Problem players and you

[wotmaniac]

Now that it is clear the character is purely selfish and seemingly unwilling to work with the party(I hesitate to say player), next time he pulls something like that I'd go ahead and have a pre-made full five man party encounter set aside and ready for him.

That character should then cease to be a problem.

If the player makes the same decisions with his next character, repeat the process until the player gets the point or you kick him.

yeah, if you have a character that is consistently and unapologetically a "problem", this is probably a player issue (as in, this is probably simply his style of play -- I've run in to way too many of these guys).

 

[Deset Gled]

I have found that if a player overacts a character to the point where it's disruptive, it can be sometimes be helpful to force that player to change roles. In your case, if the players has the rogue be so money hungry that it's hurting the party, make the player create a new character that simply isn't a rogue. Make sure the next character is a type that would not be loot hungry, and attempt to build them into a character that is forced to rely on other players due to limitiations (e.g, a wizard that can't survive in melee, or a fighter with no magical abilities).

This is also recommended for stick-up-the-ass paladins, and emo drow.

 

[Umbran]

I asked him later and he said he wanted to get the loot before everyone else so they wouldn't know how much loot there actually was.

Okay, so you've got to what he was trying to accomplish, but it doesn't sound like you've gotten to why - and there lies the basis for the differing playstyle.

So, continue asking - Why do you want to keep loot from the other party members?

He may have a really good, role-playing answer, and you can use that understanding to build a bit of understanding among the players, and build plot.

He may simply be greedy. Then, explain to him that you and the other players really prefer a more cooperative game - it is okay to lie to , cheat, and steal from the NPCs, but not from the people who help keep his character alive. If he cannot accept this, he probably needs to find another table to play at.

If this really is a difference of play style issue, I would strongly advise against the "allow nature to take its course" route you have going here. It is a conflict between the players, being played out by proxy within the game - kind of the definition of "passive aggressive". That usually comes across as pretty personal, and doesn't end well.

Be mature about it. Discuss it out of game, and find a solution out of game as well. It is okay for the DM to say, "that isn't going to work in this game" - that's part of the DM's job.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Agreed: there's a risk that if the loner character suddenly gets slaughtered (fairly!) on a treasure-finding foray, without having heard from the DM and other players that the "loner act" is unacceptable, the player will whine that the DM is being vindictive and meting out unfair punishment, which can in turn help feed the vicious circle where in-game problems lead to out-of-game problems and vice versa.

It sounds like the player is expecting to be able to play a character who is clever and sneaky, and that in itself is fine; but it also sounds like the player is expecting to play a character through whom the player can "one-up" the other players, and that's not fine.

Reminds me of a particularly bad experience I had while gaming in 1E*, where the thief went off and looted the place under the guise of "scouting ahead." The player reeked of smug satisfaction the whole time, and the player animosity was really quite unpleasant. Other players kept trying to figure out ways their characters could get the goods on the thief so they could, in character, call out the bad behavior, but the DM in this case was actually complicit (the DM and the thief player were best friends). Being young and foolish at the time, I went back for a second session, but luckily I wised up before committing to a third.

* I blame neither 1E nor "old-school gaming"; I hold the people involved fully responsible. Just in case that's less than clear.

 

[Janx]

As umbran said, if you can get to the root cause the behavior and find a way to work with it, great.

However, 90% of the time, players who do this, especially repeatedly, are trying to screw the other players out of treasure and game time. (and the OP revealed that this was the case when he talked to the player)

The DM mistake is to reward negative behavior. If the player is always trying to go solo at the expense of the group, he will often monopolize the GM's time, because he doesn't have to confer with the group (group decisions ALWAYS take more time). This means the group which needs more time gets even less DM time.

The really sneaky part is that because DMs often react to player's declaration of actions, the loner player can often keep the DM in a loop that he doesn't realize that he's not paying attention to the majority.

You don't have to punish him or let nature work it out. However, everytime you give him more GM time, you are telling him that his method works. It is the parties job to deal with the in-game consequences of his actions, not the GMs. It is the GMs job to not let his actions DISRUPT the game.

Therefore the first IN GAME step to stopping this is to NOT give him the time he's trying to take from the group.

After the game, talk to him about why he tried to split off and why you didn't give him as much time. If he wants more solo time, he should book solo sessions with the GM. If he just wants to screw the party over, he breaks the meta-game covenant that most groups seem to follow that PCs get instant membership in the party of PCs, whereas in reality, they wouldn't tolerate such a person.

To rephrase all this, the harm the forker does is that they can easily steal an hour of the GROUP's play time on solo play. This is an hour the majority is force to sit and wait. I'm not even talking about in-game damage they may be inflicting.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Okay, so you've got to what he was trying to accomplish, but it doesn't sound like you've gotten to why - and there lies the basis for the differing playstyle.

Except that the why is right there in the post you quoted. He doesn't want the rest of the party to know the total amount of loot. Why wouldn't he want to know them to know that? This is a player I'd boot, with no explanation. He's already laid his hand on the table.

 

[Umbran]

Except that the why is right there in the post you quoted. He doesn't want the rest of the party to know the total amount of loot. Why wouldn't he want to know them to know that?

Holy thread necromancy, Batman! Did you see how this was from 2009?

Anyway, the why is not there. What he wants to do - keep others from knowing - is there, but not the root why.

He may, as a person, be greedy, or feel the game is competitive - that if he gets more stuff than his fellow players, he "wins". That is one possible why. But only one. There are others.

F'rex, he may, as a player, have this idea that the character is saving up money for some big plan he has, that he actually intends to include the other players in on, but his flare for the dramatic has him wanting to do this as a surprise, or he feels the other characters won't go along with it unless it is a fait accomplis.

Greed may well be (or have been - I suspect his has resolved in the intervening five years) the most likely answer, but it pays to ascertain that for certain before acting.