How to deal with a player trying to 'win'

[A_Man]

Alright, firstly, I assume this is the right forum, if not, I apologize.

Now, I've started to GM a PbP game off site (obviously), and it's more of a free form type game, since we don't have character sheets, nor is there a real 'goal' in the game.

Now, most of the players are playing to role play a character, but I have one player who is playing to win (at least, that's what he just told us today.) and as such, is trying to make sure everything he does is perfect. Now, while this may be normal practice in an actual table top RP (though it hasn't been that way in the games I've played) this is rather harmful for a free form.

Of course you can win an RP, it's a game, and all games can be won.

-said player

So, is there anything you guys and gals know that could change said player's opinion? Or is this something I shouldn't mind and is normal?

[MukkTB]

Well there's no win conditions for D&D. The closest you can get to a win is to go through an adventure and come out the other side with more XP, gold and your life. Its a sandbox game. You can do what you want, but because of that nothing counts as a win. In order to win a sandbox, you have to come up with your own arbitrary goal.

That said, if someone comes up with an arbitrary goal and declares that they will have won if they accomplish it, more power to them. If he's not hurting anyone else then whats the problem?

In fact "trying to make sure everything he does is perfect" is something that seems to have a lot of roleplay potential. Is the character a professional adventurer? Is he compulsive? What drove him to be this way? The player's reasons are competitive. But the characters reasons could be quite interesting.

Then go to a fellow adventurers standpoint. This guy seems like someone who wouldn't be terrible to have on the team. As long as his definition of winning isn't stabbing me in the back to take my gold and XP I can get onboard with his desires. A strong party is a good thing if my arbitrary goal is to slay the dragon. A member trying to do his absolute very best is a boon.

[Fighter1000]

I have a player like this in my group. He's what you call a "power gamer." He can roleplay well at times and he's getting better, but it can sometimes be difficult to have fun playing an RP with him because he always wants to be the best and the strongest member of the party, and he gets upset and complains if an encounter seems hopeless or "too challenging." I think he just wants to overpower everything and get lots of loot and take over the game world. It can be annoying at times. I have yet to learn how to deal with this properly, but I've had to endure it for years now.
If I was the strongest and bestest member of the party, I would be like,
"Oh, that's nice." But I would just shrug my shoulders and I wouldn't abuse my power or anything.
Best of luck to you with this problem, OP

[A_Man]

That said, if someone comes up with an arbitrary goal and declares that they will have won if they accomplish it, more power to them. If he's not hurting anyone else then whats the problem?

In fact "trying to make sure everything he does is perfect" is something that seems to have a lot of roleplay potential. Is the character a professional adventurer? Is he compulsive? What drove him to be this way? The player's reasons are competitive. But the characters reasons could be quite interesting.

Then go to a fellow adventurers standpoint. This guy seems like someone who wouldn't be terrible to have on the team. As long as his definition of winning isn't stabbing me in the back to take my gold and XP I can get onboard with his desires. A strong party is a good thing if my arbitrary goal is to slay the dragon. A member trying to do his absolute very best is a boon.

All right, seems like I need to get into the setting a bit. Generally, I agree with the idea that a player should be trying his best, and plays for the team. Unfortunately, the setting isn't built for playing a character like that.

We are playing in a 'Magic High-School', a character building game. And when I say, he's aiming for a perfect way to play, it isn't 'IC' it's OOC. So, instead of playing a flawed character, he makes a character who's flaws aren't really flaws (or he finds ways to get around said flaws.), and picks the bonuses that make his character the strongest player in the game. (I think the D&D term is munchkining?)

As well as the fact that he plays evil characters who aim to inflict pain on everyone else (which is what I think he considers himself winning).

While he isn't bad enough to require kicking out, (nor is it something we as GMs can't handle), I'm wondering if there is a way to make him not think that way, or is it not something I should worry about.

[Arkhosia]

All right, seems like I need to get into the setting a bit. Generally, I agree with the idea that a player should be trying his best, and plays for the team. Unfortunately, the setting isn't built for playing a character like that.

