How should we deal with a Troublesome Player?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ok, so me and some friends got together and started a GURPs group.

I'll refer to the other players as Player A, Player D, Player T and Player Z.

Though is basically about Player D.

Whats happening is we used the Dawn of Worlds system:

http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg...e_1_0Final.pdf

To make our world, however it's a space genre game so we tweaked it to allow the creation of planets and such.

So it starts with me, Player A, Player T and Player Z all using our imagination to create new and interesting species for our galaxy. Player D just makes generic humans and creates three sub species out of them...

1. Oghren (Ripped off directly from 40k)
2. Cyborgs (War Priest ripped directly from 40k)
3. Chamelon-men (Thin men ripped directly from X-Com Enemy Unknown

But the lack of creativity is just a minor issue and not one I would bother posting about alone.
However, he is aiming for them to be highly sneaky and stealthy and his goal being to kidnap, immitate and replace everyone leader of every other race and organization in the galaxy.

Note: His previous experience was stealth was basically him in d&d saying "I activate my sneak skill" and making no attempt to hide

Now right at the start of the game (before world creation even) we all agreed to keep it PvE and not PVP. Player D says he recognizes it but all his actions are directly PVP.

For example my race made an order called the Federation, basically whose goal is to be the Galactic Police. They were given some advanced skills in surveillance as a result and Player D pretty much throws a tantrum and claims I'm meta-gaming against him.

He's also trying to claim that his army is easily the best and can conquer my guys easily... Except using the army mechanic in Dawn of Worlds above my race has around a score of 30 while Player D's humans has a score of 7. He claims that just means I have more numbers and that he has better quality so he would win... even though my race is the one who specialized in warfare and such and whose allies provide them with top of the line weapons.

He is getting infuriated with me bringing up points that go against him easily controlling the galaxy and asks Player A to speak with him privately in another room to discuss things he doesn't want the rest of us to know. Afterwards when Player D leaves Player A reveals Player D's plans... which were the most troubling and problematic thing.

Now to start with, I should describe we're using GURPs, and GURPs has a thing called tech levels. We are at tech level 9 for everything but weapons which is tech level 8. Basically technology to settle on planets is fairly new and we still use modern weapons like in the TV show Firefly.

Player D is outright breaking this rule, by having a portal to an alternate dimension. He claims the portal comes from the other dimensions and not the humans though so it doesn't count towards the tech level. And with this portal is where the Oghren and War Priest had came from... directly out of the 40k universe.

Secondly he is also using fem scout from TF2 (Note: In a previous d&d campaign where he quit he basically built and players the TF2 Sniper) who works for the humans and since is from the TF2 universe will infinitely respawn and come back. He also plans to unleash things such as reapers (From Mass Effect) to exterminate the galaxy we made if the humans can't get their way for some reason.

Thirdly, he hates the fact me and Player Z are taking advantage of disadvantages to gain more points. He claims we're just power gaming and min-maxing, seeing our characters as pure stats instead of characters (even though he gave his guy a third arm for no reason other than to shoot more in combat). And since we all helped make a world we have a system where those who want to can DM when we encounter a part of the Universe that the certain player created assuming they have some sort of idea planned for it. And Player D is threatening that when he's DM he'll strip away some of the disadvantages and make us refund our points.

He also claims he has us 'under control' in that he's the one who owns all the GURPs books, so he can quit at any time and effectively end our campaign. Or so he thinks, because we have pdfs for it and can easily keep playing may he quit or not.

Lastly his personal character is a Warpriest, and he likes to claim his character is better than the others because being a machine he doesn't need to eat, need to breathe or need a doctor ever (even though he still has an organic human brain). And he gave his character a secret identity, as himself. So we're worried about what will happen when the character dies whenever he tries to overthrow everyone else... Because in an earlier campaign he has barged off and cried for three hours straight for a character death that he barely developed or put effort into, even though he was told that the player would be revived at the end of the encounter.

So basically, me and the rest of the group are wondering what people on here think of the situation and what advice you guys may have.

[eggynack]

Well, it seems like this is a usual problem with the usual solutions. You can talk to him, if you think that'll work, or you can kick him out, because your group will survive without him. There are also the combo plans, like where you talk to him, and if it doesn't work out he gets the boot, and the one where you kick him out, and talk to the other people in the group about how great of an idea it was. It's a lot of kicking and talking. There's basically never a nifty in game solution, and if there were one, it'd still be the wrong one to use.

[icefractal]

Honestly, he sounds like an *******. How does he "secretly" have a portal (and other things) anyway, if portals are against what you agreed on? If this is a collaborative-GMing thing, then bring it up with the whole group. Unless he can convince other people he should get an exception, he gets no portals, no immortal scouts, and no reapers.

But moreso than that, he sounds like he's trying to control everything by threatening to take his ball and go home. I would call him on that, because his leaving sounds like the better outcome.

And finally, I would not let him GM this game at any point. Even if it wasn't a collaborate world that he'd be screwing up, he sounds like he'd make a terrible GM, and a sufficiently bad GM can break up a group.

