Has Another Player’s PC “ruined” the Tone of a Game for you?

[KorvinStarmast]

FR is not "a little gritty and have a “real” dark ages feel to it." it's a mega-magic joke world.

Bingo, it's renaissance heavy also.

Ditto. More than once I've run into immature players trying overly hard to make their characters "dark" or "edgy" (or what they consider to be), but then just end up playing annoying serial killers.

Dexter was not helpful in this regard. But we must admit that a serial killer is dark ...

Ask a cashier what they think when an item fails to scan and the customer says "haw haw, must be free!". Look them in the eyes. See the burning hate. That is your bad one note joke character spread across a campaign. Save it for a one shot if you must.

Excellent advice.

[zinycor]

When stuff like this happens, I suggest to the other players to have their PCs just take it at face value. The guy claims to be from outer space. What does that mean in context to your PC? Maybe he means something euphemistic? Maybe he's insane? Just because a player wants a wonky concept, it doesn't mean the other players have to buy into the concept. Clearly "Vegeta" is from the next kingdom over. He's just prone to hyperbole and fabrication.

Yeah... Such a weird concept... Vegeta a warrior prince without a kingdom, that obviously has no place on DnD. Or Maybe is the from another world bit, which doesn't have a place on the extra dimensional country of Barovia.

[OldTrees1]

I had a player choose to be "Vegeta, Prince of All Saiyans, from outer space" in Curse of Strahd. I was DM and had never banned a player before, and didn't start then. The other players begged me afterwards to toss out any player that pulls something like that immediately. Or at least make them pick something appropriate.

On joke characters I've played beside, I've run into several that have irritated me, but it's not universal. It comes down to a simple question: are they legitimately funny? If you're playing a one off you might be able to get away with a bizarre reference or lukewarm joke name that elicits groans from the table, that name only has to be repeated maybe a dozen times. Now imagine a long campaign, the sort of game every player and DM really hopes to land in. One where your joke has to be repeated every week for months, or even years. Take a moment and seriously think; is it still going to be funny?

Interesting coincidence. I am running Curse of Strahd right now. One of the PCs is a Paladin named Vegeta in the group and we are tracking how many times they nearly die. It is now near the end of the campaign and it is still funny. (To be clear, they did not ruin the tone of the game for us)

Part of that is the joke of "Vegeta" is less in your face than the joke of "Vegeta, Prince of All Saiyans, from outer space". However it is also different groups have different senses of humor.

Taking that time to consider how long a joke will be told for, and consider your audience can prevent these issues.

[Waterdeep Merch]

When stuff like this happens, I suggest to the other players to have their PCs just take it at face value. The guy claims to be from outer space. What does that mean in context to your PC? Maybe he means something euphemistic? Maybe he's insane? Just because a player wants a wonky concept, it doesn't mean the other players have to buy into the concept. Clearly "Vegeta" is from the next kingdom over. He's just prone to hyperbole and fabrication.

Being from outer space isn't that outlandish in D&D. In Curse of Strahd people are literally in a different dimension ruled by an eternal yahoo.

I actually did have every NPC treat him like he was just insane. But he would not let it go. Was visibly upset every time I told him he wasn't actually Vegeta. Made sure we understood his monk was wearing 'saiyan armor', twice actually forgot that he dumped Strength and assumed he was super buff and strong, had an absolutely atrocious accent for all of this, and then...

It's Curse of Strahd. Strahd's basically toying with the players in his infinite boredom, right? Go after their psychological weaknesses? I figured if I'm dealt Vegeta of all things, I can at least make a point to pick at his pride and courage.

He was exactly like Vegeta (or a bad facsimile of him) up until I started pushing the only buttons he had that actually worked for the setting. Then he was suddenly a huge coward that refused to ever take the lead or face anything ever. He whined quite a bit about how every beast and vermin targeted him in particular (this was on purpose, it was a play against his pride. Or the pride that should have been there that was conspicuously missing once any roleplay opportunity was over). So I did manage to land scares, and then he went and wrecked roleplaying events by acting like a geeky Baron Munchausen.

Before the inevitable 'well duh you picked on him', I did this for every single character. The goodly cleric was dragged over to see every atrocity Strahd could think of and assaulted nightly by the Dark Powers, the mercenary paladin was tempted with power and greed from every angle and impossibly cursed by the end for it, the wizard was singled out by Strahd's intelligent minions for his spellbook and otherwise treated as lethally unimportant, and the elven archer became Strahd's newest stalker obsession and the immediate target of Baba Lysaga and Rahadin for it.

