Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6391832" data-attributes="member: 1210">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. 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.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.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. 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification