Player Unrest...

[dshai527]

Unfortunately, I have tried to slide the problem PC back into the game, but he does his best not to get back in. He states that he doesn't care about anybody because if he cared then the villian coudl use that against him, so he no longer cares, and he says this to his half-brother who is another PC. I have made very clear that there is a plague and that supplies and food are hard to come by, but he will sit there and say..

Him: Wheat?

ME: NO! No food to trade..there is nothing to trade.

Him: I buy weapons, with a war coming everyone will need weapons.

Me: Who are you going to buy them from, nobody is selling them. Everybody has fled the town except the military.

Him: What about spices, a plague wouldn't hurt spices.
Everyone: Please we need to get out of town fast before the invasion and we are trapped here.

Him:I'm not leaving until I find something to trade in the southlands with. What about horses.

Me: Horses won't find in the catacombs and the military needs them all.

Everyone else: We leave him

Him: I have the Magic Item that you need, besides you wouldn't leave me would you brother.

Everyone: Okay we try to get him to hurry up, cause we can't leave him behind.

Him: What about metal..iron bars and such.

Me: THERE IS NOTHING TO TRADE IN THIS TOWN.

Him: Well since everyone has left I'm going to start looting the building to see what was left behind, and maybe I can trade that in the southlands.

He purposely makes his character not latch on to anyone or anything so it is impossible to try and make him do something based on emotion. He recently contracted the plague though and I thought that would make him help, but he says that since he is going to die he wants to go do all the things that he character wanted to do before he dies. I said then would you like to retire the character for another comapaign and bring in a new one, and he said no that he wants his brother to be him so he can teach him and show him what he wanted from life. So he wants to travel along with the group trying to convince them to do something else.

HE is not a bad roleplayer, in fact he is quite good, but it is almost that he seems to enjoys trying to manipulate the game more than he likes trying to manipulate in the game.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I suppose I shouldn't say that the DM is just a manager. What I mean is that the DM should never make his plot the center of the game over the wishes of the PC's. If you put the PC's on an epic quest that will be the focus of the entire campaign you had better know your players well, after a year or so they may decide they don't want to keep following the DM's hooks becuase they feel railroaded. The DM's plot should be based on what the PC's are doing and want to do.

 

[fett527]

That pretty much sums him up. As dshai stated I think he's a great guy and roleplayer, but enough is enough.

 

[BlackMoria]

Him: Wheat?

ME: NO! No food to trade..there is nothing to trade.

Him: I buy weapons, with a war coming everyone will need weapons.

Me: Who are you going to buy them from, nobody is selling them. Everybody has fled the town except the military.

Him: What about spices, a plague wouldn't hurt spices.
Everyone: Please we need to get out of town fast before the invasion and we are trapped here.

Him:I'm not leaving until I find something to trade in the southlands with. What about horses.

Me: Horses won't find in the catacombs and the military needs them all.

Everyone else: We leave him

Him: I have the Magic Item that you need, besides you wouldn't leave me would you brother.

Everyone: Okay we try to get him to hurry up, cause we can't leave him behind.

Him: What about metal..iron bars and such.

Me: THERE IS NOTHING TO TRADE IN THIS TOWN.

Him: Well since everyone has left I'm going to start looting the building to see what was left behind, and maybe I can trade that in the southlands.

Let him play his game..... then show him that actions have consequences.

Situation 1: He precedes to loot the town. You said everyone has left except the military. Except the military in all probably has implemented martial law and looters are subject to summary justice - military tries to apprehend or kill him. Character is question either flees or fights. Let the chips fall where they fall....

Situation 2: Tell him it will take several hours to find something worthwhile to loot. Meantime, the advance scouts or the actual army of the bad guy shows up. Party now must flee or fight. And if they flee, let them know that the loaded wagon of the PC 'who rather be merchant than hero' is slowing down escape. He either leaves the wagon (and horses) and his loot or the foes overtake them.

In short, if the character wants to play merchant, let him. Then crock him with some savve dude selling him bad or defective merchandise, bandits rolling the 'merchant', bad debt, merchant rivalry and the hundreds of other things that plague businessmen.

Then see if he is still game to be 'Marco Polo'

 

[Numion]

In my group we have our own way of dealing with things. If someone gets a really wild idea and starts going in totally different way than the adventure, DM can just look sternly in to the players eyes, and he'll realize to "follow the adventure".

I mean, we're playing through the Banewarrens now. Would it really be fun if my character wanted to do something utterly different? Should the DM divide his time between us? And what if I convinced the rest of the group leave with me? $18 well spent the DM thinks and buys next adventure...

We're not wankers though, so if the current adventure just blows we have enough sense to quit it. Between adventures players can also voice their opinion as to what the group should do next, but they've never used that option.

 

[Gizzard]

A large chunk of the party is now evil, or getting there fast.

Is the problem the "physical" direction this player has taken the party in (ie, The 9 Hells) or the "moral" direction (ie, towards evil alignment)?

I think the physical problem is easy to solve. As other posters mentioned, you can always tie plot lines together with some extra work.

But rearranging their morals so that they respond to a "heroic" campaign is much more difficult. I, personally, dont like running evil campaigns for these reasons.

On the other hand, from the "wheat" example, it sounds like your player is just being difficult for the fun of being difficult, which is an entirely separate problem. Do you talk to the other players about their session? It seems that some of their responses ("We leave him behind") show that they could be getting fed up with that players antics also.

 

[Nail]

.... from the "wheat" example, it sounds like your player is just being difficult for the fun of being difficult, which is an entirely separate problem.

Absolutely.

