Player challenging DM authority and competative

[Mummolus]

So, has anyone suggested yet that the DM compromise with the player? Let him play whatever he wants, then proceed to kill it ruthlessly. Repeat and rinse. Characters will perish in droves until the player finally creates the DM is happy with.

There was a time when this was the obvious, routine, and automatic way to handle any character issues. We've gotten soft.

This is a terrible idea. If the player is genuinely turning everything into a competition, then it's only going to make him angrier and more uncooperative, simultaneously making the DM in question look petty and vindictive. If the problem is solvable now, it wouldn't be after this sort of behavior.

Going that route will not only ruin the game for the DM and the player in question, it'll frustrate and upset the others as they gradually take sides or lose interest altogether. It's a sure way to poison the game environment.

If you decide the player needs to go, make sure the others in the group see that you're trying to be reasonable about it. Don't go on a rampage against his characters, because that will only convince your group that they can't express their legitimate concerns without risk of suffering the same fate.

 

[vagabundo]

This should be something the group decides. If his behavior is lowering the fun level for everyone then the group will decides. You're the GM not the parent. You should let him play whatever he wants, if the Rogue character or others complain then everyone can deal with him. Your role as GM does not give you an elevated status in the group.

So - my advice - step back, let him do what he wants and let the group decide if it is acceptable.

 

[Incendax]

You've got three issues here:

Issue 1) Nobody seems to have checked to see what the current Rogue player feels about this situation. If he has no concerns about having an Assassin/Rogue in the party then there is no reason to prevent it from happening. If necessary, sit them both down and talk about how they will NOT step on each other's toes.

Issue 2) The only thing your player has done wrong was act childish, and try to sneak his character into the game. These are both very disrespectful things for him to do (especially the latter, there was no way he was unaware that he was being a douche). Sit him down and give him a friendly talk about how he needs to curb this behavior. If he doesn't, then tell him to GTFO.

Issue 3) Your players have a right to change their characters (within reason) if they are unhappy with their current character. Your players also have the right to optimize their characters (within reason), because there is no wrong way to have fun with this game. The important thing is that the player understands that he cannot have the spotlight more than any other player and that if he makes someone else uncomfortable then he may have to make adjustments. This should be explained to him beforehand.

 

[Grabuto138]

What is so bad about frequently switching characters? I like changing characters. I tell the the DM to never hold back when it comes to killing my character. I also ask the DM not to base any story or narrative elements on my specific character. When I introduce a new character I try to create a background and motivation that complements an existing character ("I was sent from your village to help you on your quest.") Sometimes the DM can create a "slot" that is non-specific, for example a sympathetic faction sends a member to assist the party on its quest. Sometimes it is a monk, sometimes a ranger. In this case the DM will use me to flesh out the NPC group and such.

I think there has to to be more to this story.

 

[Felon]

This is a terrible idea. If the player is genuinely turning everything into a competition, then it's only going to make him angrier and more uncooperative, simultaneously making the DM in question look petty and vindictive. If the problem is solvable now, it wouldn't be after this sort of behavior.

Going that route will not only ruin the game for the DM and the player in question, it'll frustrate and upset the others as they gradually take sides or lose interest altogether. It's a sure way to poison the game environment..

It's a tried-and-true practice honed to perfection by countless DM's long before we entered this soft, doughy, touchy-feely era of DM'ing by committee, pop psychology, Alan Alda, and Coke commercials about teaching the world to sing.

You miss the point of auto-slaughtering his every character--or a little thing I like to call "Operation: Carborundum" (trademark pending). Sure, the player will get angrier. That's fine, let him get angry. Sweetness and light has failed. The olive branch? Snapped in two. The dove? Head bitten clean off. Time for tough love.

Just as the Killbots of Perseus 7 have a preset kill limit, so to do human beings have a thresshold for how much kicking and screaming they can do before they get all tuckered out. And in the same fahsion that Zap Brannigan defeated the killbots, so too must the DM send wave after wave of the player's characters to their brutal-yet-comical deaths until he reaches his threshold and shuts down. Gotta grind him down. Grind, grind, gri-hi-hi-ind him down, I say. You're power-sanding his very soul. And then once all the grimy shavings of fear, self-loathing, dilly-dallying, and stinkin' thinkin' have been washed away, pick that boy up and let him make a fresh start. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

And that somebody's called a DM.

