calling all GMs - advice on handling a selfish player

[Templetroll]

Excellent suggestion; this is actually one thing that I have been slowly working on for a little while. I'm trying to very, very slowly change his mindset about how the game works, and help him understand that instead of telling me exactly how he tied the rope, he should just roll the die.

Your other suggestions are good, but I know he won't actually run a game. This guy has a very busy life; he doesn't have time nor the inclination, really. Getting him a copy of the PHB is not a bad idea, though.

Everyone likes gifts. Try to get him to play a paladin so he has to be a Good Example to others.

 

[evilbob]

Ok. This is coming from a lawyer, so take my analysis in the spirit that it’s given

A lawyer telling me to forget my principles, eh?

I must admit, your advice was quite good (if not a bit scary). I honestly don't think I can do this, though. I know I can't lie about having these games, and there's a lot of familial pressure to "please include him" because - well, he's family. However, I will take your advice under consideration.

 

[Kid Socrates]

Getting him a copy of the PHB is not a bad idea, though.

That may be a huge step to fixing the problem. He's big on knowledge -- open the knowledge of the game up to him. You may have him maxing out synergy bonuses in a few months to make more incredible moves than Tony Hawk in zero gravity, but at least there'll be numbers for it.

 

[Parlan]

How about trying the opposite approac with the rules? Rather than require him to list what actions he's doing in DnD terms (damage to the window followed by climb check etc), get him to describe his action.

Him: "I break the window and follow the BBEG"

You: "I can't visualize this. Are you stopping to break the window with your sword, or diving through the glass, ignoring the shards in your haste, or something else?"

Him: "Well I guess I'll stop and break it."

You: "Okay, make and attack (give the AC) and do at least (some Damage). You broke it? great? That's your turn. While he's doing that what are the rest of you doing?"

Nother Dude: "Busting through the glass of the other window with my move action, I make the burst DC easily, and since I have enough to get next to him with one move action I'll use my standard action to attack. Oh, a hit!"

You: "Great roll damage. BTW, you took 6 points from the shards of glass."

Him: "That's what I wanted to do!"

You: "Hey, I asked what you were doing, you said you were stopping! Who's next?"


There are always tactically advantageous options, but it drives me nuts when players spend 10 minutes picking the absolute best, or whine when they "didn't get enough info to make the right choice".

Ask me questions if my description is unclear, but don't piss n moan b/c I didn't specify exactly how much damage you'd take from the glass.


When he goes on an incredibly detailed description of knot tying, just say (gently), "look, this is cool. I could never remember how to tie a timber-hitch, but you're character is going to be tying this knot with his "Use Rope" skill. Your personal knowledge is not going to affect the DC for your PC."

Him: Piss moan

You: Look, if you want him to be good at tying knots, put some skill points in Use Rope.



Gosh, this has gotten long.

Last thought. Make EVERYBODY esponsible for levelling up their characters. That way he can't pass the buck if whoever chose skill points didn't do it according to his "vision". If you take this route though, you will need to review characters and make sure you're open to answering questions.

I'm a softie, so if he were REALLY bummed about accidentally putting all of his skills into Jump (or chose the wrong feat), and felt useless, I'd let him redo it the NEXT session...

...with an XP penalty.

 

[Sargon the Kassadian]

When running one-shot campaigns we had included our friend, who had the same problem, in our game. What he wanted was realism ("I shoot the guy in the head"..etc) and he obviously didn't get it. So he whined and complained and basically we ended the short session. He realizes, I think, that it's not what he wants, so he doesn't play anymore.

So, tell this guy to go play FATAL LARP , or just explain to him that its a fantasy game, and that you have to accept certain things or not play.

 

[reapersaurus]

Second, most forms of rational, sit-down communication with him don't accomplish much. I haven't tried everything, I'm sure, but the few things I've tried have not been very fruitful. (It is especially impossible during gaming sessions - when he wants issues to be resolved - because there is no such thing as a quick conversation with this guy. Trying to explain things to him while gaming causes a complete shutdown of the game for at least a few minutes, sometimes an hour+.) Due to his personality, he is also incapable of realizing that he is being a jerk, so asking him to stop also doesn't work. He believes all of his actions are completely justified.

Wow - tough situation.
You have my sympathy, since it seems you've tried more approaches than you should have to to resolve this into a workable situation.

The only thing I can think of is to not pussy-foot around:
Have you sat aside with him (NOT during a game) and told him how his actions make it difficult for you to DM this game?

Maybe explain to him the bits of the DM guide (from memory - don't take the book out and shove his nose in it) that get across the difficulties his actions cause.