[zinycor]

I actually did have every NPC treat him like he was just insane. But he would not let it go. Was visibly upset every time I told him he wasn't actually Vegeta. Made sure we understood his monk was wearing 'saiyan armor', twice actually forgot that he dumped Strength and assumed he was super buff and strong, had an absolutely atrocious accent for all of this, and then...

It's Curse of Strahd. Strahd's basically toying with the players in his infinite boredom, right? Go after their psychological weaknesses? I figured if I'm dealt Vegeta of all things, I can at least make a point to pick at his pride and courage.

He was exactly like Vegeta (or a bad facsimile of him) up until I started pushing the only buttons he had that actually worked for the setting. Then he was suddenly a huge coward that refused to ever take the lead or face anything ever. He whined quite a bit about how every beast and vermin targeted him in particular (this was on purpose, it was a play against his pride. Or the pride that should have been there that was conspicuously missing once any roleplay opportunity was over). So I did manage to land scares, and then he went and wrecked roleplaying events by acting like a geeky Baron Munchausen.

Before the inevitable 'well duh you picked on him', I did this for every single character. The goodly cleric was dragged over to see every atrocity Strahd could think of and assaulted nightly by the Dark Powers, the mercenary paladin was tempted with power and greed from every angle and impossibly cursed by the end for it, the wizard was singled out by Strahd's intelligent minions for his spellbook and otherwise treated as lethally unimportant, and the elven archer became Strahd's newest stalker obsession and the immediate target of Baba Lysaga and Rahadin for it.

Am only glad I don't play at your games, it seems very tiresome.

[RogueJK]

I actually did have every NPC treat him like he was just insane.

Haha. Kinda like the TV show Lucifer. "You're... Lucifer Morningstar? Like... The Devil? Yeah, sure, okay buddy. What is that, some kind of metaphor? Man, we get all kinds of freaks here in LA, right?"

[Waterdeep Merch]

Am only glad I don't play at your games, it seems very tiresome.

That actually brings me full circle back to the topic: read the room.

A session zero is super important for this. Look around. Are you sitting next to a bunch of people looking for a serious chance to roleplay? Dark brooding edgelords? Murderhobos? Beer and pretzel hack and slashers? Jokesters? What is everyone else doing?

You don't have to match them, but do consider being in the same orbit of tone. If you showed up to my game where I was building things based on psychological weakness and gothic terrors and decided you were going to make a character with zero flaws and not play into any of the horror, you would've been just as unwanted as Vegeta here. It's not that your tastes are wrong, but they are a wrong fit for this kind of table. The same way that playing a stick in the mud dark brooding type would look ridiculous next to a scrappy band of Monty Python-quoting adventurers that are only in it for the loot.

[EggKookoo]

Being from outer space isn't that outlandish in D&D. In Curse of Strahd people are literally in a different dimension ruled by an eternal yahoo.

Well, if it's not outlandish, then the character isn't out of place. I just mean assume that it is...

I actually did have every NPC treat him like he was just insane. But he would not let it go. Was visibly upset every time I told him he wasn't actually Vegeta. Made sure we understood his monk was wearing 'saiyan armor', twice actually forgot that he dumped Strength and assumed he was super buff and strong, had an absolutely atrocious accent for all of this, and then...

My advice would be to say "so what?" Don't work against him. Decide, for yourself, that his PC is a little off his rocker and really believes all that stuff, and run the game appropriately. Don't tell him he's not Vegeta. Rather, remind him that he is. Again, you don't have to buy into his concept.

Haha. Kinda like the TV show Lucifer. "You're... Lucifer Morningstar? Like... The Devil? Yeah, sure, okay buddy. What is that, some kind of metaphor? Man, we get all kinds of freaks here in LA, right?"

Exactly! Well, except that "Vegeta" has no actual powers...

[Unoriginal]

There is nothing wrong with telling someone at the table they need to cut it out, and there is nothing wrong with kicking out a player who keeps doing something they were asked to cut out.

That is true for all player's behaviors that cross your personal lines. That is also true for all DM's behaviors that do the same.

Thing is, you can't solve an out-of-game problem with in-game events. And a tonaly-disonnant character that hurts the other people's fun is an out-of-game problem, as well as most lokely a symptom of much bigger issues.

