The best way you've ever said "no" to a player.

[Drache64]

What's the funnest/funniest way you've ever shut down a player?

I had a difficult player disrupting the party fighting for something arbitrary.

Werewolves had attacked a fort of Vikings stationed out in the wilderness. The players assisted in the defence and one player declared all the pelts belonged to him. The Vikings began to acquire their pelts as spoils of war. The difficult player decided to attack the nearest Viking while the rest of the party tried to establish diplomacy with the warrior Outpost.

I let the combat unfold and the difficult player beats the Viking. The other Vikings commend the player for his strength and allow him to take a pelt, but that's not good enough, he wants all the pelts. So when the Viking offers a handshake the player grabs the hand and initiates a headbutt.

Everyone around the table groans and can't believe this player is wrecking their diplomatic chances.

So as the DM I tell the player that he begins an assassins Creed style combat in the background where all the guards circle up and begin up attack. Then I ignore the combat and let the dialogue unfold between the other players and the NPC's. When the difficult player wants to participate in the conversation I tell him that he's still fighting in the background.

After diplomacy is set, the party is invited to stay the night in the hospital, difficult player is asked if he's done fighting and ready to take his one pelt and go to bed. He refuses to give up.

I then have all the players go to sleep and tell difficult player to roll a series of fortitude saves. He eventually passes out from fatigue and wakes up in the morning with sleep deficit penalties.

Another attack is looming and the players are asked how they want to spend the day preparing. Difficult player says he goes and looks for where all the pelts were kept.

At this point I pull up a YouTube clip of the mailroom from It's always Sunny in Philadelphia and tell him that the pelts are Pepe Silvia:

https://youtu.be/_nTpsv9PNqo

Basically I explain that the Vikings work with the Bard of the group (a player who was very upset with the difficult player's attitude) to establish a conspiracy so great that the difficult player is no longer sure the pelts ever existed. He's counted as shaken until he gives up his quest.

Afterwards he's given the one pelt he originally earned.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That sounds annoying. You shouldn't do things like that.

[Drache64]

That sounds annoying. You shouldn't do things like that.

I guess we could kick him from our gaming group

[Koo Rehtorb]

Kicking him or (fairly) killing his character would both be far more respectful than passive aggressively no-selling his actions in game.

Edit for more content:

Not that I think either of those things would be especially good responses either, mind you. Frankly, this sounds like the sort of player you should want in a game, someone to mix things up and make it interesting. So you have a belligerent jackass picking fights with vikings? That's great!

I'd say vikings are probably amused by him continuing to try to start ****. A headbutt is a good strong way to get their attention. So maybe they say they'll give him one pelt for every single combat he can win in a row until he can't keep fighting any more. (Probably make one roll or a series of rolls to represent the fighting rather than playing them all out). Presumably he can't beat the entire fort in single combat one at a time so eventually he loses. The vikings have a great time with this jerk, he gets some pelts and maybe walks away happy. Or maybe he sneaks around in the middle of the night and tries to steal the rest of them. If he does that, all bets are off. Someone being rowdy is entirely different from being a thief, and they want him dead. It's not like they don't know who probably stole the pelts and they don't care about proving it first either. They put an ultimatum to the rest of the party. "Bring us his head, or we'll treat you like his accomplices".

And now you have an interesting situation on your hands. Does the party sell him out? Do they flee the fort? Do they take on the entire fort over it? Who knows? And that's what makes it fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

That sounds annoying. You shouldn't do things like that.

Yeah, this sounds like a situation where the player should have been asked to let it go for now, and maybe have a decent portion of the pelts used as a reward for him doing something or as part of an exchange of gifts (of course nothing stops the players from stealing the rest of the pelts along with the gift they used Locate Object on, but I'm guessing most of your players weren't that type.

But the main reason that this is poor is that it'll lead to resentment. Assuming the PCs were counted as warriors, and the pelts were divided as evenly as possible in an 'X pelts per person' or 'X people per pelt' way, did the one pelt represent the party's 'fair share' (ideally after calculating the relative value of any other loot the party managed to liberate from their potential allies)? If not, the player might reasonably feel 'cheated' out of their share, especially if it wasn't explained to him when he first mentioned wanting to collect the pelts that the Vikings would likely do the same.