Old-school forever!

Disclaimer: Felon takes no personal responsbility for the aftereffects of Operation: Carborundum. Common side-effects are known to include sudden headaches and tooth loss. If you experience bleeding from one or more bodily orafices, consult your physician (not your lawyer).

 

[fuzzlewump]

So what if there are two rogues in the party? Sneak attack stacks.

There seems to be other issues in this party, but what's the deal with that?

 

[Ryujin]

It's a tried-and-true practice honed by countless DM's to perfection long before we entered this soft, doughy, touchy-feely era of DM'ing by committee and pop psychology and Alan Alda and Coke commercials about teaching the world to sing.

You miss the point of auto-slaughtering his every character--or a little thing I like to call "Operation: Carborundum" (trademark pending). Sure, the player will get angrier. That's fine, let him get angry. Sweetness and light has failed. The olive branch? Snapped in two. The dove? Head bitten clean off. Time for tough love.

Just as the Killbots of Perseus 7 have a preset kill limit, so do human beings have a thresshold for how much kicking and screaming they can do before they get all tuckered out. And in the same fahsion that Zap Brannigan defeated the killbots, so too must the DM send wave after wave of the player's characters to their brutal-yet-comical deaths until he reaches his threshold and shuts down. Gotta grind him down. Grind, grind, gri-hi-hi-ind him down, I say. You're power-sanding his very soul. And then once all the grimy shavings of fear, self-loathing, dilly-dallying, and stinkin' thinkin' have been washed away, pick that boy up and let him make a fresh start. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

And that somebody's called a DM.

Old-school forever!

Disclaimer: Felon takes no personal responsbility for the aftereffects of Operation: Carborundum. Common side-effects have known to include sudden headaches and tooth loss. If you experience bleeding from one or more bodily orafices, consult your physician (not your lawyer).

This has been a public service message, on behalf of "Paranoia(tm) Anonymous." Remember people; Paranoia(tm) is an insidious game, that will forever alter the way that you view role-playing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

(1) Despite claims to the contrary, it is perfectly reasonable for the GM to limit character changes/character generation based on the tone and feel of the setting, and what seems plausible.

(2) That the player wants to DM, but no one wants to be a player for him as a DM, should be considered a not-so-subtle clue about where this is heading.

(3) That the player attempts to trick the GM into allowing the new character into ongoing play, after being explicitly told "No" is an even less subtle clue.

(4) We are told that the player has control issues, and acts childish when he doesn't get his way.

DTMFA.

(Dan Savage-speak for Dump The Mother Friendly Already.)

This is only going to go downhill from here if you do not. Do not throw away your fun, or the fun of everyone else at the table, to indulge this jerk. Be sure that, were you behaving similarly, they would have another GM in place by now.


RC

 

[Arbanax]

Wow guys what a response. Firstly thanks to everyone whose commented. Clearly I am not alone in experiencing troubling or troubled players. Anyway when I've not had a chance to digest what's here I'll come back.

But thank you all for your time and effort in responding.

Ab

 

[Sunseeker]

So, has anyone suggested yet that the DM compromise with the player? Let him play whatever he wants, then proceed to kill it ruthlessly. Repeat and rinse. Characters will perish in droves until the player finally creates the DM is happy with.

There was a time when this was the obvious, routine, and automatic way to handle any character issues. We've gotten soft.

Make the DM happy was always a bad game. Cruelty and malice towards a character, especially when it's obvious, is rarely warranted and incredibly annoying. Aside from making the player feel like crap, it also annoys the party to no end as no matter what they do to protect him, the DM has it out for them, and attacks them ruthlessly. It makes gameplay feel pointless and it makes players disgruntled.

What have you gotten at the end of the day? An unhappy party, an unfun game, and probably more than one pissed off player. Oh yeah, the DMs happy, good for him.

The DM can exert his control without having to "act out"(which IS what you're doing) towards the player and the game. All he has to do is raise his hand and say "no".

It's not about being "soft", being soft would be allowing this player to do as he pleases. It's about acting like an adult. You don't counter childish behaviour with childish behanvour.