[Coidzor]

You don't like him and don't want to play with him. The solution seems simple enough.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Honestly, he sounds like an *******. How does he "secretly" have a portal (and other things) anyway, if portals are against what you agreed on? If this is a collaborative-GMing thing, then bring it up with the whole group. Unless he can convince other people he should get an exception, he gets no portals, no immortal scouts, and no reapers.

But moreso than that, he sounds like he's trying to control everything by threatening to take his ball and go home. I would call him on that, because his leaving sounds like the better outcome.

And finally, I would not let him GM this game at any point. Even if it wasn't a collaborate world that he'd be screwing up, he sounds like he'd make a terrible GM, and a sufficiently bad GM can break up a group.

The issue here is the main issues such as the portal, the take his book and go home etc was stuff he told secretly to one of our players that he didn't want the rest of us knowing.

If he becomes aware we are all aware of what he discussed then he knows his secret was spilled and he'll just get furious at everyone and then accuse us all for not respecting privacy and meta-gaming.

Though, Player Z did state that Player D had asked him if his group would work on portals (without stating that he himself planned on it) and Player Z said 'Maybe', as in it's definitely something the group would aim towards as a scientific group but it most likely wouldn't ever be something the discover in the game.

Me and Player Z are thinking of him casually mentioning to me he's considering working on stuff like dimension doors and portals, and me pretty much telling him no because it's broken, it doesn't respect the rules we set up etc.

That way Player D will hear and know right there his portal plan is not allowed or approved and hopefully without him realizing his secret was spilled.

But I'm unsure of how likely such a plan is to work. And then there's still the rest of the problems mentioned.

[Knaight]

So, basically there is a bunch of juvenile nonsense, mostly centered around wanting to dictate everything then pulling the "I'm taking my toys home so nobody plays with them" stunt? Why do you want to play with this person in the first place? For that matter, why do you interact with this person in the first place?

[eggynack]

The issue here is the main issues such as the portal, the take his book and go home etc was stuff he told secretly to one of our players that he didn't want the rest of us knowing.

If he becomes aware we are all aware of what he discussed then he knows his secret was spilled and he'll just get furious at everyone and then accuse us all for not respecting privacy and meta-gaming.

Though, Player Z did state that Player D had asked him if his group would work on portals (without stating that he himself planned on it) and Player Z said 'Maybe', as in it's definitely something the group would aim towards as a scientific group but it most likely wouldn't ever be something the discover in the game.

Me and Player Z are thinking of him casually mentioning to me he's considering working on stuff like dimension doors and portals, and me pretty much telling him no because it's broken, it doesn't respect the rules we set up etc.

That way Player D will hear and know right there his portal plan is not allowed or approved and hopefully without him realizing his secret was spilled.

But I'm unsure of how likely such a plan is to work. And then there's still the rest of the problems mentioned.

I don't see how any of this is that big of a problem. If you want to just kick him out, you can leave out whatever parts of the explanation you want. In fact, if the other players are generally in agreement with you (It doesn't look like there's a DM. If there is one, this all probably falls within his wheelhouse.) there's no onus on you to say anything. If you want to do the talking thing, you also don't have to mention this. You can just say, "We want you to stop being crazy buns all the time." If he threatens to leave the group during that conversation, give him a detailed map telling him where the door is. If he didn't say something to you, it didn't effect you, so you shouldn't bring it up. It effected this Z fellow, so he can bring it up if he wants, but it's not really a you thing. This all seems like an aspect of the problem that can be solved around.

[Arkhosia]

I don't see how any of this is that big of a problem. If you want to just kick him out, you can leave out whatever parts of the explanation you want. In fact, if the other players are generally in agreement with you (It doesn't look like there's a DM. If there is one, this all probably falls within his wheelhouse.) there's no onus on you to say anything. If you want to do the talking thing, you also don't have to mention this. You can just say, "We want you to stop being crazy buns all the time." If he threatens to leave the group during that conversation, give him a detailed map telling him where the door is. If he didn't say something to you, it didn't effect you, so you shouldn't bring it up. It effected this Z fellow, so he can bring it up if he wants, but it's not really a you thing. This all seems like an aspect of the problem that can be solved around.

I totally agree. I think every single member of the gaming group asking him to stop is probably going to be taken more seriously than if it was just you asking, if its possible for that to make a difference.

[eggynack]

I totally agree. I think every single member of the gaming group asking him to stop is probably going to be taken more seriously than if it was just you asking, if its possible for that to make a difference.

Eh, I don't know if that's the case. I was mostly just saying that Z is really the only person who can talk with him about this one thing. Getting everyone together to tell him something is a good way to make him feel cornered. It might work, though I'm not too familiar with the intervention style of problem solving. I was figuring that if you're kicking him out, there should be a consensus about it. If there's no single DM, there's not a real authority that can make these decisions unilaterally. It might be a good idea to gain an understanding of everyone's opinion on this, to see if it matches your own. Those opinions should inform the things that you talk to him about, as well as whether you're just strapping on the +5 mighty boots of booting.

