a preferred and expected way to play and engage with the game, and player E seems unwilling or unable to engage in that manner.

What you are describing is an echo chamber effect. Echo chambers are almost always bad in society. We normally hear the phrase negative echo chamber. The group A-D wants to play the game X way and not accept any other way to play. I understand that. In D&D I have seen someone come into a group with a Tier 1 caster where everyone else was T3 or T4. It didn't go well at all. But that was a character issue not a player issue.

I have also seen someone come in with a lol-Me-crazy character. Think the Joker from Batman. But the party was a detective and soldier. They didn't mesh well either. One again a character issue.

A-D are ultra active and invested and E is a bit laid back. Having a difference of opinion on how to play the game is not a bad thing. But if A-D have decided this isn't going to work out then the decision has been made.

Duff
2021-02-08, 10:29 PM
What you are describing is an echo chamber effect. Echo chambers are almost always bad in society. We normally hear the phrase negative echo chamber. The group A-D wants to play the game X way and not accept any other way to play. I understand that. In D&D I have seen someone come into a group with a Tier 1 caster where everyone else was T3 or T4. It didn't go well at all. But that was a character issue not a player issue.

I have also seen someone come in with a lol-Me-crazy character. Think the Joker from Batman. But the party was a detective and soldier. They didn't mesh well either. One again a character issue.

A-D are ultra active and invested and E is a bit laid back. Having a difference of opinion on how to play the game is not a bad thing. But if A-D have decided this isn't going to work out then the decision has been made.

Echo chambers are an issue when they insulate a person from reality.
When it comes to recreation, it's only an issue if the lack of new/different ideas is limiting the activity. So if I play poker with people who don't count cards, that's fine as long as I know I'll need to change if I play outside of that group

HoboKnight
2021-02-09, 09:20 AM
I'm going to go against the grain a little here...
It looks to me like the problem isn't so much how the game is played but about being around "E"

If someone makes you uncomfortable to be around socially, that's probably a reason to avoid them.
If you feel like it's a bad idea to let your guard down around a person, unless you know you have bad instincts about people, you should listen to those instincts.

OTOH, if you're perfectly happy to hang out with E outside of roleplaying (they might be fun to play boardgames with as long as you don't mind loosing more often than not...), then I've misinterpreted the OP

OP here. First, a big thanks to all contributors. Yeah, this was a big thing for me to put it in the spotlight and it even took me quite some time to get some perspective of it.

Duff got it right. No, this player is not "That Guy", he does things right, it's just ... No, I would not want to hang out with him outside the game. And I think this bothers the others, too. This is also the reason I used the description "sociopathic". Nothing wrong, but feelings just do not show up.

I'll definitely do the talking with all of them, taking into account all of your advice.

Max_Killjoy
2021-02-09, 09:41 AM
OP here. First, a big thanks to all contributors. Yeah, this was a big thing for me to put it in the spotlight and it even took me quite some time to get some perspective of it.

Duff got it right. No, this player is not "That Guy", he does things right, it's just ... No, I would not want to hang out with him outside the game. And I think this bothers the others, too. This is also the reason I used the description "sociopathic". Nothing wrong, but feelings just do not show up.

I'll definitely do the talking with all of them, taking into account all of your advice.

I think there's a difference between "this person is a sociopath" and "this person's approach to gaming feels sociopathic". The latter is a lot less dire and judgemental assessment than the former.

Does E deal with real life and real people in the same calculating, +/- way that they approach gaming?

Some players just approach RPGs like everything is a playing piece on a board, from their own PC to every NPC. That doesn't make them sociopaths, even if it's not what other players want. As others have said, disparate expectations and approaches are the source of a lot of discussion and conflict in RPGs, both at the table and in discussions.

Quertus
2021-02-09, 01:51 PM
Differences in play style is justified grounds to not have someone in a group, if it is interfering with the desired focus and playstyle of the group.

