What do you consider difficult/problem player and how do you handled them

[RazorChain]

This is a bit GM centric. In some threads there have been discussed specific instances of group drama but I'm interested in what you consider to be difficult or problematic players. Is it the casual player that shows no interest in his character or the world? Or is it the munchkin that shows up with an uber optimized combat monster? Or is it the rules lawyer that tries to find loopholes and argues rules all the time?

And how do you deal with these problem players?

[Fri]

None of those are problem player.

Problem player are people who make more fuss than acceptable when are told by the group "hey, you shouldn't do this."

If someone munchkin. And she's told by the group "hey, you shouldn't minmax your character too much." And she says "Oh, sorry, didn't realize that I munchkined too much with this character, I'll try to tone it down." Then she's not problem player.

If someone's asleep at the table. And he's told by the group "hey, you should try to pay a bit more attention to the game." And he says "Sorry, I'll try to pay more attention to the game later." Then he's not problem player.

If someone made rude jokes. And she's told by the group "hey, tone down the rude joke." And she says "sorry, didn't realize my jokes are ruder than I thought." Then she's not problem player.

It's simple as that.

[hymer]

This is all very general, so definitions and solution have to be rather general.

I suppose problem players are the ones who are disruptive in a bad way. It's possible to disrupt things in a way that's constructive, of course, but that's not being a problem player.
Dealing with them is a matter of, well, communicating your way towards a solution. That solution may in the end be for them to leave the group, but there will usually be a lot of other stuff that can be tried first.

[nrg89]

Basically players who have another idea of how the game should be played that is fundamentally confrontational with the rest of the group's idea have the potential to be problem players. The question is what happens when it's made clear that the group and this particular player don't share this view to everyone. Two things are acceptable; they sit this one out or they negotiate a compromise with the group's enjoyment as the prime goal.

A long, long, long time ago I had a player who was very confrontational with me (I found out later he was sleeping with my girlfriend). He just wanted to watch the world burn and I told him, after the first time he did it, that the rest of the group actually wants their PCs to accomplish something and that if he keeps on vandalizing, killing, raping and what not the world will react and stop his character, probably resulting in this character's death, and I also added that it will be dealt with swiftly because me and the rest of the group are fed up with the majority of the session being devoted to his character. He didn't listen. It was a big group anyway (6 players) so I suggested we split the groups and the overwhelming majority agreed, so he got to DM a group and I had my group. All was well.

And DMs can absolutely be problem players too, I had the displeasure of being a player in this guy's game too and as I've already mentioned, he was a problem DM. When he thought he could get away with it, my character would fail just because he felt like it, it was so painfully obvious that he was cheating when other players made their checks or saves on lower rolls than I did. I have no problems with DMs improvising to keep their adventure intact, I have a problem using the RPG as a tool to humiliate specific players with.

A good DM and a good group makes it clear what type of game they want to play, good players accept that and are ready to compromise with the group to make sure everyone's happy, and this includes the DM. Basically, don't go out of your way to mess with people and listen to the rest of the group. Communication is, as always, key and I personally would never accept a game that was not what I wanted (not anymore at least, I've been with some very dysfunctional groups in some very boring games). If you didn't communicate it the first session and it felt really bad, now you know to write on the back of your eyelids to never start a campaign without making sure that everyone knows what type of game you're playing. No one said being a DM, or running a gaming group, was easy.

[TheFurith]

I would say a truly problematic player is one that does things that make the game less fun for others for whatever reason and refuses to change when asked. If they're willing to change, they aren't a problem.

This should be able to be avoided before dice even hit the table by talking about what sort of game everyone wants to play. Though not always.

As to what to do about it, it's either let them ruin everyone's fun, or ask them to leave.

[Darth Ultron]

Is it the casual player that shows no interest in his character or the world? Or is it the munchkin that shows up with an uber optimized combat monster? Or is it the rules lawyer that tries to find loopholes and argues rules all the time?

And how do you deal with these problem players?

Some of them could be problem players, depending on how big of a jerk they are....

At the most basic, problem players are just jerks. They are not gaming to have a good time with others; they either want to have fun despite everyone else or want to ruin everyone's fun.

I weed out a lot of potential problem players before the game starts. Just banning the martial classes, the tome of magic classes, and the Pathfinder equivalents stops a lot of them players and has them go to another game. Telling the players they are expected to role play sends most of the problem roll players running.

