PDA

View Full Version : Bastard Player and Keeping The Group Together



Crow
2007-11-23, 11:04 AM
I am creating this thread as a rant. If anybody has had the same problem, how did you resolve it?

We have one player in our group (we'll call him Matt) who is a bastard to one other player in particular (we'll call him Josh). He says that he acts that way because his character doesn't like this other player's character, but it seems like all his characters don't like the other player's characters...

Anyways, I don't care why, and I don't want to deal with delving into the bastard's emotional issues.

The thing that bugs me, is that "Josh" is a pretty good roleplayer, who plays a character who has realistic motivations and meaningful interactions with npc's in the game world. As a result, his character has plot hooks, meaningful connections, and obligations in the campaign world. "Matt"s character does not have any of these things. "Matt" always insists upon doing his own thing, and often does not care if his actions put the group at a severe disadvantage. He has little "feel" for what his character can and cannot do, and often insists on taking courses of action that make me want to say "Are you sure about that?". In addition, the depth of his roleplaying involves making the DM have awkward romantic conversations with him in the part of a female npc...ugh.

Last session he did again what he always does, and I kept my mouth shut while he did it. He insisted upon doing his own thing, while the majority of the group planned on doing something else. In fact, in keeping my mouth shut, "Matt" even managed to get another of our group to go along with him. To make a long story short, both characters were inflicted with vampirism as a result of their stupidity (Matt also has a case of: "The DM would never put us up against something we couldn't handle"...which isn't true).

The biggest problem with this whole escapade, was that it split up the group, and made the session drag. Big time. I did my best to switch scenes fairly often without it being to quickly, but it still ended up sucking for the players who weren't "in the action" at certain times. Basically, a session that should have taken 4 hours ended up taking 8. I gave the two players who got vampirism the Monster Manual and told them to apply the template for vampirism. This kept them busy for the rest of the session while the other players did their thing.

The two vampires have decided that they are going to do some evil stuff on the island where they are currently located. The rest of the group is on the mainland. After thinking it over for a bit, I have decided that I will not run another split-group session like the last one, as it is unfair to everybody and wastes too much time. If they split because it is neccessary or gives them some sort of advantage, that is fine, but never again because one player is being an ass.

I decided (and tell me if this is a bad decision on my part) to make the two vampires roll new characters. Their new evil alignment is sure to lead to a showdown if the group gets back together, which isn't a problem. I just want to avoid the split party. I was thinking of keeping their vampires as villians for a possible campaign in the future...but we will see...not in this campaign for sure. The player thyat went along with "Matt" sensed it coming, and has no problem with making a new character, but I havn't told "Matt" yet.

What are some good in-game reasons to keep the group together, and prevent this bastard's characters from splitting off from the group all the time? I had suspected that he was wanting the action to focus more on his guy, and this was his way of showing it, so we tried that and it was the same, just with more "Matt" focus. I need non-railroad ways to "make" his character be nice, and be part of a group.

BardicDuelist
2007-11-23, 11:12 AM
The first thing I recommend is talking to "Matt" about it.

No, it is okay to make them roll up new characters when they become monsters if your campaign isn't based on them being monsters. Also, the LA for vampire makes them considerably more powerful than the party if you don't give the party that many levels right away (which is impossible and dumb).

The way I see it when I DM: Your character becomes a monster, he is basically dead (or in this case Undead) and now antagonist to the party.

Catch
2007-11-23, 11:15 AM
The short answer is that you can't make a player do anything. Sure, you can appeal to their greed or boredom, but for the most part, players are going to do what they want and if you force the issue, they're just going to get crabby about it. If this Matt fellow is such a burr under your saddle, I suggest you find a new player. It's often better (and easier) to draft a replacement than to try and "fix" a bad gamer.

If you're heart's set on keeping this guy around, though, then my advice is to make him more important to the storytelling. As part of the adventure, give out tasks that only his character can do and design dungeon and social encounters specifically designed for certain characters. Players want to feel important and necessary so if you throw 'em a bone semi-regularly, they'll follow your plots a little more closely.

Green Bean
2007-11-23, 11:15 AM
The best way to get rid of a bastard is to convince his parents to marry.

That being said, try to convince him to play a character capable of being friends with the party. Take him aside, and ask him to roll something up that would be a bit more team oriented. Give him every chance to turn it around. If it doesn't work, and he's ruining the game, you may be better off just replacing him.

Oh, and the vampire thing is a good call; it would make the party split run even longer if you played along, and this way you have a brand new plot hook.

Yami
2007-11-23, 11:48 AM
I've had a similar situation come up before in one of my campaigns, and am ashamed to say I didn't step in. What ended up happening is all the players ended up plotting against the troublemaker. Cursing his scabbard, taking a hit out on his familiar, etc... In the end the player left, and hasn't gamed with us since. Not exactly the best solution.

I would second the idea of bringing the vampires back as an encounter, or even a reoccuring villian later on in the campaign. But new characters are needed. As others have mentioned, your going to have to sit down with the player and inform him that thinks aren't working out as well as you'd like.

I find that a high ECL encounter is a good way to keep the group together, that or giving them no encounters whilest thier split up. If you really need the party split though, I let the other players NPC my monsters, so as to keep everyone in the game. (As much as we try to aviod it, people are going to seperate the party every once and a while.)

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-23, 11:56 AM
If you really need the party slpit though, I let the other players NPC my monsters, so as to keep everyone in the game.
Ooh, that sounds like fun. If I ever get my finger out and DM anything ever, then that will definitely be in my box o' tricks.
Best thing is, if the player try and take advantage of it, they can only do so once. Then they get eaten by a Dire Gnu.