If I am playing Chronicles of Darkness and want to play an occult superhero while everyone else wants to play through interpersonal character drama and personal horror, I run the risk of disrupting that group (probably by shifting the mood of the game or anti-climatically resolving issues meant to instigate drama). It does not matter if my character is a "team player" oriented towards meeting the IC goals of the group: my approach and attitude are a poor match to the desired mood and flow of the chronicle.

If I am playing Chronicles of Darkness and want to play a broken individual slowly losing their connection to their former humanity, and everyone else wants to be supernatural superheroes, I may be disrupting that group as well (probably by inserting melodrama over them using their cool powers). It does not matter if I still pitch in to help when an action scene starts: my approach and attitude are a poor match to the desired mood and flow of the chronicle.

My playstyle is not wrong in and of itself in either case, but it is wrong for the group. I could well be having fun despite this, but if the group dislikes my influence on the game I need to find a compromise. Or leave for one where I'm a better fit.

If player E's disinterest and cold approach towards the game's events is making things worse for the rest of the table, they are under no obligation to keep player E around. They clearly have a preferred and expected way to play and engage with the game, and player E seems unwilling or unable to engage in that manner.

To flip that idea: if players A-D find player E's disinterest and cold approach towards the game's events is making things worse for them, they are under no obligation to keep player A-D around.

That may sound silly, but bear with me.

The question is, *why* does E's behavior bother them? My point is, if they can find that cause, they are under no obligation to keep the part of themselves that disables them from enjoying the game.

Most of the world is painted in full rainbow color. One person's happiness doesn't prevent (and can, in fact, feed) another's depression. There is no reason that one cannot tell the story of melodramatic personal horror beside the story of occult superheroes - in fact, I would argue that most of my best gaming experiences come from groups that explicitly do just that!

Yes, there are beautiful paintings that are monochrome sepia, or blue scale, or black and white. But there are also beautiful images that contain all the colors. IMO, one is well served by aiming to be able to appreciate both sets.

So A-D should ask themselves if there's an opportunity for growth knocking here.


OP here. First, a big thanks to all contributors. Yeah, this was a big thing for me to put it in the spotlight and it even took me quite some time to get some perspective of it.

Duff got it right. No, this player is not "That Guy", he does things right, it's just ... No, I would not want to hang out with him outside the game. And I think this bothers the others, too. This is also the reason I used the description "sociopathic". Nothing wrong, but feelings just do not show up.

I'll definitely do the talking with all of them, taking into account all of your advice.


I think there's a difference between "this person is a sociopath" and "this person's approach to gaming feels sociopathic". The latter is a lot less dire and judgemental assessment than the former.

Does E deal with real life and real people in the same calculating, +/- way that they approach gaming?

Some players just approach RPGs like everything is a playing piece on a board, from their own PC to every NPC. That doesn't make them sociopaths, even if it's not what other players want. As others have said, disparate expectations and approaches are the source of a lot of discussion and conflict in RPGs, both at the table and in discussions.

To pick on myself…

I am, by nature, a very hyperactive person. But most humans have great difficulty interacting with a hyperactive genius. So I intentionally slow down, take a step back, consider… and doubtless come across as "calculating", as I am always weighing which synopsis of the paragraphs of text forming in my head every moment to use.

I can never tell anyone "what's on my mind", because human communication is too slow - by the time I've finished my first sentence, several more paragraphs of ideas have formed. It's why I have insomnia - my mind just won't stop.

So… I guess what I'm saying is, humans tend to hate and fear that which they do not understand. Getting to understand what it is that causes the behavior you perceive in E will better allow you to make the right decision about your continued interaction with that individual. Don't ostracize him out of hindbrain fear of "he's different - kill him!" - if you are capable, make an *informed* decision about his viability.

After all, as many have noted, he seems quite the team player.

Cygnia
2021-02-09, 02:49 PM
Yeah, well, sociopaths know how to be a "team player" when it suits them. One of the most dangerous things about them, unfortunately.

