My player's character, the enigma

[Quentin3212]

Ok, so I am running a campaign on a regular though not weekly basis,
using the 5e play test packets with a home brew setting I've established
over a number of campaigns which differs heavily from the WotC realms
in lore, but adheres to the general mechanics of the WotC universes
for simplicity sake and to cut down on unnecessary house ruling.

In my campaign I have attempted to promote players spending extra
time filling out their character's backstories, both through working
very closely with them to ensure what they create fits the world, and
through implementing policies such as having to have a reason why
your character would have learned exotic languages (draconic, infernal,
etc.).

Here is where my problem comes in, my player lets call him Bob created
a character, let's call it Stormageddon when his previous character opted
by choice to leave the campaign when it began to become disruptive to
the party, and my NPC's were unwilling to overlook its behavior.

Now Bob has kept me pretty much completely in the dark about Stormageddon
beyond telling me the basic name, race, class combo that you pretty much
have to tell the DM, as well as the fact that he was a slave. Which didn't
really fit the setting, but a quick change to the country's views on slavery
(from illegal to legal but frowned upon) made that something that I was
willing to overlook. Until today's session where Bob informed me that
Stormageddon can speak Abyssal, Infernal, and Supernal all of which are
exotic languages requiring explanations for your character knowing them,
and when I asked bob where Stormageddon had learned the languages
I was told they were part of his character's backstory and nothing I needed
to know. At the same time he also informed me that he had created his
own background (sans a trait) which he also refused to name or elaborate on
despite my telling him he should have run it by me first.

Lastly before he left the session Bob announced that he was fairly sure he
had created a new villain for the world through his backstory, but once
again refused to elaborate, stating it wasn't something I needed to know.


My immediate responses to this were threefold, and as follows;

Firstly, Bob is something of a notorious power gamer in our group, and is
known to really enjoy abusing the mechanics of games to produce overly
powerful characters, and I worry this vague background was built solely with
that purpose in mind.

Second, I dislike that he is refusing to tell me anything about his character, and
I suspect he has done so in order to have a trump card to any possible plot
hook I may attempt to implement with his character. He can never really be
susceptible to the claim that actions taken are out of character because hey we
don't actually know anything about him, and he can never be used to drive
any story because it could be hypothetically vetoed with a "that doesn't work
because [insert backstory/motivation/etc. that contradicts current event]"

Third I dislike that he won't tell me anything because I have gone through a lot
of work to ensure everyone's characters work in the universe and the universe
works with what they want to do, it's pretty much my baby and I have spent
an inordinate amount of time filling it in so that campaigns set within it don't
feel like they are being run in a vacuum. He hasn't bothered to consult me
whatsoever on any aspect of the character so not only do I find his blatant
lack of cooperation a bit of a middle finger considering the information is accessible
to any player upon request, but I also feel like it likely won't mesh well with the
pre-established lore, and could cause issues down the road when/if it ever
does come to light.

I'm not sure what to do with this situation as Bob can be something of a difficult
person both at and away from the table, but I also don't want to tell him to not
bother coming back as he is a friend, and I have a hard time justifying booting
him over a backstory. If you were faced with a similar situation and didn't want to
remove the player how would you respond to try and resolve everything.

Also, so sorry about the weird formatting of my paragraphs, the machine I'm on
doesn't like the website and continues writing beyond the edge of the text box so I
have to preemptively hit enter every time to ensure I can reread what I've written.

 

[Quentin3212]

Having posted now, I can see this is really awful formatting and will fix it next time I'm on my PC. Sorry again.

 

[Li Shenron]

It doesn't matter if he's a friend, he's a friend that wants to play a different game.

If everybody decides to play basketball and one friend wants to play baseball, do you let him play baseball while everybody else around is playing basketball?

Just tell him what game are you playing, he either agrees to play the same game or don't play at all. And don't be afraid of losing him as a friend over such small thing as a game... if you end up losing him because of this, it means he's not someone worth being a friend.

 

[Nagol]

Anything the DM doesn't know, doesn't exist. Backstory, especially backstory that impacts the world at large, is something the DM needs to know -- in fact it doesn't exist without DM approval.

Likewise, character abilities, possessions, and other such attributes might be kept from other players, but not the DM. The DM really does need to know if only to keep the world running plausibly and smoothly.

Let Bob know that and suggest he share what he wants in the character or you won't accommodate any more reveals at all. "You say Bob has/knows/encountered X? He's mistaken."

 

[N'raac]

Can't xp Nagol, but I think he nails it. Any contradiction arising between play and undisclosed PC background, the play wins. You want the background, it must be disclosed to (and approved by) the GM. Otherwise, what arises in play becomes the background, and the player needs to create or adjust his backstory to suit. If he wants his backstory to be set in stone, provide it to the GM so play can be consistent with that backstory.

If the GM reveals in play that the character was a slave to Infernal powers where his jobs included cleaning up after celestial prisoners, where he picked up the three exotic languages, then that is his background and overrides whatever the player had in mind - he rewrites to fit the issues that arise in play.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It sounds like you had a good session 0, but the player didn't build a character that would allow you to implement those policies. That character should be banned, and the player only allowed back if he builds a character that follows those policies.

 

[the Jester]

Especially given his history, it sounds like Bob is a problematic player who has a very different expectation of the role of the player in a campaign vs. the role of the dm than I do.