SoD
2007-11-23, 12:42 PM
The two vampires have decided that they are going to do some evil stuff on the island where they are currently located. The rest of the group is on the mainland. After thinking it over for a bit, I have decided that I will not run another split-group session like the last one, as it is unfair to everybody and wastes too much time. If they split because it is neccessary or gives them some sort of advantage, that is fine, but never again because one player is being an ass.

They're on an island? Huzzah! There's your reason! Vampires! Island! Running water! Yay! No, I don't have my MM with me right now. Let me guess, there's ways around that, isn't there?

Yahzi
2007-11-23, 01:09 PM
We have one player in our group (we'll call him Matt) who is a bastard to one other player in particular (we'll call him Josh). He says that he acts that way because his character doesn't like this other player's character, but it seems like all his characters don't like the other player's characters...
Here's my solution. You have a Wizard teleport in and offer Matt a job as his personal bodygaurd, for x2 money, xp, and magic items as he is getting right now, but on another plane of existence. Then you tell Matt that since his character doesn't like the other characters, his character accepts. Both him and the wizard disappear in a poof of smoke.

Tell Matt he can roll up a new character for the next session. If that character doesn't like any of the characters in the group... rinse and repeat. At one character per session, Matt will eventually decide that playing is more fun than being a bastard, and will make a character who doesn't hate anybody else. Or he won't, in which case he wasn't there to play in first place, so eliminating his character at the start of each session is a good thing.

If you don't step in and stop Matt, the other players will, by ganging up on him (either secretly or openly). And that will lead to a lot more hard feelings than you telling Matt he has to play as part of party instead of as an individual.

(On the other hand, back-stabbing a jerkoff player was one of the more fun things I ever did in D&D, so you know, it's kinda win-win either way. :smallbiggrin: )

Zim
2007-11-23, 01:23 PM
Sounds like you have a Belker Bitterleaf in your group. :smallamused:

I find the best way to resolve these situations is to talk to your player about it. Explain why his character has been shuffled off to the NPC pile (no LA +8 PCs, running water, daylight problems etc...) as well as your underlying concerns about party unity.

If he accepts the situation and make an effort to change, then yay! problem solved. If he keeps it up or cause problems, then politely suggest that he find another group to play with.

Most reasonable people will be okay with this. If they're not willing to play nice, then you don't need to either.

Toliudar
2007-11-23, 01:23 PM
I agree that eliminating the vampire characters - especially with the carrot of their possible return as villains at a later point - is a wise move. This may be tough on Matt, unless there's a bait and switch involving something else that will interest him more. He doesn't sound much like a powergamer, just a dough-head, so this may be easily accomplished with shiny baubles - fun bits that might seem cool, but don't overbalance the campaign, and (since you're imposing them), might come with backstory hooks already attached. These would come as an integral part of the package for a new character.

During the same conversation, ONCE HE'S IN HIS HAPPY PLACE, you hit him with the metagame conversation - that he needs to ease up on Josh, that his inability to work within the group is slowing things down for everyone. If he endeavours to fix this, fine and well. If not...well, you've already gotten a ton of Plan B advice above.

Winterwind
2007-11-23, 01:33 PM
Have you told "Matt" about the issues you see with his style of playing directly? Told him how you believe that him antagonising the other players - or just "Josh" in particular - makes the game less fun overall for Josh and yourself, and whether he couldn't cut it out? Now is a good opportunity, after all - he has to create a new character anyway, why not one more compatible?
Also, have you told him how his escapades endanger the party, how he is mistaken about his estimates on what the DM will do and won't do?

As always, I think the way to go would be to first make the player understand your point of view, and then ask him to change for the sake of the group (the goal of roleplaying is, after all, for everyone to have fun).
If he still thinks that himself having more fun is more important than the rest of the group enjoying the time - well, in that case, I believe, you should indeed kick him out.

Ironically, in the light of the previous paragraph, I am quite surprised people here are so dissentful towards split parties. In our games, the characters are apart for well more than half of the time, and it works great; and in fact, it allows each character to develop her/his own story and her/his own relations with each other and the NPCs so much more easily.

Crow
2007-11-23, 02:24 PM
A lot of great advice has been dispensed so far. I have made many comments about his playing style causing friction with the group, and he is a good friend so I can't (and don't want to) resort to the "we don't want to play with you anymore" method.

As far as "Matt"s animosity towards "Josh", I live far from my group, so we don't get to meet or even talk to each other on a frequent basis. I am sure that his issue lies somewhere outside the game, as all his characters hate "Josh"s characters. Would it be a good idea to see if Josh would talk to to Matt and figure out where the problem is? Or should I bring it up and try to be a referee?

Also, how do you provide a character with a shiny plot hook that gives him a reason to stay with the group without railroading his character into a form of indentured servitude, or that will give him a reason to stick with the group after the adventure is over?

Winterwind
2007-11-23, 02:39 PM
A lot of great advice has been dispensed so far. I have made many comments about his playing style causing friction with the group, and he is a good friend so I can't (and don't want to) resort to the "we don't want to play with you anymore" method.

