Dealing with an argumentative player

[Banshee16]

So, I recently began playing again, running a new campaign, after taking a hiatus for a while. Some players I've GMed for before, and some new ones. However, I've found during the game that there are one or two players who see are open about arguing about the game.

About rules, about whether certain things with the campaign setting are right, designed well, etc. etc. Sometimes I just want to say "play the game, don't disrupt it". I suspect part of this is just feeling out the group, and I hope that in time things will settle down. But it's a little aggravating at times to be getting into these kinds of discussions. I don't want to get strict about things....ie. I don't want to be throwing Rule 0 around, or forcing people to comply. But I do need to find a way to reduce these kinds of disputes about the game.

Keep in mind that I've only been with this new group for a month. So I don't know if it's just that these players are different than the ones I'm used to, or if it's something else.

I'm keen on running the game, and finally being in a group again.....but I don't necessarily want to feel like I'm going to be getting into a dispute during every session.

How do others deal with this?

Banshee

 

[LostSoul]

Tell them that unless they can't deal with the issue, it can be talked about after the game. That's the best time to reflect on everything.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmm.... since it is a game, and supposed to be fun, furthermore taking into consideration that the DM is putting in most of his time and effort to make said game fun for the players (and himself), I would brook no arguments whatsoever.

Players who constantly argue with me have to shut up and deal, or leave. I have to deal with too many argumantative sphincters in RL work to take any crap from players in my spare time.

If the arguments are few and relevant, then naturally fine, if it starts to feel like harassment and is taking fun away, then punishment will be swift and harsh...

 

[wedgeski]

Bear in mind that if they're talking about it they might well be enjoying the game more than you think, but in the end, if it's getting in the way of valuable game time, ask them to take it off-line. It's what emails are for.

 

[kensanata]

Empower Players

When I started a new campaign after a long hiatus a year ago, including two salespeople in the group, I was confronted with two people who liked to argue. They liked to argue in game with shopkeepers instead of rolling for Appraise or Diplomacy, and they liked to argue out of game with me instead of just running along with the rules. I did several things:

• I told them repeatedly and very clearly that even though they enjoyed arguing I did not. I also made exagerated sighs, rolled my eyes, etc. Just making absolutely sure they realized how serious it was. It was not just a minor annoyance, it was a major drag for me and it absolutely had to stop.
• I realized that I had a strong vision for the game that often precluded player influence. I considered handing out action points or something similar to help me accept player changes to the scene (instead of arguing) and to help players learn that the number of discussions or changes was limited per session. In the end this was not necessary. I just forced myself to say YES more often. Perhaps the lack of resistance also lessened the payback for some players. So when they met major NPC X and started with "surely he would know ... be prepared to ... of course ... seriously!" I would abort the discussion and just ask the player to describe the NPC's reaction to us, the rest of the group.
• I started to involve other players. Player X would start a discussion on rules or gameplay or NPC reactions, and I'd turn to the other players and ask: "What do you think? And you? Do you agree?" Either way, the discussion ended.

I think that players derive two kinds of reward from starting a discussion: Being important to the game, and asserting autonomy (to fight frustration). Both are things I would like to encourage. I just don't like the means these players choose to achieve their end. So the most important part has been to empower players, while protecting me from drawn out discussions.

Should the above not help, ie. the discussion just spreads, instead of you and a player it's suddenly half the group against the player or something similar, then I think it's time to split.

 

[the black knight]

Kick 'em out.

 

[Whisper72]

Kill them and take their stuff...

 

[Midknightsun]

So, I recently began playing again, running a new campaign, after taking a hiatus for a while. Some players I've GMed for before, and some new ones. However, I've found during the game that there are one or two players who see are open about arguing about the game.

About rules, about whether certain things with the campaign setting are right, designed well, etc. etc. Sometimes I just want to say "play the game, don't disrupt it". I suspect part of this is just feeling out the group, and I hope that in time things will settle down. But it's a little aggravating at times to be getting into these kinds of discussions. I don't want to get strict about things....ie. I don't want to be throwing Rule 0 around, or forcing people to comply. But I do need to find a way to reduce these kinds of disputes about the game.

Keep in mind that I've only been with this new group for a month. So I don't know if it's just that these players are different than the ones I'm used to, or if it's something else.

I'm keen on running the game, and finally being in a group again.....but I don't necessarily want to feel like I'm going to be getting into a dispute during every session.

How do others deal with this?

Banshee

I feel your pain. I'm one of those people who like to follow the rules, but don't like it when rules discussion/arguments overshadow the game. I had one such player in my group. He was a good player tactically, but constantly argued with one of our DMs over everything and anything he could, from the way the politics of the world worked, to what his alignment should allow him to do, to what a particular rule should or should not allow the DM to do, to how physics should interact with magic, to how other players should move and or attack, to constantly questioning the DM's logic, to how certain spells werent fair/ or must have been misinterpreted by the DM (if they weren't to his advantage), etc. We spent hours sometimes in arguments that shoulda been dealt with after the fact, or let the DM make his call and move on. I swear the guy would argue about the color of blue if given a chance.

It got old, but it took a long time for me to finally have enough, probably because I considered him a good friend (and still do). Many of the group members started to leave because of this, and I followed suit. Some people want to do what they want to do, believe they are absolutely right to do what they do/ and or will work to counter any argument you bring against them and no amount of explaining will change their minds. Some might be more receptive to reason. It all depends. My advice is that if it continues feel free to disengage from the group, but first off make it very clear that their approach is not fun for you, and if it continues, you're not going to see the point in doing something that is stressful/unfun for your free time.

Better no gaming at all than bad/unfun gaming, trust me.

 

[fusangite]

It's difficult to guage who is in the right here because we don't know what the arguments are about.

 

[bento]

With one group I GMed, we had a post-game wrap up to discuss rule interpretation. They all agreed that during the game I had the power to make the decision, no questions asked, but the matter could be discuss it in further detail during the wrap-up phase. That kept the arguing down somewhat.

It it was a player-vs-player situation, I kept out of it, as it would be possible in the game for characters to have disagreement (do we split the party or stay together?) and need to argue things through.