Problem players and how to deal with them...

[Katana_Geldar]

I'm one of the GMs in our gaming group, and pretty much the only GM that runs SW, but there is a player that we have all noticed that tries to grab a lot more of the spotlight than the others. He is, in other words, a Munchkin.

Not the backstabing kind, the kind where the game is all about him even to the point where he tries to give the plot a right turn WITHOUT telling me. No surprise as to why he found himself bound and gagged at the end of last session when he tried to tell the NPC they were supposed to capture to run away. I don't want to go into all the arguments I had with him that killing Hutts is a very bad idea...

And not just that, but the way he goes on about his rolls is annoying to the point of exasperation, shouting out numbers and adding them to the point where even I scream at him to give me just one.

Many times, I have tried to talk to him and explain that what he does affects other players in a bad way, that the game is not just about him and his character and that introducing something new midgame without telling the current GM/DM gets an automatic veto. But he does not see anything wrong with what he does, and when I do try to explain this to him he doesn't care.

At least I made a very clear point on the ban on PvP when the dragon I ran one session whiped out 4/5 of the group he had convinced to turn on the other half of the group.

The point is, he's actually one of the oldest players there and some of what he has brought to me has led to some pretty good campaigns. The current on in Star Wars started form an idea of his, but now he's against the idea as we've taken it and run with it to something the whole group could participate in. However, it's gone from "How can I incorporate Dave's idea into the campaign and make it something everyone will like" into "How can I keep Dave busy so he won't hijack tha campaign or annoy everyone at the table". As he annoys everyone, and is annoyed by the one guy at the table that everyone likes.

To top it off, his girlfriend is one of our players and she's actually quite good. Despite the fact that I have to ask them not to make "grapple checks" on each other as it's rather annoying and slows down encounters.

Suggestions?

[Ranos]

Isn't introducing new things into the plot the point ? If he does something stupid, he gets the consequences, as adjudicated by a fair dice-roll and adequate reactions from the NPCs. If it's not stupid, good for him, good for the group that gets to profit, good for you who doesn't have to come up with everything and gets entertained.

If you really can't handle giving him the freedom he needs, try being a player for a while and ask him to DM. See things from his side for a little while, while he sees things from yours.

[rakkoon]

Try and stay calm? I dunno, if all the players are annoyed by him perhaps they should tell him. Not just you as the DM but the whole group.

[Katana_Geldar]

I do play once in a while, he does come up with some good ideas and I do go along with them. But introducing things into the plot in the middle of the game without telling the GM first? And deliberately trying to circumvent the plans of the other players so you get in charge rather than them when their plan was your idea in the first place?

[mikej]

Oh man, I've been there before. Sometimes it was with two of them.

Refering to him as the oldest players doesn't help his case. More or less actually makes him seem more juvenile in his behaivor. How does he not see any fault in his actions? I'm sure his girlfriend would have said something or she would talk with him seeing how it effects the rest. Of course, If she is aware of the situation.

How about instead of just kicking him out. You give him a temporary leave of absence for like one or two sessions. Before doing that you explain the negative consequences of his actions. Be tough but also fair. It's not a immediate banning. It's like a time out in away. He may actually feel quilty for his actions and concerned about him not joining while the rest are.

Edit: What did the other guy ( the one everyone but him likes ) do?

[Katana_Geldar]

He did miss the last session because of illness, but I spoke to him about an hour ago and it seems not to have made any difference. Particularly when he badmouthed that player that we all like.

I have explained to him consequences, that if he, for example, kills a Hutt Lord, he can expect a bounty on his head so large he won't be able to go near a civilised system. And that's if he manages to do it without the players killing him first, and I'm willing to let the PvP barrier down for that...to some extent.

Last session he was in where the players had to recruit an NPC to a crime lord and not take no for an answer, the other players moved against him. Everyone had agreed to do the job to pay a debt that the captain of their ship owed to the crime lord, and when he tried to tell her to run away they stunned, bound and gagged him.

EDIT: The other guy? Let's call him Tim. It was his idea to subdue Dave, and there was much rejoicing.

[mikej]

I have explained to him consequences, that if he, for example, kills a Hutt Lord, he can expect a bounty on his head so large he won't be able to go near a civilised system. And that's if he manages to do it without the players killing him first, and I'm willing to let the PvP barrier down for that...to some extent.

Then don't stop it. You as the DM gave the PC the polite "This may happen/Are you sure?" response. That's more than enough on your part. He maybe trying to see how far he can push things. Killing a Hutt would mean big consequences and he may want to see if you follow through with whatever bad stuff or you manuever around it. If see this happen alot in my gaming group. Players don't seem to think of the consequences because they know the DM may not go through with it. The PvP scenario is a little bit tricky. Not a great way to resolve anything, just sometimes it's the only way.

and there was much rejoicing.

[low] haaay...

I don't agree with player bashing as well. I'm not innocent of this either. I used to, until my DM ( among others ) confronted me about it. It's not a good way to set up the fun atmosphere of the game. Make it clear to him that he wouldn't like it, so why would anyone else.