[Scow2]

Have everyone agree to kicking him out. Don't hide that Z "Spilled the Beans" - if he accuses of "not respecting privacy" remind him that he's disrespected everyone else's sense of fair play, and his "Secret" was of a nature that everyone needed to know. If he accuses you of "Metagaming", point out that this is a metagame problem in need of a metagame solution. If he takes his ball and goes home, try not to party too hard.

[RFLS]

So, to sum up:

• Talk to him. Explain that he's doing a fairly good job of destroying the game and see if you can get him to see the error of his ways.
• If he doesn't listen, boot him. It doesn't sound like you'd lose much.

[Gwazi Magnum]

So, basically there is a bunch of juvenile nonsense, mostly centered around wanting to dictate everything then pulling the "I'm taking my toys home so nobody plays with them" stunt? Why do you want to play with this person in the first place? For that matter, why do you interact with this person in the first place?

There's a few reasons we either want him in or just keep him around.

1. No one wants to be too quick to get rid of members, since we also recently had all quit a d&d group because the DM who we're friends with in RL was being a massive ****/control freak so we're already one player less.

1a. He also seems to be taking the fact we left him as being DM personally. Long story short, last time he was being a bad DM he blamed me for his campaign ending and then sabotaged mine as a result, so when we left him this time I voted not to let him in GURPs so he wouldn't try to sabotage this one as well, and if what happened yesterday while a number of us were hanging out counts for anything... he took us leaving his group as a personal '**** you'.

2. He does have as much a hand in our universe as the rest of us having helped made it and all. Though if we were be kicked I'm guessing we'd take the world back to the drawing boards, remove his creations and replace it with one or two more creative ideas from the rest of the group.

3. We also just don't want to kick people out in general, it's a ****ty thing to do to someone.

4. Outside influence. Currently d&d is held at my place, and Player D was a person who I knew growing up in autism therapy groups (Him and I both have autism). As a result, my Mom has known him for a number of years now and gives him a ton of sympathy for the autism, claiming he is 'unable to handle conflict' or 'struggles to stay calm', basically excusing his behaviour as if it's not him but his autism... But I know Player D well enough to know he's at the point it's not his autism but him and he and my Mom are just too willing to use the autism as an excuse.

However, this has lead to my Mom seeming to care about Player D a lot. Far more than any of the other group members (and me too from how she's chosen to act about this whole situation) and basically claims that if Player D were to leave the group and not by his own free will that (or if she feels we did something to push him to the point of quitting) that we're all just a group of people who 'chose to hurt someone and kick them out of a group for own ease of play and enjoyment and were insensitive' and wouldn't allow us to play at my place anymore.

Player Z's house does serve as a back up though. (Player T's and A's would have the issue of disturbing the families too much and lack of room/privacy to RP in) but even his place is more cramped and his parents run the risk of wanting us to go home mid-session rather than at my house where going home mid-session never once was an issue.

I don't see how any of this is that big of a problem. If you want to just kick him out, you can leave out whatever parts of the explanation you want. In fact, if the other players are generally in agreement with you (It doesn't look like there's a DM. If there is one, this all probably falls within his wheelhouse.) there's no onus on you to say anything. If you want to do the talking thing, you also don't have to mention this. You can just say, "We want you to stop being crazy buns all the time." If he threatens to leave the group during that conversation, give him a detailed map telling him where the door is. If he didn't say something to you, it didn't effect you, so you shouldn't bring it up. It effected this Z fellow, so he can bring it up if he wants, but it's not really a you thing. This all seems like an aspect of the problem that can be solved around.

It was Player A who was told all this in secret, not Z.

Z was simply asked about dimensions specifically by D and without D even stating he planned to do so. It was more of a "Hey Z, what do you think your group will do about dimension portals?", and since Z said it would be a goal of the group (even though he says that he'd never unlock it in the game, just that IC it would make sense to research) that we can use it as a way for Z to bring up portals as if he's planning to use it without alerting D to that his secrets were revealed, so Z can pretend to suggest we use portals so I can tell him no, in front of the group so D is aware it is not allowed and there is a specific ruling against such a thing.

Though I will admit we probably have enough grounds on the anger of players having any kind of edge and his threats for 'when' he's DM that we can tell him that's too much right there.

[Alejandro]

There's a few reasons we either want him in or just keep him around.

1. No one wants to be too quick to get rid of members, since we also recently had all quit a d&d group because the DM who we're friends with in RL was being a massive ****/control freak so we're already one player less.

1a. He also seems to be taking the fact we left him as being DM personally. Long story short, last time he was being a bad DM he blamed me for his campaign ending and then sabotaged mine as a result, so when we left him this time I voted not to let him in GURPs so he wouldn't try to sabotage this one as well, and if what happened yesterday while a number of us were hanging out counts for anything... he took us leaving his group as a personal '**** you'.

2. He does have as much a hand in our universe as the rest of us having helped made it and all. Though if we were be kicked I'm guessing we'd take the world back to the drawing boards, remove his creations and replace it with one or two more creative ideas from the rest of the group.

