How to deal with an unproductive player?

[ourchair]

I'm a relatively new DM who's always struggling to improve his synergy with other people and players (as opposed to wrestling with the rules, that's not a problem) and I've got a problem:

I have a player who is generally a problem when it comes to allowing the entire party to make meaningful progress. It's hard to describe so instead I'll just cite various problem scenarios and let you guys do the diagnosis (there's my Psych degree talking):

* I'm unable to tell whether he's being in character or making a crack and sometimes that leads to mistakes on my part but regardless, I need to verify his remarks in most matters outside of combat. I've taken to making NPCs mock him whenever he behaves in a 'silly' fashion, but I'm thinking that the way in which the world reacts to him needs to be stepped up to something more consequential.

* In the interest of 'letting the rest of the party know' he routinely parrots what I say when providing check-induced lore results or flat out leading his character along through narration. (i.e. Me: "You know that the nearest Ghallanda operated rest house is the Broken Anvil, two miles north of here." Him: "The nearest Ghallanda operated rest house is two miles north of here. It's called the Broken Anvil.") Sometimes it can be disruptive as it really seems more like a cheap play for laughs.

* He's subtly uncooperative or bossy about what he wants to do, and on occasion the things are nonsensical for his own amusement. The rest of the players don't mind him, but I think it detracts from party synergy. He will split the party, start bar fights, skin the carcasses of aberrants, wolves and any other creature in the hopes of selling them for loot and for the most part none of these actions further their goals, and eats up precious table time, as opposed to other players who conduct research, use their tools to perform forensics or take time out to consult NPCs.

I think the problem really is that he has this idea of what role-playing is, based on an Internet concept of it ("Can I Intimidate? I skin the giant and try to sell it for monies! What the merchant won't buy it? Intimidate! If I put a wolf carcass on my shoulder do I get a plus to Intimidate?") and is generally playing it up for laughs and is only playing because he needs to be the center of attention, which the rest of the players are all too willing to let him.

I don't want to make it look like I'm forcing my own campaign goals on him, but I lack experience in teaching players about how game behavior reflects on their character's in-world status, as well as how to handle this behavior on a metagame level.

 

[FireLance]

I think that the DMG has some good advice: see DMG page 8 on player motivations (the player in question seems to be an Instigator) and DMG page 32 on problem players (the player in question seems to be in between an out-of-control player and a prima donna).

At the risk of repeating the advice there, I would suggest that you talk to the player outside of the game and let him know how his behavior makes it less enjoyable for you as a DM to run the game. Use less forceful "I feel ..." and "I think ..." statements instead of the more aggressive "You ..." statements, and ask him whether he could help you out by toning down his behavior a little. Don't make it seem as if you are trying to curtail his fun, but try to come across as trying to find a compromise that will allow both of you to enjoy your gaming sessions.

Hopefully, he will be reasonable and at least make an attempt to cut down on the behavior that you find disruptive. If he won't, or he can't, it may be better for both of you to recognize that his player style isn't compatible with your DMing style and that he shouldn't play in the games that you run.

 

[ourchair]

I think that the DMG has some good advice: see DMG page 8 on player motivations (the player in question seems to be an Instigator) and DMG page 32 on problem players (the player in question seems to be in between an out-of-control player and a prima donna).

At the risk of repeating the advice there, I would suggest that you talk to the player outside of the game and let him know how his behavior makes it less enjoyable for you as a DM to run the game. Use less forceful "I feel ..." and "I think ..." statements instead of the more aggressive "You ..." statements, and ask him whether he could help you out by toning down his behavior a little. Don't make it seem as if you are trying to curtail his fun, but try to come across as trying to find a compromise that will allow both of you to enjoy your gaming sessions.

Hopefully, he will be reasonable and at least make an attempt to cut down on the behavior that you find disruptive. If he won't, or he can't, it may be better for both of you to recognize that his player style isn't compatible with your DMing style and that he shouldn't play in the games that you run.

While I never forget the pages on motivations -- and the in depth exploration given to it in the Player's Strategy Guide -- I had completely forgotten that the DMG had pages on out of control players.

I'm going to try to read the Player's Strategy Guide a bit more as well to see if it explores how Instigators can curtail their behavior to allow other players to fulfill their desires.

Thanks!

 

[Bradley Hindman]

He will split the party, start bar fights, skin the carcasses of aberrants, wolves and any other creature in the hopes of selling them for loot and for the most part none of these actions further their goals, and eats up precious table time, as opposed to other players who conduct research, use their tools to perform forensics or take time out to consult NPCs.

As has already been mentioned, this player sounds like an attention seeker. So . . . only reward him with attention when he acts in a constructive way. Players can be just like children and dogs. Bad attention is better than no attention; therefore, they will sometimes act up just to make you react. If you ignore the bad behavior but reward the good, you have removed the reward for being a nuisance.

In your example above, I wouldn't object to his skinning every creature in sight. Your objections and arguments just give him attention. In your place, I would rapidly acknowledge the skinning and move on, "OK, you skin the wolves. Now what do you all plan on doing now that the goblins clearly know your location?" When he goes to sell the pelts, you don't let him dicker. You just quickly narrate the event and give him no reward of your time. "Alright, you sell your pelts. I'll tell you how much you receive later." What ever you do, don't let him make any skill checks or rolls when behaving badly.