Personally, I'm of the opinion all of D&D, and by extension all memorable D&D villains, need some fun/non-serious elements in order for the cocktail to work, alongside the epic and the scary. A potential player could disagree with that, and if they wanted a serious, actually-dark-and-dour campaign I'd suggest them a different table. I'd also suggest them a different game than D&D 5e, too, but that's beside the point.

[noob]

Well, if it's not outlandish, then the character isn't out of place. I just mean assume that it is...



My advice would be to say "so what?" Don't work against him. Decide, for yourself, that his PC is a little off his rocker and really believes all that stuff, and run the game appropriately. Don't tell him he's not Vegeta. Rather, remind him that he is. Again, you don't have to buy into his concept.



Exactly! Well, except that "Vegeta" has no actual powers...

But it makes sense: people sent to that plane that are too strong would probably get stripped of their powers before right?
So even if it was the base vegeta now they are no longer strong.
I forgot if curse of stradth was in ravenloft or not.

[EggKookoo]

There is nothing wrong with telling someone at the table they need to cut it out, and there is nothing wrong with kicking out a player who keeps doing something they were asked to cut out.

Yes. My reaction is dependent entirely on how much the other players care. If the other players can't deal with Mr. Vegeta, a conversation has to happen. If they don't care and can just assume the PC is weird/nuts/odd/whatever, then we're all good.

I'll DM any concept you want, unless the table is made up entirely of utterly boring PC concepts.

[Waterdeep Merch]

There is nothing wrong with telling someone at the table they need to cut it out, and there is nothing wrong with kicking out a player who keeps doing something they were asked to cut out.

That is true for all player's behaviors that cross your personal lines. That is also true for all DM's behaviors that do the same.

Thing is, you can't solve an out-of-game problem with in-game events. And a tonaly-disonnant character that hurts the other people's fun is an out-of-game problem, as well as most lokely a symptom of much bigger issues.

Personally, I'm of the opinion all of D&D, and by extension all memorable D&D villains, need some fun/non-serious elements in order for the cocktail to work, alongside the epic and the scary. A potential player could disagree with that, and if they wanted a serious, actually-dark-and-dour campaign I'd suggest them a different table. I'd also suggest them a different game than D&D 5e, too, but that's beside the point.

That's what I learned the hard way. I always thought session zeroes were unnecessary because hey, I play with friends! I always talk to them as a group before any game anyway, why do I need an entire dedicated session for it? In retrospect, I wonder how many games I could've saved had I sat down with everyone and talked things through first. Only two ever blew up, both due to players going at each other's throats. This is why I have them draw up social contracts now, forbidden behaviors that the group won't tolerate. I sit in on them and mediate, but I let the players decide themselves what is and isn't acceptable, then plan accordingly. Everyone wants to be a group of heroic friends doing heroic deeds? Okay, that's a hard no on dark fantasy. They like high adventure? I'm thinking pirates, then.

Though I'm also coming around to the idea that I started neglecting the most important opinion present; my own. I shouldn't DM a game I don't like, no matter how much the players want it, just as I shouldn't force the players to do something only I enjoy. Wherever our middle grounds are, that's where the best adventures lay.

My advice would be to say "so what?" Don't work against him. Decide, for yourself, that his PC is a little off his rocker and really believes all that stuff, and run the game appropriately. Don't tell him he's not Vegeta. Rather, remind him that he is. Again, you don't have to buy into his concept.

This is exactly how I handled things. Didn't work, he was upset that no one believed he was an anime character. My mistake was in not telling him no, firmly, from the very start. Or at least once all the other players started getting annoyed by it.

[Unoriginal]

That's what I learned the hard way. I always thought session zeroes were unnecessary because hey, I play with friends! I always talk to them as a group before any game anyway, why do I need an entire dedicated session for it? In retrospect, I wonder how many games I could've saved had I sat down with everyone and talked things through first. Only two ever blew up, both due to players going at each other's throats. This is why I have them draw up social contracts now, forbidden behaviors that the group won't tolerate. I sit in on them and mediate, but I let the players decide themselves what is and isn't acceptable, then plan accordingly. Everyone wants to be a group of heroic friends doing heroic deeds? Okay, that's a hard no on dark fantasy. They like high adventure? I'm thinking pirates, then.

Though I'm also coming around to the idea that I started neglecting the most important opinion present; my own. I shouldn't DM a game I don't like, no matter how much the players want it, just as I shouldn't force the players to do something only I enjoy. Wherever our middle grounds are, that's where the best adventures lay.


This is exactly how I handled things. Didn't work, he was upset that no one believed he was an anime character. My mistake was in not telling him no, firmly, from the very start. Or at least once all the other players started getting annoyed by it.