Now I have no-selled actions before, but generally only when they'd kick the session into 'I haven't prepared for this at all and will need a week to sort it out territory', and if something difficult happens (rare in the groups I've been in so far) I will pause the game and suggest everybody spends ten minutes away from the table before we discuss it out of game and ideally resolve it. Although there will be the occasional time where you can't solve it because a player is unwilling to comprimise and you cannot have players completely overrule you (although not allowing them to affect your rulings at all is bad, you've got to know when to stand firm, when to give in, and when to comprimise, and this is where you should have comprimised or politely asked the player to leave).

[Quertus]

If there's a problem in a game, it's probably sitting in the GM's chair. That's general response to such things, and I see that the Playground is already kicking *** on that field.

Here, we have a player who wants pelts. They are given zero. When they try to take action to acquire some, they get one. When they try to take more actions, to acquire more, they are no-sold in a highly unrealistic way.

That having been said, what's this players problem? Why would he believe "I want everything" could possibly be a valid stance to take? I blame his GM's - past and present - for teaching him that this could possibly be a valid stance, and for not teaching him the basic concept of dividing loot.

Now, that having been said, if he asked the value of the pelts, and wanted to take that value out of his share, that would be a fine stance to negotiate from, depending on who else wanted pelts and why.

Heck, Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, might well attempt to claim some number of pelts, corpses, and even living specimens to study as part of the party fund, as the information he gains may well be useful to everyone.

Teach your players how to be decent human beings. The OP is not an example of how to do that.

[Koo Rehtorb]

That having been said, what's this players problem? Why would he believe "I want everything" could possibly be a valid stance to take? I blame his GM's - past and present - for teaching him that this could possibly be a valid stance, and for not teaching him the basic concept of dividing loot.

Why wouldn't it be a valid stance? It's wrong, but that doesn't make it invalid. It's certainly his right to play a greedy unreasonable bastard if he wants to. Unless the game is specifically sold as not being about that, anyway.

[Drache64]

If there's a problem in a game, it's probably sitting in the GM's chair. That's general response to such things, and I see that the Playground is already kicking *** on that field.

Here, we have a player who wants pelts. They are given zero. When they try to take action to acquire some, they get one. When they try to take more actions, to acquire more, they are no-sold in a highly unrealistic way.

That having been said, what's this players problem? Why would he believe "I want everything" could possibly be a valid stance to take? I blame his GM's - past and present - for teaching him that this could possibly be a valid stance, and for not teaching him the basic concept of dividing loot.

Now, that having been said, if he asked the value of the pelts, and wanted to take that value out of his share, that would be a fine stance to negotiate from, depending on who else wanted pelts and why.

Heck, Quertus my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, might well attempt to claim some number of pelts, corpses, and even living specimens to study as part of the party fund, as the information he gains may well be useful to everyone.

Teach your players how to be decent human beings. The OP is not an example of how to do that.

No offense but you guys are kind of missing the point of the post. It was how did you shut down a player in a fun way. You guys are jumping to conclusions without knowing the context of the situation. I was trying to keep my word count low for the causal readers. The truth is this player is a typical problem players who 4/4 DM's have admitted they have problems with him wrecking fun for the rest of the party. He's the type of player who seeks to always be the star of the show and if he doesn't get enough star time he begins to stab random NPC's, they've failed countless missions because of his antics.

We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background, but this wasn't supposed to be about how to corral a bad player, it was to talk about fun ways DMs have said "no" to a player.

I have DM'd for over 20 consistent people over the years through about 3 different groups and I hear nothing but praise of how I handle situations and players so I'm not really looking random strangers criticism over the internet. If you're not interesting in discussing the topic at hand, no biggie, just find another topic you're interested in and post there.

P.S.
The problem player actually stated he prefers my DM style over any other DM he's had and I'm currently running him through a solo campaign 1 on 1 where he is free to shine as the star

[Koo Rehtorb]

No offense but you guys are kind of missing the point of the post. It was how did you shut down a player in a fun way. You guys are jumping to conclusions without knowing the context of the situation. I was trying to keep my word count low for the causal readers. The truth is this player is a typical problem players who 4/4 DM's have admitted they have problems with him wrecking fun for the rest of the party. He's the type of player who seeks to always be the star of the show and if he doesn't get enough star time he begins to stab random NPC's, they've failed countless missions because of his antics.

If everyone dislikes playing with him then the correct choice is to stop playing with him, not to abuse GM power to troll him in game.