[Ranos]

But introducing things into the plot in the middle of the game without telling the GM first?

and I'm willing to let the PvP barrier down for that

Sounds like you've got an adversarial GM-player relationship going on. That can never end well.

I'm guessing that he's introducing things in the middle of the plot to surprise you, because he's afraid that you would otherwise react and twist the scenario to railroad him away/metagame the hell out of it.

You need to have a serious conversation and you need to make him understand that he can trust you, that you're above that sort of thing (you are, right ?). If you can't see eye to eye on that, and you don't feel like improvising every time he adds a twist (Personally, I find that's half the fun of GMing, but to each his own), then maybe you're just not meant to game together.

[Katana_Geldar]

The other players do know how far to go with PvP (ie, non-lethal) which of course he does not.

But I see your point about letting him have it, sometimes I'm just too nice. That's what happened with the PvP and the dragon anyway, my co-DM was too nice, she says yes, and the rest is history.

EDIT: The much rejoicing part was just part of the post, but the encounter (and the next session) were smoother and comparatively more enjoyable without him trying to be the centre of things. I've had players leave the table to go "get some air" and pass me notes to try and rein him in because they are just sick of how he carries on.

And I do allow new ideas at the table as long as I can work out the best way to them for everyone. I never say "No" when I can say "Yes" and if it is a no it's usually just "Not right now, I need to work it out".

But improvising is one thing. Going out on a tangent against an idea that was your idea to begin with that everyone has agreed to follow and not telling anyone at all? That's a completely different colour of bantha.

[rakkoon]

Well, if he's scaring away your other players...you know, the ones you do like...and they might not come back because of this one player... I give you Spock

Spoiler

Show

Spock: "The needs of the many... outweigh -"
Kirk: "The needs of the few."
Spock: "Or the one."

[mikej]

I stand by my idea of temp banning. If other players are getting this upset, it's time to do something more drastic. You have exhasuted all other more polite methods of dealing with him and nothing is working.

But I see your point about letting him have it, sometimes I'm just too nice. That's what happened with the PvP and the dragon anyway, my co-DM was too nice, she says yes, and the rest is history.

There is an old saying I use for ( almost ) this exact situation.

You tell your players that nearby is the Dark-Forest-Of-Certain-Painfull-Death and that all who enter ... well die. One of the players decides to see how far you're willing to go with this. They enter the Dark-Forest-Of-Certain-Painfull-Death. Now you can be nice and not kill that player. After all, you're the DM, entertainment is the #1 goal. Certainly dying isn't very entertaining. Just you warned them and it was a plot relevant part of the story. Now that player doesn't believe in your empty threats/warnings and is confident enough that nothing is going to stop him/her.

Or you just mercilessly slaughter them upon the first steps in the Forest. If they doesn't seem to care for it, you just smiled, and remind them you gave proper warning. Now they're not going to think everything is going to be a push over and may actually think for once. I understand that there is time to fudge things for the fun factor of the player. Just there has to be some consequences in the world.

[Choco]

I have always been in favor of the "3 strikes, you're out" rule. Tell him that his behavior is ruining the fun of the rest of the group, and that if he doesn't cut the crap you are going to cut him from the group. If he keeps it up give him a slightly sterner warning. If he still does it then remove him. If no one in the group is having fun playing with him, then don't play with him

[valadil]

I don't think of the plot hijacking as a problem. He's just in the wrong game. This player needs a sandbox game, stat. Let him kill a hutt and face the consequences.

Being selfish with regards to the other players isn't cool though. Your description reminded me of someone I used to game with. He monopolized the GM and treated the other players like NPCs. He'd talk over us if we tried to approach the GM. If we tried to talk to him, he'd ignore it. I don't play with him anymore and I'm much better off that way.

[Umael]

I'm not sure completely (although leaning towards it) that banning him is the solution. I do know that part of the reason you hinted at not banning him is that his girlfriend also plays and she's one of the good players.

This implies that one of the reasons you don't want to ban him is because his absence will cause his girlfriend to leave as well. This is a valid concern, but it needs to be tempered with the thought of what he is costing you if he remains in the game, even if his departure will mean his girlfriend leaves as well.

You also should consider what will happen if he continues. Will his disruptive behavior ruin the game anyway?

You can also try seeing if his girlfriend is willing to do something. A frank, "Hey (gf), need to talk to you about (problem player). It is getting to the point where I am thinking of banning (problem player). I am concerned that if he goes, you will too. If you can think of something to rein in (problem player), I would be more than interested in hearing it."

There is also the question of seeing about doing something else with him so he doesn't get so excluded. "Hey, we're thinking about seeing a movie tonight, want to come? Yeah, well, just because we kicked you out doesn't mean that it's the end, ya know?"

[Zeful]

Kick him out. There's not much of a reason to keep him around if all he's doing is annoying everyone else with his shenanigans.

[Katana_Geldar]

Ok, now he's threatening to leave unless he can run his own organisation in addition to the players running one as well.

I said "No, you can't have your own organisation as how am I expected to GM two of them?"

