Dealing with a Roleplaying Minmaxer

[Trekkin]

This has actually been bugging me for some time, but I have a golden opportunity to perhaps set it right, and I thought I'd ask the Playground for advice. This is going to be a very long post.

The titular minmaxer actually isn't, at least not mechanically, but they are when RPing. While not mechanically superior, they are mechanically unique, and the player will never back down on two points:

1. If they are capable of doing it, they are the best choice to do it, bar nothing. Got the party sharpshooter ready to cover the whole party from the rooftops with a rapid-fire sniper rifle? no, no, it's much better to have this guy chucking knives, because it's quieter. Said player will then turn around and brag about how versatile they are.
2. Their character has no flaws. I have to stop here and say that because of the hidden complexities of the system, my fellow DM and I built the characters in conference with the players, and in the process we threw in a fairly detailed backstory designed not to inhibit their future character development but rather to give them a well-rounded basis from which to explore a very complex world. This guy was a stage magician who was an organized crime lord on the side, and basically was addicted to having absolutely everyone in his town either love him or fear him; the crowd loved his shows, and the powers that were feared his organization. Now, whenever we bring this up in-game, he's always pleased to see his char's name recognized whenever he's dumb enough to use it (there's a reason the guy left the city to tromp around with a circus troupe), but refuses to believe he actually has any enemies, alleging "my character wouldn't have done that" despite having enthusiastically embraced "being a big enough badass to have made my empire" and loving the backstory we'd handed him that explicitly said he had powerful enemies, as well as something of an inferiority complex. I'm all for players liking their characters and building idealized characters, but this is Deadlands, and character flaws are a major part of the game--one he's missing, and one he's losing out on the equivalent of XP--as per the rules--for not roleplaying, much to his frequently voiced indignation. Even out of character, he's a step away from doublethink regarding his character, and utterly refuses to acknowledge that the possibility exists that he could fail to do something.

This kind of shameless bragging annoys me, but more to the point it annoys the rest of the group, and it seriously drags down the roleplay when there's this guy running around saying "not to worry! I'll just do everything!" and even sneaking around sabotaging those efforts of the group he felt were detrimental to the party.

Now, I've brought this up with him out of character before, asking him to tone down the bragging and the overtaking of over players' roles, and he's like this with everything, so of course he's blind to suggestions that he the player is playing the game in a way that makes it less fun for the party. I could, in theory, just remove him from the game, but I don't know if this merits that yet, especially since he's not doing it maliciously. He's just similar to a megalomaniac, and both his playing and his GMing of other campaigns reflects that, since all of his NPCs are idealized versions of him.

This makes me curious about the possibility of an ingame solution, one uniquely possible because

Spoiler

Show

he's a Harrowed, so I can spend fate chips to take over his character. Typically, this is used for murderous rampages, but I've used it far more judiciously and to greater effect in the past. The party is heading into a complicated, difficult engagement that they know is going to be absolutely dreadful. I was going to take over this guy for one of the more difficult battles to complicate it, but I've been considering taking him over for a longer period and actually playing him as a team player and using him to make things easier. See, the party knows that Harrowed normally get controlled for things in line with the goals of the BBEGs, so this should make them very suspicious, but I'm fairly sure if they knew how much he could support the party, they'd start trying to get him possessed, since they've thrown the possibility around when he's been annoying in the past. "The manitou may kill random people, but at least he's quiet about it."

Naturally, this isn't my first choice, although it's certainly my most entertaining. Thus, then, my questions: First, is there a better intermediate step between talking to a player hurting the game and kicking that player out of the game, and second, if I go through with this, how in general would I optimize shutting down an insufferable character and giving the rest of the party a bit of relief? I'm torn between being quietly supportive and having the guy become openly humble.

[ithildur]

What is your reason for wanting to keep, or at least still tolerating the behavior of, a player around who ruins the game for everyone else in spite of previous 'conversations'?

[Mnemnosyne]

It should be noted that this is a poor phrasing for what you're describing, as it has nothing to do with minmaxing at all. That said...