We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background, but this wasn't supposed to be about how to corral a bad player, it was to talk about fun ways DMs have said "no" to a player.

The most fun I've had saying "no" to a player is when I stop, think over what they're saying and consider it to make sure I'm being fair, and then say something along the lines of "I don't think that's going to work because X valid IG/mechanical reason".

[Mastikator]

It would be far more satisfying to look him in the eye and say "you're being a selfish jerk, you need to stop it before we kick you out".

[Rhunder]

I don't recall telling my players no all that often, I can't think of once currently. I make their actions have reasonable consequences and that usually prevents dumb moves or if a player insists on doing something completely uncalled for, I've done a poor job explaining the situation and have to backtrack to better paint the setting. Typically, players characters should be predictable for the DM if he knows his players. But maybe I've just been fortunate thus far in my gaming career.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, I'm with the majority here. I don't tell my players "no." I might remind them of something they've forgotten about when they're barking up the wrong tree, or just let them know that they don't have all the information yet, but if they insist on being aggressively wrong I'm more than happy to let them dig their own graves.

[Quertus]

Why wouldn't it be a valid stance? It's wrong, but that doesn't make it invalid. It's certainly his right to play a greedy unreasonable bastard if he wants to. Unless the game is specifically sold as not being about that, anyway.

Ah, my beloved Playground, home of the best in pedantry. Yes, I have used my words too loosely. It is not an... acceptable stance... to... assume that one can successfully stake a claim to something... just by saying so? Is that more what I was trying to say?

No offense but you guys are kind of missing the point of the post. It was how did you shut down a player in a fun way. You guys are jumping to conclusions without knowing the context of the situation. I was trying to keep my word count low for the causal readers. The truth is this player is a typical problem players who 4/4 DM's have admitted they have problems with him wrecking fun for the rest of the party. He's the type of player who seeks to always be the star of the show and if he doesn't get enough star time he begins to stab random NPC's, they've failed countless missions because of his antics.

We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background, but this wasn't supposed to be about how to corral a bad player, it was to talk about fun ways DMs have said "no" to a player.

I have DM'd for over 20 consistent people over the years through about 3 different groups and I hear nothing but praise of how I handle situations and players so I'm not really looking random strangers criticism over the internet. If you're not interesting in discussing the topic at hand, no biggie, just find another topic you're interested in and post there.

P.S.
The problem player actually stated he prefers my DM style over any other DM he's had and I'm currently running him through a solo campaign 1 on 1 where he is free to shine as the star

The issue is this: "We've learned the key to playing with him is to force him to the background". I'll not idly sit by while someone promotes something this toxic as good.

Now, let me explain that.

What I'm saying is, for most players, there are better ways of handling problems. For most players, this would be a **** move on your part. For most players - even most "bad" players - you just need to help them on a better path.

But, yes, sometimes, you encounter a player who isn't ready to behave more maturely yet. Sometimes, you know what path you'd love to help them towards, but know that they're not ready to walk that path yet. And, occasionally, you've got someone who could be led to a better path, but you're not the one to bring them there.

Now, the Playground might insist that, even for such a player, you're being a ****. Me, in not there. I'm just refusing to glorify something so generally toxic without a) appropriate warning labels as to its general toxicity; b) some clear explanation of why it's the least toxic solution to your current problem. I think that the Playground had done a reasonable job on "a".

My other concern is, are there any responses to your question that you would consider valid, that aren't themselves also generally toxic?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Ah, my beloved Playground, home of the best in pedantry. Yes, I have used my words too loosely. It is not an... acceptable stance... to... assume that one can successfully stake a claim to something... just by saying so? Is that more what I was trying to say?

I don't see any sign that he's doing that, though? It's not an acceptable stance for the character to outrageously lay claim to a bunch of stuff he has no claim on. It's not an unacceptable stance for the player to make a character who would do that sort of thing. And really, this conversation is about the player, not about how much of a jerk the character is.

[Quertus]

I don't see any sign that he's doing that, though? It's not an acceptable stance for the character to outrageously lay claim to a bunch of stuff he has no claim on. It's not an unacceptable stance for the player to make a character who would do that sort of thing. And really, this conversation is about the player, not about how much of a jerk the character is.

So, even if i word stance correctly, you would still disagree with my basic premise? Hmmm...

