Problematic player -- HELP!

[Corinth]

As former First Lady Nancy Reagan said: "Just Say 'No.'"

 

[Xeriar]

This sounds like his kind of game is Vampire: The Masquerade or some other angstfest more than D&D.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If you have tried reasoning with him before there really is only one way to handle it.

Dump him.

Or make him run the game, then do unto him as he has done.

But I really suggest dumping him. I have had twits like him in my game, and if they haven't shaped up in 3 sesions then I boot them, and do not let them back.

The Auld Grump

 

[EtherHulkRending]

I can empathize with you. I'm also nineteen and my first attempt at running a campaign was my senior year in high school at 17. I tried to be as flexible as I could but in the end I lost two players because they could not be flexible in return. They would create characters that would destroy group dynamic, or would just be too overwhelming(this last one was more my fault for allowing it)

Nonetheless, I talked to the rest of my players about it and they were no longer having any fun with those players there. Being high school we had a fairly large number of people to draw on to replace them and as a result we picked up my friend's little brother and got him into the game.

The bottom line is that nothing will work in game. To change things you have to talk to them alone, find out what's up and if they won't change they have to leave.


EHR

 

[Endur]

If someone is determined to play a disruptive influence, and if the other players know this, then I recommend incorporating this as part of the game.

For example, it is a staple of fantasy novels ever since the Lord of the Rings, that there usually is at least one Judas in the group. i.e. Sauruman betrayed Gandalf, Boromir tried to seize the ring, Grima Wormtongue betrayed Theoden, Denethor went mad, Gollum was mad, etc.

So, let this guy play a disruptive character and make sure that everyone knows out of character that is what is going on. In character, their characters might not know, but OOC they know.

Now, there are many types of disruptive characters. Some are just ornery, some are berserkers that like to kill something every five minutes, and some are outright thieves or traitors. Let the player play whatever he wants. So long as you know what his character concept is, you can deal with it.

Another possibility is to let this guy run some of the evil NPCs and help out the GM.

 

[Buttercup]

The problem with that, Endur, is that the rest of the characters won't have an in=game reason to stay with a disruptive party member. Unless you are suggesting that the first time Mr. Disrupto acts up, the rest of the party kills him and then goes on with the game.

No, the only real solution is to get rid of the player.

 

[Argent Silvermage]

The only thing I can say here is to try to schedule your game at times you KNOW this a-hole can't play. and keep changing it if he decides to change his schedule. I know I'm going to be blasted for this but if you really don't want to face this that's the cowards way out.

That being said. My advice is the same as many others here. Just kick him to the curb. Explain that he cannot play if he continues the way he is. This guy is not your friend if he's this much of an a$$ to you. As a DM I would never allow it.

 

[Nightfall]

agreed. Problems that can be solved should be solved. This guy is a Gordian knot so just axe him from any further involvement.

 

[BSF]

... He says that D&D is 'boring' unless someone is there to cause trouble in the party and make them not live in perfect harmony, and 'screw up the 'perfectly-planned' plot". ...

OK, I have already said you should dump him. Normally, I advocate discussion, but your first post seemed to make it pretty clear to me that discussion wouldn't help. But, I will jump into the fray once again.

The player thinks that DnD is boring if he can't mess with people because everyone gets along too well. First of all, this is a relatively immature solution to the perceived problem. There are plenty of ways to have intra-party conflict without screwing over the other PC's. All it takes is Roleplaying.

Maybe the chaotic good character serves an important NPC a healthy dish of disrespect and gets tossed in the local lockup. The paladin (or any other lawful good character) may be incensed because the CG PC is making the group look bad, flouting authority, and being disrespectful to somebody he finds very worthy of respect. You can have wonderful arguments in character here, without ever having to steal or kill your fellow party members. Maybe both PC's get under each other's skin, but when the hammer drops, they both know that they can count on each other.

Maybe the Cleric and the Druid get into serious discussions on how people are overrunning the environment and engaging in deforestation. The Cleric views everything in a "human-o-centric" frame and the Druid is looking out for the forests. These two people might have difficulty agreeing on several things, but they also acknowledge that rampant Evil should be stopped. When things get grim, each can put aside their differences to take care of the problem.

These situations are perfectly valid RP that avoids the smiling-happy-people-holding-hands syndrome. If your player thinks he needs to play a diametrically oppossed alignment to make things "interesting", then he is not looking very far beyond alignments. There are plenty of ways that even like-minded people can disagree. Have you ever seen a LG Cleric and a Paladin, who worship the same god, disagree? I have and it is fun.

Maybe you can present this to the problem player in terms that he will understand. Heck, perhaps both of you like football, but cheer for different teams. You hang around with him because you watch football together and enjoy trying to prove why your team is better. But, you might not like hanging around with him if he only listened to opera and plotted ways to maim people. The fact is that he is creating characters that are not "interesting". His characers do not enhance the story, they destroy it. The rest of the PC's have no reason to travel with this PC, so why would they? His roleplaying maturity needs to progress to where he can make a teamplayer that has differences of opinion and somewhat different goals without having to be completely out of touch with the rest of the PC's.

I suppose the other problem might be if you run heavily railroaded plotlines. This could be a backlash against that. If that is the case, then the player needs to confront you with his feelings and tell you why he always feels constrained and railroaded. Perhaps there is something that can be changed with your DM style? If so, there are plenty of pointers to be had here. Or maybe you just need to point out how the character decisions drive the story and if it seems too well harmoized, it is because the rest of the players are making a strong effort to work together and succeed - and he is trying to destroy that by making contradictory characters. (See above responses regarding what to do with a jerk.)

You seem determined to solve the problem with the player. If that is the case, then do so on the player level. Dragging it to in-game solutions is unlikely to work. I hope my near rant helps somehow.

 

[SuperFlyTNT]

We had a kid who would act like a total wit when we'd play back in high school. We were all closet nerds so its not like we could find anyone else for our group. Our DM simply kept him in line with physical intimidation. Seriously if he was being stupid the DM had this really extra hard extra large d20 he would throw at his head. It would leave welts and bumps. It was very entertaining to the rest of us. I could tell a million funny stories about our DM and this guy but I'll save that for story time... well there was the one time our DM declared the problem player to be his steed and rode him up the stairs while whipping him with a ruler... ok im done.