Annoying Characters and GM Neutrality

[Rakoa]

Have you ever had a player make a character that just annoyed you for whatever reason? You like the player just fine, it's nothing personal, but it's their character. The things they do, the way they talk, their tone of voice, perhaps something even more subtle than that. Maybe you can't place your finger on it, but there is something.

It's happened to me twice. The first time was a very, very very very short-lived game, so there were no times for a problem to occur. But the second time is still ongoing in my Wizardry School game at the Lexia University of Institutional Wizardry. One of the PCs is playing the most arrogant, obnoxious, loathsoame, snobby Elf I have ever encountered at a table and I wish so very much to throw her into an encounter with some enemies that she could never beat. Or better yet, enemies she could beat if I didn't fudge the rolls...a close battle, just enough to be believable, but death inevitable. That'd be nice...

But of course, as GM (or DM, whatever, I don't know the difference), I can't and won't do that. But damn, is it tempting.

Have any of you had similar experiences, either as DM or fellow player? How did you deal with maintaining neutrality, if you were in fact the GM? Did you maintain neutrality? I won't judge!

[Oberon Kenobi]

I had one really unlikable PC back when I was pretty new to GMing, and my 'solution' was to mostly ignore them and focus the spotlight on other characters. This was not the correct way to handle the situation, and it ended up causing more OOC tension.

Now that I am much more experienced, the way that I would handle it, and suggest that you handle it, is to talk to the player about the problem. It's everybody's job to create a fun environment for everyone else, and if any part of the game is making things actively unfun it is time to step back and address the hell out of it. Letting it fester isn't going to solve anything, doubly especially if the person who's not having fun is the GM.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the GM is a fellow player, not a service provider and certainly not a martyr. You don't have to put up with unlikable nonsense any more than your players players do.

[Geddy2112]

Some people I play with think this is the only proper way to play a ttRPG. They range from mildly annoying/cheeky to outright greifing and insulting. So long as the players and DM can keep it all professional in game, it is fine. If everybody is having fun and the annoyance adds something to the plot(conflict often does) then I say roll with it. As a DM, I step in when it becomes destructive. I try to head this off by having group character creation and banning certain concepts/backstories(I don't allow rouge agent murderhobos, stupidly obnoxious racists etc). If it becomes a regular thing in game where a character is a problem, I always bring this up to the player and the group; all one on one. I have never had talking to a player fail to fix an issue. However, if it is a an annoying but not destructive problem, I favor stick and carrot to gradually smooth it out.

Last night, I did murder kill address allow a PC to die by his own choices via the stick and carrot method. The PC was annoying me and the group. He simply disliked every NPC, situation, party member etc. He was not hostile or violent, just a constant gripe. The party met another NPC, who came and went as the party traveled on. However, this NPC was traveling in the same direction, and the player decided he wanted "to wander away from the party and look for a fight". Well sure as hell, he found said NPC, who was 2 levels higher than he was and had several tactical advantages such as spell buffs and terrain. He stumbled on the NPC's horse and gear. After a brief look around, he starts rummaging through the NPC's bags. He then manages to see said NPC in a tree with his bow and arrow at the ready. The PC and NPC shared no common language, but it was made clear the NPC was motioning for him to turn tail and run. The PC decided he would try to mind control the NPC instead. The spell was resisted, the NPC considered it a hostile threat, and shot the bow he had been pointing at the PC. He rolled well and dropped the PC in 2 shots. I was objective in the fact that against the same actions, the NPC would have responded the same way to any of the players. However, I was almost certain that only that PC would trigger these events. Also, the fight was not rigged, it was a setpiece in the world and if the NPC rolled poorly and the PC rolled well, they could have easily won the day.

So yes, I do design mousetraps to curve player behavior, but I would like to think that I simply enforce consequences to actions(and I design very selective mousetraps). I could get drunk, hop in my car, and drive through the local shopping mall on a busy weekend. It would be foolish to think that choice of those actions would not have negative consequences. Likewise, if I have a PC that is taking frequent annoying/problematic actions, I ensure that the world negatively reinforces them and positively reinforces others. I can tailor the trap to fit the PC. If my PC's don't like a character, it is likely the reasons they are disliked will be noticed by NPC's, or those reasons are linked to behaviors that would lead to negative consequences.