Point blank, OP -- if you and your other players don't feel comfortable having E around, listen to that gut feeling!

http://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/

Alcore
2021-02-09, 05:50 PM
All good points thrown around... i would like to point out that E is disturbing the other players/dm on a fundamental level. Real Life Horror Movie level...

Unfortunately as much as 4% of the world's population can be diagnosed as sociopath. Even with anti social behaviors stacking the deck you will meet plenty of such people in your life.



It sounds like group is getting as much emotion from him as they would in Play by Post which is none without an emoji mask. Which is actually odd... if he was a sociopath in the darker areas of the spectrum that has avoided running afoul of the law he would be better at putting the mask on. If i assume for fact he is a sociopath then i read it as he is letting his guard down; he is participating in a group activity without pretending to be a none sociopath. Something almost reserved for "alone time".

And the reason i read him as sociopath first is because nearly everyone else here tries to not paint him as such. While the OPs case is on the light side he gives enough...


So if i read it as fact it sounds like he trusts you (the group) enough to not pretend.
(This does not mean to embrace him with open arms; he might reaction poorly to over socialization)



Though that does bring me to questions...
1. Were any arguements solely about the rules or are the players trying to bully out the odd guy? Who instigates the arguement? E might be triggering but is A-D reacting by instigating the arguments? Triggering doesn't necessarily mean 'on purpose' btw...
2. You said you don't want to hang out with him. Understandable i suppose. Have you tried? Has anyone else tried? Does the group (minus E) do anything else together? Even if it is only two or three of them. What is his table OOC banter like? Does he even do that?


A sociopath is still a member of a social species; your game might be filling the 'social involvement' quota that he needs.



Still... if his simple presence instills fear with no action on his part (which is kinda the problem it sounds like) it might be better let him go. You and A-D will be healthier for it; E might take a darker path though...
(I fear that is why you are here)

Tanarii
2021-02-09, 07:21 PM
My recommendation would be to have a game session with actual encounters, and see how the player behaves. You'll probably find they engage once faced with a session has something going on in it.

KineticDiplomat
2021-02-09, 08:05 PM
So, by the standards presented he is not a sociopath, per se. He may naturally have poor social skills (or not), and he definitely is playing a different game than you, but he probably wouldn’t steal your wallet or sleep with your spouse IRL if he thought he could get away with it.

Which means he is either just more inclined to the combat and optimization bits or has a reason (possibly not immediately related to you) to believe that not optimizing will cause a catastrophic failure.

The first you are unlikely to “fix” no matter how much you want to. If what he cares about most is getting 5d8 instead of 4d6, and the lost chickens are just an excuse to go throw those dice at an orc, then yeah...that’s probably going to be what he keeps caring about.

If it’s the latter, it might be fixable if through word and deed you show that you aren’t going to penalize/kill the party for playing a low/no optimization game.

Phhase
2021-02-10, 10:30 PM
Having scanned the material so far, my recommendation is just to try and have it out with im. I get that noone is required to put up with someone that makes them uncomfortable, but just excising someone like a boil is equally reprehensible in my book, especially if they're otherwise reasonable. So, just ask. Ask if he has any problems, ask why he seems so mechanical, mention that it's a bit off putting, try to draw him out a bit. It might simply be that from his perspective, everyone else is making him uncomfortable, and he's taking refuge in the mechanics. I don't know the dynamic, but I do know that accidentally stepping on other's toes makes me less and less inclined to open up, for fear of it happening again. So just have some compassion and make it clear you're not putting him on trial for expulsion. Ask how he'd like to be included, and make it clear you want to include him. You get the idea.

Duff
2021-02-11, 06:36 PM
Having scanned the material so far, my recommendation is just to try and have it out with im. I get that noone is required to put up with someone that makes them uncomfortable, but just excising someone like a boil is equally reprehensible in my book, especially if they're otherwise reasonable. So, just ask. Ask if he has any problems, ask why he seems so mechanical, mention that it's a bit off putting, try to draw him out a bit. It might simply be that from his perspective, everyone else is making him uncomfortable, and he's taking refuge in the mechanics. I don't know the dynamic, but I do know that accidentally stepping on other's toes makes me less and less inclined to open up, for fear of it happening again. So just have some compassion and make it clear you're not putting him on trial for expulsion. Ask how he'd like to be included, and make it clear you want to include him. You get the idea.