I agree with not being sure why you're keeping him around, given everything. If you, and the rest of the group are all annoyed by the behavior, I would say that it's time for the "shape up or ship out" conversation. Confer with the rest of the group and tell them you're considering removing him and ask for their opinions and comments first, then talk to him, preferably with everyone present to make sure he understands that his behavior is Not Fun for the rest of the group and he needs to stop.

As for the in-game questions, I'll address them regardless:

First off, on the issue of his background. He approved it, he doesn't get to do takebacks anymore. If he says "my character wouldn't have done that" you get to say "But he did." and make it stick. He agreed to the backstory as written, so use it.

As far as taking over his character...well, I find that a very weird mechanic, and I'm not sure if anything like that could really help. I suppose you could show him you can play his character better than he does, and the rest of the party might, through mechanics, encourage this takeover, but I don't see how that accomplishes anything different to kicking him out of the game, unless I fail to understand how this works - I'm picturing him sitting there not having any input into the game during the time you have control of the character? I don't see anyone learning a lesson from this, they'll just get frustrated that you're playing their character.

Also, show him that he is not the best at everything. Make sure that he fails spectacularly - within the rules, but still failing - at things he shouldn't be doing. Ideally in a way that puts his character in danger rather than others everyone else's. If his bad decisions can plausibly get him in serious mortal danger, put him in that danger, and let him try to deal with it.

[GungHo]

Is there some reason, if he's been so bad at hiding and has an extensive criminal background, that someone hasn't sent a bounty hunter/hitman after his character?

[Tyndmyr]

Is there some reason, if he's been so bad at hiding and has an extensive criminal background, that someone hasn't sent a bounty hunter/hitman after his character?

Hrm. Yes, this would tend to result in problems quite rapidly in any of my campaigns. I have absolutely no problem sending in specialized assassins to dispose of people who have made a laundry list of powerful enemies.

[GungHo]

I realize that killing the character means that the player may just make another problem character, so killing his beloved Mr. Perfect may not solve the problem entirely, but you sure as hell can tone him down if every time he says "oh, but you have heard of me, yes, it is I, Bishop Chance Marlowe Esquire! (tm), Crime Lord, Rogue, and all-around life of the party!" someone draws on him.

[valadil]

I knew a similar player. I say knew because I can't game with him anymore. He was a capable roleplayer and minmaxer. He loved every minute of gaming. But he treated the rest of the party like NPCs. He had to be in every scene and once he was in a scene, he dominated it. In the end he wasn't worth the trouble.

If you do want to introduce someone coming to kill him though, you don't even need to reach into his backstory. If he's as abrasive as you sound, I imagine he'd piss off every other NPC who saw him. I'd absolutely believe that someone would pick a fight with him in a bar, just to shut him up. Since this is Deadlands, they'd probably go even farther than that.

[jackattack]

1. Set up situations that are specifically designed for other characters' skill sets, but allow/require two characters to act. (If they need to bribe their way into a party, for example, one can try to bribe the doorman and the other can try to bribe the caterer.) This will allow you to create side-by-side comparisons of his character to others', and hopefully will demonstrate that there are things other players can do just as well as he can.

2. Enforce the backstory. He didn't become a crime lord by distracting his rivals with fuzzy bunnies. His enemies aren't likely to adopt an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" attitude. And people who hate or fear you are more likely to cause trouble for you than to simply roll over, whether they try to kill you, alert everyone to your presence with their screaming, or run away and keep you from interacting with them.

3. Allow his story to evolve. He had a reputation as a tough guy, but the longer he's away the more that story will change. Maybe the new boss of bosses is worse, and the PC's reputation is fading in comparison. Maybe "tough" has become "cruel" or "sadistic" or "crazy". Maybe the fact that he left has branded him a coward who could dish it out but couldn't take it. This will require him to either change his attitude about his story, or to do some actual roleplaying to keep his reputation the way he wants it.

4. Keep track of how often he takes center stage, and remind him that there are other people at the table who deserve a chance to be in the spotlight. "Jim, you killed the guards coming in, disarmed the trap in the third room, and repainted the ceiling in the hallway. It's Marty's turn to do something."