So maintain neutrality by enforcing organic consequences. Against Snooty McSnooterson the elf wizard ubermench, have said behavior cause the dwarf tavernowner to refuse service, or a trained thief who calls the city home to see him as a juicy mark. However, that same behavior might also convince Uppity McSnobbington, the elf noble, to favor the party. Or perhaps it causes Sneaky McSneakerson, the elf thief/assassin to spare the life of a fellow kinsman. Or maybe the character sees Coolguy McNicepants, the human cleric be nice to the dwarf and get free drinks. Maintain neutrality by using the stick and the carrot, in ways they would logically and organically occur.

To double check if your method is objective, execute the trap/monster/NPC regardless of who triggers said events. If Sneaky McSneakerson would most likely rob SnootyMcSnooterson because he is flamboyant and obnixious, but SnootyMcSnooterson is suddenly humble and reserve, don't carry out the theft. Likewise, if DudeBroChill becomes an obnoxious jerk waving his hordes of gold and treasure around when he is normally humble and reserve, then have the thief mark and rob DudeBroChill. If your world reacts to situations objectively, then you have achieved perfect neutrality as a DM.

[goto124]

rouge agent murderhobos

Spoiler: Lame Joke

Show

[Velaryon]

I've had a few that probably qualify. Whenever someone makes one of those loner characters who's trying too hard to be cool, and doesn't want to get involved in what the other players are doing because "my character wouldn't care about that," I find it really annoying. Thankfully my regular players have pretty much outgrown this by now, but I won't say it never happens.

Another one I hate is when a player is dead-set on playing something that's just not an organic fit with the setting, especially if it also involves heavy use of homebrew stuff they found online. I have some friends who I am teaching to play D&D, and one of them really really wanted to use this Saiyan race and a related class called Ki Master he found on dndwiki. It doesn't help that I really don't like Dragonball. At all. I allowed it, but I'm worried he will also turn out to be the type of character I mentioned above, who only shows interest in things that relate directly to his own interests. However, his wife is also joining the game and I'm sure he will want her to enjoy it, so that will hopefully rein in the loner character tendencies.

[Yoachuallathui]

I've, thankfully, not had to deal with too much of this, though there is often a lot of "My character is so strong and cool so i'm the leader" stuff. It has reminded me of a story though.

Few years ago, i was running a game, near capacity, with the players in a snowy city. I don't remember much of the story. A few people in my group spoke about it, and someone overheard, and insisted on joining. He insisted he would have to play a gunslinger in a setting where that kind of tech had never been mentioned before. I went along with it to try and keep everyone happy.

Day of the game comes along, and the party gets ready to leave the city, only to meet the new character along the way. He's leaning on a wall or something. Party greets him happily, and tries to engage in conversation. He responds with a small monologue about how he's so awesome and his weaponry makes him on par with a god and he doesn't need anyone.
Then the parties (well played) haughty wizardess shrugs, says "Well, that's cool for you. I guess you don't need any help then" and walks away, with the entire party following suit. And the new character made no effort to follow them. And the player never showed up to that game again.

Same player also insisted on joining a Star Trek campaign around a year later, where he had to play a Half-Romulan freedom fighter (Because it was so cool), nevermind they were on a Starfleet ship and everyone else was an officer. He ended up leaving because it was "Boring. Not enough fights"

[Marlowe]

Spoiler: Lame Joke

Show

At some point we plan on a "Rouge Trader" campaign where we travel around selling cosmetics to Orcs.

[Anonymouswizard]

Let's see, I once got annoyed at a fellow player for playing someone who could dodge bullets in a realistic campaign. He also broke the rules to get enough skill points, but that was the GM's fault for not mentioning that you can't take virtues multiple times unless stated (and I had been shot down doing the exact same thing for 15 less skill points).

I also once 'killed off' an annoying character ('honourable assassin' who acted like a murderhobo, had no goals other than killing, and was a very one-dimensional Assamite stereotype, to the point he was annoyed at the elders confused at him not displaying the Vizer weakness, and trying to use 'it's my clan weakness' to avoid the clan weakness) by putting them in a rigged trial and having another PC search his apartment for evidence. When he died at the end of the session he got annoyed for me 'killing me off unfairly'. My response?

