Gaming through denial

[DrunkonDuty]

I can only assume that the PC in question comes across a bit like Emily Howard from Little Britain. Here's an example on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INj6HPuKJnk

Greenfield, I am surprised you are still playing with this <insert swearing here> person. But I'm also glad you are because these tales are hilarious. I read them and it reminds me that the social retardism I have to deal with is pretty minimal all things considered.

Good luck.

 

[obijon_kenobi]

I like the "Ignore The Idiot" method of dealing with this sort of problem player.

"You think everyone thinks you're a man, but infuriatingly, the serving girl keeps calling you 'Miss' "

*later*

"As you strain futilely to reach the surface, you begin to question the wisdom of jumping overboard whilst clad in armor."

"But I took it off earlier!"

"The burning in your lungs is unbearable, and your vision fills with a kaleidoscope of alternating dark and light starbursts as your brain begins to suffer the effects of oxygen deprivation. I sincerely hope you have a knife with which to start sawing at armor straps."

I've found if you want to keep the Attention Addict archetype player at the table, you have to deny them their fix, just like any other addict. If you're not interested in rehabilitating them into decent players, you have to cut them loose.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I like the "Ignore The Idiot" method of dealing with this sort of problem player.

"You think everyone thinks you're a man, but infuriatingly, the serving girl keeps calling you 'Miss' "

This made me laugh.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

[PF][/PF]

I've found if you want to keep the Attention Addict archetype player at the table, you have to deny them their fix, just like any other addict. If you're not interested in rehabilitating them into decent players, you have to cut them loose.

I disagree on a couple points:
1) Deny an addict their fix *without them wanting to rehabilitate* will result in conflict and at least drive the player away in a very passive-aggressive manner.
2) Attention Addicts can be decent players as they are, they just have to be channeled properly {like pretty much all the other 'disruptive' archtypes}, which usually means ensuring that thier characters are also Attention Addicts
3) Its not anybodies job to 'rehabilitate them into decent players'. Someone in the group should offer to mentor a player who is disruptive to the group, just remember that mentorship is based on mutual respect.

4) What is more disruptive (a) the players idiosyncracys or (b) the rules/timing arguments that occur in response

Upthread I recommended a simple fix for the gender thing... she has an easy time disguising as a man because she looks 'male'. So walking around/bathing/etc can be done in the guise of 'male'. But no-one will believe her when she wants to be 'female' and she has to disuise herself to appear female {with the cross-gender penalty}.

I also recommended a fix for the armor thing, since there was a long break between scenes it is conceivable that she took the armor off in between scenes. No big deal.
If the situation comes up where she is determined to wear normal armor underwater, she drowns and dies. Again, no big deal.

Bottom line, don't try to fix the player.. tweak the game and how things are presented... then embrace the Attention Addict as you can predict and plan for reactions that drive the story the direction you want it to go.

side note
[sblock]
In case you were thinking these ideas are from some 'nice' DM.. no. Once had an Attention Addict playing a 2e Paladin wearing +5 Holy Plate Mail and a +5 Large steel shield {he cheated in building the character} in a game that ventured into the swamp. He was adamant that since magic armor 'does not encumber the character', that meant it did not weigh anything and he could blithely walk into the swamp.
I, the GM, disagreed and was backed up by the entire rest of the group, stating basically "plate mail weighs around 400 pounds, enter the swamp and you will sink and die. You need to either leave the armor here or build a raft that can carry you". He chose to walk into the swamp. The character sank and died {no saving roll due to the lengthy argument about this} and the group moved on.
He ranted and was upset, but didn't leave the group immediately. He left after the Paladin's replacement was killed, a Ranger with the same stats and the same level of magic items {he cheated again}.
That this session was a challenge game I called 'So you want to kill a dragon' and everyone's character died didn't matter to him. It might have been the Ranger being killed by some lowly lizardmen and their pet giant crocs... not sure. Didn't care enough to ask. He was the one that chose to stand waist deep in front of a burning pile of rock during a night-time ambush and fire arrows into the darkness while spears and arrows often found their mark with him nicely outlined against the dancing flames, and crocs nipping at his heels. {waist deep = no dex to AC, the flames countered the bonus of being a smaller target.. again rules he disagreed with}

My guiding rule of thumb is that when a character dies, the player can trace the cause back to a decision they made, or a string of really bad dice rolls. Walk into a swamp with heavy armor on... die. Stand in the center of the kill zone during a well planned ambush... die. Assault a Dragon's lair...die.
Its all pretty simple

There is tweaking the game to accomadate attention addicts... and there is throwing the game to the winds of capriciousness. I recommend the former and not the latter unless you are playing Toon, CHUD, or Macho Women With Guns.