That's definitely a fair point.

dps
2021-02-12, 11:04 PM
To be honest, it sounds to me like the problem is simply that players B, C, and D simply don't like player E. And maybe the OP doesn't much like him either (he stated that he wouldn't want to hang out with player E outside the game). Not sure that there's a whole lot that can be done about that, except maybe just trying to hang out as a group outside the game once in a while and see how it goes. If you give that a try and it turns out that everyone enjoys hanging out with him while watching horror movies, or going to the beach, or going to bars, or robbing liquor stores (OK, not serious about that last one, don't do that), or whatever other non-gaming social activities you want to try, then I suspect that the gaming issues will fade away. If the group (including player E) aren't willing to try that, or you try it and it doesn't work out, then maybe you should just straight-up tell him that the rest of the group doesn't like him and ask him to find a different gaming group.

Outside of a convention, I'd be willing to spend my gaming time playing with people I wouldn't want to be around outside the game, but I'd be willing to try hanging out with them outside the game to see if I might be wrong in my view of them.

Chronic
2021-02-13, 06:44 AM
I'm going to go against the grain a little here...
It looks to me like the problem isn't so much how the game is played but about being around "E"

If someone makes you uncomfortable to be around socially, that's probably a reason to avoid them.
If you feel like it's a bad idea to let your guard down around a person, unless you know you have bad instincts about people, you should listen to those instincts.

OTOH, if you're perfectly happy to hang out with E outside of roleplaying (they might be fun to play boardgames with as long as you don't mind loosing more often than not...), then I've misinterpreted the OP

I agree completely, it's hard to tell with the information that was provided, but if your guts tell you something is wrong, something probably is. I know that is how it works with me, I'm a very social guy and I don't mind shy or reserved people, but from time to time there is "this person", the person that set of all my alarms because every emotional response is either fake or inexistant. If it is this kind of vibe you get, and not just a bored player, I suggest you consider asking him to leave the table. Harsh decision for sure, so think it through.

Kesnit
2021-02-13, 05:59 PM
It sounds like you got a wargamer. War gaming really is all about the calculations and stat blocks and probabilities, and that's where D&D came from. There's nothing wrong with playing that way if you can get it to work with the party. Maybe his character is just focused on the mission and plays the straight-man keeping the party on track. The best approach is probably a conversation with the table to make sure everyone is at least reading the same book if not the same page.

This. I admit to being a "numbers-freak" when I play D&D or Pathfinder. That isn't to say I won't get into RP in those games, but so much of the game is based on numbers. At one point, I had a PC with a CHA of 6. Between being a Tiefling and that CHA, I stayed out of most RP-situations because the numbers were horribly stacked against me. (Yes, I built the character that way - because the PC didn't need CHA, so I saw no point in raising it.)


No, I would not want to hang out with him outside the game. And I think this bothers the others, too.

So what? There is no requirement that a gaming group be friends away from the table. What matters is what happens at the table.


Nothing wrong, but feelings just do not show up.

It's possible he's just an introvert who doesn't want to open up to strangers. Especially when you all have made it clear that you don't like him.


My recommendation would be to have a game session with actual encounters, and see how the player behaves. You'll probably find they engage once faced with a session has something going on in it.

THIS! Oh my gods, this!

The game where I had the CHA 6 PC had been running before I joined. The other players knew the setting; I did not. Between not feeling I could RP (CHA 6) and not having the first clue what was going on, I spent a lot of game sessions twiddling my thumbs. I was bored out of my skull. When we went into combat, I was right there, ready and eager to play. When we bounced around the city talking to NPCs I didn't know about quests and people I never heard of, I could not force myself to remain engaged. What finally snapped me out of this was when I went to the DM and told him what the problem was. Soon after, he arranged for the party to go to a location no one knew on a brand new questline. My enjoyment of and engagement in the game went way up.