'There aren't many vampires in London, all the Tremere had to do was say he had found no evidence. This situation was specifically to highlight that you might need more social skills than etiquette.'

At which point the player shut up, because he realised that I had given him an easy out. All he had to do was convince the Tremere to turn in evidence he knew was faked.

The other annoying thing I've seen is the player playing the same character over and over. This has happened enough in one of my groups that we decided we wanted one player to 'pick either the shooty or sneaky part of "shooty sneaky guy"', and for another player to play something that isn't a combat brute. Thankfully the first player actually excepted, and he's playing an 'intelligence warfare' specialist. In response, I agreed to play someone without high INT.

[Jay R]

I’m running a 2E game from first level, so to help solve the problem of the wizard having only one spell a day, the first treasure they found had a Pearl of Power, which gives an additional first level spell.

But the bard got to the treasure first, and stole the pearl for himself. He didn’t know it was magic. As far as he knew, he was simply pocketing the most valuable piece of mundane treasure.

The same character kills all attempts to give anything the flavor of a fantasy world. Facing a Death Lord, he will immediately call him “Steve the Death Lord.”

[Yukitsu]

It annoys me when fellow players do something that is likely to get them killed since I like it when we're all sort of together.

Usually the DM kills them, not because they're annoying me or anyone else but because they're basically sticking their head in the hole while observing the blade looming above them and asking what happens when they tug on that rope dangling over there.

Predictably, there isn't a lot the DM can do to punish them.

[LaserFace]

I once played in a game where this one guy would act like he was that dude from God of War and he was all badass and whatever ... everyone else was a coward or weakling, etc. If you gave him smack he'd literally draw his sword on you, and he attacked party members on two occasions. The GM just sorta let it happen, and the game just ended because we had no way of resolving a situation that left our party in splinters.

As GM I've encountered a few annoying characters, but I just don't entertain their stupidity and it tends to sort itself out from there.

[Darth Ultron]

All the time. If a character annoys me, they will die very quick. Mine is a deadly game, so it will happen.

The ones that annoy me the most are players that are simply playing to ruin the fun of others.

[Slipperychicken]

Have any of you had similar experiences, either as DM or fellow player? How did you deal with maintaining neutrality, if you were in fact the GM? Did you maintain neutrality? I won't judge!

By working it out OOC.

Talk to other players, see what they think. Then talk to the player about what's bothering you. You should be able to resolve the issue, whether that means the player cutting it out, or the player quits the group, or any number of other things. Whatever happens, it's almost certainly better than letting it fester.

[Red Fel]

Now that I am much more experienced, the way that I would handle it, and suggest that you handle it, is to talk to the player about the problem. It's everybody's job to create a fun environment for everyone else, and if any part of the game is making things actively unfun it is time to step back and address the hell out of it. Letting it fester isn't going to solve anything, doubly especially if the person who's not having fun is the GM.

This.

By working it out OOC.

Talk to other players, see what they think. Then talk to the player about what's bothering you. You should be able to resolve the issue, whether that means the player cutting it out, or the player quits the group, or any number of other things. Whatever happens, it's almost certainly better than letting it fester.

And this.

If GM is unhappy, ain't nobody happy. And that's not because an unhappy GM necessarily takes it out on the players; it's because an unhappy GM isn't operating at 100%. And when the GM isn't operating at 100%, the game tends to suffer for it. The same is true of the GM is annoyed, or frustrated, or any other negative emotion; it tends to bleed over into the game.

Talk to the player out of character. You can even frame it in a positive way. ("Your RP is really thorough; you've managed to do an incredible job of crafting a truly loathsome character!") But make the point that maybe, just maybe, the player could make the character a bit less repugnant, because it's kind of distracting for you.

Communication: Let's Make It a Thing!^TM

Oh, and also...

