That player in the back of the room

kalani said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes I actually play with a guy who is good at this (granted, he does attack too if it makes sense). He loves to drop hypnotic patterns on groups and let the party gank them one at a time while the rest stand there drooling. He also likes to hide, cast disguise self on himself, sneak into the enemy ranks, try to convince them that there's another attacking party coming, and they should split up to fight the "other party". Very effective, and very fun.

Seriously tempted to bring a copy of Power Kill: Twentieth Anniversary Edition to GenCon.

--
Pauper

You could always buy all the other players and yourself these shirts, then start the session with a dramatic monologue followed with everyone pointedly staring silently at said player.

Maybe this only works at my table? YMMV

Pauper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

This is an issue that is entirely resolvable in-play, in-character. Indeed it doesn't need resolving as such.

The PCs reacting in different ways to the in-game circumstances, and then having in-character disagreements about what they are doing, and whether everyone is contributing and reacting in the right way is the game. It's a roleplaying game.

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...

How is it different if "over optimized" players show up and dominate combats and the other player(s) are not having fun.
vs
One or more players that are role playing <insert anyway> and the other player(s) are not having fun.

This seems a bit hypocritical..??

The other players are stating that the play style of this one person is disrupting their enjoyment.

Sometimes people don't mesh, don't get along,...don't whatever...sometimes everyone can't be pleased.

It's hardly bullying if a group chooses not to play with a particular person that acknowledges that they want to be different that is detrimental to the rest of the table.

Storyteller Hero said:

Here is the rule for awarding XP:

"Award XP as noted at the conclusion of the session, episode, or adventure. Generally, you’ll award XP for combat by dividing up the total XP value of the monsters defeated by the number of characters in the party. For noncombat XP, you’ll award the value noted to each character who earned it unless otherwise specified in the adventure."

It struck me. If the character LEAVES the party during entire combats and RETURNS to the party after combats, then the PC is only entitled to the noncombat XP for the adventure.

Party does not equal Table. The PLAYER can still be at the table while the PC is NOT part of the party.

The DM can then properly adjust the XP and difficulty of combat encounters based on the party size excluding the PC who separated from the party for the encounter.

The DM has to calculate the combat XP separately from the noncombat XP at the end of the adventure, but this is the fair solution.

EDIT: Rather, this is the correct solution if the player refuses to participate in combat altogether. The DM should make sure all players understand this first before starting the session. It's the rules of AL. Gold is normally equalized unless otherwise specified but XP is not required to be equal among all characters, depending on who was actually in the combat encounters.

Click to expand...

First, that doesn't answer my question at all. I was asking if the PCs can kick another PC out of the party. Second, in D&D table is synonymous with party. It has always been that way. When the party splits and goes different directions, they haven't become two separate parties.

Pauper said:

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

Click to expand...

Not bullying. An opinion like that isn't bullying, nor is it a "micro aggression."

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.

Click to expand...

That might be considered bullying. It's also bad DMing to have monsters ignore the logical thing for those monsters to do in order to attack someone specific.

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

Click to expand...

Yep. That could be bullying.

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."

Click to expand...

Not bullying. It isn't bullying to tell someone who is being offensive to go away.

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?)

Click to expand...

That could be bullying.

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?

Click to expand...

That one, too.

DocSharpe said:

Its not the first time this has come up with this player, and when I chatted about people being frustrated with his playstyle, he shrugs and says that it's his character and it's how HE wants to play it. (The argument that it's a group game doesn't hold water with him).

Click to expand...

After looking over the original post again, here's the issue I see here.

There has already been negotiation.

The disconnected player is making the rest of the group uncomfortable.

The disconnected player is unwilling to compromise.

It really is a group game, and with that comes the responsibility of cooperation to find fun together, not alone.

It won't matter if combat challenge rating is adjusted if it's the play style of the disconnected player that is upsetting the rest of the group.

If the disconnected player is not willing to make even a little compromise, and unwilling to recognize that it's a group game, then there is a risk of the rest of the group leaving and/or not returning for future sessions. If the DM loves this player enough to sacrifice everyone else's good time, then that's a personal matter.

Big question is, have the games stopped being fun for everyone else but this one player? If so, then he either belongs in a different AL group or not at THIS particular AL group. "Inclusive of all backgrounds" (from the AL guidelines) does not mean you have to keep a player after they've been given a chance and refused to cooperate. AL games have to "foster a welcoming atmosphere focused on fun" (also from the AL guidelines), but welcoming does not mean spoiling one selfish player at the cost of everyone else.

I'd recommend speaking to the player at least one more time to make sure he truly understands that playing in a group also means being considerate of other people's feelings at least to some extent. If he still refuses to cooperate in any way, and if this is causing a loss of fun for the table, then gently boot him and recommend that he try a different group that is more conducive to his needs.

There are other groups. There is probably at least one that will take him in somewhere in the world if he wants to play badly enough (although if he were truly invested in the game, he would at least consider the other players' feelings).

Life goes on.

You don't have to DM for a player that makes a conscious decision (after having been spoken with) to suck the life out of the group.

Pauper...why do you think it is bullying if a DM causes a character to die?

If multiple players are already approaching the DM expressing frustration then it is already in the realm of disruptive play.

If you have 5 people all playing the game that most of us do (most xp comes from winning fights), and 1 guy wants to play a different game...its majority rules. The odd man out either needs to either make an attempt to play something vaguely similar, or he should consider other options.

I feel like you took my suggestions way out of context. You took my suggestion of an in-character role playig solution and conflated it with...using real life animal mutilation as a form of homophobia. wow, just wow.

The irony is that animal mutilation is a primary indicator for sociopathy. It is the opposite of what your typical ignorant, gay-bashing homophobe suffers from.

Byakugan said:

Pauper...why do you think it is bullying if a DM causes a character to die?

If multiple players are already approaching the DM expressing frustration then it is already in the realm of disruptive play.

Click to expand...

The DM is targeting someone with a hostile action in order to force them to do what he wants. That's bullying. If the DM and players are at that point, they should just talk to the guy and ask him to leave, which is not bullying. If the AL rules prevent that, then the PCs should just roleplay kicking the PC out of the group for endangering the rest of them and being untrustworthy when it comes to combat. That's also not bullying, because it's the logical action of people (in this case PCs) whose lives are being repeatedly risked by someone else (in this case the cowardly PC).