Are you a "problem player"?

Jeff Wilder

First Post
It's a trick question, because IMO everyone has little ticks and stuff that impacts the fun of other players. Do you recognize yours? If so, do you do anything to ameliorate it? If so, what do you do?

Me, I'm a bit of a control freak. This manifests in various ways.

(1) Players in the two games in which I'm a player look to me with rules questions -- and worse, actual rulings -- before they look to the other DMs. (Even one of the DMs does this.)

(2) I get very impatient when the same players constantly slow the game down. (I growl, "Roll the damn die; if it's a 20, it doesn't matter if you're +8 or +9," or some variant, every single game session.)

(3) I'm similarly impatient when my fellow players make horrible tactical decisions simply because they aren't paying attention. ("I've got a 34 AC, an aberration-bane hammer, 110 HP, and a speed of 20', and you're shooting at the monster on me instead of the monster ripping up the wizard? Seriously?")

(4) I make 90 percent of the decisions for the two groups I play in, and drive the action 90 percent of the time. (I'm not talking about spotlight hogging. For instance, I might suggest, "Nathan, why don't you wild shape and scout things out for us?" At which point the druid and his player rightly have the spotlight.)

Anyway, obviously I recognize my problem, and I do try to ameliorate it. I've succeeded ... but only to an extent. The main thing I do to help curb my control-freak impulses is the biggest: I DM a game. I'd honestly rather not, all things being equal (3.5 is a lot of work to DM, and I'm lazy), but if I didn't, I'd have to exile myself from gaming.

Otherwise, respectively:

(1) When it occurs to me, which is probably about 75 percent of the time, I make it very clear: "It's Louis's game, not mine. His decision." It should obviously be 100 percent of the time, though.

(2) I don't do much about this, because it seriously annoys the hell out of me. 3.5 is already slow enough in combat that you should have all of your modifiers written in front of you.

(3) I try to express my frustration through my PC, which in one case is very appropriate, and make it clear that it is my PC who is annoyed.

(4) This seems to be a hopeless cause. I've actually created PCs who have absolutely no business making decisions for the group -- my current Int 5 half-ogre, for instance -- and appropriately kept my mouth shut. At which point we, as a group, sit. And sit. And sit. And then a player will ask me what we should do. "I've got an Int of 5!" "Well, your character does, but you can talk out of character!"

I've also privately approached other players and asked them to take more of a role in leading the group and driving the action, and they've agreed to it with some enthusiasm. And then gameday comes around, and we sit. And sit. And sit.

Thoughts? Anyone else? Confession is good for the soul!
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Thoughts? Anyone else? Confession is good for the soul!

I feel bad for you. The rest of the group has elected you to do all thier thinking for them and your natural desire to be in control lets them keep doing it.

If you want to get the other players to contribute then it may have to be forced. Try this: ( with cooperation from the DM)

Each time there is a decision to be made make each player suggest something different. Rotate the order so its not always the same person giving the first idea. Assign numbers then roll a die and go with the idea number rolled. Really dumb ideas should get weeded out eventually by enough TPK's or other setbacks.

If a player refuses to contribute an idea then that player gets no XP for the session. Hopefully this will get the group to start contributing useful input into decision making and things will improve.
 

I slip very easily into thinking in terms of numbers and statistics, I'm comfortable with tricky rules, I often have a clear vision of how I think the game should be in terms of flavour and I can be a bit of a perfectionist. Together these traits can lead to me getting frustrated when the way that the game mechanics pan out statistically doesn't fit my vision of how the game should be. Sometimes I can be a total pain in the arse and I can get a bee in my bonnet about things like CODzillas (i.e. I hate them). I do try to shut up but it doesn't always work. And sometimes I have to stop myself from hogging the limelight.
 

Play a party leader type character, its obvious the other players rely on you to make important decisions for them, play a wizard or wizard multi-class, secretly cast Charm Person on the other players then instal your will on the party, a good DM should be encouraging the other players not you, he should coerce these players into action.

Maybe its a confidence thing, are these guys experienced players or newbies?
 

I feel bad for you. The rest of the group has elected you to do all thier thinking for them and your natural desire to be in control lets them keep doing it.

If you want to get the other players to contribute then it may have to be forced. Try this: ( with cooperation from the DM)

Each time there is a decision to be made make each player suggest something different. Rotate the order so its not always the same person giving the first idea. Assign numbers then roll a die and go with the idea number rolled. Really dumb ideas should get weeded out eventually by enough TPK's or other setbacks.

If a player refuses to contribute an idea then that player gets no XP for the session. Hopefully this will get the group to start contributing useful input into decision making and things will improve.

Actually I think the solution lies in working out how to gently and subtly coax the other players to take gradually and incrementally more responsibility for their characters' actions. For instance, your character could, instead of saying "do this, do that", phrase your suggestions as questions giving them alternatives. Then try moving on to open-ended questions.

For instance:-

Level 1 (easy):- "OK, so we're in a dark, forbidding forest near an undead horde. Do we want the druid to scout ahead in hawk-form, or could he get picked off by bat-formed vampires? Maybe we'd rather send the cleric and druid off to scout together - so the cleric can protect against undead, but if they're overwhelmed the druid can turn into a fast-moving mount to get the cleric out of there. Or maybe we should rely on the wizard's invisibility spells and all move forward together - I don't know if the undead will be able to see us. Any other ideas? What do you reckon from those ones?"

Level 2 (moderate):- "OK, so we're in a dark, forbidding forest near an undead horde, and we're unsure how close they are. What do we think the risks are? ... Are we going to make it a priority to work out what's up ahead and minimise the risk of being ambushed, or to assume we may get ambushed anyway and just get ourselves ready for that? Or something else? ... What skills and abilities do we have which could fit that priority? Mike, what can your druid do? Gerry, what about your cleric? Anna, what about your vampire assassin? ... OK so how do we put the plan together then?" [It might work better to put the questions as your character, so "Treelover, what powers do you have which might help? And you, Holy Eric? And you, Laetitia Fangblade?"]

Level 3 (hard):- "OK, so what do we do next?"

Alternatively pay for some high-powered tuition in negotiation skills, pedagogical skills etc., and you might think of a better way to do it!
 
Last edited:

PS the key is, once they start to make a decision which isn't THOROUGHLY stupid, don't present counter-arguments, or they will just give in and not try again
 

Alternatively pay for some high-powered tuition in negotiation skills, pedagogical skills etc., and you might think of a better way to do it!
I'm a lawyer.

I appreciate the suggestions, and actually have tried some of them (for instance, I try to prompt other players for input, even if it's only, "What do you think of this plan?" ("I'm happy to be a part of it!")), but I was kinda hoping for people to share their own foibles, rather than counseling me on mine.

(Note the subtle control-freakery going on?)

PS the key is, once they start to make a decision which isn't THOROUGHLY stupid, don't present counter-arguments, or they will just give in and not try again
Anyway, despite what I said above, this is a particularly insightful (and IME easy to overlook) piece of advice. I'm going to try hard to keep it in mind, because I definitely do air out the downsides when other folks suggest stuff.
 

I have just recovered from NerfedWizards comments on his gaming, as a member of his group of players he isn`t lying at all, he says he "sometimes....." thats not accurate, he always hogs the limelight, he has to be first in, first out in danger and first at the treasure pile, he never waits, we are all getting used to it, and watching him getting trounced is rather fun.
 

Remove ads

Top