The few that are left generally won't make it through the whole game. They are sure to disrupt the game some how and try and create a problem. And when that happens their character will just be killed and they will be told to leave.

[nrg89]

I weed out a lot of potential problem players before the game starts. Just banning the martial classes, the tome of magic classes, and the Pathfinder equivalents stops a lot of them players and has them go to another game. Telling the players they are expected to role play sends most of the problem roll players running.

The few that are left generally won't make it through the whole game. They are sure to disrupt the game some how and try and create a problem. And when that happens their character will just be killed and they will be told to leave.

Ok, IMHO, this just sends a signal that you're not flexible for them but you expect them to bend to your will.
You can't expect players to conform to your idea of how a game should be played just because you're the DM. You should however expect them to conform to the atmosphere, the boundaries, the culture and the overall feel everyone agreed upon before the dice are rolled. And, they should in return expect things from you too, that you're flexible enough to let them express themselves.

You know, Darth, I think you've been confronted more often than your fair share on these boards because I think your heart is with the game; you want a good, atmospheric game. Well, so do I, and the rest of the posters too but as DMs we have to work together with the players to achieve that, otherwise it's not a genuine game. If I throw a mannequinn around, I'm not dancing I have to actually work with my partner and trust her when she wants to express herself. And if we both are commited to it, and mutually respect each other, such a beautiful dance is a sight to behold.

[Darth Ultron]

Ok, IMHO, this just sends a signal that you're not flexible for them but you expect them to bend to your will.

Very much so. Though it is more the Will of the Group, then my personal will. I game mostly with the type of person who wants to play the game and have fun doing it, and if someone is not of that mindset, we won't get along. A great example is whining and complaining. A player casts a spell and nothing happens. A good player just keeps on playing the game.....the problem player whines and cries and slams the game to a stop demanding why their special snowflake character and special spell did not work.

You can't expect players to conform to your idea of how a game should be played just because you're the DM. You should however expect them to conform to the atmosphere, the boundaries, the culture and the overall feel everyone agreed upon before the dice are rolled. And, they should in return expect things from you too, that you're flexible enough to let them express themselves.

Yes, you can...this is a big part about being the DM. Everyone in the group needs to play the same game, and it is the game the DM is running. And it is simple, if you don't like the DM's game...then leave.

Most good players are more then willing to accept when a DM says ''this game will be this'' or ''I game like this''.

You know, Darth, I think you've been confronted more often than your fair share on these boards because I think your heart is with the game; you want a good, atmospheric game. Well, so do I, and the rest of the posters too but as DMs we have to work together with the players to achieve that, otherwise it's not a genuine game. If I throw a mannequinn around, I'm not dancing I have to actually work with my partner and trust her when she wants to express herself. And if we both are commited to it, and mutually respect each other, such a beautiful dance is a sight to behold.

Right, the way others do it is alien to me. I make a good game happen, others...um, do something and call it a game and then call it good afterwards. Sure sounds like the same thing, right?

The vast majority of players I have met don't come to the game table with a huge list of demands. They just want to play and have fun.

I wonder what you mean by ''work together''? A game normally works out like this:

1.Some people say ''lets play a game'' and I'll say ''I'll DM''.

2.I make up everything. Players are told about the game. A player or two might say ''can you add X'', and I work it in(unless the player is just being a jerk)..maybe. Though most often I tell players to simply do things in the game. Players each make a character that I approve.

3.We play.

So where does the ''working together'' come in? Are you talking about having a ''game 0''?

[RazorChain]

Once I had a difficult player, let's call him Adam. This wasn't helped by that I was only 15 at the time and he was twice my age and respected in the roleplaying community because he ran a gaming store where we gamed.

In retrospect I realize it was my youth and inexperience that were to blame for my inability to deal with the problem. Also he was popular and people wanted him in their games which meant that I gave him way too much leeway.

One of the difficulties was that he took arguments out of the game. Once the party stumbled upon an empty village and while the party was investigating Adam broke off and headed to the general store. Another player said "Oh my character is running out of pipe tobacco so I head there too" This made Adam pissed off because he was there first and accused the other player of using player information, that is the other character would never have gone there if Adam hadn't mentioned it first.