As far as "Matt"s animosity towards "Josh", I live far from my group, so we don't get to meet or even talk to each other on a frequent basis. I am sure that his issue lies somewhere outside the game, as all his characters hate "Josh"s characters. Would it be a good idea to see if Josh would talk to to Matt and figure out where the problem is? Or should I bring it up and try to be a referee?I think what you should do is first ask Josh whether he has any idea why Matt might be so antagonistic towards him. If he does and there really is something between them, well, without knowing what it is it is impossible to give advice on that. If he does not, I would try to arrange it for you to have an opportunity to talk with Matt alone (preferably not per phone; without mimics and the other person's presence people are much more prone to misunderstandings and arguments). Tell him directly about the issues you see - no side-comments, no allusions, be as straight forward as possible. Make sure it is clear that you are not doing this to accuse him, or to boot him out of the group, or something like that, but only because you believe there is a problem diminuishing the fun for you and the rest of the group, and you would like to solve it. This refers to both Matt's playstyle and his relationship with Josh. Basically, discuss the situation calmly with Matt - alone! - until he understands your point, or you have gained new insight into the problem.


Also, how do you provide a character with a shiny plot hook that gives him a reason to stay with the group without railroading his character into a form of indentured servitude, or that will give him a reason to stick with the group after the adventure is over?The easiest way would be, of course, to send both him and the group on some kind of mission together.
But I can't help you here all that much; we usually solve the part of the people staying together in the long run by metagaming (i.e. the players know the other characters are PCs, so they just say that they are a formidable team and hence should stick together), and as for the short run... like I said, I don't think the group staying always together is desirable, so I never took any precautions to cause that.

SmartAlec
2007-11-23, 02:43 PM
It sounds like an OOC problem, and I've never come across an OOC problem that could be solved neatly and to everyone's satisfaction by an IC solution. The IC solution depends on one thing; that the problem is only IC, and that OOC, all the players are doing their best to play together, get along and to make compromises to keep things running. If that's not the case, and you have an actual OOC split in the group, then any IC shenanigans on your part will only keep a lid on things for so long. Usually, when a problem player realises you're using the game IC to deal with an OOC problem, they tend to take offence and start making MORE trouble and hiding behind IC justifications. And that's when it gets nasty.

Anyhow; you're the DM. It's your game. Whatever's going on between Matt and Josh, you don't want to get dragged into it as some kind of third party, and end up having to take sides. What you do want is to ensure that it's not messing up your game. Can you talk to Josh one-on-one, see what light he can shed on things? And then talk to Matt one-on-one and say enough's enough. If he's not gonna play with everyone - because that's what you're all there for, RPing is not a competitive game between players OR between players and DM - then you're just going to have to tell him that he's not really cut out for this game.

Nero24200
2007-11-23, 02:58 PM
That being said, try to convince him to play a character capable of being friends with the party.
QFT

It's the DM's job to create an exciting, enjoyable and fun adventure for the party to do. It's the players job to make a party that works together, not the DM's. If this player intentionally makes a character who doesn't do this, he is a terrible player and a poor excuse for an RPer (You say he has all these interesting ideas now, but if he keeps having the same problems you outlined above, have a closer look. Generally, I find players like this just play the same character with one or two minor, aestetic differences).

Personally, I think one of the best possible solutions would be to show him this thread.
If after reading this thread he doesn't take the hint that maybe acting this way isn't benificial, then hes a bigger idiot than I took him for.

Toliudar
2007-11-23, 03:40 PM
Also, how do you provide a character with a shiny plot hook that gives him a reason to stay with the group without railroading his character into a form of indentured servitude, or that will give him a reason to stick with the group after the adventure is over?

The easiest way is to have the hook tangled with another character. It can be mechanical. This object only works within 60' of (race/gender/class that exists in the party, but is not Matt). This object is a legacy weapon that requires a monthly ceremony including a (race/gender/class as above). Your character's nifty special spell-like ability buff only works on other people. Interdependence is the key.

It can also be subtler - a prophesy that "other PC" has the key to unlocking great potential in you. Of course, these need to be followed up, at least a little, in game. The idea is that Matt's character is rewarded IC for more social and unselfish behaviour, which would (hopefully) translate into a more collaborative style of play OOC.

All of this is from the assumption that a basic "smarten up!" OOC conversation has been tried and has failed, and that you don't really want to phase Josh out of your game.

Ganurath
2007-11-23, 07:40 PM
I say you should try to talk it out and be diplomatic, as stated above on several occasions. However, I should note that Occam's Razor says to find a new Matt.

MrNexx
2007-11-23, 11:14 PM
I say you should try to talk it out and be diplomatic, as stated above on several occasions. However, I should note that Occam's Razor says to find a new Matt.

I agree. If Josh is a good player, and only has trouble with Matt, and Matt is having trouble playing nicely with the rest of the group, it may be that Josh is applying his own kind of pressure to get Matt out of the group... he doesn't like how he plays, so he wants him gone.

However, one problem that many geeks have is coming out and telling people "Dude, you're being a jerk." We tend not to do it, and to downplay confrontations. So, people who are being jerks get away with it for a while.

Yahzi
2007-11-24, 12:43 AM
I am quite surprised people here are so dissentful towards split parties.
We're not. The DM is. Crow said he didn't want to run any more split parties.

Which is a perfectly valid call. The DM gets to run the way the DM runs best.

ocato
2007-11-24, 01:11 AM
My DM used to keep us from splitting up by making us face challenges that would kill the ever-loving-crap out of us if we weren't all together working at maximum potential. Even then, we'd lose a character a session usually. I remember we got a new player and he was like "okay gang, scooby time. Let's split u--" followed abruptly by a tackle and four voices screaming "NO SPLITTING UP EVAR"


He died that session if I recall correctly.