So, when trying to troubleshoot something like this, I'd start at the first sign of trouble, and ask the player, "when you had your character lay claim to all the pelts, what did you expect would happen?".

The Giant's advice of "just play differently" or whatever is actually antithetical to solving the problem here, IME. Instead, I've found it much more successful to get them to play someone who wouldn't do that. Shrug. Not sure if it's externalizing the problem that makes it more acceptable to fix, or if I play with more stubborn roleplayers like myself, but that's what I've seen.

But I'm side tracking myself. I guess my question is, if not at the bold declaration of claiming all the pelts, where do you consider the first sign of trouble / the most actionable item / whatever? How, rather than putting him in the background (or kicking him out), would you deal with such a player?

[icefractal]

I'm going to dispute the prevailing opinion here - this is potentially a perfectly good way to deal with a spotlight-hogging player, and it sounds like it worked fine for the OP and their group.

Thinking that the GM should be impartial in adjudication doesn't mean giving total control of the "camera" to any player who asks. The OP didn't deny the player the ability to fight the Vikings, he merely treated the fight with the appropriate level of detail - mostly offscreen, because only one player out of the group was interested in it.

For people saying this is unacceptable - if a player said "Hey, I want to switch the game to a solo one about my PC for the next couple hours" or "I think I should have sole veto power on any alliances the party wants to make" would you just agree automatically?

[Koo Rehtorb]

The Giant's advice of "just play differently" or whatever is actually antithetical to solving the problem here, IME. Instead, I've found it much more successful to get them to play someone who wouldn't do that. Shrug. Not sure if it's externalizing the problem that makes it more acceptable to fix, or if I play with more stubborn roleplayers like myself, but that's what I've seen.

Playing a character like this is not an issue.

But I'm side tracking myself. I guess my question is, if not at the bold declaration of claiming all the pelts, where do you consider the first sign of trouble / the most actionable item / whatever? How, rather than putting him in the background (or kicking him out), would you deal with such a player?

In this situation? It's trouble if the player is just doing things like this "for the lulz" and doesn't care about his character or the campaign. It's totally fine (good even!) if he's doing it because he's interested in portraying a belligerent jackass of a character. That just leads to entertaining situations. It's also a problem if the player cries foul over reasonable consequences happening as a result of his belligerent jackassery. If you want to pick a fight with a fort full of vikings you don't get to complain about it if you end up getting whupped and dumped naked in the snow and freeze to death. Edit - it's also a problem if the game as pitched about being something that's clearly incompatible. If I say "This is a game in which you're playing upstanding knights of virtue and compassion" and then you do this then you're also a problem.

And I don't think I would deal with it in a way other than having a word with the player OOC between sessions and/or kicking him out. Either of those problems I listed make him an incompatible player, and I don't have a lot of tolerance for that.

[Kaptin Keen]

Since no one else will, I'll voice my support of the OP

There is a definite code of conduct at my table. It's not terribly restrictive - but it is absolute: If you cannot play nicely with the other children, you can play however the frag you like, all alone, somewhere else. My table, my rules, no discussion.

I do have a good deal of leeway before sending someone away, however - a sort of grace period in which I make it clear that once my answer has been given (no, you cannot have all the pelts), it's not going to change.

You go fight the vikings for the pelts - they kick your hindside all over camp, all night long, and when you wake next morning, you're a 1 hp, battered and bruised, and the chief would like a heartfelt and very convincing apology, before they let you have your weapons back.

And the message really is a simple one: Respect my authority at my table - or find another. You can play a bastard if the other players are fine with it, but since they're not, you can't. And it really is totally non-negotiable.

[Lalliman]

And the message really is a simple one: Respect my authority at my table - or find another. You can play a bastard if the other players are fine with it, but since they're not, you can't. And it really is totally non-negotiable.

I agree with your point on DM authority, but you're talking about OOC solutions (kicking the player) and IC solutions (fiatting away his actions) as if they are the same thing. That doesn't really address the conflict because most people here are arguing that you should do the former, not the latter.

[Kaptin Keen]

I agree with your point on DM authority, but you're talking about OOC solutions (kicking the player) and IC solutions (fiatting away his actions) as if they are the same thing. That doesn't really address the conflict because most people here are arguing that you should do the former, not the latter.

I think I said that ... 'if you tell a bunch of raiders - in their own village, no less - that you're going to rob them, you'll get beaten like a red-headed stepchild'.

