A First-Time GM and a Bossy Player

[Rigathriel]

Hello All!
I have recently taken up role playing in D&D and am in a new group run by my nephew. He is new to the running a campaign and is more accustomed to playing the game. He recently purchased "Rise of Tiamat" and gathered a group of 6 players. Myself and his uncle and his four friends who he has played D&D alongside in the past.

The campaign is great, and he runs the game well...however...the game has been suffered because we have a single unruly player and none of us is really sure how to handle him. This young man is accustomed to running his own custom campaigns and has always been a GM, only really been a players once or twice before to my understanding. When we rolled our characters, he created himself a lawful good dragonborn paladin (blue dragon). We also had an arrakoa ranger(CN), a half-elf warlock(CN), a half-elf cleric(LG), a halfling monk(CN), and a wood elf rogue(CN). The dragonborn player immediately named himself leader of our group because he was a paladin and according to him it was only right that he should lead. We allowed it because he was our tank class thinking it was no big deal...

But then, our lawful good paladin started off threatening our chaotic neutral rogue with death when she would stealth to avoid direct combat. An out of character argument forced him to in character negotiate with her to give her a reason to dive into direct combat when she felt she would be better off lurking at the edges looking for opportunity attacks. Later that session, our lawful good paladin was eager to partake in the torture and execution of captured prisoners then took over the questioning of another prisoner and when the rogue and monk decided to execute their prisoner after getting info...the paladin argued against them and threatened to have them arrested for killing a defenseless prisoner because it "just wasn't right" when, literally two minutes earlier, his character killed a prisoner in cold blood without batting an eye.

the next session we played, he turned against the rogue because the rogue's player was tired for him breaking his alignment and bossing her around and ignoring her when she had valuable info so she played a harmless trick on him. Made his character look like a fool. He told the cleric that he was no longer to heal the rogue during combat and he himself would not heal her. The next few session involved him taking all earning of the group for himself insisting the game would run more smoothly if his character controlled all gold and earning and equipment. He also goaded the ranger into failing a test by the DM which resulted in the ranger's death. The DM was frustrated because he wanted the Rangers player to learn that shooting everything we crossed was not always the BEST action to take without him being influenced to act. Additionally, the Paladins player accused us of savagery for putting a half dragons head on a pike and fifteen minutes later he's hacking off a spiders head and putting it on a pike. When called out he insisted that spiders were just bugs, not people, and it wasn't savage when done to a lesser species. He then changed his alignment to chaotic good, then neutral good. Now he wants to be lawful good again. The rest of the group is incredibly frustrated with him. The one session he could not attend ran so smoothly.

no one interrupted the GM, no one extended their turns or distracted other players, no one took over the other players actions. Attempts by other players to control what we ar viewing as God modding have failed. Arguing with him ooc and pointing out obvious flaws results in us being ignored. The DM has tried to speak Over him or cut him off to no avail. We don't want to kick him out of the game because the guy, for the most part, is nice and a wealth of information for D&D. But he bullies the other players and takes over the game. The DM doesn't want to hurt his feelings to kick him out. The players of the rogue and the halfling having asked the DM to kill off their characters in order to roll larger more intimidating characters to try to corral him. Are there any suggestions anyone can offer for this type of issue? We don't want to lose the friend...but we don't know how to really approach him so he realizes what he's doing without being angry and walking out on us. We just want him to be considerate that we are all playing as well...not just him.

~a frustrated player

 

[aramis erak]

Simply put, a major discussion needs to be had with said player. As in, they show up for session and get an intervention from everyone else instead. If they cannot or will not see the issue, then the best thing would be for the group to, in front of them, vote them out. As in, "Who thinks Billy the Bossman needs to leave the group?"

Now, the thing is, bad play is bad play, but may indicate neither a bad player nor bad faith on the player's part, but merely a bad understanding of Alignment. (Stealth to avoid encounters is NOT an evil act, for example. It's SOP for recon troops. Hell, it's taught in Basic Training, and was even taught in some 19th C military manuals. And even Pope Alexander VI endorsed stealth for military purposes during the renaissance.)

Talking first, giving time to correct the misbehaviours, and then, if no change, expulsion, is usually the best compromise.

 

[innerdude]

First, welcome to EnWorld!

Second, it's always hard to give advice without being participants at the table. We're simply not privy to the entirety of your group's inner workings. Your descriptions are detailed, but even then I'm sure the player in question would proffer a different point of view. We'll try to be helpful, but just remember to take any advice you get from here with a few (hundred) grains of salt.

My observations are as follows:

• Based on your description of the player's behavior, it sounds, quite frankly, like a basic lack of baseline social and emotional maturity. Whether that's due to age or something else, simply put, he's either A) not cognizant of how his behavior is affecting the group, or B) is cognizant of it and simply doesn't care. Depending on the player, in my experience Option A can be worked with; Option B is generally toxic.
• The first step in all of this is to try and identify just how much recognition he has around his own behavior---does he recognize that there is an unspoken social contract about these sorts of things? Is he generally aware that the group expects him to act for the greater benefit and fun of the group? Is he willing to recognize that his own biases and emotional "needs" aren't the end all, be all of play, etc.?
• In my experience the only solution is to be absolutely, perfectly straightforward and direct. Don't beat around the bush. Don't "drop hints" or try and provide "gentle nudges" in the right direction. Don't use GM force in the game to try and "change" his character; trying to solve out-of-game problems with in-game solutions is nearly universally a recipe for disaster. Sit down and have a frank discussion with him.
• If possible, have the group present a united front. Now be careful with this, because you don't want him to feel like he's being "ganged up on" (though it will likely feel that way no matter how hard you try). Present to him simply and directly what you're feeling. "You know, I hope this comes across in the spirit in which it is intended, because we value your friendship dearly and want to continue enjoying your company, but we've been noticing some conflicts with the way you're playing your character and our ability as a group to really enjoy our gaming experience. Would you be open to talking about that with us?"
• In some cases it may be better to have a single member of the group do the talking, especially if there's one group member who has an established relationship with the player, but in my experience I think a group dynamic works best. When it's a group discussion, it becomes harder for the individual in question to point fingers and say, "Well that's just YOUR problem, no one else is saying it!" If handled correctly, a group discussion can be more open and collaborative, with lots of sharing of ideas. Use lots of "We" statements---"We think this could be a solution," or "We've noticed this sort of pattern." If you do it right, it will feel more like an opportunity for everyone to collaborate, be involved in improving the game, and having more fun, and less like an attack on the individual.
• During the discussion, while what he says can be important, I'd generally be more tuned in to the attitude and demeanor in which the discussion happens. Is he actually listening and open to the idea that the group's collective fun is just as important as his individual fun? Is he willing to compromise -- REALLY compromise -- some of his play goals to better meet the group's collective needs? Is he open to change and trying new experiences?
• If the answers are generally "no" to the above questions, then I'd say it's time to cut him loose. Also, be wary if he starts demanding things like, "Show me specific situations where I was causing problems," or "Show me in the rules where it says I wouldn't act like that," etc. He may be asking for specifics to help him clarify the problem in a positive way, but in many cases it's a deflection mechanism designed to point blame and responsibility away from himself---because if you can't point out that problems are happening ALL THE TIME, then clearly it's not a problem at all! If he's evidencing an attitude of deflection and non-accountability, he's unlikely to recognize the importance of your group's social dynamics and unstated social contract. Frankly, I have ZERO tolerance for people who are unable to recognize these sorts of things.

 

[Jhaelen]

A great example why I consider D&D's alignments to be a really bad idea. They're too easily abused by players using them as an excuse to behave like tools.

Having said that, I think you should convince your nephew to take some time to sit down with the group and discuss what everyone's expectations for the game are. Give everyone the opportunity to talk about what they currently enjoy and what they dislike about the game and the other players.

 

[Rigathriel]

Thank you all!

All of this is very helpful. We are really concerned about that 'ganging up' feeling. Outside the game he -is- a pretty good guy and we do not want to run him off. We will definitely be on the look out for the deflecting attitude. I do not know the guy as well as the others so I don't know if it is that he is just oblivious to what he's doing or if it is willful. We will see. I like the idea of a straightforward ooc conversation and a GM moderated discussion about what all we feel about the game thus far.

 

[nightwind1]

Get together, talk to him.





If that doesn't work, kill him and take his stuff...

 

[Bawylie]

Hi & welcome.

First thing to recognize is that there is no In-Game solution for Out-of-Game problems. And what you have IS an Out-of-Game problem.

The most radical solution is that everyone else opts out. "Look, guys, this was fun, but I won't be continuing under these circumstances."

That's what you do when no other solutions succeed. Because a toxic game is worse than no game at all.

Directly speaking to the other players and DM works only if everyone is reasonable and willing to listen. Including you. If you don't have a dynamic of trust with everyone at the table, you at least need a dynamic of civility. You cannot play without it.

In-Game, as far as this goes, your DM needs to concern himself with table management. Moderating the conversation and sort of enforcing turns.

If this paladin character is that awful just abandon it. "In the morning, I'm gone. With all my stuff. I refuse to adventure further with a guy who threatens or bullies his own squad."

Of course, this is only if your problem is the character, instead of the player.

But keeping him around bc he's a wealth of information isn't a very compelling reason. After all, the rules are free online. The manuals are literally at-hand. And you'll spend far less time looking things up than you will dealing with shenanigans from toxic play.

So, ultimately. You must decide whether the behavior is tolerable. If it is, do nothing. If not, something must change. Which may very well mean the loss of a player - maybe you.

(I was in a group that "fired" a DM. I've left groups with people who I had personal conflicts with. For me, it isn't worth it to tolerate).


-Brad

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’ll agree with the others that this is an out-of-game problem that should be addressed as such. But I fear that there are few scenarios that won’t result in hurt feelings and/or the player leaving the game.

One thing I’ve introduced in my game to help corral inter-PC conflict is, as the DM, when someone says they’re going to do something to another PC, I ask the affected PC “are you going to allow this?” If they say no, then the action fails. I’ve no interest in moderating those sorts of power-plays and squabbling.

 

[Bawylie]

I’ll agree with the others that this is an out-of-game problem that should be addressed as such. But I fear that there are few scenarios that won’t result in hurt feelings and/or the player leaving the game.

One thing I’ve introduced in my game to help corral inter-PC conflict is, as the DM, when someone says they’re going to do something to another PC, I ask the affected PC “are you going to allow this?” If they say no, then the action fails. I’ve no interest in moderating those sorts of power-plays and squabbling.

I use a similar rule for PvP. The target of the PvP action decides the results. It allows for interesting scenes to play out as long as both parties are willing and on-board. And it shuts down steam rolling, to a degree.


-Brad

 

[Doug McCrae]

We are really concerned about that 'ganging up' feeling.

Arguing with him ooc and pointing out obvious flaws results in us being ignored.

You've tried to approach him as individuals and that hasn't worked. I get the impression it's because he's too arrogant to listen to any one player's concerns. You only have two options left. One is to gang up on him and the other is to kick him out of the group.