Yami
2007-11-24, 02:24 AM
The problem with splitting up a party is that it detracks from the total amount of playtime that some characters might get. The players not currently in play often get bored, and then, when you do get back to them, they may often enough still have thier attention riveted elsewhere.

I've had it work before, but in general I dislike the practice.

Granted, if the party never splits up you do miss some beautiful moments. Like when the surviving half stumbles on a lone PC, badly wounded, shaking and covered with the remains of his group, one arm waving vaugly towards a golden idol while feverishly muttering, 'It was the statue, don't touch the statue.'

That was a grand session.

Crow
2007-11-24, 08:17 PM
My DM used to keep us from splitting up by making us face challenges that would kill the ever-loving-crap out of us if we weren't all together working at maximum potential. Even then, we'd lose a character a session usually. I remember we got a new player and he was like "okay gang, scooby time. Let's split u--" followed abruptly by a tackle and four voices screaming "NO SPLITTING UP EVAR"


He died that session if I recall correctly.

Part of the problem is that our group enjoys encounters like that because they aren't walk-throughs and it is satisfying to win. A lot of our battles are set up like that, but when one of our main damage dealers wanders off when we're in the middle of a mission, things go very badly.

Matthew
2007-11-25, 08:09 AM
You definitely need to speak to Matt about this, and possibly Josh. Explain to him about the unwritten social contract between a GM and the Player Characters, and how much more difficult he is making your role. Make it clear that the objective of a Roleplaying game is for everybody to have fun whilst playing, including the GM.

Eshu
2007-11-25, 10:47 AM
Intraparty dissent makes the DM's world go around. (Well, at least it did for one of my former DMs.) Find out if it's something personal between the two guys. Sounds like it. Otherwise, just my 2 cents, but it sounds like Matt wants to hack & slash or powergame...not sure which...and your campaign's goals are getting in his way. (Out of curiosity, was his response "Vampirism? All right!"?) Also, having a game center around one person tends to be a bummer for the rest of the people, as they see that one guy constantly get rewarded for their hard work. (JMHO.) The idea of having several items that are interdependent seems to have merit though, but sounds almost artifact-y.

Traveling alone tends to be dangerous, especially in the places that adventurers go. "Bad Things" happen to people individuals who aren't qualified to be out scouting. Again, JMHO, but I agree that the two vampiric PC's are out...sounds like quite the plot foil, since they know rather intimately what the others' goals are too. (The truly evil DM would let them keep playing as possessed pc's until it was time to strike and take the prize.)

Taffimai
2007-11-25, 01:35 PM
If you have already attempted addressing the player(s) involved, or if you know them well enough to know that it wouldn't help, have you considered not doing the split thing any more, pure and simple?

"Dear friends, there is something I need to discuss. I really did not like last session. Having to divide my attention between two completely different fronts is annoying, and I don't like the fact that players have to watch other people's characters do stuff that their characters aren't part of. From now on, I want the party to stay together, or..."

From here, you can continue with whatever suits your DMing style (and will be acceptable to the majority of the players). A few ideas:

- You continue with the party until they reach a natural halt where the others might join up again, the next session starts with the other players doing their thing and catching up (so the 'party' players can come later if they don't want to waste their time).

- You continue with the party and schedule an extra session for the other players.

- You continue with the party and take care of the off-camera action through chat/e-mail with the other players.

- You continue with the party and at the start of the next session you describe what happened to the others, after which they rejoin the party (i.e. no actions get played out but those that centre around the party).

- From now on, characters that willingly leave the party wander off never to be heard or seen again.

My bet would be that all players but Matt would agree to most if not all of these.

I have been reluctant to post this as you initially asked about in-game ways to deal with your problem, but there have been some good suggestions for that now. I just wanted to point out that you are not your players' hostage who has to go along with anything, even if you're not having fun any more. You have a right to make sure you enjoy the game too.

Ossian
2007-11-25, 02:00 PM
There is one thing that could possibly weigh at least a little bit. I know it's personal, and it could just my approach, so feel free to ignore this post of mine. What is the age of the respective players? Or, uh, the age "range" of the group? Believe me it did change my way of dealing with people. Not that you have to treat them as adults only if they have already hit 25, mind you. I've been always the youngest (by 7 to 10 years) in my gaming group, so I should be the first toi defend younger players, but still, looking back I must say that certain situations would have been dealt with differently, according to what stage of life the player involved was going through.

This said, above age 13 (just to pick one age, mind you) civil terms and mutual respect are a must, even if one is acting abit like a jerk. He kight not even know the reason for his behaviour, or possibly he's just crying to be confronted with. It's abit like leaving "FIND ME!" hints, large footprints in the snow.

So, without knowing ages and backgrounds, what I can guess is that the thing needs to be solved outside the game (find the time to do it, on the phone if you live so far from them) and ASAP.

Sure, there is a chance that Matt is otherwise a perfectly nice individual outside the game, and just a dead weight around the table, and he is just bullying Josh. If that is the case and snipers are not available in your campaign setting, you'll earn a place in the GMs' heaven one day, for carrying the weight of a Josh attached to your ankle, but you won't have fun in the meanwhile :smallwink:

O.

Crow
2007-11-25, 02:19 PM
If you have already attempted addressing the player(s) involved, or if you know them well enough to know that it wouldn't help, have you considered not doing the split thing any more, pure and simple?