Unless you can enlist this kind of personality, I see no way of dodging the combative way his gaming style causes.
Plus, IME a CN person playing a CN character is IMPOSSIBLE to play with.
If there's any way you can force/implore him to play a character that is NOT like him, try it. If he is basically playing himself, than he will view everything in the game as an affront to him personally.

 

[Tinner]

Another constructive idea that I had while posting was to try to establish some kind of rule for immediately tabling rules-discussions mid-play, which will most likely help nip most of the problems in the bud before they become ugly. The problem, though, is that I quite honestly enjoy rules discussions and have at least two players that are quite handy with the rules, and I don't want to completely lose this aspect of the game. (I'm also aware that just singling out this one player and tabling only his discussions may lead to a questioning of why only he is picked on in that way...) Has anyone had experience in this type of maneuver?

Use those two rules-smart players to your advantage. Have them be your "Rules Council" if a rules argument comes up, the three of you take a second to decide what the ruling should be, and that's it. That eliminates whiny's chance to say "You're not being fair to me!' or imply that you alone are out to get him. I'd announce it by saying that since those two are the most knowledgeable about the rules, we're going to speed things up by using them to help arbitrate rules discussions.
Besides, three-on-one is much better odds than DM vs. Whiner.

Also, making everything said and done count as IC is an excellent one!
Players are much less likely to complain if they know their tantrum are live and in-character. It will help eliminate the meta-gaming too.

 

[evilbob]

You have my sympathy, since it seems you've tried more approaches than you should have to to resolve this into a workable situation.

Thank you, everyone for the sympathy. It does help at least some to hear other people say, "this does sound unreasonable."

The only thing I can think of is to not pussy-foot around:
Have you sat aside with him (NOT during a game) and told him how his actions make it difficult for you to DM this game?

I tried this once, after the time he swore to basically go CE on me. It didn't really go anywhere at the time, but I believe you're right in that persistance in this area will at least help a little.

If there's any way you can force/implore him to play a character that is NOT like him, try it. If he is basically playing himself, than he will view everything in the game as an affront to him personally.

Also good advice, and if I ever make the mistake of starting a game with him in it again in the future, I will at least make sure this rule is followed. I mean, I hate to limit character choices to players but I'm sure I could persuade him to try something new - again, if I were ever foolish enough to let this happen again.

Use those two rules-smart players to your advantage. ...three-on-one is much better odds than DM vs. Whiner.

True, and a good idea. I've sometimes tried this too - however, so far all this has done in the past is to encourage more discussion, and it gives him more people he can try to get to sympathize with his causes - which, from the advice in this thread, is clearly what I need to cut down on. I don't need to have 3 people bringing up ways to solve these issues, I need to just SOLVE THEM, one way or the other, and move on. I think the "all in the name of pacing" idea is a really good one.

Also, making everything said and done count as IC is an excellent one!

Ack! Can't work; see one of the previous posts.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

To be honest this thread sounds like the only thing we can tell you is "our condolances" for having to give into his childish antics and appease him however you have to, and suck it up I guess.

How old is this guy? If you can't even talk to him then I don't know what to say really. Tell him nobody is having fun if that is the case, and there is no point in playing the game if there isn't any fun. I found out long ago that no D&D is better than "unfun" D&D.

I'd have booted my own family members of lesser behavior to be honest. Do what you have to though. Good luck with it.

 

[scourger]

Having dealt with the selfish/problematic gamer, I can empathzie. It really boils down to 1 of 2 choices on your part, you're either: 1) willing to continue gaming with him or 2) not. So far, you've paid lip service to option 1 but tacitly chosen option 2. I would probably continue to schedule games on days he cannot play as long as possible. I've done this by refusing to run games that the selfish player will play exclusively. Otherwise, I have used the tactic of getting the player to tell me what he wants to do and then figuring out how it works. Giving the players all the options up front is a real game-stopper, and it's not really very reasonable. The players should know the basic rules; and the DM should know all the rules. And it infuriates me (as a fellow player or a DM) when the tactician player demands a "tap-back" when a course of action doesn't have favorable game mechanics or outcome. The line, "Oh well, I wouldn't have done that if I knew how the rules worked or that it would have a result other than the one I wanted," doesn't work with me. Life is too short and so is time at the gaming table not to have a good time. If there's a problem, get rid of it. If he can't or won't have fun then don't invite him to play. If the other players have a connection to him outside the game that precludes playing without him, they don't have to play either.

Like I said, I would probably just schedule games when he's not available. That's nice and passive-agressive!