[Jay R]

This guy was a stage magician who was an organized crime lord on the side, and basically was addicted to having absolutely everyone in his town either love him or fear him; the crowd loved his shows, and the powers that were feared his organization. Now, whenever we bring this up in-game, he's always pleased to see his char's name recognized whenever he's dumb enough to use it (there's a reason the guy left the city to tromp around with a circus troupe), but refuses to believe he actually has any enemies, alleging "my character wouldn't have done that" despite having enthusiastically embraced "being a big enough badass to have made my empire" and loving the backstory we'd handed him that explicitly said he had powerful enemies, as well as something of an inferiority complex.

Who cares if his character would have done this? Crime Lords make enemies, and not always for things they really did. The issue is whether the rival crime lords believe that he did it, and crime lords aren't usually focused on preserving rules of evidence. Enemy 1 wants revenge for what he believes the PC did, and the hired assassin he hired is not interested in whether it's true; just whether he'll get paid. Meanwhile Enemy 2 wants revenge, not for any particular thing he did, but because the PC took over some operation that CL2 had wanted to take over. Enemy 3 worked for the PC, and lost his living when the PC left to join a circus. Finally, Enemy 4 never bothers to explain why he wants the PC dead, so there's nothing for the player to deny.

The background of Crime Lord carries with it people who don't like you. It is simply not true that people who want revenge n a crime lord will be stopped by logic or protestations of innocence.

[Project_Mayhem]

1. If they are capable of doing it, they are the best choice to do it, bar nothing. Got the party sharpshooter ready to cover the whole party from the rooftops with a rapid-fire sniper rifle? no, no, it's much better to have this guy chucking knives, because it's quieter. Said player will then turn around and brag about how versatile they are.

I do hope you aren't playing reloaded if he thinks that, or he's so objectively wrong that it hurts. I tried to build a savage worlds knife thrower, before realising that a.) the range is such that they are almost useless, and b.) even with a d12 in throwing and marksman, you will never do enough damage to hurt anything that's not a mook.

On topic - I know what you mean by min maxing roleplaying. There's a a guy in our group who will sometimes do this if unchecked. He tends to roll with things like 'but you read okayed my background - of course he would have all of these merits! they are necessary for him to work'

[Ravens_cry]

I'd rather have a minmaxing, or optimized if you prefer, role player who plays both their characters strength and their weaknesses with vim and vigour than someone who makes character who can't stand a stiff breeze and have all the role play responsiveness of a stone.
The first campaign I was in I played with the former and it was fun.
Yes, they could smash almost anything with one smack, or at most a full attack action, of their two handed hammer, yes the character was a loud drunken lout, every inch the stereotypical dwarf, but gods they were fun to watch.

[Zeru the Dark]

If he's making the game less fun for the group, and he won't listen to reason, then I would advise giving him a warning that if he continues to not even attempt to share the spotlight and roleplay the backstory he agreed to, then he won't be allowed to remain in the campaign. And follow through if he really doesn't listen. But, seriously, I do mean only if he's making the game less fun for the entire rest of the group; you guys should likely talk about that.
If he only annoys a couple people, still talk to him, but simply let him know that A) he will not be allowed to hog the spotlight any more; you're going to give other people a chance to have face time, and that means that sometimes he will be ignored if needed, and B) if he does not roleplay the backstory he agreed to, he will continue to not get RP experience.

[Murray]

Your player should probably get a talking to. If he's reasonable, then it could turn out fine (but then again, I don't know the guy).

If he's unreasonable, early-onset Alzheimer's is probably a bitch to role-play, and Parkinson's would probably do a number on anything that requires motor reflexes. Are you the GM or aren't you?

If the player's good, he'll acknowledge that the character should die a spectacular death to save the rest of the party and never be resurrected again.

[DropsonExistanc]

If this character does get killed, you would be able to create a new character with a new backstory with him, and knowing what his tendencies are, you could be very specific on the next character's background, removing any elements he could abuse. If he should end up with a character that was very, very good at just one thing, that might not hurt the lesson either.

That being said, if the whole group has gotten together and explained the issue very clearly to him, and he persists, then he's not going to change and you should start looking for a replacement. I've recently gamed with someone with some of these tendencies (having to be involved in every scene, even when the character is not physically present, having to be good at everything). I don't game with her anymore, and I'm not alone in that.