 

[chitzk0i]

...and is only playing because he needs to be the center of attention...

I had a player like this. He was absolutely unattached to his characters and wanted to swap out for a new one once his character's schtick failed to grab attention. He constantly joked and poked fun. After other players complained about how disruptive he was, I pulled him aside and talked to him about it. He made an effort to improve, but before long he was actually more disruptive than before. So I told him that if he couldn't improve, he wouldn't be welcome in the game any longer. After that, he shaped up.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'm a relatively new DM who's always struggling to improve his synergy with other people and players (as opposed to wrestling with the rules, that's not a problem) and I've got a problem:

I have a player who is generally a problem when it comes to allowing the entire party to make meaningful progress. It's hard to describe so instead I'll just cite various problem scenarios and let you guys do the diagnosis (there's my Psych degree talking):

Personally, I don't see the big deal here. This seems to me, like something that happens in almost every gaming group. It happens in ours, and I don't think it is disruptive. Perhaps I am not fully grasping what you are describing...

* I'm unable to tell whether he's being in character or making a crack and sometimes that leads to mistakes on my part but regardless, I need to verify his remarks in most matters outside of combat. I've taken to making NPCs mock him whenever he behaves in a 'silly' fashion, but I'm thinking that the way in which the world reacts to him needs to be stepped up to something more consequential.

In every gaming group I've been in, this occurs. People talk out of character all the time. If he makes a quip or joke, simply ask, "Is your character saying this or are you talking out of character?" And if he tells you he is saying things in-character, have the NPCs act appropriately.

* In the interest of 'letting the rest of the party know' he routinely parrots what I say when providing check-induced lore results or flat out leading his character along through narration. (i.e. Me: "You know that the nearest Ghallanda operated rest house is the Broken Anvil, two miles north of here." Him: "The nearest Ghallanda operated rest house is two miles north of here. It's called the Broken Anvil.") Sometimes it can be disruptive as it really seems more like a cheap play for laughs.

Again, I even do this. It's not to be meant as a joke (at least not when I do it). You are just playing in-character, and re-explaining in your character's own words what the DM just told every body. In fact, there may be info the DM let slip (that the player's heard) that I don't want my allies to know (for whatever reason) and I will relay it in my own words, ommitting or adding to it what I will. After all, I made the check, not my allies, so they only know what my character tells them.

* He's subtly uncooperative or bossy about what he wants to do, and on occasion the things are nonsensical for his own amusement. The rest of the players don't mind him, but I think it detracts from party synergy. He will split the party, start bar fights, skin the carcasses of aberrants, wolves and any other creature in the hopes of selling them for loot and for the most part none of these actions further their goals, and eats up precious table time, as opposed to other players who conduct research, use their tools to perform forensics or take time out to consult NPCs.

This can be slightly disruptive, but if he is starting bar fights, why aren't the authorities involved? As for skinning, it seems like he is wanting to make a profit, nothing wrong with that. Yes, it is silly if he is wearing skinned animal pelts and hoping to get a bonus to Intimidate checks, in fact, I'd give him a penalty for something like that.

Most of what you say though, I don't see a big disruption. Are you sure you aren't taking things out of context?

 

[Kingreaper]

On the issue of him repeating the info you give him: consider writing it down. If he's just doing it to be silly, he'll ask you to go back to just saying the info. If not, give him the written stuff and let him tell the others in character. Why not?

Doing this might* actually help with the spotlight hogging elsewhere, because you're HANDING him the spotlight in some situations, and most people are reasonable enough to accept that they only need a certain amount of spotlight.


*probably not, but worth a try.

 

[Samir]

* I'm unable to tell whether he's being in character or making a crack and sometimes that leads to mistakes on my part but regardless, I need to verify his remarks in most matters outside of combat. I've taken to making NPCs mock him whenever he behaves in a 'silly' fashion, but I'm thinking that the way in which the world reacts to him needs to be stepped up to something more consequential.

The easiest way to deal with this is say "do you actually say that to him?" (say it with a slight smirk or grin, so it's playfully threatening) when he makes a ridiculous remark, and if he responds "yes" then have the NPCs act accordingly. Maybe they think he's weird, maybe he gets minuses to his diplomacy check, maybe the town guard come and carry him away (adventure hook!). After a few times he might answer "no" when you ask him that question.

* In the interest of 'letting the rest of the party know' he routinely parrots what I say when providing check-induced lore results or flat out leading his character along through narration. (i.e. Me: "You know that the nearest Ghallanda operated rest house is the Broken Anvil, two miles north of here." Him: "The nearest Ghallanda operated rest house is two miles north of here. It's called the Broken Anvil.") Sometimes it can be disruptive as it really seems more like a cheap play for laughs.

He's under no obligation to tell anybody else in the party what he knows, so him actually saying it is both affirming that he lets everybody else in on it and also probably a cheap play for laughs. If nobody's laughing, then it's not particularly disruptive, and he'll get bored of it eventually; if everybody's laughing, then your other players are enjoying it, and this problem player may not be the only problem at all. (See below.)

