That player in the back of the room

There is a significant difference between

DM: "Bob, it's your turn."
Bob: "Joe does nothing because I don't like combat. Next turn."

and

DM: "Bob, it's your turn."
Bob: "Joe hides in the corner and puts up minor illusion to disguise his hiding place because he's afraid."

Now, hopefully Joe has a character arc and eventually overcomes his fear. If at level 10 or so, Joe is still doing the same thing, I think the other players are totally within rights to complain - unless Joe adds to the experience outside of combat. 'There should have been 4 combats today, but Bob's character Joe got us past 1 without having to fight, and we still got full XP.' In that case, Joe's participating. But if they can't say that, at least semi regularly, say, 1 time out of a number of fights equal to the number of characters (i.e., 1 in 5 with five PCs), then Joe isn't really pulling his weight, and Bob is edging towards being a disruptive presence at the table, by virtue of the fact that this is a cooperative game.

To be honest, I think it would have been better to just scrap the awards side of the XP system while maintaining the encounter building side for the AL rules.

Make the players level up based on how many adventures they've played with a character.

Make item drop options the same for each player (not necessarily the same single option for each person but rather the same menu of options so that there is a choice individually) instead of choosing who gets what.

Less hassle to debate fairness of awards, less pressure to conform to play styles, more focus on the adventure.

Storyteller Hero said:

What you are suggesting is to punish THE REST OF THE PARTY for one player's behavior. Giving everyone less XP is even worse than giving one player more XP than they should be getting.

Click to expand...

That's your assumption. There is nothing in the AL rules that mandates that players always receive the maximum XP for a given adventure. If you're going into a mod assuming you're going to come out with max XP, it's your assumption that's flawed, not anybody else's playstyle.

This is a textbook example of a behavior I discussed in a thread some time ago, in which I pointed out that optimization drives out other playstyles -- the problem is that the other players at the table are upset because they have a player who doesn't share their 'combat first, max XP always' ethic of play, and the recommendations in this thread coming from folks who agree with your position are always about 'punishing' that player for that choice.

*If* the player is truly being disruptive, and there's no indication based on the OP's report that the player is actually doing this, then there are already guidelines for how to deal with the situation. Also note that AL staff has repeatedly stated that 'it's what my character would do' is not a justification for disruptive play, so again, the existing system, if it applies, should be enough.

What you and others are suggesting is using peer-pressure and active penalties to coerce a player into adopting a playstyle you find more acceptable. There's a term for this: bullying.

--
Pauper

Pauper said:

What you and others are suggesting is using peer-pressure and active penalties to coerce a player into adopting a playstyle you find more acceptable. There's a term for this: bullying.

--
Pauper

Click to expand...

You're going have to be more specific on what exactly you're saying is "bullying". Is this in-character or out-of-character? Are you calling people expressing their frustrations with game play "bullying"? I could see things potentially crossing into that territory, but there needs to be more context for that charge to stand and be cross-examined. Leaving it general like that could just as easily be a case of "tyranny of the minority" and sounds more like name-calling.

nswanson27 said:

You're going have to be more specific on what exactly you're saying is "bullying".

Click to expand...

OK, let's play this game. I'll go in order of posting rather than in order of egregiousness:

Ainulindalion said:

Second, cowards (which it sounds like this character is) don't become adventurers, so suggest that his story doesn't make sense.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?481861-That-player-in-the-back-of-the-room#ixzz44PPzU8Jd

Click to expand...

Telling another player that he's playing his character wrong.

Enevhar Aldarion said:

The DM needs to stop ignoring this person and make his character participate and earn his share of the rewards. Have monsters appear right by the character, if possible. Have ranged attackers try to target him.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?481861-That-player-in-the-back-of-the-room#ixzz44PQWj0gH

Click to expand...

Have monsters go out of their way to target the character, despite the character not being a threat to them, so that the player gets the message.

devlin1 said:

If he doesn't like being forced to participate (and doesn't get the hint), he can play somewhere else, or not at all. If he's so into roleplaying his character to the hilt, has the question "Why are you even here?" ever come up?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?481861-That-player-in-the-back-of-the-room#ixzz44PQybOHF

Click to expand...

'Force' the character to participate, and threaten the player with ostracism if he refuses. Suggest the player is valueless for not participating.

ccs said:

I'd suggest the other players simply aproach him outside the game & make it clear that he's really not welcome .

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?481861-That-player-in-the-back-of-the-room#ixzz44PRIfW2S

Click to expand...

Actually have the other players tell the offending player that "he's really not welcome". Not that "your character's actions are frustrating and limiting our enjoyment of the game," but "go away."

nwswanson27 said:

You could have 1 or 2 enemies peel off and spend their time only searching/attacking just that hiding character....

Otherwise, after the first fight, I would allow the group to hogtie him and leave him to be picked up later (and if he passes a very high check to escape, he's lost and alone).

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...r-in-the-back-of-the-room/page2#ixzz44PRjG1rd

Click to expand...

