Advice on dealing with an uncooperative player

[Cealocanth]

I have a player in my group - my brother - who is as best as I can describe it, irrationally scared of risk in the game. We play 4th edition D&D, but this happens any time that a player can possibly have something detrimental happen to them, whether the game is Candy Land or Pathfinder. He accepts the established rules of the game, but whenever someone in the group, i.e. me, the DM, attempts to create a houserule that has any negative effects on the PCs whatsoever, he becomes argumentative and irrationally against any system like that. Normally, if a player were so pissed off about the fact that I'm trying to put in a system for having peg legs in a pirate game, only after erupting into a screaming fit every time that I try to change something to change the tone of the game, I would tell him to scram. The issue is, we live under the same roof, and if I kick him from the game, I have to deal with the social consequences of an experienced debater with a grudge.

It's one thing to have a player who dislikes homebrewing at all, and it's another player who only dislikes homebrewing when it could possibly harm his character in any way. He's fine with our group adding some custom weapons, like guns and cannons, to add to the game. He's fine with the ruling that because the gods of the world are dead, we aren't going to allow divine classes. He's fine with the ruling that we're making ritual costs less expensive. He abhors the very concept of a penalty when the player rolls a natural 1.

So, DMs of the Playground, how do I deal with this? I feel like convincing him that he's acting irrationally and not in the best interest of the group would be like trying to erode a mountain with a garden hose. I'm at a loss for solutions.

[Tengu_temp]

He's right. Auto-missing on a natural 1 is already annoying enough; using some kind of homebrew critical miss rule is adding insult to injury, and makes the characters look like incompetent fools who can't swing a sword without risking fumbling with it and losing their grip.

[Sir Pippin Boyd]

He abhors the very concept of a penalty when the player rolls a natural 1

There are really two parts of this to look into -- One is on how to deal with a player that is just being uncooperative and wants to get his way, but the other perspective is that this player may be voicing what he feels are legitimate concerns about some very detrimental homebrew being brought into the game.

Natural 1's occur a remarkable portion of the time for martial combatants that rely on attack rolls a lot, and already these characters are usually very limited on their options in combat. Further, crit fail tables are oftentimes very harshly punishing on the characters that trigger them, damaging or killing themself (or a teammate), dropping or breaking a weapon, or inflicting some punishing status affliction. While in other elements of gameplay, this is all well and good, players often feel its unfair for punishing them randomly for doing exactly what is expected of them -- attacking enemies.

As the poster above me also suggested, it also really hurts the idea that I'm playing some awesome warrior with my level 15 fighter when he has a 5% chance of decapitating himself every time he swings his vorpal sword.

[valadil]

There are exceptions but I don't think siblings belong at the same game table for this reason. He knows you can't kick him and he knows how to push your buttons. I don't think he'd behave this way in someone elses game.

I'd make it clear who is running the game. It's either a dictatorship or a democracy. If it's a dictatorship just add the rule. If it's a democracy let the other players vote. When rule get outvoted it's probably for the bat. User either scenario rules can get added regardless of his whining. It's up to him to quit instead of up to you to punt him.

As a less antisocial tactic what about making the harmful rules optional. For instance the peg leg thing shouldn't be something you impose to permanently gimp a character. It could be a flaw that a character takes to get a bonus feat. If he doesn't want it he doesn't take it.

[Rhynn]

He abhors the very concept of a penalty when the player rolls a natural 1.

He's right to, you know.

You should probably go into detail about these player-screwing-over-houserules of yours, so we can see whether he's being unreasonable or you're not thinking through your ideas enough.

[Kid Jake]

Why have peg legs come into the picture? Does he want a peg leg but doesn't actually want it to affect his character? Or does he already have a peg leg but the penalty just now caught up to him? Unless you're going for a purposefully gritty setting (or the PCs get something out of having a wooden leg) I'd reconsider penalties for prosthetics. It just makes a bad situation worse and penalizes a character for having texture.

Also, it doesn't matter whether your rulings are right or wrong, if he's so immature that he gets a case of the dramas every time he disagrees with something, you should just tell him to go run his own game with his rules if he wants something done a particular way, but this is YOUR game with YOUR rules. You don't have to run him off the table, but let him know flat out that you're not going to bend over backwards every time he whines about something, if he doesn't like the way you run a game he doesn't have to play. If he continues being a brat (I don't care if he's 10 or 30, throwing a fit over a game is the behavior of a brat) remind him that he's free to seek greener pastures, but you're not changing your style for him alone.