3. We also just don't want to kick people out in general, it's a ****ty thing to do to someone.

4. Outside influence. Currently d&d is held at my place, and Player D was a person who I knew growing up in autism therapy groups (Him and I both have autism). As a result, my Mom has known him for a number of years now and gives him a ton of sympathy for the autism, claiming he is 'unable to handle conflict' or 'struggles to stay calm', basically excusing his behaviour as if it's not him but his autism... But I know Player D well enough to know he's at the point it's not his autism but him and he and my Mom are just too willing to use the autism as an excuse.

However, this has lead to my Mom seeming to care about Player D a lot. Far more than any of the other group members (and me too from how she's chosen to act about this whole situation) and basically claims that if Player D were to leave the group and not by his own free will that (or if she feels we did something to push him to the point of quitting) that we're all just a group of people who 'chose to hurt someone and kick them out of a group for own ease of play and enjoyment and were insensitive' and wouldn't allow us to play at my place anymore.

Player Z's house does serve as a back up though. (Player T's and A's would have the issue of disturbing the families too much and lack of room/privacy to RP in) but even his place is more cramped and his parents run the risk of wanting us to go home mid-session rather than at my house where going home mid-session never once was an issue.



It was Player A who was told all this in secret, not Z.

Z was simply asked about dimensions specifically by D and without D even stating he planned to do so. It was more of a "Hey Z, what do you think your group will do about dimension portals?", and since Z said it would be a goal of the group (even though he says that he'd never unlock it in the game, just that IC it would make sense to research) that we can use it as a way for Z to bring up portals as if he's planning to use it without alerting D to that his secrets were revealed, so Z can pretend to suggest we use portals so I can tell him no, in front of the group so D is aware it is not allowed and there is a specific ruling against such a thing.

Though I will admit we probably have enough grounds on the anger of players having any kind of edge and his threats for 'when' he's DM that we can tell him that's too much right there.

I am guessing from your statements here that you are all fairly young and live with your parents/families. Well, consider this an excellent learning experience for what the 'real world' will be like.

No one will really care what someone's excuse is for being a giant jerk (note that I am not denigrating autism, I am only saying that there will be plenty of people who simply don't care) they will simply get rid of the jerk.

It doesn't matter that he helped create your game world. People help create businesses every day, and still get fired or laid off later. That's how it goes.

It's not a crappy thing to kick someone out of a group if they are actively harming that group's ability to function and have fun. If he pulled this behavior on the job, they would fire him and not care whether his feelings were hurt.

As for places to game, have you ever seen if your local library has rooms the public can use? Most do, and you could arrange to have your game there. Or even start a gaming club there, our city has one at the library. Or, many gaming stores provide gaming space to their clientele, although that often has noise or sharing issues. You can also game at any coffee shop with tables, as long as you are respectful and not loud, and buy something from them. Check with a manager.

If you really want to give this person a chance, then standard courtesy applies: Talk to them, tell them how they are bothering you/the group, and see what they say. Be respectful on both sides. But I am pretty sure what result you will get, so for the sake of having fun, get rid of the person if this fails.

P.S. It sounds like he just wants to play 40K and is being passive aggressive about it.

[hymer]

There's really no miracle cure. As has been said, it's either put up with it, work it out, or break it off. I'm very much with you on not wanting to kick people out, but if you guys are not compatible in gaming, there's really not much to do.
As for the whole "It's him or it's his autism", there's no real way to know what's what, nor does it really make sense to think it must be one or the other. In the end, the question is whether the behaviour can change or not. If it can't, well, no matter how sympathetic you are to the person's plight, you can't do magic. Playing an RPG with someone with that attitude isn't fun, probably not for them either, and if you want to keep seeing each other, you'll have to find something to do which doesn't bring out the bad stuff.

[Zerter]

Try pushing him to his limits before booting him. That way you have some stories to tell.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I am guessing from your statements here that you are all fairly young and live with your parents/families. Well, consider this an excellent learning experience for what the 'real world' will be like.

No one will really care what someone's excuse is for being a giant jerk (note that I am not denigrating autism, I am only saying that there will be plenty of people who simply don't care) they will simply get rid of the jerk.

It doesn't matter that he helped create your game world. People help create businesses every day, and still get fired or laid off later. That's how it goes.

It's not a crappy thing to kick someone out of a group if they are actively harming that group's ability to function and have fun. If he pulled this behavior on the job, they would fire him and not care whether his feelings were hurt.

As for places to game, have you ever seen if your local library has rooms the public can use? Most do, and you could arrange to have your game there. Or even start a gaming club there, our city has one at the library. Or, many gaming stores provide gaming space to their clientele, although that often has noise or sharing issues. You can also game at any coffee shop with tables, as long as you are respectful and not loud, and buy something from them. Check with a manager.

If you really want to give this person a chance, then standard courtesy applies: Talk to them, tell them how they are bothering you/the group, and see what they say. Be respectful on both sides. But I am pretty sure what result you will get, so for the sake of having fun, get rid of the person if this fails.

P.S. It sounds like he just wants to play 40K and is being passive aggressive about it.