We are playing in a 'Magic High-School', a character building game. And when I say, he's aiming for a perfect way to play, it isn't 'IC' it's OOC. So, instead of playing a flawed character, he makes a character who's flaws aren't really flaws (or he finds ways to get around said flaws.), and picks the bonuses that make his character the strongest player in the game. (I think the D&D term is munchkining?)

As well as the fact that he plays evil characters who aim to inflict pain on everyone else (which is what I think he considers himself winning).

While he isn't bad enough to require kicking out, (nor is it something we as GMs can't handle), I'm wondering if there is a way to make him not think that way, or is it not something I should worry about.

You should talk to him. If he uses very faulty flaws, ask him to change it. Tell him that it's a win for him because he gets a bigger challenge to overcome, a goal to overcome and "win".
Dare him to play a character modeled after Azula if that doesn't work: he gets to work with insanity!

[Slipperychicken]

It looks like a maturity thing to me. It takes experience to learn that, although you can win, the victory conditions aren't what they seem. Gold and XP are nice, but you won't be talking about that years after the fact. Who's the most interesting character he's ever seen in a TV show, book, movie, or even real life? Does he win every fight, succeed at everything he ever tries on the first go? I suggest telling him that, then just let him figure it out on his own if he doesn't listen.

[Big Fau]

(I think the D&D term is munchkining?)

Nope. That's power gaming or optimizing, depending on how he's doing it. Munchknining means he would be cheating (lying about stats, die rolls, and other things) or breaking the rules in some way.

[Slipperychicken]

Nope. That's power gaming or optimizing, depending on how he's doing it. Munchknining means he would be cheating (lying about stats, die rolls, and other things) or breaking the rules in some way.

In practice, the words are often used interchangeably.

[jindra34]

Honestly I'd recommend taking advantage of the fact that Freeform doesn't require everybody being of similar role and if (s)he instists boot him up to being a professor/teacher in this case. It provides a justification for him being 'better' and will limit his harm to other players. After all a teacher will likely get in more trouble than a student for abuse to students.

[prufock]

Take advantage of his flaws, even if they are minor.

Set up situations in which there is no possibility of winning. It shouldn't be too difficult to introduce a "villain" with Xanatos gambits, putting him in a situation where his actions can change the outcome, but not really make it better.

Or play Paranoia! for a while. That should cure it.

[hymer]

You could introduce specific 'win' conditions for him. He scores 'points' when he develops friendships, when his team does well because of his sacrifices, when he's voted 'best PC of the session' by the other players, etc.
And of course, when he's behaving evilly, have him up to a stern conversation with someone who could break him in half, whether a teacher or an older student. If he doesn't stop there, have him publicly humiliated (spanked in the public atrium until his bottom goes blue tends to do it - make sure someone gets it on their phone so they can bring it up again; he introduced 'kids are cruel', but the paddle swings both ways). If that isn't enough, expel him and have him make a new PC.

Edit: For clarity, the assigned goals would be unlikely to change his behaviour. If he wants to torture small animals more than 'win', that's what he'll keep on doing. But at least you've given him the option of 'winning' in a non-disruptive way, which may be worth doing in itself, and may just be a way to solidify your position for when you have to point out how you've bent over backwards to give him what he wants.

Second edit: Start giving in-universe presents to those who play well. Nobody wants to help the psycho kid, and they're looking for reasons to kick him out. If the nice guy steps out of line, he'll get off with a warning, and the librarian/teacher/cool older student will be much more forthcoming to requests for help. Gold stars in their homework, valedictorian positions, people in the halls talking nicely about them, easy to get dates on Friday nights, etc.

[KillianHawkeye]

You really can't change the way people think.

[A_Man]

You could introduce specific 'win' conditions for him. He scores 'points' when he develops friendships, when his team does well because of his sacrifices, when he's voted 'best PC of the session' by the other players, etc.
And of course, when he's behaving evilly, have him up to a stern conversation with someone who could break him in half, whether a teacher or an older student. If he doesn't stop there, have him publicly humiliated (spanked in the public atrium until his bottom goes blue tends to do it - make sure someone gets it on their phone so they can bring it up again; he introduced 'kids are cruel', but the paddle swings both ways). If that isn't enough, expel him and have him make a new PC.