[/sblock]

 

[the Jester]

1) Deny an addict their fix *without them wanting to rehabilitate* will result in conflict and at least drive the player away in a very passive-aggressive manner.

Honestly, when you have a player like this, that's just fine with me. You don't need a disruptive player who is refusing to play by the same rules as the rest of the group at the table.

2) Attention Addicts can be decent players as they are, they just have to be channeled properly {like pretty much all the other 'disruptive' archtypes}, which usually means ensuring that thier characters are also Attention Addicts

They can be, yes. But from what we've heard, this one isn't. This one wants to hog all the table time, ignore the rules, get bonuses without paying for them and fight with the DM. This player, in short, doesn't sound like she's worth the effort to keep.

3) Its not anybodies job to 'rehabilitate them into decent players'. Someone in the group should offer to mentor a player who is disruptive to the group, just remember that mentorship is based on mutual respect.

Or... no. No, that player can take responsibility for her own actions and learn to play well with others WITHOUT forcing someone else to mind them. I know that if I was in a group with this kind of player and the DM suggested that another player take over the task of mentoring the crappy player, I would have zero interest in volunteering. Isn't my game time better spent gaming and having fun- doing what I am there for in the first place- than playing hall monitor? No way.

4) What is more disruptive (a) the players idiosyncracys or (b) the rules/timing arguments that occur in response

If the rules/timing arguments come as a direct result of the player's "idiosyncrasies", what's the difference? You still have to correct the player, unless you're going to knuckle under and give her the (unfair to the other players) treatment that she demands.

Upthread I recommended a simple fix for the gender thing... she has an easy time disguising as a man because she looks 'male'. So walking around/bathing/etc can be done in the guise of 'male'. But no-one will believe her when she wants to be 'female' and she has to disuise herself to appear female {with the cross-gender penalty}.

Again, the issue isn't with the disguised gender, it's with the player wanting to be able to do things without paying for them in in-game currency (e.g. skill points), and insisting on dictating the other pcs' reactions ("no, you think I'm female").

You don't want to pay for the skill points to disguise yourself, everyone can see through your disguise.

I also recommended a fix for the armor thing, since there was a long break between scenes it is conceivable that she took the armor off in between scenes. No big deal.
If the situation comes up where she is determined to wear normal armor underwater, she drowns and dies. Again, no big deal.

Sorry, but I can't disagree more here- once you've shown how you will handle a situation as DM, you've set a precedent that the pcs expect you to follow. I feel that it's verging on downright unfair to change the rules after establishing them.

Bottom line, don't try to fix the player.. tweak the game and how things are presented... then embrace the Attention Addict as you can predict and plan for reactions that drive the story the direction you want it to go.

And another hell no from me. Tweaking the game to keep a bad player is a terrible move. Tweaking the game to appease this kind of player only instructs them to keep up the b.s. It teaches them that they will get what they want by being disruptive and rewards them for it while punishing the other players by showing them that the loudest, most obnoxious player who is willing to be the biggest butthead will get the most attention and will have the game slanted to appeal more to her.

Of course, I do think it's absolutely a good thing to make sure the game appeals to the kinds of players you want in it, but I have no patience at all with this sort of player. There are some attention hog players who are good players, who understand that they have to share the spotlight and play by the rules. I'm fine with those ones, and if the player described in the OP was one of them I would be all for a little gentle correction. But Greenfield has already tied a little gentle correction, and the response was "Nuh-uh!!" So no, no way, no way at all would I change the game to accommodate the problem. I'd give the problem a serious out-of-game talking to; then, if that didn't work, I'd give the problem the boot from my table. I've learned over the years that it's far preferable to do that than to have someone who makes the rest of the group uncomfortable or unhappy, and especially that it's preferable to give someone the boot rather than to give them special treatment. I've seen the whole "If that happens, I quit!!" tantrum before, and I'm comfortable telling the tantrum-thrower to go ahead and walk.