"Dear friends, there is something I need to discuss. I really did not like last session. Having to divide my attention between two completely different fronts is annoying, and I don't like the fact that players have to watch other people's characters do stuff that their characters aren't part of. From now on, I want the party to stay together, or..."

From here, you can continue with whatever suits your DMing style (and will be acceptable to the majority of the players). A few ideas:

- You continue with the party until they reach a natural halt where the others might join up again, the next session starts with the other players doing their thing and catching up (so the 'party' players can come later if they don't want to waste their time).

- You continue with the party and schedule an extra session for the other players.

- You continue with the party and take care of the off-camera action through chat/e-mail with the other players.

- You continue with the party and at the start of the next session you describe what happened to the others, after which they rejoin the party (i.e. no actions get played out but those that centre around the party).

- From now on, characters that willingly leave the party wander off never to be heard or seen again.

My bet would be that all players but Matt would agree to most if not all of these.

I have been reluctant to post this as you initially asked about in-game ways to deal with your problem, but there have been some good suggestions for that now. I just wanted to point out that you are not your players' hostage who has to go along with anything, even if you're not having fun any more. You have a right to make sure you enjoy the game too.

Yeah, talking with Matt doesn't work, even though he is a grown man. He is one of those people who get defensive or withdrawn when you try to work with them. Too blunt and they get defensive, too diplomatic and they don't care. The suggestions you outlined sound like they may work.

Kvenulf
2007-11-25, 02:31 PM
Assuming there is an actual beef between Matt and Josh, remember that your job is DM, judge of the fantasy world, not the real one. Whether the beef is valid or not isn't really your problem, and getting involved is a slippery slope. Talk to Matt, asking him if he has a beef with Josh out of game, and then say things like, "I feel this is hurting play and enjoyability"; statements of your perspective that are non-threatening and non-judgmental. Ask him if he can resolve things with Josh and, if the answer is "no", ask him if he can keep a lid on it during the game. Point out that, if Josh is being a jerk when you are not around, that isn't your issue. You are the DM, and it is your game, period. Matt is the one disrupting the game, that's why you are talking to Matt. If he can't agree to "play nice", then somebody has to go; let them decide, and if they can't, inform them that you'll go and get a different group, thank you very much.

Since Matt is building a new character anyway, maybe you should sit down with him and work together to create it. Try to suggest ways he can build his background with connections and hooks, and be cooperative and non-dogmatic. Most players want a bit more depth (unless they are horrid munchkins), but don't know how to integrate their characters into your world. Even if he rejects everything you suggest, your taking out time to work with him will probably smooth waters and make him more amiable. Maybe he is jealous of Josh? Sounds weird, but it has happened in my groups before.

#Raptor
2007-11-25, 02:34 PM
Although i think the OOC suggestions are better, heres a idea i had:

Encourage him to play a Paladin. Paladins make good party-faces and frontliners, so they mostly get alot of attention and they almost always have something important to do (killing uglies, talking to kings and nobles, healing wounded party members).
Also, if they ever commit a evil act, they fall. Once he agreed to being a Paladin and starts being a bastard towards "Josh", threaten him with falling.
Bullying someone might just be seen as evil by his god, eh? :smallwink:

If that alone isn't enough encouragement, drop some item thats particulary good for paladins (such as a sword thats a +2 Longsword, but becomes a +3 Holy longsword in the hands of a paladin... of course, if he falls... back to +2 regular longsword. :smalltongue: ).
If you believe that still wouldn't be enough, well, perhaps "Josh" would like to play a cleric/other character of the same alignment and deity? So "Matt" would have a hard time coming up with a reason why his character dislikes "Josh"s character.

/Edit: I name this one the "carrot and stick"-option. :smallamused:

Ganurath
2007-11-25, 04:51 PM
I agree. If Josh is a good player, and only has trouble with Matt, and Matt is having trouble playing nicely with the rest of the group, it may be that Josh is applying his own kind of pressure to get Matt out of the group... he doesn't like how he plays, so he wants him gone.

However, one problem that many geeks have is coming out and telling people "Dude, you're being a jerk." We tend not to do it, and to downplay confrontations. So, people who are being jerks get away with it for a while.I think you misread the same way I initially did. Matt's character is antagonizing Josh's, not the other way around.

Epic_Wizard
2007-11-25, 09:44 PM
Adjusting the habits and views of someone like the person you have described can be very difficult and any serious attempt could result in the loss of this person from your D&D group and you could even loose him as your friend. Granted if this were to happen you might evaluate while you really want him as your friend and if the good out weighs the bad including this fault then go try and get on his good side again.

First I would ask him in a friendly manner why he has done some of these things. Joke about it and see how he reacts. Try saying something like asking him what he thinks his character would do now that he is an NPC and a vampire. Don't ask him for specific actions and if he tells you that he would go and attack or hinder Josh's character then say something like 'as interesting as that might be I can't really do that (at the moment because it would screw with the current plot/because I'm the DM and that would be harassing him (pick one))'. If he latches on to the idea of his character harassing Josh's character then tell him you may take it under consideration but that you need to know why he is doing this along with other things about his motivations and background. If he raises no objections to this then you simply tell him okay but since the vampire is going to have a reason for wanting to attack Josh's character his new character shouldn't also have a reason for hating him since this would create roll playing conflicts since the other characters could suspect that he is working with the former vamp him. He will either say that this is fine at which point you should try and hold him to it or he will reneg on the vampire hating Josh's Character. At this point depending on how things have gone you might be able to casually bring up why most (don't say all he will probably take it badly) of his characters seem to be antagonistic towards Josh's characters. Point out that as DM you need to know if there is some real life problem between the two of them that is spilling into the game.