I'm the oldest's by a few months and am 19 living with my parents atm.
No one in our group lives on their own yet, but Player A and T will in a bit more than a months time when they start college and get a dorm, I just go to school close enough to home I don't the economic reason in moving out so soon.

Anyways, I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole 'How real life works' examples though because table tops are meant to be a fun get away/fantasy from reality, not a constant reminder of it. Besides, I highly doubt Player D will look back and go "I remember ______ happened here, so I better be like _____ there".

The main thing we learned about Player D over the past year or so (which I never had known about him until we started table tops) is that he is a massive glory hog. He wants to be the center of attention, the one doing all the awesome stunts and the others are in awe of etc. And he hates challenge to get there, he always wants to succeed and in the best way possible. To the point that the slightest hint of challenge or opposition tends to infuriate him.

Hence why he gets so mad with me and Z having effective abilities and my group being good in federation which would compete with his stealth. At one point in d&d we had a DM who was sympathetic enough to allow him to cut scene his introduction, so Player D did stuff like back flips, smoke screens, assassinations etc. Yet he always got mad when no one was impressed by it or referred to it as one of the campaigns epic moments... and that was because there was nothing cool or epic about it. He just listed what he wanted and it happened, no risk, no dice rolls, nothing.

As for locations, we have an issue generally being very loud, very messy (we clean up afterwards, but the room is in awful shape in-game), and lasting to be very late. Most public places would be closed long before we end or thrown us out long ago for noise. Now by noise I don't mean disruptive chaotic noise. But we naturally get excited in game and can better enjoy the game and role play when people aren't telling us to try to be quiet.

We do plan to talking it out first though and not just kick him out with no warning.

And I do agree, he does constantly go on about a 40k group he's in at a game store.
Though Player D has a tendancy to just rip characters off of things like TF2 or 40k and Player A once asked why.

Player D's response was basically he be more immeresed and interested/has more fun when it's all characters he's familiar with and knows well.

But the issue is here when everyone else tries to be creative and make an immersive world, he just does really bad impersonations of game characters with almost no personality and expects us to like it just as much as the rest of the world and characters made.

There's really no miracle cure. As has been said, it's either put up with it, work it out, or break it off. I'm very much with you on not wanting to kick people out, but if you guys are not compatible in gaming, there's really not much to do.
As for the whole "It's him or it's his autism", there's no real way to know what's what, nor does it really make sense to think it must be one or the other. In the end, the question is whether the behaviour can change or not. If it can't, well, no matter how sympathetic you are to the person's plight, you can't do magic. Playing an RPG with someone with that attitude isn't fun, probably not for them either, and if you want to keep seeing each other, you'll have to find something to do which doesn't bring out the bad stuff.

I know what you mean with the autism.
As stated above I have it too. But having known Player D personally for a long time, I know it is mostly just him hiding behind autism as an excuse to explain away the problems or having been raised where others would just claim all his autistic traits aren't even problems.

Where my Mom, even though she worked very hard to have me recover in therapy so I can interact better, she's Player D of having gone too long without therapy (He's 3 years younger than me and had quit therapy years before I did) to make a full recovery and so just uses autism to excuse much if not all of his issues.

Try pushing him to his limits before booting him. That way you have some stories to tell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08

[The Glyphstone]

Anyways, I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole 'How real life works' examples though because table tops are meant to be a fun get away/fantasy from reality, not a constant reminder of it. Besides, I highly doubt Player D will look back and go "I remember ______ happened here, so I better be like _____ there".
]

IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

[Alejandro]

The Glyphstone has put it more eloquently than I. This isn't an ingame issue at all, but an out of game one, and thus my comparisons, and recommendation for what you must do.

By all means, be friendly and talk about it first. But if that doesn't work, and you want to continue to have a fun experience, the offender has to go.

[DM Rage]

DM Doug Douglason - Instant 10d6 lightning bolt - no saving throw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-sCNfE0bM

[Angel Bob]

IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

^^ This. It's not going to be easy, confronting Player D and your mom like that, but it has to be done if your group wants to continue having fun. From what you've said, it sounds like the best thing long-term would be for Player D to go back to therapy, but beyond suggesting it to his parents, there's not much you can do about that. Besides, that's thinking about fixing his life, rather than your game, and is unrelated. The crucial thing here is to just remove him from the gaming group. It won't be easy, but I'll repeat that it has to be done.

[Lord Torath]

So he wants all of his plans and actions to succeed? Talk with the other guys in your group, and see if they'd be willing to go along with that for a few sessions. Whoever's DMing lets any action attempted by any of the players succeed completely with no dice rolled. Another group tried this (it's on one of the threads on this forum somewhere - I'm sure the author will comment if he sees this), and even the most diehard Don't-Challenge-Me-But-I-Must-Be-The-Most-Awesome players got bored of it in about three sessions or so. It may take Player D a few more sessions to get this out of his system. At which point, he'll see the thrill in having to work for his victories.

