what do you think about this decision I made?

[was]

I would have done the same thing. A selfish player tends to run a selfish pc without any consideration for the rest of the group. If he's screaming to get his way, then he's ruining the game for everyone else.

 

[BigVanVader]

Short answer: You did the right thing.

Longer answer: I don't allow selfish narcissistic lone wolf characters in my games. If that's the character someone insists on playing, then they're out. I make this clear up front, and remind people as necessary. (Honestly, the teleport thing would've spurred a private DM/player discussion, and if he stuck by his decision, the character would've been effectively removed from play.) I also don't allow players to boss other players around at the table. That's two strikes against this player.

Speaking as a guy who loves lone-wolf characters, who loves chaotic neutral, who likes the evil alignments if they're done well, I hate guys like the guy in the OP's post, who screw it all up. All too often people describe their characters as edgy or loners, but they don't want to go anywhere with it, roleplaying wise. They just want to bury the other players to put themselves over. And that's bad for business.

 

[Ezequielramone]

Speaking as a guy who loves lone-wolf characters, who loves chaotic neutral, who likes the evil alignments if they're done well, I hate guys like the guy in the OP's post, who screw it all up. All too often people describe their characters as edgy or loners, but they don't want to go anywhere with it, roleplaying wise. They just want to bury the other players to put themselves over. And that's bad for business.

That is great too, always that you end working with the party. If you are a lonely wolf, you, the GM and the other players have the chance to have a richest game when all of you arrange things to make the lonely wolf to work with the party. This is more complex and need a, sadly hard to find, quality: maturity. As any activity you enjoy, there more complex the more you enjoy. But the entire group need to know how to make the things work and should be agree to do that. It's like going pro. You don't go pro with a noob, you don't want a noob ruining your game because he is convinced he is doing great things, even after screwing things up.
Your character can have motivations, but he need to be part of the party IN THIS GAME and in the way I like to play. But you as player ALWAYS have to play as a 100% member of the group, you have to figure out how to motivate your character to get into the party. Unless the entire group wants pvp or a one of the players be traitor in the last encounter or something like that.

 

[BigVanVader]

Yeah, I hear ya. Everybody wants to be like Wolverine on the X-Men, or Batman on the Justice League. Or they want to be like the main character at the table, apart from the "team" and above their petty struggles.

If you're gonna make a lone-wolf, make someone who is ultimately worse off from being a loner. Make like a Half-Orc who feels like he doesn't belong anywhere, or who doesn't trust the team right away, and can learn that these people are ok over the course of the campaign. That's the way to do the lone wolf, one that ultimately is damaged from not being a part of the pack.

Sorry, rambling. Yeah, OP, you made the right call. Although I did laugh at the thought of some guy just screaming at everybody at the table. I so wish it looked as funny in real life as it does in my head.

 

[Nellisir]

Thanks. I'm always thinking in give a little chat or e-mail about "normal human behavior" before campaign, but with my lack of time (due to university) I usually don't do it. Now I know it's necessarily

My big rules are no evil characters, and no lone wolf characters, but really it boils down to "don't be an ass". I also try to push people towards reasonable backstory (or emphasize that some of their backstory might not actually be as they understand it) and positive motivations in addition to "revenge on X".

I had this conversation just a few days ago with a new player; his character had his forest cut down and hated loggers. As a backstory it's OK, but it doesn't do anything to explain why the character was exploring dungeons a long ways from his homeland, or what happens after he kills a bunch of loggers. It was what I see as "negative" motivation. In conversation we decided that while the destruction and revenge could be a factor, a stronger motivator was the desire for a new forest of his own. Essentially we leapt from "kill loggers" to the classic D&D endgame "ruling a realm", which is a lot more interesting and has a lot more plot hooks to take advantage of.

Edit: Don't be afraid to question the players about what's going on. Call a 5-minute break, take the player into the other room, and run through the character's actions. If they're intent on being a lone wolf, ask them why they're in the party at all. And take a stand. The PLAYER needs to make a character that can interact with and contribute to the party. That's pretty basic. No one player has precedence over the rest. Remember that the goal is to understand the player/character's decisions, and not spoil them, though. There are almost always more players then there are DMs, and they will come up with ways to surprise you. Let it happen. Last session my players "overcame" a hobgoblin band by giving them the particular chest they demanded - but they switched the contents and gave the wrong key. It was a REALLY obvious ploy, but I hadn't thought of it and the hobgoblins didn't have instructions to check the box...so they took their rag-filled box and left. (They'll be back, and they'll be pissed, but I about died laughing at how simple it was.)

I did have to have a conversation with a player about his evil lone wolf character a month or two ago. He understood the problem, and while he is still making bizarre characters, they're much less disruptive to the party (a cleanliness-obsessed wild mage bridge troll with a flea circus is the current one...and there might be something about a portable bridge. And a goat & cart. It's all a bit confusing, really.) Your player sounded like a problem beyond the character, however, and that's not cool.

 

[Nellisir]

Speaking as a guy who loves lone-wolf characters, who loves chaotic neutral, who likes the evil alignments if they're done well, I hate guys like the guy in the OP's post, who screw it all up. All too often people describe their characters as edgy or loners, but they don't want to go anywhere with it, roleplaying wise. They just want to bury the other players to put themselves over. And that's bad for business.

If you can do it and pull it off, that's cool with me. Like I said just previously, it really boils down to "don't be an ass". Also, give me something to work with plotwise, or be prepared to do the work to hook your character into the plot. The second is actually less work for me.

 

[billd91]

the thing is that the last game the other players, since this guy didn't came, told that they didn't want this plplayer to come anymore. so, after being sure no one was happy with him ( I included) I texted him kicking him out.

This is the most important consideration, as far as I'm concerned. You did the right thing - you got rid of a disruptive player that nobody wanted in the game.

 

[Janx]

Thanks. I'm always thinking in give a little chat or e-mail about "normal human behavior" before campaign, but with my lack of time (due to university) I usually don't do it. Now I know it's necessarily

Something to consider, is that you felt bad or concerned over this situation.

That means you are a healthy human who has empathy and good moral values.

It's not a sign that you made the wrong decision, it's a sign that you made the right decision.

A bad person doesn't think twice about it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thanks for your responses. The guy said to me that he was "playing the character, and that he thought that everybody should difference between a lonely and selfish character and an player.

Technically true. But what he hasn't realised is that the difference isn't the one he thinks. The difference is that you need to work twice as hard to not be a terrible player if you're playing a lonely and selfish character. You can even play a Kender entertainingly for the whole group if you are good at it.

Or in short, playing someone else doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of making the decision to play that character.

And any player who screams to the other players or in general is a problem from that alone.

 

[Nellisir]

... playing someone else doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of making the decision to play that character.

This. I can't believe how many people act like they have no responsibility for the character they create.

Then again, I can't believe how many people act like they have no responsibility for their own character, so....