Edit: For clarity, the assigned goals would be unlikely to change his behaviour. If he wants to torture small animals more than 'win', that's what he'll keep on doing. But at least you've given him the option of 'winning' in a non-disruptive way, which may be worth doing in itself, and may just be a way to solidify your position for when you have to point out how you've bent over backwards to give him what he wants.

Second edit: Start giving in-universe presents to those who play well. Nobody wants to help the psycho kid, and they're looking for reasons to kick him out. If the nice guy steps out of line, he'll get off with a warning, and the librarian/teacher/cool older student will be much more forthcoming to requests for help. Gold stars in their homework, valedictorian positions, people in the halls talking nicely about them, easy to get dates on Friday nights, etc.

I actually like the idea of having 'points', sort of like how Harry Potter did it, except more personalized. May make an interesting game, with naturally villainous characters trying to appear to be good.

Also, the idea that being good has a notable benefit may make sure players play as 'good' people. (Since, playing as a nice person ends up boring if you compare it to the guy who burns down houses. :P)

Take advantage of his flaws, even if they are minor.

Set up situations in which there is no possibility of winning. It shouldn't be too difficult to introduce a "villain" with Xanatos gambits, putting him in a situation where his actions can change the outcome, but not really make it better.

Or play Paranoia! for a while. That should cure it.

Sounds like a good thought. Already have a number of big guns (not that hard when you have magic in the world.)

Honestly I'd recommend taking advantage of the fact that Freeform doesn't require everybody being of similar role and if (s)he insists boot him up to being a professor/teacher in this case. It provides a justification for him being 'better' and will limit his harm to other players. After all a teacher will likely get in more trouble than a student for abuse to students.

I don't really think he'll enjoy playing as a teacher, mainly because the plot is more based on the students. Most teachers will appear rarely (simply because we have 10 or so branches of magic, and 9 players who are mostly interested in 4 of the schools).

[Glimbur]

There's another option. Let him win.

Two ways to do that. One is as follows: He wants to have the highest test score? His only real competition suffers a family emergency the night before the test, so they fail. Wants to be the best athlete? The other team gets whooping cough the night before the big match and has to forfeit. He needs to be prom king? Something tragic happens to his younger sibling, so he gets the sympathy vote and sweeps.

The other is to have his plans go exactly as indicated. People are easily fooled, he is just the best, etc etc.

Either way, the idea is to give him hollow victory after hollow victory. What he should, hopefully, learn is that winning isn't really the goal.

Talk to him OOC first, of course, but I expect you have tried that. The other ideas in this thread are also reasonable, but I just wanted to offer another option.

[The Glyphstone]

The problem with that, it appears, is it'll screw over the other players in the game, since one of his 'win conditions' is doing things to the other characters. 'win everything until they get bored' is good for a one-on-one or a group cooperative, but when the problem is also competitive with a PvP mindset it causes more problems than it solves.

[The Fury]

Of course you can win an RP, it's a game, and all games can be won.

If that's true then we must conclude that Minecraft and Animal Crossing are in fact not games as they don't have unambiguously defined conditions for winning.
I obviously disagree. I think what's cool about these games and tabletop roleplaying games is that you the player get to decide what constitutes winning and set your own goals. Though this concept may be lost on some people.
What might be helpful is throwing in direct challenges for his character in specific. Some jerk barging into a tavern and challenging his character in specific to a duel or something. Or a grifter trying to con him maybe.

[Yukitsu]

If that's true then we must conclude that Minecraft and Animal Crossing are in fact not games as they don't have unambiguously defined conditions for winning.
I obviously disagree. I think what's cool about these games and tabletop roleplaying games is that you the player get to decide what constitutes winning and set your own goals. Though this concept may be lost on some people.
What might be helpful is throwing in direct challenges for his character in specific. Some jerk barging into a tavern and challenging his character in specific to a duel or something. Or a grifter trying to con him maybe.

I thought you won animal crossing when you managed to get rid of all your debt and could play the game without getting your kneecaps broken?

And minecraft has that ender dragon now...

[Rhynn]

There's another option. Let him win.

As always, an Oscar Wilde quote is relevant here:

"In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."

