Disruptive Player Issues

[Animus]

Hello,

I have a situation that I want to get input on. I'm runnning a campaign with four players, three of which I have gamed with on and off for four years now. The fourth is a friend of mine that I have known for a few years, but have not gamed with until now. As it turns out, as great of a friend he is, he is a VERY disruptive player. In one session (I'm running an Urban Arcana campaign), his character went off by himself without telling the rest of the party, and planted explosives in a building that serves as the meeting place for the enemy organization. BTW, this was supposed to be a surveilance mission. BTW, he he told nobody else that he was going off. Then, when he came back (from the location nobody else knew about), he bothered NOT to tell them and go out for coffee! Needless to say, when the FBI knocked on the charaters' hotel room door, they were clueless, and shall we say, pissed. And that was just one of his escapades. The group and I are deabating what we should do about him since we had a long talk with him last night and it didn't seem to get through his head. Any suggestions?

 

[Crothian]

Have his character arrested. Allow the FBI to get some proof and make him face the consequences of his actions.

 

[shilsen]

Let the other PCs deal with it in-game and in all likelihood absolutely refuse to work with his PC. Make it clear to him that it's what their characters would do.

 

[Sejs]

Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm failing to see how his actions are disruptive. Did he set off the explosives, or just set them up? What was the character's motivations for doing such? Insurance? Didn't understand the mission objectives (surveilance rather than engagement)? I'm going to guess that the characters are working for the FBI, and that they were watching the building in question, yes? And that this character's bomb-setting shenanagans made them somewhat nervous. But why did they come to the other PCs and not the bomb-setter?

 

[Animus]

Let me make further clarifications.

The characters are working for Department-7, and the enemy group has high level contacts in the FBI. The mission was surveilance only , and they had already been in and out there once (my apologies for not explaining before). He was going back for no other reason than to "plant a little gift" for these guys, which was never in the plan. He was caught on tape and spotted, and the bad guys sent the FBI after him and the group what he's associated with. Hopefully that clears things up a little bit.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

If you don't have anything go wrong with his actions, then he'll just continue to do it. Next time have him be seen or get caught. Better yet, let the other players (who don't have anything else to do) play the enemy security forces. Once the player in question sees he's got everyone stacked against him, he'll think twice about going solo next time.

 

[Umbran]

Any suggestions?

Yes. Very simple - actions have consequences. Make sure they are applied.

As far as I can tell, the issue in the example above is that the consequences fell upon the other members of the gaming group, rather than upon the errant PC.

Somehow, he got in laden with explosives, wandered around to set them, and got out. All unassisted?

It seems that one thing you can do is set your challenges a little tougher. An action like this should have required teamwork. The security on the site was weak. If the challenge was properly designed for the group, going alone he should have gotten repelled, caught or killed.

 

[Animus]

Yes. Very simple - actions have consequences. Make sure they are applied.

As far as I can tell, the issue in the example above is that the consequences fell upon the other members of the gaming group, rather than upon the errant PC.

Somehow, he got in laden with explosives, wandered around to set them, and got out. All unassisted?

It seems that one thing you can do is set your challenges a little tougher. An action like this should have required teamwork. The security on the site was weak. If the challenge was properly designed for the group, going alone he should have gotten repelled, caught or killed.

You are right, I should have made it harder, but I had a temporary lapse in judgement (called sympathy), and let him get away with it (for the most part). And yes, that character is no longer with us, as he was assasinated by an aquaintance of one of the other PCs (I probably didn't make that clear in my first post).

Also, like I said before, this wasn't his first offense, just his latest and most disruptive.

What I'm really getting at is, when does one cross the line from being just a little "different," to being totally disruptive? I honestly have never had to deal with this before.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think you cross the line if you continue even after the others (and/or the DM) talked to you about it. Before, you might just not have known you were in error. But after that, you know it and continue out of spite.

 

[milotha]

Usually these players continue their disruptive streak no matter what happens. I've seen this happen on a couple of occasions, but maybe I'm wrong.

As others have suggested, try imposing some consequences on the character. This doesn't necessarily have to be character death. Try giving him some enemies, or a disadvantage of some variety, let the other PCs catch him in the act.

You can also have the other players talk to him outside of the game, or spend some time talking to him about play styles.

I've also seem some GMs just start ignoring the players suggestions or having disruptive actions not work, and then reward the player for nondisruptive actions. This doesn't always work.