I can't really lay out a possible chain of events beyond this because I have no idea what his reason might be. He may not even have one. You might also want to ask Josh about this before hand so that you have an idea of how big this is.

The big thing when talking to your friend is to keep the tone of the conversation light. Talk to him like you are joking about something and if possible make it a joke at least just for this situation. You will probably get a lot more out of him than a direct confrontation because he will hopefully feel that you are on his side to some extent. All of this could even be worked into the context of you talking to him about his vamp character becoming an NPC and possible recurring villain. If there was anything amusing about how his character got turned then bring that up fairly early or just after you have told him you want his character to become an NPC.

Anyways keep in mind that this is based on my experiences and ideas which may or may not be applicable here and if you don't think that this idea will work then don't try it. You know the guy I don't I just know people who get defensive and angry when criticized or "attacked". Info from Josh about why he thinks Matt is attacking him through the game would be good though.

HealthKit
2007-11-25, 10:47 PM
Personally I think you should strongly encourage your players to keep the party together. Try not to put them in situations where they might split up. Discourage it wherever an whenever possible.
Instituting Taffimai's "From now on, characters that willingly leave the party wander off never to be heard or seen again." rule sounds great.

I think introducing an NPC you control to the group might help out and give some insight. Since talking to a player directly about his actions could be too awkward or uncomfortable for some people, do it indirectly.
Through an NPC you, the DM, can talk directly to "Matt's" character. You can use your character to talk to "Matt's" character and, in a way, talk to Matt about his actions and decisions.
At the very least you'll be able to attempt to get Matt's character to go along with the group yourself if the others in the group aren't willing or able to do it themselves.
You'll also have someone to help out the rest of the party if Matt's character turns on them.

If not, then well, "Okay, Matt's character leaves for whatever reason and is never seen again. Matt, churn up another character (make him/her a level or two under your previous one when he left and he/she won't have those powerful/magical items your previous character acquired earlier, just the basic supplies with X amount of GP) while the rest of the group moves on. Matt, your new character will show up to meet the others later, when it's appropriate time to introduce him/her"

Making up a new character will take time, which leaves him less play time, which probably isn't much fun. Maybe after a couple instances of him making new characters while everyone else is having fun (and maybe gaining more XP, gold and acquiring items) he'll realize his current tactics aren't going well and might be less inclined to follow them any further.
Yeah, it's kind of railroading, but it's for the good of the group.

Kompera
2007-11-26, 01:08 AM
[snippage and some re-ordering of quotes to group like things]
We have one player in our group (we'll call him Matt) who is a bastard to one other player in particular (we'll call him Josh). He says that he acts that way because his character doesn't like this other player's character, but it seems like all his characters don't like the other player's characters...That's a huge problem, and needs to be addressed by you, as the GM, or by the host, if it's not addressed by you. Deliberate intra-party conflict is your job to resolve unless you're not the host. In that case it becomes a little more murky, but if the host isn't Matt or isn't related to or closely tied to Matt then you should speak to the host about your plan to have a talk with Matt about his behavior. And then talk to Matt.


"Matt" always insists upon doing his own thing, and often does not care if his actions put the group at a severe disadvantage. He has little "feel" for what his character can and cannot do, and often insists on taking courses of action that make me want to say "Are you sure about that?".

Last session he did again what he always does, and I kept my mouth shut while he did it. He insisted upon doing his own thing, while the majority of the group planned on doing something else. In fact, in keeping my mouth shut, "Matt" even managed to get another of our group to go along with him. To make a long story short, both characters were inflicted with vampirism as a result of their stupidity (Matt also has a case of: "The DM would never put us up against something we couldn't handle"...which isn't true).So Matt isn't just hostile to Josh, he is passive aggressive to the rest of the group, and doesn't care much for the groups goals or a realistic assessment of the difficulties he may be causing the rest of the group by insisting on "doing his own thing". This again is something which you as the GM must address.


In addition, the depth of his roleplaying involves making the DM have awkward romantic conversations with him in the part of a female npc...ugh.This is an issue which I've nipped in the bud as a GM by simply asking the player OOC, when the awkward part of the conversation starts, "Do you want something to happen"? If the player says "Yes", and if it's not a prominent NPC which would cause issues to have had a romantic liaison with one of the players, then I simply say "It's a fantasy game, so it does.", and move on to another player's actions. There is never any reason to go further down that path then you are comfortable. And since you aren't comfortable with it, you need to use your leadership position as the GM to move on to other things. You control the pace, you control the NPCs, you have to set the limits of interactions with NPCs.


The biggest problem with this whole escapade, was that it split up the group, and made the session drag. Big time. I did my best to switch scenes fairly often without it being to quickly, but it still ended up sucking for the players who weren't "in the action" at certain times. Basically, a session that should have taken 4 hours ended up taking 8.
After thinking it over for a bit, I have decided that I will not run another split-group session like the last one, as it is unfair to everybody and wastes too much time. If they split because it is neccessary or gives them some sort of advantage, that is fine, but never again because one player is being an ass.
I just want to avoid the split party.You've got the gist of it. Splitting the group may make logical sense in some situations, but for playability reasons the GM should never do it and never allow it unless it is necessary for the plot. Again, you need to use your role as the GM to lead things to where you need them to be. The simplest thing to do when the players are talking about splitting the group in a situation where it isn't going to be good for ease of play is to say something like: "I see you're talking about splitting up. And that's fine, but I've found that running a split party is a pain and leads to half of you sitting around pretending not to hear what's going in with the other half for role-play reasons. So while you're free to split up, those who want to split off will need to leave, and I'll run the rest of the night with the other group. And then we'll catch you up next session without the rest."
Often this will end the discussion of splitting up. If it doesn't, at least you've kept the players who wanted to stick together from being bored by asking the others to leave while you run the cooperative group.