I thought you won animal crossing when you managed to get rid of all your debt and could play the game without getting your kneecaps broken?

And minecraft has that ender dragon now...

Better example, perhaps: Dwarf Fortress can never be won. You can only lose or keep playing.

[neonchameleon]

Alright, firstly, I assume this is the right forum, if not, I apologize.

Now, I've started to GM a PbP game off site (obviously), and it's more of a free form type game, since we don't have character sheets, nor is there a real 'goal' in the game.

Now, most of the players are playing to role play a character, but I have one player who is playing to win (at least, that's what he just told us today.) and as such, is trying to make sure everything he does is perfect. Now, while this may be normal practice in an actual table top RP (though it hasn't been that way in the games I've played) this is rather harmful for a free form.

-said player

So, is there anything you guys and gals know that could change said player's opinion? Or is this something I shouldn't mind and is normal?

Ask him what he thinks winning means. Because in a freeform, it's not having the smartest or the strongest character. But the most entertaining. And entertaining characters fail and do so spectacularly. Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indiana Jones <em>never</em> succeeds at anything he does in that film.

[Jay R]

There's another option. Let him win.

Two ways to do that. One is as follows: He wants to have the highest test score? His only real competition suffers a family emergency the night before the test, so they fail. Wants to be the best athlete? The other team gets whooping cough the night before the big match and has to forfeit. He needs to be prom king? Something tragic happens to his younger sibling, so he gets the sympathy vote and sweeps.

The other is to have his plans go exactly as indicated. People are easily fooled, he is just the best, etc etc.

Either way, the idea is to give him hollow victory after hollow victory. What he should, hopefully, learn is that winning isn't really the goal.

Talk to him OOC first, of course, but I expect you have tried that. The other ideas in this thread are also reasonable, but I just wanted to offer another option.

Yup. Sometimes the most sadistic thing the DM can do to is to let the players have their own way.

[erikun]

Drop them.

No, seriously. Roleplaying involved running a faulty character, one with strengths and weaknesses. This is especially true in freeform RPs, which don't have a hardcoded set of rules to allow a clear victory/defeat condition with an action. Other PCs won't want to interact with the always-victory character, because they always lose when facing them and their problems are instantly resolved when working with them.

If you're keeping the player in the RP, then be aware that most people are likely to just ignore the player, or get annoyed when they're involved in anything beyond casual interaction. As mentioned above, they either win all fights against PCs (which could be drawn-out and bog down the RP) or they win all fights against the PCs enemies (which sidelines the other PCs). Either way, after a bit nobody will want to interact with the character.

You'd probably want to make the player aware of that, and note that you will be forced to kick them if they become a bother to other players. Other than that, just recommend that the character has some real flaws, and that the player actually makes use of them.


As an aside, I would not follow the "Let the character always win" idea. This just sounds like turning them into a Mary Sue to me, which is going to be just as boring.

[Waker]

Let him "win the game". Then while he's sitting reading there reading the credits (list of all the people who make RPGS linked from various sites), the rest of the party continues on with the epilogue.

[A_Man]

The problem with that, it appears, is it'll screw over the other players in the game, since one of his 'win conditions' is doing things to the other characters. 'win everything until they get bored' is good for a one-on-one or a group cooperative, but when the problem is also competitive with a PvP mindset it causes more problems than it solves.

Yep, Glyphstone is exactly correct. I'm not averse to having 'evil' characters (I enjoy playing such characters), but when doing a free form, it's tough on the other players if said player is making sure to make everyone's life harder, and as such, can't really allow him to succeed in everything he wants. (also, I'm not sure he'd care. I've seen him play as some Over Powered unharmable blob of death, and even though he never faced a challenge, he seemed to enjoy it)

Ask him what he thinks winning means. Because in a freeform, it's not having the smartest or the strongest character. But the most entertaining. And entertaining characters fail and do so spectacularly. Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indiana Jones <em>never</em> succeeds at anything he does in that film.

We actually did. Didn't answer, since 'we wouldn't understand', but we've tried explaining how a free form is supposed to go.

Drop them.

