Player conundrum

[amazingshafeman]

My game group is made up of four players beside myself (I DM). Of the four, one is my fiance, I work with another 2 to 3 times a week, one is a close friend, and the other is said friends roommate. Now, because of when I see them, my fiance and coworker are very into the game, so we chat about it all the time. My friend is also really into his character, so he and I quite often have RP sessions alone as his character is doing some in depth research with his mentor (mostly this is just an excuse to hang out and throw some bones as he makes Decipher Script checks). Unfortunately, his roommate puts in NO time outside of game night. Rarely does he respond to my emails (be they group emails or character specific) or phone calls. He comes, he plays, he goes home.

This wouldn't be a problem except that the plot is very much decided by the characters, two of which have serious trust issues, meaning there is NO room for anyone just along for the ride.

Solution wise, I'd love to get him more involved in the game, but that's just not happening. Barring that, I'd rather dump him altogether, because when it comes to dealing with him (or not as the case is), I get so miffed I'd rather not play at all..... The trouble is, anytime I confront him about any of it, my friend defends him like he would his baby. When I do get the offending player alone, he's mature about it, but recounts everything that goes on to my friend, who then gives me an earful about singling him out. Woeful is the day that I deal with them together. Despite it all, I'd rather not have my friend stop playing just because I asked his roommate to stop playing, but I think that will be the case.

Any suggestions on how to - A)get the less than dedicated player motivated to game or B)boot him without losing his roommate/my friend? I'm thinking my next step is to ask my friend to talk to him about putting some time into his character AND responding to me outside of the game. Put it in his hands type of thing. *shrug*

 

[JoeBlank]

If the guy is happy playing a character who is not as much of a driving force to the campaign as the other PCs, let him. It is not easy to juggle various levels of interest and dedication from players, but it is often required to keep a good group together.

The simple fact is that some people become very involved in games, while others are more casual gamers. Currently, I play in a game that has a similar situation, although without the same level of contact between players and DM outside of game time. There are times when our email list is very busy, and other emails are exchanged between the DM and individual players, as well as between players. It is a great campaign that I enjoy very much, but because of work and other responsibilities, I am not as involved as some of the other players. This seems to work fine, my PC is not as much a of focus of the campaign, and while he has input he is not as much of a decision maker either. I'm okay with that, and so are the other players and the DM.

Another alternative might be to play a side game with the more involved players.

 

[osarusan]

My philosophy about disinterested players is that it can sometimes be that the DM is doing something wrong.

When one of my players seems less in to the game than the others, I devote a session or at least a good part of a session to things that said player is specialized in. What skills does he have that the other players don't? Is he a druid? A monk? A rogue? If he's the only one of his class in the party, it should be easy to do. Otherwise, focus on his skills, items, or abilities.

The point is to give him a chance to shine. Make him feel special; make him do something important so that he actually wants to give more effort to the game, because the other players are already at that level and he just needs to catch up.

Unless this player brings specific problems *to* game, I wouldn't kick him out. Afterall, real life comes before game and not every player is able to devote as much time as the next guy. Try to be forgiving if he's got other things keeping him busy.

If, after you give him a good moment in the spotlight, he doesn't improve... then ask the other players to include him a bit more to try to make him feel more involved.

If that doesn't work... then I'd give the guy a good one-to-one and ask him to be take more initiative and involve himself or leave. However, don't punish him for not giving extra effort *beyond* game night.

 

[KenM]

The player should at least respond to the DM's and other emails, even if its just a "yes I will be there this week" or something.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

The player should at least respond to the DM's and other emails, even if its just a "yes I will be there this week" or something.

Agreed, there’s causal gaming and then there’s rudeness…

Anyhow, regarding the above you have a reason to complain and your very involved friend needs to realize that. Talk to him to have him help fight this fight.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Forgive me if I'm off base, but from your description, it sounds like you are the problem, not him. Some guys just like to limit their involvement to game night. No biggie. As long as he is present and involved while there, i'm sure you will be fine. Trying to change him won't work - don't try.

Let the other players drive the campaign specifics around him. In-game "trust issues" just present fodder for the DM. Try and see it as an opportunuty. We can't all be leaders. That is just an function of personality and priorities. You'll get less irritated with him if you lower your expectations for him in particular and just focus on those that are grabbing/creating spotlight/story. Next campaign, fill his space with someone else if that is your preference.

From my experiences, I'd say you should count your self as lucky that you have ANY players invested as much as you have, let alone more than one. This is a good thing - don;t blow it.

 

[The_lurkeR]

Forgive me if I'm off base, but from your description, it sounds like you are the problem, not him. Some guys just like to limit their involvement to game night. No biggie. As long as he is present and involved while there, i'm sure you will be fine. Trying to change him won't work - don't try.

Let the other players drive the campaign specifics around him. In-game "trust issues" just present fodder for the DM. Try and see it as an opportunuty. We can't all be leaders. That is just an function of personality and priorities. You'll get less irritated with him if you lower your expectations for him in particular and just focus on those that are grabbing/creating spotlight/story. Next campaign, fill his space with someone else if that is your preference.

From my experiences, I'd say you should count your self as lucky that you have ANY players invested as much as you have, let alone more than one. This is a good thing - don;t blow it.

Ditto

 

[Mark]

This wouldn't be a problem except that the plot is very much decided by the characters, two of which have serious trust issues,

Which two? And are they the "characters" from whom the "plot is very much decided by" by any chance?