The two vampires have decided that they are going to do some evil stuff on the island where they are currently located. The rest of the group is on the mainland.

I decided (and tell me if this is a bad decision on my part) to make the two vampires roll new characters. Their new evil alignment is sure to lead to a showdown if the group gets back together, which isn't a problem. I was thinking of keeping their vampires as villians for a possible campaign in the future...but we will see...not in this campaign for sure. The player thyat went along with "Matt" sensed it coming, and has no problem with making a new character, but I havn't told "Matt" yet.Yes, those characters are now NPCs, and you should ask for the character sheets. Any other decision only leads to more split party or intra-party conflict, and won't help the story plot move along at all.


What are some good in-game reasons to keep the group together, and prevent this bastard's characters from splitting off from the group all the time? I had suspected that he was wanting the action to focus more on his guy, and this was his way of showing it, so we tried that and it was the same, just with more "Matt" focus. I need non-railroad ways to "make" his character be nice, and be part of a group.I hope I've provided some decent weapons for your GM arsenal.

But if after you've spoken to Matt and explained your issues with his interactions, if he doesn't accept that he needs to change his behavior, then you've got to ask him to go. If he becomes defensive or argumentative, stop him by stating simply that this was the response you expected, that it is unacceptable, and that he needs to make the call about whether he is going to be able to play nicely with others. Tell him that your having a discussion with him was a courtesy, and that it's not a debate, and any attempts to turn it into a debate will be ignored. But you do owe him the courtesy of the explanation, however unpleasant you might feel about the prospect. And you need to take the high ground, and remain calm throughout the conversation, no matter how Matt reacts. Do not allow him to upset you.

Crow
2007-11-26, 12:10 PM
Wow Kompera, that's a lot of really good info.

I managed to get an opportunity to speak with Josh last night. Among other things, I asked him "Why are Matt's characters always such a **** to your characters?", to which he replied "Because Matt doesn't like me. Didn't you know?"

At first I thought he was joking, and since I live like 4 hours away, I am at a disadvantage when it comes to hanging and knowing what's going on with my friends. (I was friends with Matt first. He has good qualities, and other not-so-good qualities, like anybody else. I met Josh later, and am good friends with both, though I see neither very often.) I asked Josh why this would be. and Josh then went on to explain that Matt really only hung out with Josh to go drinking, and now that he doesn't drink as often, they don't hang out too much.

I told him that I was seeing a lot of unprovoked animosity towards him, and if it bothered him. He said something along the lines of "That's just Matt." (which, it is). Not wanting to become too deeply involved in a situation which is between the two of them, I changed the subject to find out what Josh's character was planning on doing next session (so I can be prepared), and told him to give me a call anytime.

I have not been able to get ahold of Matt yet.

As far as Matt's new character is concerned, I am letting the two characters inflicted with vampirism to hold onto their sheets. In the event that I need them as villians later on, I'll get them then..or just rebuild from scratch (they like to look over their old badass characters while waiting for the games to start. One is already aware that he will be needing a new character and said he kindof figured it would be that way. Matt will not be happy about his vampire being NPC'd. I will probably not be there when he makes a new character (usually they just make it, and do their ability rolls in front of me before the session starts), and he will be pissed about starting at a lower level than everyone else (I can't make an exception to this rule...not for a very good reason).

I plan on working with Matt prior to the next session to see how we can work a connection (via plot or background) to the group that will give him a reason to play nice with them, and want to stick with them. As somebody mentioned earlier, Matt does seem to make characters that are all pretty much the same personality wise. I think the best option to make him want to stick with the group will be power. In this case, something which gives him signifigant advantages when within a certain range of one of the other characters for whatever reason. I am thinking some sort of bodyguard or guardian mileiu in whatever it is. I still need to work out a way that will make it "cool". Becasue I don't think he'll dig being a bodyguard. Depending on the character he makes, I am also planning on including elements which will give his character chances to shine within the plot the group has chosen to pursue (He was plaing a CW Samurai before...it doesn't shine very well anywhere).

Epic_Wizard
2007-11-26, 12:26 PM
Here is an idea. Have an evil Wizard (or even better one of the Vampire characters) curse each of the PCs but the curse has an up side and a down side. Make it an Epic Level curse so that you don't have to work within the normal rules for such things. Have Matt's character's curse be something that requires him to do something similar to sticking with one of the group, probably not the guy that he carried off last time or Josh, and give it an up side as well. Like he loses x amount of gold every time this character takes damage but he gains gold every time he assists the character. Don't make it exploitable but make it possible for him to come out at least a little on top. Also do the same thing for everyone else in the group. Someone might have to avoid touching an evil being but gains something when he helps a good being.

If you go this route then make these more interesting quirks than solid advantages but make sure that they will hinder the character in some way if they ignore them. As you pointed out every person has his flaws and if possible these curses should subtly relate to these.

Whatever you do make sure that you don't single Matt out.

Also now that we know that he doesn't like Josh you can be a little more frank about this. Just say that you get that he doesn't like him much but he should pull back a little on antagonizing his character. I wouldn't ban him from it completely but make sure that there is a decent reason and that it won't come up all the time.