You might be thinking why does it matter who goes to the general store. Well Adam had this habit of claiming places (abandoned keeps, towers etc) and setting up shop and retiring his characters and he wanted the general store for himself.

So this started a heated argument between the players who were both adults and I had difficulty handling it. So I did the only thing I could. The slavers who had taken all the villagers sent a scouting party and the scouts heard a heated argument inside the general store and torched it to smoke the people out.

The problem was that he would often start arguments about other people's gaming, especially player vs character knowledge that would disrupt the game and my inability was based on the fact that all the other players were vastly older than me.

Also he tried to push character concepts that didn't fit the game. Once he wanted to play a god that didn't know he was a god. Another time an amorphous blob that could shapeshift....and was almost invulnerable to weapons...because he was a blob with no vital organs. The next it was a daywalking vampire. I had a hard time vetoing his characters because he could get very creative slipping things by me, into my games.

He is also one of the reason that today I play open games, no notepassing, no taking players into the next room on some private endevours that nobody else can know about.

We are still friends today over 20 years later, though when the old group meets up every few years we play something light hearted

[Amphetryon]

A problem player is one who refuses to conform with the group's standards when informed that her behavior is inappropriate for the game or group, in-character or otherwise.

That's all.

[ScienceTskt]

A problem player is someone who's doing things that are detrimental to the enjoyment of other players (and yes, the DM counts as a player in this context.) The way I handle them is to ask them to stop; if they refuse to, I give them reason to in game, or a warning. If they accumulate too many warnings, they're no longer welcome to play in that game, and I'll work something out with them for why their character leaves.

[Quertus]

While I generally agree with the generalizations given, let's see if I can give a more concrete, "what problem players have I experienced?" style answer. Hmmm...

I've played with rules lawyers and min-maxers. I've played with one player whose characters' actions would often make the other players' skin crawl. I've played with people whose pets were smarter than they were. And those were not problem players.

Rules Lawyers who attempt to cheat manipulate the rules for personal gain are easily shot down by those of us who actually know the rules.

Rules Lawyers (like me) who want to spend the whole game arguing the rules usually calm down when a) we are reminded that not everybody enjoys these wonderful rules debates; but b) everybody participates anyway; and c) the DM is reasonable.

Mr creepy... well, he kept his creep in the game. And that made it fun. Disturbing, but fun. If it had come out into the real world, that would have made for a problem player, IMO.

On a related (?) note, there was also this one gamer who, well, she wanted to have sex with everyone at the table, individually or ideally consecutively. Moving on.

Min-maxers usually calm down to reasonable levels once you a) drastically out min-max them, and then b) ask them to scale back a bit. But, honestly, I enjoyed playing a 1st level character in a 7th level party, so I'd only bother if they were detracting from other players' enjoyment of the game. I have no issue with power disparity, so long as everyone has a role to play.

I've played with college educated adults who couldn't remember the rules after a decade of play. That is annoying, but 1) I can't say much, as even I sometimes misremember the rules; 2) we've learned to print cheat sheets; 3) still not a problem player.

I've played with plenty of people who couldn't roleplay the difference between player knowledge and character knowledge to save their lives. This is really annoying, and prevents certain styles of play, but still not what I consider a problem player.

I've played with several types of PvP players. "These 2 (or 3) always kill each other, but leave everyone else alone" is slightly distracting, but not what I consider a problem player. They can have their fun while the rest of us have our fun. The "I PvP for the lolz" or "I take OOC grudges into the game" types are problem players, often also have issues role-playing their characters, and I know of no legal solution other than removing them.

The whiner can usually be improved by figuring out what the problem is, and fixing it. Heck, just having someone on their side, trying to fix the problems often does wonders. However, if they keep whining even after things are not just fixed but clearly in their favor, then they're probably a lost cause. Whether that makes them a problem player or just annoying is a matter of individual taste.

Players who can't be bothered to pay attention are thankfully rare IME, perhaps because even my groups had size limits. After the 15th or 16th player, we just couldn't fit any more players around the table any more. So if you didn't actually want to be there any more, you had your excuse to leave, to make room for new players. Any more?

I guess a variant of the above is the guy who always brings the flippant, useless, comic relief character, who never takes the world seriously. This occasionally limits you from certain styles of play, but, so long as they aren't disruptive, does not constitute a problem player - and, at times, can be quite fun.