Indeed, a DM should never DM a game session they didn't like. That they know they won't/didn't like, that is, if you try something new and it doesn't work it's not an issue by itself.

A DM should also be fan of their own work. Not only, but also.

[Edea]

I tend to care more about mechanical effectiveness.

Roleplay-wise, there are always the insane and the buffoonish; I mean, this game has squid-headed people who subsist entirely on brains, giant floating predatory eyes that fight like disco balls, and immortal, gibberingly-insane fish-wizards in it. Not going to really blink twice at a half-kobold/half-goliath PC in motley playing a cat like an instrument, no matter what the setting is.

However, if they're repeatedly 'the load' or 'the Ace' when encounters start, and/or teamwork is just completely out the window with them, THEN my teeth start grinding.

[Xervous]

Not going to really blink twice at a half-kobold/half-goliath PC in motley playing a cat like an instrument.

Please tell me this was actually a thing.

[Trask]

I tend to care more about mechanical effectiveness.

Roleplay-wise, there are always the insane and the buffoonish; I mean, this game has squid-headed people who subsist entirely on brains, giant floating predatory eyes that fight like disco balls, and immortal, gibberingly-insane fish-wizards in it. Not going to really blink twice at a half-kobold/half-goliath PC in motley playing a cat like an instrument, no matter what the setting is.

While it can be persuasive to cherry-pick some of the most silly aspects of the game and use them to justify wackiness in PCs, in my experience the most fun experiences come when the party is the "straight man" to a weird world. Once the party becomes just as strange, or stranger, than the world around them, the setting starts breaking down into parody. Parody can be fun, but it's not always what people want.

[zinycor]

That actually brings me full circle back to the topic: read the room.

A session zero is super important for this. Look around. Are you sitting next to a bunch of people looking for a serious chance to roleplay? Dark brooding edgelords? Murderhobos? Beer and pretzel hack and slashers? Jokesters? What is everyone else doing?

You don't have to match them, but do consider being in the same orbit of tone. If you showed up to my game where I was building things based on psychological weakness and gothic terrors and decided you were going to make a character with zero flaws and not play into any of the horror, you would've been just as unwanted as Vegeta here. It's not that your tastes are wrong, but they are a wrong fit for this kind of table. The same way that playing a stick in the mud dark brooding type would look ridiculous next to a scrappy band of Monty Python-quoting adventurers that are only in it for the loot.

Sure, but it is better if everyone makes it so the room is easy to read, be clear on what sort of game is being run and what the people want to play as. In my experience, some stupid people refuse to do these things and it often ends badly.

[EggKookoo]

This is exactly how I handled things. Didn't work, he was upset that no one believed he was an anime character. My mistake was in not telling him no, firmly, from the very start. Or at least once all the other players started getting annoyed by it.

Yeah, that's a bummer. I do have to wonder why he would think anyone would believe he was an anime character, assuming he had no reason to think you were running an anime game.

While it can be persuasive to cherry-pick some of the most silly aspects of the game and use them to justify wackiness in PCs, in my experience the most fun experiences come when the party is the "straight man" to a weird world. Once the party becomes just as strange, or stranger, than the world around them, the setting starts breaking down into parody. Parody can be fun, but it's not always what people want.

Mainly because the PCs are the players' window into the weirdness of the fiction from the relative normalcy of reality.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Sure, but it is better if everyone makes it so the room is easy to read, be clear on what sort of game is being run and what the people want to play as. In my experience, some stupid people refuse to do these things and it often ends badly.

To offer a silver lining to the story, we decided not to include this player in the next game after this. It shook him; we'd told him several times that his behavior there and in other past games (this wasn't his worst character, just the final straw) dragged things down, and he wasn't listening, so this was our decision. After seeing that we were willing to ditch him, he finally did listen- we gave him another chance with some one shots. He started trying much harder to play with the party, stopped a few other behavioral problems that had followed from multiple games, and has become a much better player overall. He's back in longer campaigns, and the complaints have ceased, too. In some ways it sucks that it had to get this far (we lost around six other players that stopped coming around because of him specifically), but dropping the hammer was the thing that got him to change.

It all comes down to communication. Speak, and listen. Sort things out often and early.