If he wants to discuss the situation calmly and rationally then hear him out and try to look at it from the player's point of view. Address any issues if this is actually affecting his character unduly such as turning a formerly nimble rogue into a slow, clomping expert.

[Cealocanth]

He's right to, you know.

You should probably go into detail about these player-screwing-over-houserules of yours, so we can see whether he's being unreasonable or you're not thinking through your ideas enough.

It seems like I should, apparently.

We, meaning my group, established from the beginning that we were going to run a gritty, pirate themed game. We wanted it to be very dangerous to both players and monsters. This is a concept that he agreed with.

The game is still getting off the ground, and we're still working through the features. We now have a set of custom weapons, including guns, cutlasses, etc. and a system for ship to ship combat created as an amalgam of several ship to ship combat systems proposed for 4e. We have also included a new array of siege weapons which can be mounted on ships, which include, among other things, cannons. Ship to ship combat is dangerous, and runs the risk of having your ship sunk and most of your crew killed. Guns are dangerous and deal extra damage on critical hits. Both things that make the game more dangerous and threaten the players, and both things that he agreed to implement.

We have made rituals more dangerous as well. Many divine based rituals, including Raise Dead, Remove Affliction, and Gentle Repose, have been ruled to be powered by dark magic now, and thus require a human sacrifice to work properly. Again, dangerous to the players, something he agreed to.

We decided to implement a rule that states that when a creature takes damage from a siege weapon, it automatically deals a critical hit, and has extra damage, although it has less of a chance to hit. Same story on this one.

Now, the group has agreed that the game still doesn't feel gritty enough. We decided to implement the rules for critical wounds that Pathfinder's Skulls and Shackles supplement. Simply put, when an enemy rolls a critical hit, the player needs to roll to see if they suffer a wound. If they roll a 1 on a 20 sided die, they suffer a wound. Said wound is determined by rolling on a table, and they all have minor effects that are permanent until the wound is healed, which can be accomplished by a Remove Affliction ritual. This is the rule that he is abhorrently opposed to.

To be clear, this is a rule that everyone in the group (except for my brother) has agreed is fair and will add to the game. This is a thing that can happen with an unlucky roll, that occurs 1 in every 400 attacks (that's a .25% chance of happening.) Yet, even with the knowledge that the chances of this happening to his character is less than the chances that his character dying in a standard combat, that the effects are minor and can be healed, and that the group agrees that it could add to the gritty tone of the game, he irrationally opposes this rule. And he knows that because he lives with me, if I don't rule in his favor, then I have to take the brunt of his 'button pushing' for months.

This is not the first time he has taken an irrational stance on a minor rule, simply because it can threaten his character, against the entire party's wishes, and it will not be the last.

That is why I am asking for some advice for dealing with irrational, uncooperative, detrimental behavior from a player when you can't simply tell them "tough luck, take it or leave it."

[Anxe]

One of my players is a bit like that. The response my group has adopted is, "We play games to have fun together. Everyone else is having more fun with this rule. Are you going to spoil it for them by continuing to argue or can we move on with something we've already established as existing in the game?"

There's also the obvious solution of asking your parents for help.

[ChaoticDitz]

That's the thing, though. You can tell him "take it or leave it" and you ought to. If he wants to talk about it calmly and rationally and is willing to concede if majorly disagreed with without recycling the same points over and over, let him make his points. If he is truly being stubborn and irrational, do what is mentioned above; tell him he doesn't have to play if he doesn't want to, and if he wants to, he may have to deal with a couple of things he doesn't like for the sake of greater enjoyment around the table.

[Red Fel]

My advice comes in several stages.

1. Appeal to reason. "We all agreed this campaign would be gritty and dangerous. We all agreed that we would be working on the rules as we went. Well, this is a proposed rule that's gritty and dangerous; let's go by our initial agreement and try it out. If it works, great; if not, we'll figure something else out."

2. Appeal to fairness. "We've made other, helpful modifications. We've added cool weapons and things, upgrades, to the game. How is it fair that we can add bonuses, but not penalties? It's hardly sporting that I can let you guys become that much stronger, but can't impose anything to balance that."

3. Appeal to authority. You're the DM. This is one of the hard things about DMing - occasionally, you have to go from DM-as-friend to DM-as-DM, and hope your players are mature enough to deal with it. And if he's not, and holds a grudge? You have to decide whether you can maintain peace at the table. What happens away from the table, in everyday life, isn't relevant to what happens at the table. Harsh though it may seem, you have to do what's right for the game, even if he gives you hell over it later.