ArmorClass
2021-02-14, 07:03 AM
It sounds like you got a wargamer. War gaming really is all about the calculations and stat blocks and probabilities, and that's where D&D came from. There's nothing wrong with playing that way if you can get it to work with the party. Maybe his character is just focused on the mission and plays the straight-man keeping the party on track. The best approach is probably a conversation with the table to make sure everyone is at least reading the same book if not the same page.

Spot on.
DnD is three games in a trenchcoat, that is where the three pillars of D&D come from.
A numbers game (or wargame), a social game and then everything else that gets smushed into exploration.
Some people just have a naturally higher affinity for some of the parts of this game. Usually this is not a problem.
Most people have a preference for either the numbers game or the social game, but appreciate the other.
It sounds like your group has one player who is purely in it for the numbers game, and the rest is purely in it for the social game.
Booting him from the group might make sense if you have such a big divide in what you are looking for in DnD, especially as you do not like him.


... it's just ... No, I would not want to hang out with him outside the game. And I think this bothers the others, too. This is also the reason I used the description "sociopathic". Nothing wrong, but feelings just do not show up. ...

Also this:

That is not sociopathy, stop trying to diagnose your players via pop culture psychology.

Stop trying to diagnose people you do not like with mental illnesses. That is a very bad habit.

Mastikator
2021-02-14, 07:23 AM
So what? There is no requirement that a gaming group be friends away from the table. What matters is what happens at the table.

It's not up to you or me what the requirement is at their table. To be honest I think it's perfectly valid to not want to play with someone who gives you the heebie jeebies. Not liking someone is an entirely valid reason to kick someone from your gaming group. In my gaming group I would absolutely require that we could hang out outside of gaming, and that I respect and trust them as a person. I consider that a low bar for entry and a welcoming environment.

Kesnit
2021-02-14, 07:56 AM
It's not up to you or me what the requirement is at their table. To be honest I think it's perfectly valid to not want to play with someone who gives you the heebie jeebies. Not liking someone is an entirely valid reason to kick someone from your gaming group. In my gaming group I would absolutely require that we could hang out outside of gaming, and that I respect and trust them as a person. I consider that a low bar for entry and a welcoming environment.

You are missing my point. The OP thinks E has a serious mental issue (sociopathy) because he doesn't get as engaged as the other players. And this is the reason E gives the OP the heebie-jeebies. It doesn't appear that E actually does anything creepy. E just doesn't play the same way the others do.

Of course kicking someone because you don't like them is valid. But this isn't "I don't like E." This is "I think E is creepy because he doesn't do what I think he should do." If the OP does what others have said (talk to E to find out what he wants. Try to get E more engaged in game) and E still isn't a good fit, then yes, remove him. But this is a long way from that point.

Mastikator
2021-02-14, 08:43 AM
You are missing my point. The OP thinks E has a serious mental issue (sociopathy) because he doesn't get as engaged as the other players. And this is the reason E gives the OP the heebie-jeebies. It doesn't appear that E actually does anything creepy. E just doesn't play the same way the others do.

Of course kicking someone because you don't like them is valid. But this isn't "I don't like E." This is "I think E is creepy because he doesn't do what I think he should do." If the OP does what others have said (talk to E to find out what he wants. Try to get E more engaged in game) and E still isn't a good fit, then yes, remove him. But this is a long way from that point.

Oh I understand that point. I was the second poster on this thread and said very much the same thing. OP runs a game I would not enjoy playing (I also don't care about some girl's chicken, give me a quest to grab the mcguffin from the troll king or something).

I also understand that sometimes you have a gut feeling about someone that they're bad, creepy. Most likely you can't put it into words, and if you try to explain it on a forum where words is all you have then it's simply impossible to give a good reason to you think someone is a sociopath. It's not up to us to decide whether OP is right in their assessment, I do agree that he should try to run a game where you fight monsters or something.