This may not work. If it doesn't, you've wasted a month or two (depending on how often you guys play) and still have the dilemma of what to do with Player D. If it does work, you'll have prevented the need to boot him from the group, and taught him how to be a better player.

Just something to think about.

[eggynack]

IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

I was planning to link that exact thing, but checked the other posts first. It's basically a perfect description of what's happening here. You're playing a game, and that game is supposed to be fun. You have no obligation to let anyone who wants to play into your game, and it's not a mean thing to kick someone out. You aren't the person who created a problem by kicking him out. He's the person who created the problem that necessitated a booting. If you feel that it will work, you could always make him remaining in the party conditional on him being less crazy. If he refuses, or blows up, you can use that as the immediate impetus for kicking him out of the group, which should defer responsibility from you to him somewhat. He's the person who's actually responsible for his actions, so he's the person who should shoulder that responsibility in the first place, but it can look different from that in the moment, and having something that you can directly point to as the place where things broke down can be useful. It's not a necessary thing, but it's a nice thing to have access to.

[Gwazi Magnum]

IC, definitely. That's what fantasy/escapism games are for. But this is an OOC issue, and real life is not friendly to people like this.

I suggest you read the Geek Social Fallacies list. From a glance, it looks like you're trapped in #2, and #5, while your mother is locked into #1. Definitely work on finding a backup hosting site, because if you're stuck between 'playing at your house with D and being miserable' and 'playing somewhere else without D', Option 2 is clearly superior. Your mom just needs to accept that D is making the game unpleasant for everyone, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Also at everyone else who answered in reference to the list.

I don't think Player D is suffering from #5, but is for sure under #2 and my Mom is for sure suffering from #1.

There is Player Z's place as a back up, we're just worried about sessions being cut off early there.

Though the group is now divided on what to do... but not in the same way as before.

Last time in D&D where Player D had issues we were divided on letting him stay or getting rid him. Now we're divided on getting rid of him or giving him a warning first we are sure he wouldn't listen to anyways. I could tell my Mom before hand he's causing issues and purposely cheating for an edge, but there's a good chance she'll just want to 'talk it out' and 'give him more time' like last time which never worked.

So he wants all of his plans and actions to succeed? Talk with the other guys in your group, and see if they'd be willing to go along with that for a few sessions. Whoever's DMing lets any action attempted by any of the players succeed completely with no dice rolled. Another group tried this (it's on one of the threads on this forum somewhere - I'm sure the author will comment if he sees this), and even the most diehard Don't-Challenge-Me-But-I-Must-Be-The-Most-Awesome players got bored of it in about three sessions or so. It may take Player D a few more sessions to get this out of his system. At which point, he'll see the thrill in having to work for his victories.

This may not work. If it doesn't, you've wasted a month or two (depending on how often you guys play) and still have the dilemma of what to do with Player D. If it does work, you'll have prevented the need to boot him from the group, and taught him how to be a better player.

Just something to think about.

We aren't, especially since his plans is controlling all the planets and organizations we worked so hard to create. He just wants to take over and have everything in the solar system for himself. And the issue with spending a few weeks to a month to kill the craving is that we only have a little more than a month left before people leave for college, and we don't want to spend the summer trying to fix an issue for a campaign that will most likely end when college starts anyways.

[Gamgee]

You don't like him and don't want to play with him. The solution seems simple enough.

This, though it would be amusing to see the Q unleashed on him.

[Jornophelanthas]

I was planning to link that exact thing, but checked the other posts first. It's basically a perfect description of what's happening here. You're playing a game, and that game is supposed to be fun. You have no obligation to let anyone who wants to play into your game, and it's not a mean thing to kick someone out. You aren't the person who created a problem by kicking him out. He's the person who created the problem that necessitated a booting. If you feel that it will work, you could always make him remaining in the party conditional on him being less crazy. If he refuses, or blows up, you can use that as the immediate impetus for kicking him out of the group, which should defer responsibility from you to him somewhat. He's the person who's actually responsible for his actions, so he's the person who should shoulder that responsibility in the first place, but it can look different from that in the moment, and having something that you can directly point to as the place where things broke down can be useful. It's not a necessary thing, but it's a nice thing to have access to.

I think I remember the OP posting about this same player about a year ago. If it is indeed the same player, then I doubt this approach will work, because this problem player has never learned how to take responsibility, and has actually been receiving therapy that taught him that not taking responsibility for his actions is the best way of dealing with his autism.

My advice is to the OP is the following:

- If I recall correctly, you have become a surrogate older sibling over much of Player D's life. Determine whether you still want to be this person's friend, or just want to stop roleplaying with him, or whether you are willing to have your roleplaying activity remain therapy sessions for Player D for the remainder of the summer.

- Check with the rest of the group (except Player D) how they feel about the situation, and see whether you can agree on what approach you could/should take as a group. Do not act on it immediately, because you first need to talk to other people involved (see below).