No, seriously. Roleplaying involved running a faulty character, one with strengths and weaknesses. This is especially true in freeform RPs, which don't have a hardcoded set of rules to allow a clear victory/defeat condition with an action. Other PCs won't want to interact with the always-victory character, because they always lose when facing them and their problems are instantly resolved when working with them.

If you're keeping the player in the RP, then be aware that most people are likely to just ignore the player, or get annoyed when they're involved in anything beyond casual interaction. As mentioned above, they either win all fights against PCs (which could be drawn-out and bog down the RP) or they win all fights against the PCs enemies (which sidelines the other PCs). Either way, after a bit nobody will want to interact with the character.

You'd probably want to make the player aware of that, and note that you will be forced to kick them if they become a bother to other players. Other than that, just recommend that the character has some real flaws, and that the player actually makes use of them.


As an aside, I would not follow the "Let the character always win" idea. This just sounds like turning them into a Mary Sue to me, which is going to be just as boring.

The problem isn't that we can't handle him. It's a two GM team, and we both know his antics, but I'm more on the thoughts of how to fix the problem. He's a good player, knows what questions to ask, can roleplay on an above-average level, but when playing a free form, everything goes down hill since we don't have set rules.

I may need to be more aggressive about stopping the optimizing stuff though. Maybe it'll help him figure out the actual joy of the RP.

Let him "win the game". Then while he's sitting reading there reading the credits (list of all the people who make RPGS linked from various sites), the rest of the party continues on with the epilogue.

XD

[Alejandro]

You can't make him figure out the joy of something if that facet does not bring him joy. It may be that he simply doesn't like what you like, and is playing for all kinds of reasons, from simple boredom to 'it's what my friends are doing' to enjoying making you mad.

[allan5085]

Are you sure about this?

[Totally Guy]

You need to identify what this person is doing that ruins things and set a rule to prevent it.

Consider Basketball. Those rules change. Not because they want to play a different game but to preserve the game they want to play.

[Jay R]

Let him "win the game". Then while he's sitting reading there reading the credits (list of all the people who make RPGS linked from various sites), the rest of the party continues on with the epilogue.

Exactly. He wants a video-game win? Give him a video-game win.

"Congratulations! You won the game! I can't design a scenario that you won't beat. GAME OVER.

"Thanks for playing in my game. I hope you had fun. Anyway, I need to get back to continuing the scenario for all the players who haven't won yet.

"I enjoyed playing with you, and I hope you have just as much fun in your next game. Good luck!"

[A_Man]

Are you sure about this?

Well, we had a disscussion about one of the bonueses allowed in the game, an affinity for magic, and he explained that anyone who would go to another school of magic that he doesn't have an affinity for is an idiot (since you waste your bonus).

Then one of us pointed out that said player is missing the point of a roleplay, to which he stated that you can win an RP, and when asked how, he refused to explain.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure he's trying to win the RP, just don't know how.

You need to identify what this person is doing that ruins things and set a rule to prevent it.

Consider Basketball. Those rules change. Not because they want to play a different game but to preserve the game they want to play.

So, basically, I should try and find a way to allow how he plays to co-exist with how the others play?

[Blarmb]

If it's play-by-post, there isn't' any risk of social backlash from dumping someone's friend. The answer is simple if they're approaching your game from an angle you don't like: Eject them from the game.

Simply send them a polite message:

"I'm sorry, our play styles are compilable. I wish you luck in finding games that match your style in the future. However, you have been removed this game"

and block him from whatever group you're using to the run the game, an announce you're going to have 1 fewer player.

Done. No need to keep someone around don't like like if nothing is forcing you to. You might have social baggage to worry about in a real life game, but there isn't any need to mirror that online.

[Badgerish]

<opinion>
this is free-form RP and thus... it's not really a 'game', it's improv theatre!

how do you 'win' theatre? By having the players and audience (which may just be the players, given the situation) enjoy themselves and create an entertaining story.

so, encourage him to 'win' theatre by playing his character in a way that will create an entertaining story.
</opinion>

alternatively, focus on the 'winning' part by giving them goals that will improve the game, e.g. make more friends, help friends achieve their own goals etc.
edit: 'hymer' said this better, above