So maintain neutrality by enforcing organic consequences. Against Snooty McSnooterson the elf wizard ubermench, have said behavior cause the dwarf tavernowner to refuse service, or a trained thief who calls the city home to see him as a juicy mark. However, that same behavior might also convince Uppity McSnobbington, the elf noble, to favor the party. Or perhaps it causes Sneaky McSneakerson, the elf thief/assassin to spare the life of a fellow kinsman. Or maybe the character sees Coolguy McNicepants, the human cleric be nice to the dwarf and get free drinks. Maintain neutrality by using the stick and the carrot, in ways they would logically and organically occur.

To double check if your method is objective, execute the trap/monster/NPC regardless of who triggers said events. If Sneaky McSneakerson would most likely rob SnootyMcSnooterson because he is flamboyant and obnixious, but SnootyMcSnooterson is suddenly humble and reserve, don't carry out the theft. Likewise, if DudeBroChill becomes an obnoxious jerk waving his hordes of gold and treasure around when he is normally humble and reserve, then have the thief mark and rob DudeBroChill. If your world reacts to situations objectively, then you have achieved perfect neutrality as a DM.

This. While your out-of-character frustrations should be dealt with out-of-character, in-character conduct merits in-character consequences. As long as they're not "Gotcha!" situations specifically designed to hose a single character, it's not unreasonable to have NPCs react to this character's behavior appropriately. If he offends someone, let them be offended! I mean, he's offending you, and you know that he's fictional!

A neutral GM isn't one who spares the PCs from difficulty that they bring on themselves. That's the opposite of neutrality. A neutral GM paints a landscape and lets the PCs interact with it, which in turn creates naturally-occurring ripples. What the PCs do creates consequences. And if this PC is as loathsome as you claim he is, surely the NPCs will notice it and respond as normal people in their situation would.

Draco Malfoy took a lot of well-deserved humiliation and abuse. If this PC is reminiscent of a certain loathsome blond cockroach, it's not unreasonable that he meet similar torment.

[goto124]

This. While your out-of-character frustrations should be dealt with out-of-character, in-character conduct merits in-character consequences. As long as they're not "Gotcha!" situations specifically designed to hose a single character, it's not unreasonable to have NPCs react to this character's behavior appropriately.

What about situations that were just plain communciated badly, leading the DM and the player to have very different ideas of the situation?

[Red Fel]

What about situations that were just plain communciated badly, leading the DM and the player to have very different ideas of the situation?

Communication is key in a game like this. Or in any game, for that matter. Being clear is important. I agree there.

But this isn't that. The OP says that the PC is "the most arrogant, obnoxious, loathsoame, snobby Elf I have ever encountered at a table[.]" There's nothing wrong with communication; this is a case of a repugnant character.

It's the snobby elitist at magic school. We know what happens to these characters. It always happens to these characters. Narrative causality demands it.

The player in question created a character, at a magic school, who is instantly unlikeable. What happens isn't a result of miscommunication, it's a result of inevitability.

[Pex]

The problem is out of character. Handle it out of character. Tell the player to knock it off. If the player refuses, don't let the player play. Roleplaying a character is never an excuse to being a pain in the tuchus.

Draco Malfoy took a lot of well-deserved humiliation and abuse. If this PC is reminiscent of a certain loathsome blond cockroach ferret, it's not unreasonable that he meet similar torment.

Fixed that for you.

[goto124]

Is there a a ready-to-be-printed contract that says 'If you continue this disruptive behavior despite OOC warning, you will be met with IC consequences?'

Also, ferrets are cute.

[Laurellien]

Well, as a GM I treat said characters fairly, making sure that nothing happens to them that would not happen to another character in different circumstances.

As a player? Well, I have an IC response. For example, in a modern setting game that I am playing, two of my party members decided to create a distraction at the border crossing by rigging a truck to explode, killing over a hundred people. IC, my character is going to sit on his hands until we have completed the quest and killed our target. At which point, he will wait for an opportune moment and blow their brains out.

[Red Fel]

Is there a a ready-to-be-printed contract that says 'If you continue this disruptive behavior despite OOC warning, you will be met with IC consequences?'

There shouldn't have to be.

Let me explain. OOC conduct merits OOC consequences. IC conduct merits IC consequences. If you, as a player, make your characters irritating, I'm going to talk to you OOCly about this tendency. But if your character is irritating, he will reap the benefits of being irritating more or less immediately.