There is usually no improving the selfishly self buffing guy (aka the selfish looter aka any other selfish variant). You can try to demonstrate the magic of friendship and cooperation, but, at least IME, that rarely changes anything.

Although it's more of a problem IMO, the selfish variant I'll call the limelight hog sometimes just doesn't realize that they are being rude. Directly confronting them will often fix the problem.

The players who try to obsolete other people's characters are problem players. If anybody has a solution to that problem, I'm all ears.

However, IME, the problem player is most likely the one in the DMs chair. IME, bad DMs do not improve.

A player casts a spell and nothing happens. A good player just keeps on playing the game.....the problem player whines and cries and slams the game to a stop demanding why their special snowflake character and special spell did not work.

See, I'm fine with that kind of thing if there is a logical, in-game reason for that and either I trust the DM to have such reasons (because I've encountered such things with this DM in previous sessions) or the DM explains why things work (or don't) the way that they do OOC.

But, since most of the DMs I've had have been horrible, I'm not going to blindly accept random spell failure any more than I would blindly accept a natural 20 on an attack resulting in my character stabbing themselves.

[Cozzer]

At the most basic, problem players are just jerks. They are not gaming to have a good time with others; they either want to have fun despite everyone else or want to ruin everyone's fun.

This is the best definition. If everybody enjoys rules-lawering at each other (my group does in very small amount, since most of them don't know the rules very well and it's a chance to learn them by doing), somebody who rules-lawyer a bit is not a problem player. If the players are OK with the GM denying them spells because of unexplained narrative reasons and the GM does it, he's not being a problem player.

In the end, it's all about realizing when you having fun conflicts with the other players (GM included) having fun, and finding a way to resolve the difference in a mature way instead of just going your way hoping the others want to avoid conflict enough that they don't stop you and sacrifice their fun to your fun.

[Darth Ultron]

See, I'm fine with that kind of thing if there is a logical, in-game reason for that and either I trust the DM to have such reasons (because I've encountered such things with this DM in previous sessions) or the DM explains why things work (or don't) the way that they do OOC.

But, since most of the DMs I've had have been horrible, I'm not going to blindly accept random spell failure any more than I would blindly accept a natural 20 on an attack resulting in my character stabbing themselves.

It's all in how the player handles it.

The good player will assume there is a good reason for everything that happens, even as far as there are rules if the player is the rule following obsessive type, but that they might not know the reason. They can accept this, and move on with the game and life. They are free to use any in game ability to attempt to do or know or find out about anything, as per whatever abilities their character might have to use. And sometimes, a player just has to accept that they might not ever know the how and/or why.

The problem player just complains. They want to know immediately and out of character what is going on. They are not being a ''player'' in the game, they want to ''co-dm''. Once the ''real'' DM tells them what happened they will climb up on their high horse and check over the rules, interpretations, and rulings to determine if what the ''other'' DM was right and correct. And woe to that ''person who calls themselves DM'' should the problem player disagree with an interpretation or wording or even find a real mistake.

Though, sure, there are a lot a jerk DM's too.....but if your going to assume every DM is a jerk...then your a problem player.

[Cluedrew]

Problem player: Any player (including the GM) who makes the game less fun.

How do you deal with them, generally two methods. Communication solves most problems caused by mismatched expectations, bad habits, lack of social skills and similar. If they actually have bad intent (which is comparatively rare) then you just have to ask them to leave. And repeat the question until they do.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's quite simple really. A problem player is one who causes conflict within the group itself (not necessarily between the PC's) and refuses to compromise sufficiently (if at all) to eliminate the conflict. Whether it be refusal to match the group optimization level, to participate meaningfully in-character, to bring their fair share of the snacks, or whatever else have-you, their behavior is unacceptable to the group's consensus of good gaming and they've either got to knock it off and compromise or they've got to go.

If you want something more specific, you'll have to ask individual groups since what is, or isn't, acceptable is a purely subjective matter.

[Telesto]

Henry
Christian
Twitch
Josh
Tommy

Those are people I consider problem players

[Pugwampy]

At its core the problem player is someone who is unhappy and that effects the players and game inside or out .
I have yet to find a person who will admit their faults and apologize and never do it again . The unhappy gamer has no self control or does it on purpose .

Some folk dont want to just sit and play. There is no cure for that cancer other then cut it out .