Composer99
2021-02-14, 11:34 PM
Alrighty. The title is a bit clickbaity, but the problem is - the word "sociopathic" splendidly describes the player I have in mind. We're currently not playing due to covid, so I have the time to address this issue and ask for some advice here.

The group I'm running consists of five people, let's say they are A, B, C, D and E. B, C and D are cool guys, great players. A is a "super invested, really interested in NPCS, cares about the world and setting" player. E is the guy with sociopathic tendencies.

Let me first explain, why I picked this word for him. As per definition: a sociopath is a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour. Ok. SO, for this guy, I'd edit this to a much milder version of "a disorder manifesting itself in mild but firm antisocial attitudes and behaviour."

Why is his behaviour antisocial? In short - for him, everything is a calculation, an assessment, a numbers game. While B, C and D enjoy investigating barkeepers' backstory and A is totally invested in "those chickens his little girl lost last night", E is total "will this help me optimize the problem solution?".

And why is this a problem, you ask? Because, when I had the time, I realized, E's coldness and non-immersion into the game, started to grind B, C and Ds gears. And there were several fights between E and A, because "NPCs are just stats"(E did not say that, but his entire attitude over the games showed that clearly). I mean ... they are - but it started to ruin the game for some.
I'd say "for some" - because guy still IS roleplaying, at least from my point of view as a DM. Problem is, I get the feeling, he is roleplaying himself. He's a fair guy, I'd say, he's really good with numbers and an honest dude, but I have a feeling, he has a Chinese wall of logic between real him and us and in the weirdest way possible this started to bother the team. He is not impolite, he cooperates with the team, he backs down, when A gets into a fight regarding being invested in the game, it's just that ... he's, always off, you know? Your feel, that behind those eyes, there definitely are feelings, but there is so much CALCULATION there, the guy is unable to invest in the game and it feels. Heck, I even think, other players sometimes feel a bit VULNERABLE because, they have fun and let their guard down, while he never does. I really think this is the crux of the problem.

Covid will last for a while more and I'll definitely talk to the guy eventually, but you can see this is A LOT for me to wrap my head around. Thus, I ask here for your advice and possible experience.

thanks

So... obviously, it goes without saying that one really ought not to try to play amateur psychologist. Even so, I'ma say it anyway. Please don't.

Having said that, what I think you should do next is going to depend on the answers to the next two questions:

Does player E give you bad vibes as a person? Or is it simply that E's playstyle is, as it were, "harshing the buzz" for A through D?

If the answers are Yes and No, respectively, then give E the boot. If I wouldn't feel comfortable inviting someone into my house, even if it was just a gut feeling, I would not want to game with that person, end of story. If my wife or son said someone gave them the creeps, no more gaming with that someone.

If, by contrast, the answers are No and Yes, respectively, then it's worth making some effort to see if things can work out. It might help if you and A through D cut E some more slack. As others have noted, having a different playstyle is not badwrongfun - there's nothing wrong with preferring less immersion. If after a good-faith effort on the part of you and A through D, you all feel a parting of the ways is called for, then so be it.

Kane0
2021-02-15, 12:24 AM
Sounds like E just makes you guys uncomfortable, whatever the reason behind that is doesn't really matter much in this context.
Given the social nature of TTRPGs that itself can be reason to not include them going forward, though that doesn't necessarily have to be the only outcome.

I've had a similar experience playing with someone with Asperger's. Didn't bother me personally but it did affect affect the fun of 2-3 of the others at the table and so he didn't stay in the game for long. Perfectly fine fellow and we still invite him to other social occasions, just didn't mesh well at the table for D&D is all.

Stattick
2021-02-15, 06:56 AM
Sounds like the guy makes you and the rest of your players uncomfortable. Maybe that's just due to differences in roleplaying style. Maybe it's something else. Point is, if they guy's making everyone uncomfortable or harshing your fun somehow, don't invite him back. Let him know that when you eventually start back up, that it will be without him.