Ossian
2007-11-26, 04:12 PM
What was the name of that series where a highschool guy, who used to torment all the weaker people, got turned into a stray dog and he had to do 99 good deeds if he wanted to regain human form (and he was supposed to spend lots of time with the guy he tormented most)...can't remember...

Anyway, a background hook good for one plot arc (you shouldn't over use it), could be something like: his PC is cursed, and he has to perform "99" (or other kabbalah number...) good deeds before he turns 30, or before the King gets married, or before the next solar eclipse. All bad deeds cancel a good deed. Some good deeds are worth more than 1 in the countdown, just like some bad deeds will send him back to square one way faster.

Having to follow this strict rule, maybe even complaining and ranting and hating it, and doing it with feelings of revenge, will sooner or later put the character in the "good guys" league.

if he does not succeed (but, come on, he should, albeit by a very small margin...)...omaewamu shindaeyu...you're dead (boom!)

O.

HealthKit
2007-11-27, 01:23 PM
I think the best option to make him want to stick with the group will be power. In this case, something which gives him signifigant advantages when within a certain range of one of the other characters for whatever reason. I am thinking some sort of bodyguard or guardian mileiu in whatever it is. I still need to work out a way that will make it "cool". Becasue I don't think he'll dig being a bodyguard. Depending on the character he makes, I am also planning on including elements which will give his character chances to shine within the plot the group has chosen to pursue (He was plaing a CW Samurai before...it doesn't shine very well anywhere).

Hmm, a bodyguard position sounds like a Fighter.
Considering his track record, this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I kind of get the impression that he'll just end up doing what he was doing before, using his power to torment other players and make himself more important than he really is.

But hey, that's just the impression I've gotten, I could be very wrong with that.

Keep us updated Crow.

Ralfarius
2007-11-27, 02:03 PM
All intra-party and player conflict can be solved by threatening Horse-whipping.

See this Snickers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iqvPVLQm70) for a good example of how it's done.

Old_Man
2007-11-27, 03:50 PM
I will probably not be there when he makes a new character (usually they just make it, and do their ability rolls in front of me before the session starts)

I plan on working with Matt prior to the next session to see how we can work a connection (via plot or background) to the group that will give him a reason to play nice with them, and want to stick with them

A suggestion- get together with him before gaming. Matt is going to have an idea of what he wants for a character. You have the idea of how your campaign should run. Make sure they are compatible before you start. If you can't get togther physically... you got e-mail.

I would also suggest really developing the character. Don't just roll the dice. Have Matt draft a full bio- childhood, teen years, school, family, first love, hobbies, etc. Determine how the character become a [insert class here] and work out the characters connections, friends, foes, and motivations. The more he invests in bringing his character to life before you play, the wiser he will play it. Then, you copy it all and use his background for your plot hooks.

leperkhaun
2007-11-28, 08:04 AM
Talk to him....... if he doesnt listen you can always kick him out of the group.

In story.... if they keep raising too much heck....and they arnt hiding the fact....it wouldnt be far fetched if say a couple level 15 holy crusaders found their way there to eliminate the threat of the undead.

Epic_Wizard
2007-11-28, 10:27 AM
He said he was making the Vamps into NPC's so it doesn't matter what Matt and company intended to do since they are no longer in control of the vamps.

Leicontis
2007-11-28, 12:26 PM
Honestly, I'd be blunt with Matt. If he's too fragile to handle that, it's his problem. Be friendly with him, but if he reacts to a friendly request (something along the lines of "stop antagonizing Josh") with hostility, then he's an acquaintance, not a friend. Friends don't have to handle each other with kid gloves. They treat each other with respect and candor - if Matt refuses to do so towards you, then he doesn't consider you a friend, and no longer deserves such consideration from you. I realize that this may be painful to consider, but in truth, if you're that afraid of Matt's reaction, then any friendship you may have had is probably already gone. You apparently don't trust him to respond to you in a respectful and friendly manner (perhaps justifiably so), and he apparently doesn't respect you enough to do so.

When you confront him, take a tone of "you probably don't realize that you're having this effect," and make it clear that you're trying to work with him to help everyone enjoy the game more. Before you lay down your solution(s), ask if he's got any ideas for how this can be accomplished. Offer to discuss alternatives with some or all of he other players, if he feels that would be appropriate. Give him options - people that jump to defensiveness as easily as you describe tend to hate feeling backed into a corner. With multiple options, and by giving him the initiative in helping solve the problem, you let him continue to feel in control (which seems to be what he really wants), which makes him a lot more comfortable and compliant.

If he refuses to correct his misbehavior, then I would strongly recommend asking him to leave the game. However, if you want to maintain contact/friendship with him, the best way to do this is something along the lines of "I don't like the person you become when you game. You're cool away from game, and I want to keep that friendship, but I can't handle the way you act at game. The only real way to do this is for one of us to leave the game, which I can't exactly do on account of being the DM." Make it clear that you like the person he is away-from-game, but not the person he becomes during game. If he protests "but that's my character!", remind him that he determines his character's actions, not the character. If he pleads ignorance of what you're talking about, cite concrete examples. Be friendly, but be firm.

supreme_war_pig
2007-11-29, 07:46 PM
There is such a thing as player ettiquitte (sp?). Role playing is a cooperative enterprise between DM and players. If this were my game, I would talk to the bastard, and if he still didn't play well with others, I'd jetison him.