How do you make a player play a normal character?

[Mallus]

Walk softly and carry a big plot-hook...

Tough situation. About the only weapon I have in my arsenal to combat players who'd really rather game in their world than mine is story. Try tailoring situations so that the character becomes central to a major plotline, even if this entails mimicking some of his/her nuttiness. Involve the character. Try and get them to care more about the world as you create rather than what they've created in their own minds. Its a question of getting them out of their own head and into yours {ow, creepy sounding}, or rather, into a collaborative fiction that both of you are partners in.

I've had players with very different tastes/styles. With freakish backstories and or character themes {a certain deaf-mute illusonist comes to mind....} But ultimately, I've found that that as much as a player might love their character concept, they'd much prefer the dynamic storylines I'm give them to play in, over their own static histories.

I always chalk up this kind of extreme RP'ing to a lack of invlovement on the players part. Once the get invloved, care about the NPC's, plots, adventure, etc, then you've got them hook, line and sinker. And the craziness tends to go away. Usually.

 

[Sinistar]

This is a hard one. I understand what you are saying though. I have a friend that no matter what the game, always plays the same type of character. In his case, no one can know anything about his character. Either he has no name (not a false name, no name), or is wearing a full body mask, or some other mysterious cover. There is never any real reason for it (he doesn't play assassins or anything), just he likes the mystery.

The only way we have handled it so far is to ignore it. We give the character a name (usually slightly mean) and call it that regardless of the number of times he mentions that we don't know the character's name. We don't ever make it a point as characters to be interested one whit in why the character has no name or is inscrutable. It doesn't seem to stop him, but it keeps it from annoying us any more than just peripherally.

Not a solution as much as consolation...

 

[Quickbeam]

I completely agree with Psion, and concur with the sentiment that removing the player should be avoided in this situation. Talking with your friends about uncomfortable topics may not be easy, but it shouldn't jeopardize the relationship either. If you approach him in an open and honest manner, giving him a framework in which he can solve the problems created by his characters/roleplaying style, things should work themselves out.

I've played with one or two people a little overboard myself, and they have always responded well to sincere requests for help in making sure the game is fun for everyone.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Pathetic is suggesting that everyone else change just to keep one person happy. Being friends goes both ways. If the actions of one person upsets the fun that several others are having it does no one any good to make everyone change just for the one persons benefit.

That puts the entire group hostage to any one person who is in the mood to be a jerk.

Wait a minute... Some people are saying to remove him from the group? Your FRIEND? It seems to me that there are a lot of people forgetting that we're talking about GAMING here. Gaming, the point of which is to have fun, correct?

If this guy is a good friend, I think you would be making a stupid move to remove him from your gaming group because of character incompatibility in a role-playing GAME.

I think when one is ready to exclude a friend from a group based on the way he roleplays, it is time to reassess the situation. This is gaming... it's about fun. When a friend is getting asked to leave, you have stepped into the realm of the pathetic.

I hate to have this sound like a flame, but seriously... if you're willing to exclude friends to enhance your role-playing experience... you need to get out more.

[edit]
By the way, there are some fantastic, non-player-removal ideas from people in this thread, that I myself may even implement in one of my games. Way to go folks!

 

[Sir Edgar]

Sounds like a DM-Player mismatch to me.

 

[JesterPoet]

Pathetic is suggesting that everyone else change just to keep one person happy. Being friends goes both ways. If the actions of one person upsets the fun that several others are having it does no one any good to make everyone change just for the one persons benefit.

That puts the entire group hostage to any one person who is in the mood to be a jerk.

Nope, I still have to disagree with you there. When smooth gaming becomes more important than a friendship, that's pretty sad. Gaming is not important. Friendships are.

Though it is unfair of him to be totally obnoxious with his character. However, none of us are actually there to know that's the case. He sounds creative to me, but again, I don't know how disruptive he is.

Also, we don't know for sure that his actions are making the game not fun for the whole group. We only know they're bothering the GM.

 

[Voneth]

I have a friend who very much like this, but a little more direct. He says he is avoiding "cliche" characters by doing something like insisting he plays a 16-year old psionic prodgy in a party of overly serious special ops guys.

Or insisting he plays a "enemy spy" for the other side and he promises that he'll eventualy be won over to the side of the party. Yet, his instance to do things his way with no teamwork alienates him and his "love" for the group never develops -- even on a "okay my PC has to like these guys because we are the gaming group."

Yet in the game he GMs, no one is allowed to step out of line on his PC guidelines unless it obviously enhances his story – and he knows the difference.

