How to Manage a Player

[Drawmack]

I too often read on these boards about it being the GMs game. The job of the GM is to facilitate the other people's fun. It takes a special type of person to GM well, you have to enjoy facilitating other people's enjoyment. I would individually talk to all of the players one-on-one and see how many of them want to continue the campaign and how strongly those who do not with to continue feel about it. Basically if you can continue and overall have a group who wants to continue then move forward. Otherwise, drop it.

After all you never know, this guy may just be the groups spokesman. So you're sitting there thinking okay one troublemaker when the truth is no one wants to continue and he is just the one saying it.

Remember: You are there for the players. Without them GMing is not a whole lot of fun.

 

[Odhanan]

I too often read on these boards about it being the GMs game. The job of the GM is to facilitate the other people's fun. It takes a special type of person to GM well, you have to enjoy facilitating other people's enjoyment. I would individually talk to all of the players one-on-one and see how many of them want to continue the campaign and how strongly those who do not with to continue feel about it. Basically if you can continue and overall have a group who wants to continue then move forward. Otherwise, drop it.

After all you never know, this guy may just be the groups spokesman. So you're sitting there thinking okay one troublemaker when the truth is no one wants to continue and he is just the one saying it.

Remember: You are there for the players. Without them GMing is not a whole lot of fun.

I totally agree.

The real issue here, in my opinion, is that, like other posters here pointed out, the game ended on a bad note which was left in the players' mind for two months. No wonder that in their opinion the game's dead.

The answer to any kind of situation where players opinions go against DM opinions is simple communication. Try to understand what's going on by talking to the "call it" player. Then you will hopefully have a much better understanding of what's going on and will be able to move on.

That's really my advice I think: make the most out of this poor experience and move on.

Also, it seems that at least this "call it" player is a kind of player who likes to have his characters make a significant difference in the flow of a game. See, I wouldn't call it a "winning type" player or even a "bad player": rather than brush the issue off as a "he's wrong, I'm right", you ought to understand the motivations of this guy and make them part of the campaign. Therefore, playing a game where the characters fight a loosing battle (Midnight) seems to me a poor choice of campaign thematic if the characters do not make a significant difference in this world, and quickly.

I think at least this player would be much happier with a campaign centered around their characters where they have a chance to impact significantly the world around them. You can't just forget about the main pillar of DMing: you got to have everyone enjoy the game, and that means you've got to work at it by incorporating the tastes of everyone around the table so that everyone feels like they are in a "comfort zone" when playing the game.

 

[Mark CMG]

The player who said "call it", turns to them, and says "that campaign's over". I pointed out to him that it's not. We'll be going back to it, and he says "it's over, it died in the last adventure".

"Those of us who are still going to play disagree." And leave it at that.

Anyways, I didn't want to confront him in front of the rest of the group, particularly since this particular night, we were playing at his house.

Are you walking on eggselss because his house is the only place to play?

Electrodes to the genitals always seem to work in this situation.

Oh, that might help him forget about the problematic player for a while but, sooner or later, he has to remove the electrodes and get back to DMing.



Huh?

 

[Emirikol]

Note that, in most societies, there isn't a difference. If you kill someone illegally, it's murder

So if you're outside of society and there are no laws and you hunt someone down and kill them is it murder? Just a philosophical question...

For example, you kill someone because they are a threat to your ability to hunt deer in the forest or because they wouldn't get out of the way of your charging horse during a sport-battle with a wild boar...

jh

 

[Odhanan]

So if you're outside of society and there are no laws and you hunt someone down and kill them is it murder? Just a philosophical question...

For example, you kill someone because they are a threat to your ability to hunt deer in the forest or because they wouldn't get out of the way of your charging horse during a sport-battle with a wild boar...

jh

To me, it is murder. That's why the term has been codified in actual law (moral, societal, religious and otherwise). Not the reverse.

 

[Banshee16]

I too often read on these boards about it being the GMs game. The job of the GM is to facilitate the other people's fun. It takes a special type of person to GM well, you have to enjoy facilitating other people's enjoyment. I would individually talk to all of the players one-on-one and see how many of them want to continue the campaign and how strongly those who do not with to continue feel about it. Basically if you can continue and overall have a group who wants to continue then move forward. Otherwise, drop it.

After all you never know, this guy may just be the groups spokesman. So you're sitting there thinking okay one troublemaker when the truth is no one wants to continue and he is just the one saying it.

Remember: You are there for the players. Without them GMing is not a whole lot of fun.

To the extent that it is the GM who typically spends the most money on the game out of all the players, and who is also the one spending the most time preparing for the game, yes, in some ways it is the GM's game.

The point about the spokesman is a valid point. Which is why I'm waiting for responses from some of the others.

With respect to the problem player, he's the kind of player who bends the rules to his advantage, but doesn't like the favour being returned...ie. once a particular rule is interpreted to his advantage, if someone else uses the same interpretation of the rules *against* him, all of a sudden, he changes what he feels the outcome should be.

That having been said, this is not the issue. The player calling the game over has been. I'll talk to the others, and see what they say, and decide from there.

Banshee

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

When I read "burn out" and "manage a player" the instant thought I had was these are related.

Just ditch him, somehow, but just ditch him.

 

[delericho]

In the middle of the fight, this problem player speaks up and says "just call it. The game's over".

...

Anyways, we're all saying our hellos and such, and people are chatting, and Swashbuckling Adventures comes up, because the two new guys are very interested in it. The player who said "call it", turns to them, and says "that campaign's over". I pointed out to him that it's not. We'll be going back to it, and he says "it's over, it died in the last adventure".

Okay, you need to have a long talk with this player. Point out to him that as DM you are not out to screw him or his character. Point out further that there will be times that bad things happen to PCs, and that if the dice happen to go the wrong way, or if the PCs do something unwise, then they will suffer as a consequence.

Then point out to him that if he wants to continue to play in your games, he has to accept that. And he has to be willing to accept it even if it leads to his character dying. If he cannot accept that, then it's best for all concerned if he leaves, with no hard feelings on either side.

(You'll probably want to phrase it rather differently than the above, but the gist is there.)

That was the last session of that game. I was unable to run the game for about 2 months, due to real life events.

However, the player is right - the game is dead. When the game has a bad night, as it did that night, it is imperative that you gather and play again at the next possible opportunity. Otherwise, the motivation just fizzles, and the campaign loses its appeal.

After 2 months, this is almost certainly the case here. So, I recommend just letting it go, chalking it up to experience, and starting a new campaign in the same setting with entirely new characters and a new storyline.

(And, yes, I know you were getting married, and that real life has to come first. That much is obvious. Sadly, though, in the context of the game it doesn't matter if you didn't run for two months due to a marriage, due to hospitalisation, due to being burnt out, or due to outrageous circumstance. The bottom line is, you didn't run the game for 2 months, and the corpse is almost certainly thoroughly cold by now.)