Either way, the first step is talking to him. Not in front of the group, but separately. Make it clear that you're talking as his DM, not as his brother; your obligations as a DM and your obligations as a brother are separate issues. Make it clear that you want him to play, and want him to be able to have fun, but he's got to meet you part-way on this. Don't issue threats or ultimatums; just explain that these are the rules you're trying, this is how things are going to be, and you really hope that he can enjoy it.

[Hamste]

So he can get it healed with a simple ritual...only it is difficult to get healed because you ruled Remove Affliction is one of the rituals that is more difficult to do and requires a human sacrifice. Essentially meaning he has to pay a huge price in order to heal small permanent wounds that he is bound to get. Then there are auto crits from siege weapons which raises the odds considerably for these wounds (how much so depends on the penalties to hit). What is more you also have guns dealing more damage on crits already.

He doesn't sound unreasonable yet...he agreed to a lot and most of it was all directly harmful to his character (Anything that has a high amount of luck involved always favors the mooks simply because there are infinite of them and one of him). He even agreed that it was ok that healing magic is hard to get...something that is immensely against him. It just doesn't sound like it is risk that he cares about. Heck it sounds like the opposite with him agreeing with even the most deadly of suggestions.

[Rhynn]

a gritty, pirate themed game. We wanted it to be very dangerous to both players and monsters.

[D&D] 4e

Well, this is off to a bad start. That's a huge mismatch, but okay, sure, maybe it can be made to work. (RuneQuest, HârnMaster, Rolemaster, etc. would work better. So would OSRIC and ACKS, probably.)

We decided to implement the rules for critical wounds that Pathfinder's Skulls and Shackles supplement. Simply put, when an enemy rolls a critical hit, the player needs to roll to see if they suffer a wound. If they roll a 1 on a 20 sided die, they suffer a wound. Said wound is determined by rolling on a table, and they all have minor effects that are permanent until the wound is healed, which can be accomplished by a Remove Affliction ritual.

he irrationally opposes this rule

Whoah, why is his opposition irrational? You can make plenty of rational cases to oppose that rule, starting with "I think that's a really bad fit for 4E" and "I don't think that's any fun," which are both perfectly valid if subjective arguments. And then there's the following...

This is not the first time he has taken an irrational stance on a minor rule, simply because it can threaten his character, against the entire party's wishes, and it will not be the last.

To be clear, that's practically just a rule against PCs. Any individual monster or NPC is maybe 5% to 10% likely to get hit by it (assuming 20-50 attacks against them; that might just be the solos, but hey, this is 4). They also won't generally bear the long-term consequences. PCs are much more likely to be hit by it: after being attacked 100 times, a PC is 23% likely to have suffered at least one such wound. After being attaced 400 times, it's 63% likely.

All the same valid and common criticisms apply as apply to natural-1 fumbles in D&D.

Is the rule actually going to add anything to the game and be useful? If your intent is to create a game where PCs retire because they were crippled, that's probably a good method. (That's one thing mortal wounds do in ACKS - instead of dying as in vanilla D&D, you may be crippled, which may lead to retirement or may not.)

edit: And yeah, as Hamste points out, all of these rules compound. Have the other players realized this? Basically, in ship combat, the PCs are likely to get crippled, and it will be hard to impossible to remove the crippling effects. (For instance, if you want to play a Good character, you just have to live with it forever.) /edit

then I have to take the brunt of his 'button pushing' for months.

You both probably need to grow up, but then I gather that you literally do...

That is why I am asking for some advice for dealing with irrational, uncooperative, detrimental behavior from a player when you can't simply tell them "tough luck, take it or leave it."

Your stipulations ("irrational, uncooperative, detrimental") preclude all other methods. Sorry.

[Sir Pippin Boyd]

That is why I am asking for some advice for dealing with irrational, uncooperative, detrimental behavior from a player when you can't simply tell them "tough luck, take it or leave it."

Part of what should be taken from all of this is that even if careful analysis of the homebrew shows it might have several reasons for not being an excellent homebrew, nobody at the table in a roleplaying game has any justification for being a jerk. As a DM, sometimes you have to be tough, but fair, and a good DM can do this without being a jerk about it. Likewise, as a player, sometimes the group wants to do something you feel doesn't make sense, and when this is the case, there are responsible avenues for resolving it.

Or, put simply, no matter which one of you is right, if you're fighting about it instead of settling things calmly and maturely, you're both wrong. Sit down, relax, talk it out, and if you really can't come to any kind of agreement, then you probably shouldn't keep playing together.

[Troacctid]

Give him a magic item that protects him from it.