This is a social game and your average nerd is anti social . This game can also effect you on an emotional level . Your average nerd cannot handle emotions . There is your problem kiddies.

I dont consider sleepy guy or min max dude to be problems. One does his homework and the other gives no trouble to DM .

[MrStabby]

I am reminded of how lucky I am with my gaming group.

It says something when the most problematic guy in the group is the one who doesn't work out what they want to do in combat between other peoples turns then spends a couple of minutes looking at the spell list. Slightly annoying as he sometimes tries to do other things at the same time

If slowing down the pace of the game is the most I have to worry about then I think I should be relived.

[Quertus]

At its core the problem player is someone who is unhappy and that effects the players and game inside or out .
I have yet to find a person who will admit their faults and apologize and never do it again . The unhappy gamer has no self control or does it on purpose .

Some folk dont want to just sit and play. There is no cure for that cancer other then cut it out .

This is a social game and your average nerd is anti social . This game can also effect you on an emotional level . Your average nerd cannot handle emotions . There is your problem kiddies.

I dont consider sleepy guy or min max dude to be problems. One does his homework and the other gives no trouble to DM .

I am reminded of how lucky I am with my gaming group.

It says something when the most problematic guy in the group is the one who doesn't work out what they want to do in combat between other peoples turns then spends a couple of minutes looking at the spell list. Slightly annoying as he sometimes tries to do other things at the same time

If slowing down the pace of the game is the most I have to worry about then I think I should be relived.

Reading these two posts was rather interesting for me. Clearly, there are differences in opinion on what constitutes a problem player. Which, I suppose, is good for the players - if they don't fit in one group, they may well be accepted in another.

I consider the habitually unprepared player to be quite annoying, and potentially a problem player. I mean, I'll write a program to roll for my undead army so that my minion-filled turn is shorter than most of the other dozen players' turns. But when one player's turn - which ultimately involves taking just a single, simple action - takes an unnecessarily long time, perhaps as long as 4 or 5 other players' turns, because of Epimethian failure to plan, that's just rude. I mean, yes, it's fine to ask clarifying questions during your turn, but when you clearly haven't even thought about the game since your last turn, that's the hallmark of a problem player.

On the other hand, unhappy players have a problem. That does not mean that they are a problem. Solve their problem, and their unhappiness goes away. So what's the problem? Send me your tired, your poor unhappy players yearning to be free, or whatever.

I suppose, if anything, I encourage playgrounders to build a toolset that maximizes the fun they get out of a game, and minimizes the chance that they'll be in an unfun situation. If you agree with this premise, the ability to turn "problem players" into assets sounds like a valuable tool.

[Darth Ultron]

On the other hand, unhappy players have a problem. That does not mean that they are a problem. Solve their problem, and their unhappiness goes away. So what's the problem? Send me your tired, your poor unhappy players yearning to be free, or whatever.

I suppose, if anything, I encourage playgrounders to build a toolset that maximizes the fun they get out of a game, and minimizes the chance that they'll be in an unfun situation. If you agree with this premise, the ability to turn "problem players" into assets sounds like a valuable tool.

Though must unhappy players are a problem too. The vast majority of problem players causes of unhappiness can not be fixed. For example there is no fix for the jerk problem players who has the goal of ''I want to ruins everyone's fun''. The same way there is no fix for the arrogant jerk problem player that is just ''so good'' at building characters that they ''break the game'' even if they don't ''try''.

Not every player will be happy in every game, and you should let them go find another game.

[Cozzer]

You could have a player that just wants to relax after a tiring workday, and doesn't mind if combat takes a while longer. Another player just wants to play as much as he can after a boring workday, and doesn't mind spending a bit of energy memorizing things or calculating things in advance if this makes combat a little faster. None of them is a problem player in a vacuum or in a middle-of-the-road group, but each of them might become the other's problem player.

And then, as DU says, you have the guys who'd be problem players everywhere, because their kind of fun requires other people's lack of fun. They should not have anybody willing to deal with their crap.

[Telesto]

To better explain each case:

Henry- A compulsive cheater, he does so because he doesn't like the notion of the randomness of gaming. He wants to hit and succeed every time and dislikes failing. Additionally he metagames encounters with his phone until, ultimately, it forced me to never follow the actual encounter rules and start disregarding portions of the monster rules to change them significantly enough to make his efforts in vain.