- Once you know exactly where you stand, and what the group wants, have a talk with your mother, telling her that there are problems within the game, that Player D is the central focus of these problems (and in what way), and that it is draining your enjoyment of the game. Ask her for her opinion first, and after she has given it, tell her your opinion (and how you reached it). Make sure from the start that she is aware that this is a conversation between adults, and that she should respect your position. If she wants you to be a member of Player D's autism support group "because you've always been such good playmates", like what she has been actively encouraging you to do for years, let her know that you are an adult and that you have your own opinion about where you put your limits.
(Maybe you agree with her and want to be there for player D, but you should also make it clear to her that you are no longer willing to sacrifice ALL your own enjoyment in roleplaying just to help out Player D.)
The point is, your mother should know that you are no longer a child, and she should no longer treat you like one. (Specifically, she should no longer have a say in who you should play with and when.) This is, of course, assuming that you are indeed ready to take this step. Hopefully, you will be able to find an agreement with her.

- Once you know where you stand, and where the rest of the group stands, and hopefully have your mother's blessing, you can confront Player D (alone or with the entire group) and tel him what you have all (jointly) decided to do. If you feel it is appropriate, and you know his parents, you could contact them and discuss the issue with them first. After all, Player D is a child (who is explicitly treated as a child by his environment), so talking to his parents is not a strange step at all. If I recall correctly from a previous thread, your parents and his know each other quite well, and at one time jointly decided that you could be a good influence on him. If you have convinced your mother to respect your own position, maybe she could even contact Player D's parents instead (as long as she does not make any promises on your behalf that you do not want to keep).
Hopefully, this will result in a solution for the problem, and improve the game to be more pleasant.

- Whatever you do, stand your ground. Do not grant favours ("for Player D's sake") to him, your mother or his parents, unless you have considered and decided in advance that you would be willing to grant those. If you are confronted with an argument you have not considered in advance, do not answer immediately, but tell them that you will think about it. Then think about it when you are by yourself and able to take all the time you need to make up your mind, and get back to them the next day (or after lunch, or the next week). Otherwise, you might feel pressured to do something you don't really want.

- If no agreement could be reached, you can do one of two things (in accordance with the rest of the gaming group):
1. EITHER suck it up for a month to let the game run its natural course (even though it is not as enjoyable as it could be) if you don't think it's worth the effort to improve it if there is no viable solution everyone can agree on. In this case, make sure that the parties you could not agree with (e.g. your mother, Player D's parents, Player D himself) know that you are doing this as a special favour to them.
2. OR decide (along with the rest of the players) to cancel the game, if the effort to keep the game going outweighs the enjoyment you (all) get from it (if any). In this case, inform the parties you could not agree with afterwards that you are not being spiteful towards Player D or anything, but that you were simply not enjoying yourself at all. So why keep it going?

[Alejandro]

Also at everyone else who answered in reference to the list.

I don't think Player D is suffering from #5, but is for sure under #2 and my Mom is for sure suffering from #1.

There is Player Z's place as a back up, we're just worried about sessions being cut off early there.

Though the group is now divided on what to do... but not in the same way as before.

Last time in D&D where Player D had issues we were divided on letting him stay or getting rid him. Now we're divided on getting rid of him or giving him a warning first we are sure he wouldn't listen to anyways. I could tell my Mom before hand he's causing issues and purposely cheating for an edge, but there's a good chance she'll just want to 'talk it out' and 'give him more time' like last time which never worked.



We aren't, especially since his plans is controlling all the planets and organizations we worked so hard to create. He just wants to take over and have everything in the solar system for himself. And the issue with spending a few weeks to a month to kill the craving is that we only have a little more than a month left before people leave for college, and we don't want to spend the summer trying to fix an issue for a campaign that will most likely end when college starts anyways.

If there's only a month left, then just stop playing the game, and do something else fun with your friends. Include D if you want, just make sure it's not something he can exert special control over.

Or, if you want to spend that month playing the game, then you have to cut D out.

[Jay R]

There are only three options:
1. Play with him as he is.
2. Convince him to change.
3. Don't play with him.

Pick one of these. There's no other option.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and cannot convince him to change, you must stop playing with him.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and won't stop playing with him, you must convince him to change.

If you cannot convince him to change, and won't stop playing with him, then you will play with him as he is.

So you must make the hard choice. And by the way, not making a choice is in fact making the third choice. Until you choose something else, you have in fact chosen to play with him as he is.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I think I remember the OP posting about this same player about a year ago. If it is indeed the same player, then I doubt this approach will work, because this problem player has never learned how to take responsibility, and has actually been receiving therapy that taught him that not taking responsibility for his actions is the best way of dealing with his autism.

My advice is to the OP is the following:

- If I recall correctly, you have become a surrogate older sibling over much of Player D's life. Determine whether you still want to be this person's friend, or just want to stop roleplaying with him, or whether you are willing to have your roleplaying activity remain therapy sessions for Player D for the remainder of the summer.

- Check with the rest of the group (except Player D) how they feel about the situation, and see whether you can agree on what approach you could/should take as a group. Do not act on it immediately, because you first need to talk to other people involved (see below).