Of course, the dm is the one in charge of the game. He literally needs to know everything. Failing to disclose his background (especially once the dm presses him)? Repeatedly telling the dm "You don't need to know"??

Were I the dm, I'd sit him down and explain my concerns and how things work in my game, i.e. that the dm runs things, and everything about your character needs to be run by him- EVERYTHING- and that, no, you don't get to withhold information.

If we couldn't come to an accommodation, by which I mean Bob says "Got it" and subsequently shows that he means it, there might be a second conversation where I reiterated my position and told him that this isn't a negotiation, and he's welcome to seek a game with a group that is more compatible, but that this ain't that group, and if he can't fit into it according to our game's social contract, he gets the boot.

You don't have to game with all your friends, and you can stay friends with someone when you drop out of their game or vice-versa. But anytime a player is a problem, he or she is doing more than just annoying you; he's harming the campaign itself. It's not worth having him if he won't play well with others.

If you do have the first conversation, the biggest thing is to stick to your guns. If Bob says "Got it!" and then doesn't change his behavior? "Change or the boot, Bob!" -and follow through. Letting Bob say he's going to change and then letting him get away with continuing to disrupt the campaign is the worst possible result here.

All IMHO, of course, but clear communication is the way to deal with all player problems. Communicate the standards and expectations of your game, and if he doesn't like them, invite him to find a new one.

 

[Quentin3212]

I think a big reason that I had such large issues with this beyond the reasons I've stated is that I suspect he may be being intentionally disruptive with his characters, either for his own amusement or simply to test me and what I will put up with at the table. The reason that I suspect this is that this is his second character in the campaign which has been running for some time now, and it also happens to be the second character we have had disagreements over.

His first involved a socially inept Druid who cared only about saving his forest, and who "unintentionally" killed a number of tied down villagers via a spell during a fight with a number of goblins who had raided a town and carried off its inhabitants. When the last of the goblins were dealt with or driven off the NPC's attempted to arrest bob's character as he had just killed roughly five people in the process of killing three goblins, and instead of explaining himself he ran. Leaving the party to answer for him, which of course they didn't try very hard at having just met him and watched him commit several questionable acts before this. The whole event led to his being wanted for multiple cases of murder in the country, and when the campaign took everyone to the Capitol city his character left to be replaced shortly after with Stormageddon.

Despite this suspicion I am slow to outright ask him to not return as I know he often couches such disruptive actions in character reasoning, thus making it seem like I am simply singling him out for and punishing him for playing a character he created while encouraging others with what they make.

I think what I will do is first check his character sheet (all the players have binders in which they house their characters and other materials I give them, which are left at my home for convenience) to determine exactly what his background is giving him, and then have a hopefully brief and amenable discussion with him in which I will tell him that until I am brought up to speed regarding his backstory I will simply consider it non cannon and tell him he cannot have any benefits from it (ie. the exotic languages) or any additional benefits from his background beyond what is in place.

 

[the Jester]

I think a big reason that I had such large issues with this beyond the reasons I've stated is that I suspect he may be being intentionally disruptive with his characters, either for his own amusement or simply to test me and what I will put up with at the table.

...which is the kind of player who ruins everyone's fun.

Despite this suspicion I am slow to outright ask him to not return as I know he often couches such disruptive actions in character reasoning, thus making it seem like I am simply singling him out for and punishing him for playing a character he created while encouraging others with what they make.

Full stop.

First of all, disruptive is disruptive.

Second of all, it doesn't matter why he's disruptive. If he's ruining anyone else's fun, especially the dm's, he's completely out of line. The response to, "Oh, I'm just playing in character!" is "Then make a character who isn't an a-hole." Now, some tables are fine with lots of intraparty rivalry and pcs of various misbehavin' sorts hanging out together, but in your case- since you posted this thread in the first place- it's clearly not the case. It's bothering you, as the dm, and that's a HUGE deal. If you get too annoyed with the game, everyone loses, because you stop running it.

Finally, if he's the disruptive player, you absolutely should single him out. Make it clear why- make very explicit what you object to in his behavior and explain that it doesn't matter who he is or why he's disrupting the game, only that he's doing it, and that you won't tolerate it. It could be Bob or Sarah or Dan, you'd respond the same way: by protecting your campaign and your group from someone pooping all over it.

I think what I will do is first check his character sheet (all the players have binders in which they house their characters and other materials I give them, which are left at my home for convenience) to determine exactly what his background is giving him, and then have a hopefully brief and amenable discussion with him in which I will tell him that until I am brought up to speed regarding his backstory I will simply consider it non cannon and tell him he cannot have any benefits from it (ie. the exotic languages) or any additional benefits from his background beyond what is in place.

This sounds good, but believe me, you want to be clear that playing disruptive pcs isn't going to fly and that you WILL kick him if he forces the issue. So far he's 2 for 2 on pcs-that-don't-fit-the-group-playstyle. That's not "good roleplaying"; that is the mark of a disruptive player. Now, many disruptive players, when called on their behavior and shown exactly what you're talking about and why you dislike it, will reform. Many others won't, and will just keeping looking for ways to disrupt the game. Screw that! If you're anything like most dms, you put a lot of time and effort into your game, and the fun of a tableful of people is relying on you. Don't let one guy screw it up for everyone.

 

[the Jester]

Re-reading my post, I realize that I sound a little bit like I'm calling for a public calling out. I'm not. Your discussion with him, at least the first time, will probably go over better if it's one-on-one.