Christian- Christian wants everything, he's a compulsive seeker of things of interest. Which would often be fine, however at level 3 he begins asking the DM if he can have an extraplanar interdimmensional whale he read about in one of the books. He cannot separate the knowledge of himself vs the knowledge of his character, and when given action plans to get his character to that point and even offered the things he wants when he gets to higher levels, he doesn't want to wait and whines. He frequently wants to lead the party in an effort to derail the rest of the players for his own interests, which he was allowed to do numerous times to see if he could lead, but then could not accept the concept that he was producing difficulties for the other players or for the game as a whole.

Twitch- Munchkin gamer.

Josh- Just cannot seem to leave his own headspace. All characters he makes begin as representations of himself. Unless everyone is begun as characters shoved together, the process of getting him to join the party usually ends with his character being kidnapped in some way, because offers of money or adventure just fail to hook his character. When he does ultimately join, regardless of his character, they ultimately devolve into violent and cruel, which is a direct relation to his own violent amd sadistic mentality and the disparity that generates in his mind as he lives in a society which discourages acts of aggression and borderline psychopathic urges.

Tommy- He cannot get into a less silly headspace and wants to name characters vulgar terms, worship flying spahgetti monsters, and just generally goof off with his character.

Some of these are extremely problematic, and two are benign annoyances.

As an aside:

Two of the instances of difficult players (Christian and Josh) actually stem from a failure by the DMs to properly engage them in higher level play. Due to the nature of games typically cutting out at lower levels, the higher level satisfaction of "getting there" typically goes out the window. Part of the difficulty here is merely dissatisfied players who have been unable to fully enjoy the endgame, continuously trying to seek those upper eschalons of satisfaction. In the case of Josh this has left him unable to fully finish the one character and reach real life points of growth and development, so he perpetuates the same situations. In the case of Christian this has lead to a desire for things now because he is psychologically programed to never feel a sense of completion.

The end result is a couple players who, through continued blueballing, have been left psychologically scarred by gaming.

[Quertus]

Though must unhappy players are a problem too. The vast majority of problem players causes of unhappiness can not be fixed. For example there is no fix for the jerk problem players who has the goal of ''I want to ruins everyone's fun''. The same way there is no fix for the arrogant jerk problem player that is just ''so good'' at building characters that they ''break the game'' even if they don't ''try''.

Not every player will be happy in every game, and you should let them go find another game.

It sounds like we're saying the same thing, but using our words differently.

If one player is having anti-social fun, making 4 players unhappy, the four unhappy players are not the problem. You don't brand the 4 unhappy people problem players. You figure out what is making them unhappy - in this case, the actions of the 5th player - and figure out how you can remedy this problem.

So, to generalise, when a player is unhappy, figure out what is making them unhappy, and what you can do to help them.

IMO, the logical takeaway is that it behooves a player to both learn to recognize unhappiness in others, and to maximize their ability to remove this unhappiness. Whether that's by practicing social skills, working to be more flexible, learning the rules of the **** game, or whatever.

/soapbox.

Our experiences clearly differ. I find that most unhappy players can be made happy. Most, but, admittedly, not all.

And, quite unimportantly, our experiences also differ on player personalities. IME, those who can break the game are rarely arrogant; those who are arrogant are rarely competent. But, yes, Mr. "I want to ruin everyone's fun" generally is a jerk.

[Slarg]

I personally don't consider any particular type of player a "problem player" unless they take the problem aspect and dial it up to 11.

The guy playing a Malkavian as a deranged psychopath who "falsely" thinks the vampires are being controlled by some sort of higher life form? Not a problem. The guy playing his Malkavian as Vampire Deadpool (Complete with full 4rth Wall Breaking every third minute) is annoying as hell.

The gal playing a man-hater who still works with the group? Not a problem. The gal playing a misandrist who refuses to heal the men in the party despite being the party's cleric? Problem player.

The guy wanting to play a Pornstar/Hooker, and actually roleplay her as a pornstar/hooker with high ranks in charisma/persuasion type skills? Not a problem. The guy who wants to rape the NPCs or specifically tear off someone's **** in an interrogation? Problem player.

In my experience, asking them to stop doesn't work. Gotta eject them from the group.

[Pugwampy]

In my experience, asking them to stop doesn't work. Gotta eject them from the group.