- Once you know exactly where you stand, and what the group wants, have a talk with your mother, telling her that there are problems within the game, that Player D is the central focus of these problems (and in what way), and that it is draining your enjoyment of the game. Ask her for her opinion first, and after she has given it, tell her your opinion (and how you reached it). Make sure from the start that she is aware that this is a conversation between adults, and that she should respect your position. If she wants you to be a member of Player D's autism support group "because you've always been such good playmates", like what she has been actively encouraging you to do for years, let her know that you are an adult and that you have your own opinion about where you put your limits.
(Maybe you agree with her and want to be there for player D, but you should also make it clear to her that you are no longer willing to sacrifice ALL your own enjoyment in roleplaying just to help out Player D.)
The point is, your mother should know that you are no longer a child, and she should no longer treat you like one. (Specifically, she should no longer have a say in who you should play with and when.) This is, of course, assuming that you are indeed ready to take this step. Hopefully, you will be able to find an agreement with her.

- Once you know where you stand, and where the rest of the group stands, and hopefully have your mother's blessing, you can confront Player D (alone or with the entire group) and tel him what you have all (jointly) decided to do. If you feel it is appropriate, and you know his parents, you could contact them and discuss the issue with them first. After all, Player D is a child (who is explicitly treated as a child by his environment), so talking to his parents is not a strange step at all. If I recall correctly from a previous thread, your parents and his know each other quite well, and at one time jointly decided that you could be a good influence on him. If you have convinced your mother to respect your own position, maybe she could even contact Player D's parents instead (as long as she does not make any promises on your behalf that you do not want to keep).
Hopefully, this will result in a solution for the problem, and improve the game to be more pleasant.

- Whatever you do, stand your ground. Do not grant favours ("for Player D's sake") to him, your mother or his parents, unless you have considered and decided in advance that you would be willing to grant those. If you are confronted with an argument you have not considered in advance, do not answer immediately, but tell them that you will think about it. Then think about it when you are by yourself and able to take all the time you need to make up your mind, and get back to them the next day (or after lunch, or the next week). Otherwise, you might feel pressured to do something you don't really want.

- If no agreement could be reached, you can do one of two things (in accordance with the rest of the gaming group):
1. EITHER suck it up for a month to let the game run its natural course (even though it is not as enjoyable as it could be) if you don't think it's worth the effort to improve it if there is no viable solution everyone can agree on. In this case, make sure that the parties you could not agree with (e.g. your mother, Player D's parents, Player D himself) know that you are doing this as a special favour to them.
2. OR decide (along with the rest of the players) to cancel the game, if the effort to keep the game going outweighs the enjoyment you (all) get from it (if any). In this case, inform the parties you could not agree with afterwards that you are not being spiteful towards Player D or anything, but that you were simply not enjoying yourself at all. So why keep it going?

Yes this is the same player, I still find it shocking how well he's remembered.

The main issue with my Mom is that she basically takes the position of "He can't help it, and if you don't give him proper time to change (which when put into practice she means, until he changes no matter how long) you're friends are all terrible human beings who aren't welcome anymore" so I doubt I'd get her to change her mind. It's become pretty apparent now that she likes Player D more than me even, so he is her favourite in the group too.

As for the group, Player Z and T are outright voting to kick him out now.
Me and Player A atm delayed our votes, planning to warn Player D there's a problem and he needs to fix them or we can't keep playing.

If he fails to fix it (probably in that week, given our lack of time and 50% of the group outside of him wanting him gone) then we'll have to remove him.

I've suggested just ending the group, but the others are too attached to the world we created to let that happen.
They suggested the idea of 'ending' it though just so Player D thinks it's over and then restarting it without him.

But I voted against it because that's dishonest and there's the chance he'll learn of the group anyways and we would of only caused a bigger mess. Plus my Mom would start to ask why Player D is no longer around. And even if we lied to her successfully she'd learn the truth next time she spoke to Player D's Mom.

There are only three options:
1. Play with him as he is.
2. Convince him to change.
3. Don't play with him.

Pick one of these. There's no other option.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and cannot convince him to change, you must stop playing with him.

If you are not willing to play with him as he is, and won't stop playing with him, you must convince him to change.

If you cannot convince him to change, and won't stop playing with him, then you will play with him as he is.

So you must make the hard choice. And by the way, not making a choice is in fact making the third choice. Until you choose something else, you have in fact chosen to play with him as he is.

Well... aren't you blunt? :p

I'm not complaining though, I like it people are blunt and honest with the situation. Saves time by addressing the facts and usually solves things faster.

Atm half our group is voting for #3, with the other half voting for #2 but leaning towards #3.

[Arkhosia]

This may be due to my opinion on how to treat people with conditions such as ADHD, asbergers, Down syndrome, autism, etc, but I would deal with him as you would anyone else when it comes to dealing with this problem.
Basically, unless it has something to do directly with him dealing with being autistic, treat him as you would treat any other person.

[JusticeZero]

Gwazi, it should say something that I read a title about a problem player, immediately thought, "Gwazi must be gaming around this time of week", checked the thread and discovered that you were in fact the author....
Seriously, you need to find a different group of peeps. Awfulness is incurable. It isn't all that hard to find other games, really.