* He's subtly uncooperative or bossy about what he wants to do, and on occasion the things are nonsensical for his own amusement. The rest of the players don't mind him, but I think it detracts from party synergy. He will split the party, start bar fights, skin the carcasses of aberrants, wolves and any other creature in the hopes of selling them for loot and for the most part none of these actions further their goals, and eats up precious table time, as opposed to other players who conduct research, use their tools to perform forensics or take time out to consult NPCs.

This is where consequences need to come into play. If he does something seriously strange in-game (and confirms that that is what he really wants to do) then NPCs should respond realistically. (See below.)

I think the problem really is that he has this idea of what role-playing is, based on an Internet concept of it ("Can I Intimidate? I skin the giant and try to sell it for monies! What the merchant won't buy it? Intimidate! If I put a wolf carcass on my shoulder do I get a plus to Intimidate?") and is generally playing it up for laughs and is only playing because he needs to be the center of attention, which the rest of the players are all too willing to let him.

Intimidate usually makes a target hostile, so if he actually does that he might not get any money at all for anything else, either. The bolded part is important, and I'll get to that in a bit.

I don't want to make it look like I'm forcing my own campaign goals on him, but I lack experience in teaching players about how game behavior reflects on their character's in-world status, as well as how to handle this behavior on a metagame level.

To me, it sounds like the problem isn't only this one particular player. It sounds like the tone you're striving for isn't the tone your players are striving for. Your "unproductive" player is poking fun at the game, but the other players are going along with it and enjoying his antics: they're having fun, it seems.

The problem is that you want the players to move along your storyline, and you want the tone of the campaign to be more serious.

IMO, the best way to achieve this is two steps.

1) In-game: Actions yield consequences, good or bad. You mentioned this solution before and this is something I'm sure the other posters will elaborate on. If a PC in your campaign intimidates a merchant in a well-traveled city, that's probably going to land him in jail. Have the merchant call on the town guard. Turn it into an adventure. Don't think of it as derailing your story, think of it as expanding your story. Make it up as you go.

2) Out of game: Tell him to tone it down a little. Speak to him one-on-one. Let him know in a friendly way that your campaign is about to get more serious and you'd appreciate it if he just toned his character down a little with the wise-cracks. He should take the hint.

 

[ourchair]

I had a player like this. He was absolutely unattached to his characters and wanted to swap out for a new one once his character's schtick failed to grab attention. He constantly joked and poked fun. After other players complained about how disruptive he was, I pulled him aside and talked to him about it. He made an effort to improve, but before long he was actually more disruptive than before. So I told him that if he couldn't improve, he wouldn't be welcome in the game any longer. After that, he shaped up.

It's a little different in that we're not trying to be an all too serious game and my 3/5 of my party lineup are newbies, and he's not trying to be disruptive or swap out characters.

As it is, most everyone is still on the stage of "Wow, what is this cool make believe thing," I just need to be able to GM without having to double check everytime he does or says something in character or does or says something for and giggles.

Most of what you say though, I don't see a big disruption. Are you sure you aren't taking things out of context?

More likely I'm not communicating the problems in context, so perhaps it's a failure on my part in depicting it. Sit-in observers have noticed the same problem.

As has already been mentioned, this player sounds like an attention seeker. So . . . only reward him with attention when he acts in a constructive way. Players can be just like children and dogs. Bad attention is better than no attention; therefore, they will sometimes act up just to make you react. If you ignore the bad behavior but reward the good, you have removed the reward for being a nuisance.

In your example above, I wouldn't object to his skinning every creature in sight. Your objections and arguments just give him attention. In your place, I would rapidly acknowledge the skinning and move on, "OK, you skin the wolves. Now what do you all plan on doing now that the goblins clearly know your location?" When he goes to sell the pelts, you don't let him dicker. You just quickly narrate the event and give him no reward of your time. "Alright, you sell your pelts. I'll tell you how much you receive later." What ever you do, don't let him make any skill checks or rolls when behaving badly.

Your first post and it's the best advice I've heard!

As a Psych major, I relate to the pedagogical approach to the situation, so yeah, I'm just going to take your advice and withhold all attention from unconstructive actions and words, rather than try to adhere to some kind of simulationist verisimilitude that indulges a player being arbitrary.

Sit-in observers have noticed that he shrugs or stops acting out when I fail to give him attention, but of course, when you're busy GMing you can't observe that, so your advice complements the situation perfectly. Take what the player gives you and then assess whether its worth dignifying table time or not then move on.

On the issue of him repeating the info you give him: consider writing it down. If he's just doing it to be silly, he'll ask you to go back to just saying the info. If not, give him the written stuff and let him tell the others in character. Why not?

Not a bad idea. I'd try it, if my handwriting weren't so shoddy. I do have a liking for writing flavor text, so perhaps I can at least reward an interest in meaningful character-speaking by giving him a lot of lore responsibilities. Especially since his character has taken the time out to read the Korranberg Chronicle and Sharn Inquisitive.