Agreed . It sucks but what else can you do ? I hate doing it but it has to be done .

[Quertus]

I've played with several types of PvP players. "These 2 (or 3) always kill each other, but leave everyone else alone" is slightly distracting, but not what I consider a problem player. They can have their fun while the rest of us have our fun. The "I PvP for the lolz" or "I take OOC grudges into the game" types are problem players, often also have issues role-playing their characters, and I know of no legal solution other than removing them.

There is usually no improving the selfishly self buffing guy (aka the selfish looter aka any other selfish variant). You can try to demonstrate the magic of friendship and cooperation, but, at least IME, that rarely changes anything.

Although it's more of a problem IMO, the selfish variant I'll call the limelight hog sometimes just doesn't realize that they are being rude. Directly confronting them will often fix the problem.

The players who try to obsolete other people's characters are problem players. If anybody has a solution to that problem, I'm all ears.

However, IME, the problem player is most likely the one in the DMs chair. IME, bad DMs do not improve.

So, has anyone had luck reforming those I consider problem players, and want to share their techniques?

EDIT: and that list would be...
PvP for the lolz.
Takes OOC grudges into the game.
Self-serving, to the detriment of the party.
Wants the game to be all about them.
Wants to obsolete other PCs.
Bad DMs.

[Cluedrew]

Wants the game to be all about them.
Wants to obsolete other PCs.

Actually we had one player who was a bit like this, I believe I mentioned him in the problem players thread as R. Anyways he wanted to build himself up into a major player and be in-charge of some mafia group and so on. Our GM had a good solution: keep him at 1/Nth of the time. "I want to do [influence related thing]." "Sure, while you are doing that what is you doing, [another player]?" That and just not having any of the NPCs take his attempts at 'leadership' any more seriously than the rest of the PCs did. Which is to say not at all.

I mean if he was any good at it... sure but he wasn't so we just tuned him out sometimes.

This is also how we handled the attempts to become the mightiest warrior were also hindered by his own inability more than anything we did. Despite his boasts about his massive strength my lower level character was about an equal to his in combat. (He was not really interested in non-combat success, outside of the gang.)

Assuming a more competent player, I think the main take away would be for the becoming a big shot. Let them work towards that goal but don't let them hold the others back. If they want direct authority over the other players that may not work, but it was met with some success in this case.

[RazorChain]

So, has anyone had luck reforming those I consider problem players, and want to share their techniques?

EDIT: and that list would be...
PvP for the lolz.
Takes OOC grudges into the game.
Self-serving, to the detriment of the party.
Wants the game to be all about them.
Wants to obsolete other PCs.
Bad DMs.

I've learned to adapt, but if they disrupt play too much then often there is no hope. I had one player who always ended up in PvP with other players that had no interest in PvP, and he had the habit of selling out the group the whole time. The group just ganked him time and again if he showed any signs of betrayal or other anti social tendencies. He finally stopped and started to play with the group instead of against it and became a pretty decent player.

I adapted with the power combat munchkin, just throw in extra mooks that keep him occupied. The other players complained until I explained it to them. The munchkin knows the rules inside out and tries to break the system and is happy when his uber combat monster of a character is killing things. I have countless things up my sleeve if I need to challenge him but I still have to watch out and balance my encounters.

[Quertus]

Our GM had a good solution: keep him at 1/Nth of the time. "I want to do [influence related thing]." "Sure, while you are doing that what is you doing, [another player]?"

This is really good advice.

I've learned to adapt, but if they disrupt play too much then often there is no hope. I had one player who always ended up in PvP with other players that had no interest in PvP, and he had the habit of selling out the group the whole time. The group just ganked him time and again if he showed any signs of betrayal or other anti social tendencies. He finally stopped and started to play with the group instead of against it and became a pretty decent player.

So, I said the solution to cheater versions of "rules lawyers" was to know the rules and out rules lawyer them. I said that the solution to munchkins was to out munchkin them. Yet, somehow, I never even considered out-PvPing the PvP player. Don't I feel silly.

I adapted with the power combat munchkin, just throw in extra mooks that keep him occupied. The other players complained until I explained it to them. The munchkin knows the rules inside out and tries to break the system and is happy when his uber combat monster of a character is killing things. I have countless things up my sleeve if I need to challenge him but I still have to watch out and balance my encounters.

... What, exactly, did your players not like in this story?