I shouldn't have to warn you about IC consequences if your PC makes a habit of brandishing his bloodsoaked two-handed sword in the middle of town. We don't need some pre-arranged agreement regarding what happens if you start a brawl in the tavern. And you shouldn't need to be cautioned as to what might happen if you act like a total tool to the NPCs. These are situations where a proportionate reaction is appropriate.

It's a role-playing game. That means you assume the role of a character and act on the world through that character. It also means that the world responds to your actions. That's immersion. If you can be a complete twit as you like, and the world does not respond, that breaks immersion. There are limits, of course, and the responses oughtn't be unduly punitive, but act like a social imbecile and you'll be a social pariah.

[Segev]

Draco Malfoy-inspired tangent, but it has always baffled me how the as-portrayed Alpha Witch in schoolyard tales manages to be The Popular One. He - in the case of Draco - is totally unlikable and cruel even to his left and right hands. How do they make friends when everybody is so beneath them as to be unworthy of anything save grovelling?

There's some fridge logic one can apply to Draco - he's the scion of a rich and powerful House, so maybe a lot of political bootlicking goes on - but what inspires such cliques to form around the Alpha Witch in more modern high school tales? He (or she) is rarely actually rich, just "popular" for no real disclosed reason. That popularity is the source of power used to abuse the main character(s). But (s)he is a jerk even to so-called "friends," often who are hanging around only to stay in the "in" crowd, themselves. How did this "in" crowd form around THAT person?

In reality, most bullies are more akin to Tweedledum and Tweedledee from Power Rangers (I forget their actual names): unpopular with everybody and only a threat at all because they're sneaky and mean enough to hurt you if you cross them overtly. So I'm not sure why the bullies are Alpha Witches so often in fiction. I can't figure out why people would be expected to flock to them.

[Red Fel]

In reality, most bullies are more akin to Tweedledum and Tweedledee from Power Rangers (I forget their actual names): unpopular with everybody and only a threat at all because they're sneaky and mean enough to hurt you if you cross them overtly. So I'm not sure why the bullies are Alpha Witches so often in fiction. I can't figure out why people would be expected to flock to them.

Because narrative causality demands it.

In a setting where there is a bully-type character, he needs to be surrounded by those who obey, respect, or worship him, otherwise he's simply an annoyance, or a creep. That, and particularly in YA-and-younger novels, you need to have a force - not just a person, but an entire force - to overcome. Some accomplish this by having a bully as the ringleader.

It doesn't make sense. In real life, bullies like that don't have friends. They have one or two followers they keep around as an audience. But in fiction, they need to be able to unite people - despite utterly lacking that faculty - or else they're too pathetic to be an actual obstacle.

[Pex]

Draco Malfoy-inspired tangent, but it has always baffled me how the as-portrayed Alpha Witch in schoolyard tales manages to be The Popular One. He - in the case of Draco - is totally unlikable and cruel even to his left and right hands. How do they make friends when everybody is so beneath them as to be unworthy of anything save grovelling?

There's some fridge logic one can apply to Draco - he's the scion of a rich and powerful House, so maybe a lot of political bootlicking goes on - but what inspires such cliques to form around the Alpha Witch in more modern high school tales? He (or she) is rarely actually rich, just "popular" for no real disclosed reason. That popularity is the source of power used to abuse the main character(s). But (s)he is a jerk even to so-called "friends," often who are hanging around only to stay in the "in" crowd, themselves. How did this "in" crowd form around THAT person?

In reality, most bullies are more akin to Tweedledum and Tweedledee from Power Rangers (I forget their actual names): unpopular with everybody and only a threat at all because they're sneaky and mean enough to hurt you if you cross them overtly. So I'm not sure why the bullies are Alpha Witches so often in fiction. I can't figure out why people would be expected to flock to them.

Crabbe and Goyle are dumb losers. They lack the capacity to do anything, so they latch onto Draco to get any crumbs of respect they can muster. It's only in Deathly Hollows where they finally discover something they're good at - Dark Arts. Finally gaining confidence in themselves, they can also finally stand up to Draco in conjunction with the Malfoy name becoming worthless due to his father's failures for Voldemort. They're in Slytherin, not Gryffindor.