Long story short, the guy is being disruptive as a player and he knows it. He’s a great guy, but as a player he acts in a way that it’s a power game and an ploy to hog attention.

The best idea I have to offer:
It’s natural to let everyone make their own “ideal” PC for a game. This unfortunately leads to a mish mash of characters who most of the time have to meet in a bar because they have no connection.

A better idea is two run two games. One game will be run as usual, the other game you will tell everyone where you sort of hope to go with the theme and mood of this second game and then have the WHOLE group sit down and design their PCs as a team with back story and with each party member’s function spelled out. There are still ways he can try to wiggle out of this such as amnesia with an insistence to remain amnesiatic, or he could insist that he wants to keep a secret from the other players (in that case tell him the group CAN keep PC and player info separate).

But if he keeps trying to wiggle out of it, then it’s obvious that he considers his “metagame” more important than the enjoyment of the group as a whole. Either call his bluff, or bluff him and tell him that he can play in your group’s first game, but not the second game. My suggestion for the “first” game would be a weekly hack n’ slash, where his zanniness would fit right in. You buddy gets a game where no one cares about their PCs, so everyone is a little laid back and silly anyway, but your group also gets some serious RPG time without the prima donna.

Second better ideas:
1. Another idea is that you let him tank a game so he can get the credit he deserves. I had a game that I was designing on weekly basis (sort of like a TV show). I warned the group from the start that if they did anything stupid to each other in the world, they could be dead. The guy I mentioned before tried to push it, and finally figured out that I was serious. He backed off when it was going to be pretty easy to pin him for ruining the game. I realize that some people would actually get off on tanking a game, and if it turns out he’s one of them, I think your group will have second thoughts – or at least an much better excuse to exclude him.

2. Play a game with a zany premise, like Paranoia. Then everyone can have a fetish for missing shoes.

Worst idea:
The guy I mention above pretty much tanked a game of mine. So I entered into one of his games with a very similar character. Not exactly mature. Funny enough in his game, he didn’t put up with the attitude and it caused frustration. I eventually gave in, apologized for my behavior and played more in line. The funny thing was that this guy’s next PC in my next game was a little more toned down, still a potential troublemaker. And he also pushed to see if he could really tank the game (see above). He did mellow out, and then he stopped showing up. Problem solved and I still have a friendship, but I wouldn’t do it this way again.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Ah, you just have to love a hypocrite.

Worst idea:
The guy I mention above pretty much tanked a game of mine. So I entered into one of his games with a very similar character. Not exactly mature. Funny enough in his game, he didn’t put up with the attitude and it caused frustration. I eventually gave in, apologized for my behavior and played more in line. The funny thing was that this guy’s next PC in my next game was a little more toned down, still a potential troublemaker. And he also pushed to see if he could really tank the game (see above). He did mellow out, and then he stopped showing up. Problem solved and I still have a friendship, but I wouldn’t do it this way again.

 

[the Jester]

Nope, I still have to disagree with you there. When smooth gaming becomes more important than a friendship, that's pretty sad. Gaming is not important. Friendships are.

Though it is unfair of him to be totally obnoxious with his character. However, none of us are actually there to know that's the case. He sounds creative to me, but again, I don't know how disruptive he is.

Also, we don't know for sure that his actions are making the game not fun for the whole group. We only know they're bothering the GM.

Well, I'd say you can kick a player out of the group for the sake of having a good game and still keep them as a friend...

No reason that you can't have friends you don't game with, and no reason you can't have a good game without all your friends.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I am going to take a stand on the issue of disruptive players, and here it is:

A disruptive player is breaking the social contract that underlies the game, and should either shape up or ship out.

I don't care if the player if your friend, your brother, or your spouse. There are certain rules that underly our ability to socialize - whether at a dinner party or playing D&D.

At a dinner party, you are expected to show up more or less on time, bring a side dish or a bottle of wine, make pleasant conversation, and depart before it gets ridiculously late. Those are the socially acceptable ways that people have dinner together.

Let's take another example.

Suppose my "friend" shows up to play Monopoly with me. But, he wants to go backwards around the board. And he wants to start with $10,000. And he wants to keep track of his position on the board secretly, because his piece is "invisible". And, when he gets tired of the game, he picks up the Monopoly board and throws it across the room. That is not acceptable, and I would not want to play Monopoly with that guy any more.

D&D has its own social norms. You're expected to follow the rules of the game. You're expected (in most games) to work with your fellow players against common foes. You're expected to make the game fun for everyone, not just for yourself. If you can't handle that, then find another group, because you are not welcome in my game.