How it would actually go in my group would likely be: I'd explain 'that's propably a very bad idea, and will go very badly for you'. Then, if the player ignored that warning, I'd let him do as he pleases, and it would go very badly for him.

But I guess I agree: As GM, sure you can have a code of conduct. But if a player misbehaves, so to speak, the solution isn't for the GM to misbehave more =)

[Nifft]

It's weird that I'm seeing posts which talk about how players learned bad habits from previous DMs, but somehow chafe at the idea that the current DM help educate the problematic player.

What the OP did seems pretty reasonable.

- Player X wanted to be an anti-social spotlight-hog.

- DM allowed the PC to perform his anti-social actions, but did not allow any spotlight-hogging.

- Player X may have learned that anti-social behavior will not be rewarded, which might result in future behavior that is less anti-social.


If Player X continues to be anti-social, then it might be justified to consider kicking him out. At the moment, he just sounds like someone who has a few wrong ideas about what is expected behavior from characters, and what is acceptable at the gaming table. That's usually not an insolvable problem -- when it is insolvable, then you kick the guy out. Before that, you try to inform & educate, ideally without removing agency.

[oudeis]

I'm in the OP's camp on this. That was a hilarious way to deal with someone who was clearly trying to bend both GM and game to his will by insisting on such an obviously unworkable idea. Good job!

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think I said that ... 'if you tell a bunch of raiders - in their own village, no less - that you're going to rob them, you'll get beaten like a red-headed stepchild'.

How it would actually go in my group would likely be: I'd explain 'that's propably a very bad idea, and will go very badly for you'. Then, if the player ignored that warning, I'd let him do as he pleases, and it would go very badly for him.

And I have zero issue with this. My issue is cringy GM fiat trolling the player. I would have zero problem with this PC getting killed for this sort of stupid behaviour, that's showing the player the respect of acknowledging their actions and responding appropriately in an IC way. It could certainly pass into bad GM territory if the GM was just using IC responses as an excuse to punish anything he didn't want the PC to be doing, but a violent response from the vikings would be aggressively justified in this particular case. And frankly, I suspect the player knew that and was okay with it.

[Kaptin Keen]

My issue is cringy GM fiat trolling the player.

I think the difference between my post and the OP is mainly semantics. I realize we use different words, but I feel we're describing very similar situations, and identical outcomes. But ... meh, I don't feel strongly about it either way. I've never actually had a player like this - well, not IRL, there was one guy in a pbp, here on these boards. Long ago.

That's almost funny, actually. He wanted a techpriest build I told him at character creative wouldn't fly. He played for months - then insisted I allow the same build I'd originally told him I wouldn't. When I still didn't, he actually posted, stating he'd frag the void engines of the ships they were on, killing everyone.

I had to tell the moderators to please have a word with him.

[Nifft]

And I have zero issue with this. My issue is cringy GM fiat trolling the player. I would have zero problem with this PC getting killed for this sort of stupid behaviour, that's showing the player the respect of acknowledging their actions and responding appropriately in an IC way. It could certainly pass into bad GM territory if the GM was just using IC responses as an excuse to punish anything he didn't want the PC to be doing, but a violent response from the vikings would be aggressively justified in this particular case. And frankly, I suspect the player knew that and was okay with it.

Of course the player would have been okay with playing out a fight -- that would ensure nobody else got the DM's attention, since he'd be controlling the angry Vikings instead of RP'ing with the rest of them.

Your idea is bad because you're playing right into what rewards the spotlight-hog: focus on his misbehavior instead of allowing the rest of the group to play their characters.

The DM's solution was smart and appropriate specifically because the anti-social spotlight hog was not rewarded with control over the spotlight.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Of course the player would have been okay with playing out a fight -- that would ensure nobody else got the DM's attention, since he'd be controlling the angry Vikings instead of RP'ing with the rest of them.

I have specifically said, in this very thread, this is probably a situation where you resolve the fight with a single roll, or a series of opposed rolls, instead of playing it out mechanically. Opposed attack bonus rolls, winner wins the fight, if you fail to win by more than 10 you take the difference in damage, would be an example of a quick easy way to resolve this. Or, if the fight is overwhelming, you make a roll to see how many of them he can take down before he loses.