Probably the best thing to do is ignore him. You can do this in a story way....one way or the other his character lands in prison/is captured, etc. Moreover, if you, as the DM, are clearly focusing on the other players rather than him....at least they'll know you care about whet they are doing.

Tell ya what: post your soon-to-be introduced adventure or plot here on the boards. Remind us that you're also dealing with this annoying player. I'm sure the group here can think of ways to "fix his wagon".

 

[Enkhidu]

I stand by my first advice: if everyone is happy, don't bother fixing it cuz it ain't broke.

But, if one party or another is not having fun with a campaign, then there are several ways to fix it.

Possibility One: Deal with it. Simply, one party or another goes along with majority rule and sucks it up. Maybe things weill go your way next time around.

Possibility Two: Separate the party in game. This only works if the players is the one who's unhappy, and there are multiple players. This can be a real pain sometimes as the DM has to bounce back and forth between the separated PCs. It can be fun for a little while, but after an extended period it just gets old.

Possibility Three: Separate the group into 2 different games. This one can be tricky, but can also be rewarding (my bias shows here, as I think this is my favorite option). Basically, the DM runs two full parties after the PCs go their separate ways - this is a variant of the "deal with it" possibility, but is slighty better because everyone takes turns doing the sucking it up. One could go so far as to have 2 DMs for this rotation. The only real drawback here is that it pretty much only works if you game on a very regular basis and alternate the campaigns.

Possibility Four: Find someone new to game with. I think we can all agree this is a last resort, and one that most of us wouldn't want to take.


Now, as for why these problems can occur, I think it comes down to a matter of taste. Most of us know the difference between gamers with a "kick in the door" mentality (ones who like the tactical combat aspect of gaming) and ones with a "roleplay to the hilt" mentality (who prefer to really get "into their characters").

In the examples posted, I think you'll find that the problems are occuring because everyone involved is (to some degree or another) a "role-player" concerned with the non tactical portions of the game, but they have differering opinions as to how to go about it.

I also play in dshai527's game, and I can tell you that the person he's talking about is a good roleplayer, willing to go the extra mile to have his PC be 3 dimensional character. However, he also has his PC worry about the things that people in real life worry about (food, money, status, etc). He does the little things.

I, on the other hand, am more of a "storyteller." I am all about playing a PC that I would want to see as the main character in a David Mamet play. Would it then surprise you to learn that I already have my current character's "story arc" plotted? I know where he begins, I know his "tragic flaw," and I know where I would like him to end up. I do this at character creation in the same way a powergamer plots his level advancement - it's something I almost can't help doing.

Because of this, I have, at times been just as big a pain in the caboose as the first player - it all depends on what the prevailing party mood is. It all comes down to preference.

Edited for Spelling...

 

[ced1106]

Me: THERE IS NOTHING TO TRADE IN THIS TOWN.

Eject him, but first see if this technique work. I stole it from a consulting manager.

Instead of saying "This is the only solution you have", present the client with three options. Two aren't any good, the third is your solution.

Him: Wheat?

You: Sure. After four hours, you find a farmer willing to sell you a bushel if you can help him pack up and get a weapons.

Him: Weapons?

You: Sure. After six hours, you find a blacksmith willing to sell you a few swords if you can help him pack up and get two mules for his cart.

Him: Spices?

You: The spice merchant is dead. You quickly find this out, but because you've been in town over ten hours, you're attacked by several rampaging cultists.

Him: I'm not leaving until I find something to trade in the southlands with. What about horses.

You: You arrive at an abandoned corral. Several of the horses have their throats slit in some sort of sacrificial manner. Unfortunately, they're not dead. Begin combat.

Of course, by this time, the other PCs have pretty much headed out of town. Have them play NPCs, cultists, and bad guys. If the problematic player doesn't realize how difficult it is to trade in a town taken over by the mythos, that's not your problem.

As said, Kill him and take his loot!


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Marius Delphus]

Unfortunately, I have tried to slide the problem PC back into the game, but he does his best not to get back in.
...
HE is not a bad roleplayer, in fact he is quite good, but it is almost that he seems to enjoys trying to manipulate the game more than he likes trying to manipulate in the game.

Forgive me if I am drawing unwarranted conclusions. It seems like everyone *except* this player is aware that an apocalypse is nigh, the social order has been upended, and something quite horrific is going on. It seems like everyone *except* this player feels as though the most important thing is to preserve civilization and prevent the end of the world. It also seems like everyone *except* this player is annoyed and frustrated by this player's actions.

I know *I* would be. Going back to my earlier point about compromise between the DM and the players, this player appears to be steadfastly refusing to let anyone else have a good time until *he* has a good time. I don't know this player personally, but... I'm caught between the twin horns of (1) not having all the facts and (2) having formed a fairly strong opinion anyway. I ordinarily don't slay PCs for out-of-game issues, but I feel sure I'd be looking for a way to catch *this* one in a deadly situation.

[rantish]
It sounds like this has been going on for a while. I'm therefore impressed by dshai's, Enkhidu's, fett527's, and the other players' patience (how many players are there?). In a campaign where the DM is feeling manipulated by one of the players, the other players are constantly being treated to this one player's grandstanding, and everyone is dissatisfied with how things are turning out, I know *I* wouldn't put up with more than about a session and a half of it, whether I was a player or a DM.

I confess: I'm glad I'm not the DM in either of the groups who've aired their difficulties here; I fear my (likely OTT) reaction to the sorts of things I've heard would create some bad juju.

I have to wonder: have I just been phenomenally lucky with gaming groups? Why doesn't this player want to play a *hero*? What's the character's alignment? Why does the player feel compelled to metagame to such a degree that he *admits* not wanting to form attachments because they'll be used against him? What makes him a *good* roleplayer?
[/rantish]