Again, have monsters harass the character despite the character not being a threat. If that doesn't work, kidnap the character and abandon him, helpless, in a dangerous area. (Maybe you don't need to hogtie him if there's a convenient set of coat-hooks that you can just suspend him by his belt-loops from?)

Byakhugan said:

If YOU think he is being deliberately obnoxious, or that he simply is not invested in playing the group game that AL is, then you should swallow the bitter pill and make sure his character dies. Then you ask the other players 'What do you do with the body?'. Faction charity only works if the body is recoverable...if they are really annoyed with him, they can give him a nice funeral pyre, say a sweet prayer and spread his ashes in a field...new character please. Odds are good he will take the STRONG hint that the other players won't put up with his crap.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...r-in-the-back-of-the-room/page3#ixzz44PSb5Qjb

Click to expand...

This is one that really threw me for a loop -- in the midst of an otherwise sensible discussion of the issue, there's this recommendation that the DM murder the PC and suggest that the other PCs hide the body so it can't be recovered. Hey, if it works, how about we do the same to that effeminate guy in gym class's pet cat so that he'll 'get the message' to act more manly when in the shower?

The OP just seems to be asking for the best advice on how to deal with the situation. I hope to heaven he doesn't recommend any of the advice quoted above.

--
Pauper

Personally, I wouldn't consider someone questioning my story/character concept as 'bullying'. It's peer review.

"Why did you make this choice?"
"What was the logic flow here?"
"Why do you feel this works with the rest of the story?"
"How do you see this character fitting into the group?"

Sure, it could easily devolve into bullying. But constructive criticism isn't bullying behavior in and of itself.

And no, in a group game, where everyone sits down to have fun, if your method of having fun ruins the fun for every one else, they are not the problem. Even if AL is inclusive, you have to take that into account - any behavior that is a conscious choice that ruins the fun for the majority is by definition disruptive.

"I play my characters this way because this is the most fun for me" is most definitely a conscious choice. It's not, in and of itself, again, a wrong choice. But context always matters.

Likewise, I doubt you'd lose that much XP for reducing difficulty.

For DDEX3-2, simply defeating one of each type of enemy and then completing every non combat challenge would be more than enough to hit the max XP threshold for a party of 5.

For DDEX3-3, that would bring you within 500XP of the Maximum.

In neither of these adventures do I assume you only fight "one of each," and that you actually fight a lot more. It's pretty difficult to hit the XP floor of the adventures.

Pauper said:

Suggest the player is valueless for not participating.
--
Pauper

Click to expand...

Actually, I feel like that's exactly true. If you're playing a cooperative group game (taking up a seat at the table) and you aren't actually participating, you have no value in that setting, and you should probably leave.

Obviously, that's the most extreme this situation gets to, and I don't think it's there yet, from the OP, but it's also true. If I'm a DM, and you're just sitting at my table mouth breathing when there were other people who wanted to play and will actually participate, I'm going to tell you to leave. I'm not going to ask, I'm simply going to tell you, because by that point, I will have tried a number of times to provoke your participation, by the methods described in my earlier posts.

I would strongly suggest giving the players constructive ideas on how they can participate in the battle without making attack rolls. I fully suspect the player has little idea what creative options he could come up with to be pacifistic and an asset to the party.

In addition, it sounds like he is genuinely fearful for his characters safety. Perhaps talking with the player out of character and letting them know that hiding and not participating is actually putting their character in more danger (as it is one less combatant on the PC side, and therefore if the rest of the party fails due to your character not participating - who do you think the bad guys are going to focus on next.....your character, and you won't have anyone to back you up).

You don't have to deal damage in order to be a valuable asset to an encounter. They are just the most direct ways of contributing. I gave some other suggestions above. Another option is grappling / shoving.

Thank you.
I won't presume to respond at the behest of others, so I confine this to what I said, and let others respond to what they said.

Pauper said:

Again, have monsters harass the character despite the character not being a threat. If that doesn't work, kidnap the character and abandon him, helpless, in a dangerous area. (Maybe you don't need to hogtie him if there's a convenient set of coat-hooks that you can just suspend him by his belt-loops from?)



--
Pauper

Click to expand...

1) Not all enemies respond to the most serious threat. Some are, well, "evil", and look for the weakest in the herd. The guy running away and hiding would fit that description. Also, you don't seem willing to acknowledge the power-balance issue that comes from a player not helping in combat. This serves as a meta-gameish way to address that problem and keep things fair for all. Not saying it's perfect, but it's better than pretending there is no problem and doing nothing about it.
2) There's nothing "bullying" about that scenario of tying them up after demonstrating they will not engage and help with a critical component to adventuring after-the-fact. That's called "survival". It's in-character, and it's a perfectly reasonable response for game play. There are countless real-life examples of where something like this happening in an army during wartime wouldn't get them tied up - they would be court-martialed and executed. This is because inaction can and is just as much of a force-factor as action. Whether you or I or anyone else likes that reality is beside the point - it's done for a reason. They're not just being "mean".