Your idea is bad because you're playing right into what rewards the spotlight-hog: focus on his misbehavior instead of allowing the rest of the group to play their characters.

Maybe I haven't said this clearly enough. What this player did is not a problem. It's not "misbehaviour" or any other condescending term. It's called roleplaying. Now, perhaps this player is a problem in general, but that has no bearing on this specific situation.

The DM's solution was smart and appropriate specifically because the anti-social spotlight hog was not rewarded with control over the spotlight.

To be clear, taking it on yourself to punish a player by trolling him is ****ed up. If you have issues with the player you talk to him OOC about it, and, if that doesn't work, you remove him from the group. You don't bull**** him and undermine his agency and then laugh about it on the internet.

[Nifft]

To be clear, taking it on yourself to punish a player by trolling him is ****ed up. If you have issues with the player you talk to him OOC about it, and, if that doesn't work, you remove him from the group. You don't bull**** him and undermine his agency and then laugh about it on the internet.

It looks like you're confused about what agency means.

The disruptive player retained agency, but not spotlight.

The disruptive player was allowed to act exactly as he wanted to act, and the universe didn't auto-kill him for that. The DM's solution was clever because the disruptive player's actions didn't overrule the actions of everyone else in the party. Everyone else was also allowed to retain agency -- and their agency was frankly more interesting, so they got spotlight.

The disruptive player wasn't fiat'd, wasn't trolled, and wasn't allowed to disrupt the game -- all while retaining agency.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The disruptive player was allowed to act exactly as he wanted to act, and the universe didn't auto-kill him for that. The DM's solution was clever because the disruptive player's actions didn't overrule the actions of everyone else in the party. Everyone else was also allowed to retain agency -- and their agency was frankly more interesting, so they got spotlight.

The disruptive player wasn't fiat'd, wasn't trolled, and wasn't allowed to disrupt the game -- all while retaining agency.

Nope. Fighting an endless stream of vikings until you pass out is not agency. Because it makes no sense and is a ridiculous situation. Realistically, they should probably have killed him. Being kept alive through GM fiat is every bit as much stealing your agency as being killed through GM fiat.

[Anonymouswizard]

It looks like you're confused about what agency means.

The disruptive player retained agency, but not spotlight.

The disruptive player was allowed to act exactly as he wanted to act, and the universe didn't auto-kill him for that. The DM's solution was clever because the disruptive player's actions didn't overrule the actions of everyone else in the party. Everyone else was also allowed to retain agency -- and their agency was frankly more interesting, so they got spotlight.

The disruptive player wasn't fiat'd, wasn't trolled, and wasn't allowed to disrupt the game -- all while retaining agency.

Did we read the same story? (I'm assuming we're discussing the OP here, I can't find another one this could refer to.)

The player was denied agency. Any agency at all. In fact the GM's reaction in this story is horrifically over the top. He is denied agency, not allowed to participate (the one bit that may or may not be reasonable), there's an implication that he is told how his character thinks, and is slapped with a debuff.

All for a disagreement over how loot was split.

The way to deal with a spotlike hog is to make it impossible for him to hold the spotlight (I should know, I've been on the recieving end enough myself). But the key is to do that while still allowing them to participate, and that's the real problem. The player wasn't allowed to participate at all, and has now been railroaded into accepting one pelt (he should honestly be able to bargain his way up to a decent minority with goods and services). In fact I find it strange that the PCs apparently weren't offered a share of the loot in exchange for helping, that's honestly normal practice in most games (the only times I might see NPCs taking all the loot is if the party has signed a contract exchanging that 'right' for an up front payment).

Now I get that werewolf pelts are likely the most valuable bit of loot by far, barring a potentially intact corpse delivered to an institute of learning, but even then I'd generally assume that each of the PCs would be offered a pelt in exchange for their help, especially if they brought gifts to help with their diplomacy (and it's generally a good idea). Maybe fashioned into a werecloak (magical item, +2 to checks against cold, +1 armour/AC against shapeshifters/under a full moon) or snazzy jacket (this one likely being done when they get home).

We have a player overreaction to the GM going a tad overboard with the Vikings, and the GM going overboard even though the player's request being unreasonable. It's also terribly unfun to be put in that situation, and most spotlight hogs will act out even more as a consequence.

[RazorChain]

I think the best no I've said to a player was something along these lines "No you cannot because (enter a reasonable explanation)"