I am considering letting the players go all Mafia on him, as the character he makes shouldn't last 5 minutes usually.

[Zeful]

Ok, now he's threatening to leave unless he can run his own organisation in addition to the players running one as well.

I said "No, you can't have your own organisation as how am I expected to GM two of them?"

I am considering letting the players go all Mafia on him, as the character he makes shouldn't last 5 minutes usually.

"Okay bye, don't come back".

[Katana_Geldar]

Yeah, I pretty much said that and a few peices of my mind as well. He's even thinking of bowing out of the Tomb of Horrors when it comes up as he wants to make every campaign about his character.

[Skorj]

Definitely handled better out of character than in character. Once a player does stuff that makes the other players want to kill him (OK, maybe just his character), the game ususally stops being fun. It seems like either he goes or everyone else goes, so that's simple enough.

When a player refuses to take the game setting seriously, like killing a Hutt boss, not really caring that that effectively ends the campaign for the other players, that's pure selfishness. If he insists on ruining the game for others, he has no place in the game, so send him off to play single-player computer RPGs, and go back to enjoying your game.

You may be looking for a way to get him to change, but I've never seen a player like that change, except when other areas of life forced him to mature.

[Katana_Geldar]

Not really, ruling the game he just wants to run it. He's a backseat GM with a GMPC. At one point we considered putting him in the chair and all of us playing like him, so he'd see what it was like.

I am usually accommoating towards my players in terms of where the ganme story should go, but there is a limit.

And there's always Paranoia, I want to run it and have my revenge.

[Aroka]

What's the problem, exactly? He's saying he'll leave, and that'll fix the problem of him, yes? A winner is you.

[Zeful]

Another way to deal with it would be to instead, let him keep playing and when he tries to usurp the game again, put him behind the screen right then and there, take out a pre-written character sheet, and wait for him to start up the game.

[Aroka]

Another way to deal with it would be to instead, let him keep playing and when he tries to usurp the game again, put him behind the screen right then and there, take out a pre-written character sheet, and wait for him to start up the game.

Being passive-aggressive and immature is never a good way to deal with anything.

Being up-front, firm, and not bluffing (i.e. doing what you say you will, when you say you will) generally is. It's certainly a superior way.

[Katana_Geldar]

He didn't like the idea of GMing as he wants to run it specifcally his way and style and in a completely different era to what we are playing. I told him GMing doesn't work like that and the conversation ended there.

[Math_Mage]

He didn't like the idea of GMing as he wants to run it specifcally his way and style and in a completely different era to what we are playing. I told him GMing doesn't work like that and the conversation ended there.

Well, um, if you want him to GM, why not let him come up with a campaign he wants to GM? You can return to the epic adventures of your campaign at another time--maybe sooner than expected if he up and quits.

[Katana_Geldar]

He doesn't want to GM the whole group (there are about eight of us on average) and wants to choose people as his players...which pretty much puts him outside the regular group meetings on saturdays as they involve everyone.

Anyway, I'll see how this works after a bit. And there's always paranoia

[Math_Mage]

He doesn't want to GM the whole group

Wups, game over.

Well, if you get a chance to ask him anything, I guess you'd ask him why he thinks he should have an organization to himself, and why it's a serious enough matter to leave over, and why he thinks you would allow that for just him.

[Katana_Geldar]

I know why, he told me. He wants to do his own thing and not take any "orders" from anyone.

He sprung this on me when I told him I would be statting the player organisation as well as organising the campaign for the whole group. To be honest, I got rather sick of having to find someway to "keep him busy" so he wouldn't hijack the campaign.

I remember him doing it once, with recruiting the NPC for a crimelord. He went against the plan the group had agreed on and spent the rest of the session bound and gagged. The first thing that the players did when he didn't turn up to the session was kill his character and steal his stuff, and there was much rejoicing (really). I allowed it then as I could quickly use the GM fiat to retcon it.

Looks like it's going to stand, now.

And then there was the last D&D session where he wasted so much time trying to castrate an ancient black dragon as he wanted another set of bolas made of dragon balls...an encounter we were meant to lose as we aren't even Paragon yet. In a brillant move, the DM said the dragon was female.

[Lev]

http://www.feartheboot.com/

Hundreds 1-2 hour long podcasts to help you run your campaigns, best help there is.

[Psyx]

"Ok, now he's threatening to leave unless he can run his own organisation in addition to the players running one as well."

Kthnxbye!

I was going to suggest asking him to run a game, and then all acting in a coordinated manner to derail every one of his plots.

But if he only wants to run a game on HIS terms and wants play to centre around HIM, then he clearly hasn't got the hang of teamwork and/or friendship. If he wants to hand-pick players, then I'd say to him:

'Look, you wanted to hand pick players, so you obviously think that's an ok thing to do. I was repelled at the idea at first, but I've actually come to see it your way. I think that picking players who will work towards the campaign goals and make for a good game is actually an excellent idea. Bye.'

You already have 8 players. That's more than enough. Shame to loose the girlfriend, but if other players are actually high-fiving each other as theykill his character, then I think they are sending a pretty clear message as well.