[Let'sGetKraken]

To offer a silver lining to the story, we decided not to include this player in the next game after this. It shook him; we'd told him several times that his behavior there and in other past games (this wasn't his worst character, just the final straw) dragged things down, and he wasn't listening, so this was our decision. After seeing that we were willing to ditch him, he finally did listen- we gave him another chance with some one shots. He started trying much harder to play with the party, stopped a few other behavioral problems that had followed from multiple games, and has become a much better player overall. He's back in longer campaigns, and the complaints have ceased, too. In some ways it sucks that it had to get this far (we lost around six other players that stopped coming around because of him specifically), but dropping the hammer was the thing that got him to change.

It all comes down to communication. Speak, and listen. Sort things out often and early.

Sometimes you really do need to follow through on these things to motivate change. Glad it worked out for you guys, shame it took so long.

It's doubly hard because D&D is such a social game, and often involves friends - no one wants to be mean or exclude a friend, even if it would be better for everyone.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't believe making fun hilarious characters is a problem at all. The problem is only when players aren't clear on their wants from the very start and wants end up crashing into each other.

It isn't too bad a mismatch, but my best friend in setting is avenging his dead family and gathering relics of power to save the world while I eat sandwiches made of garbage and choke on plastic bags.

I agree Edgelords are way worse. I want to have fun on my days off not watch an adult brood vicariously.

[Edea]

Timing's another issue.

You can have comic relief in a serious setting, but don't screw up a climactic encounter between Edge the Oathbreaker and Cressentia, Holy Skymother by having the aforementioned motley bard start playing this as the background music.

[Iku Rex]

Just thought I'd put this here:

[Edea]

One of uuus, ONE OF UUUS...

[TexasSkiandFish]

I had to google edgelord, but my answer the original question is no.

Our group is all friends in our upper 30's with wife's/kids.

Reading through the other definitions I did not know, we probably all fall on the "Beer and pretzel" scale. Although we do take the rules pretty seriously.

Reading through some of the responses it seems that many of you play with strangers and/or acquaintances. I could see that causing problems.

[Evaar]

I don't think I've ever actually been in a game that was as serious as I would like it to be. But I attribute it to the awkwardness of roleplaying.

I am running a Dragon Heist where I'm taking it moderately seriously, with some comic relief here and there of course. I had one of my players come to me with a pun last name, but perfectly fine first name, so I allowed it. I just address him by his first name. It's been fine, not disruptive at all.

I have personally considered making a human Barbarian named Wolf Blizter. Just because it amuses me that it sounds very much like a stereotypical human Barbarian name.

[EggKookoo]

Just thought I'd put this here:

So... just Critical Role, then?

[Pex]

What only truly bothers me is when the player is That Guy. There are two kinds - the one who plays despite the party and the one who plays against the party.

The first one does his own thing regardless of campaign plot or other players' consideration, and I mean players not just characters. They will run off to do their own thing to have their own private mini-adventure. They like passing secret notes with the DM. They smirk when the rest of the party gets into a jam. When they learn important information they never share it with the party. They refuse to tell other players their character's class, name, background, or other minutiae information. If they find it they keep it. They go out of their away to avoid being in melee against bad guys. They will never buff or otherwise help party members in combat. At best they'll attack a bad guy really putting the pain on another party member but sigh about it and boast how they're saving the character's life, again.

The second kind actively hurts party members. They steal from fellow PCs. Keep all party treasure found. Don't care if party members are in the area effect of their spells. They do not buff or heal others unless yelled at by the other players to do so. They will flee combat if it goes badly in their view. It's wise for a party to retreat if it's not going well, but they're the first to run and if they have to hurt or hamper other party members to escape they'll do so. They do not help party members also retreat. Once they're out of combat they're happy. As for the campaign plot they will purposely do something that disrupts the status quo. If there's a party plan they won't do it. They will make the combat harder than it would have been. They will start fights interrupting dialogue if they have to.

[Edea]

I try to make PCs as basic as possible during chargen, and then let the setting they're plopped into help build the bulk of their personality as a given game progresses. That way I'm better able to 'read the room' and rein in my more negative tendencies.

Left to my own devices, I tend to gravitate towards irreverence in my character backgrounds (like making a halfling storm magic sorcerer for a nautical 4e game named "Sheets Tudawinde, III").

That's the strange thing, though; it doesn't work in reverse. If you make a 'super-serious' character for a beer & pretzels parody game, he still fits. Maybe it's just safer to always make a brooding Batman-wannabe and then relax if the game ends up not requiring that...

[patchyman]

Am only glad I don't play at your games, it seems very tiresome.

Well, it’s Curse of Strahd, that approach is kind of the point. It is also why I will not run CoS for my groups.