Problem Player Woes

[Izmo]

First off, welcome to the forums.

Thanks! I really like it here. I've been on some unwelcoming boards before and wasn't sure how things would turn out here, but this has been amazing. I really want to say how thankful I am that so many people gave me so much input. Some of the players in my group read this thread, and were also very grateful. Actually, more than one of them said "it's great to know that we're not just crazy, that other people see it too."

After reading all the suggestions and advice here, I gathered the group, minus John, together to talk about all these issues. In the end, it was decided that they weren't going to be playing another game with John, one way or another. So, today or tomorrow, whichever day I can get a hold of John and meet up, I'm going to let him know that he's not in the game anymore. I'm not sure how he'll react, but like several others said, his reaction will show what kind of person he is.

Umbran, your advice about leaving no wiggle room was a big help. That's going to make things a lot easier.

I totally agree with that. What do the other players think of his behavior? Are they more or less accepting then you are?

I've gamed with him for so long I just grew used to it and didn't factor him into fights, but the newer players really can't stand it. We've been gaming since January, and quickly grew tired with him, but I suspect didn't push the matter as much as they wanted to at first because he was my friend and because they were the new guys and didn't feel quite comfortable with it. They'd complain, but it wasn't until sorta recently that it's started to boil over.

If there weren't people like John with ... issues ... and groups like yours who (for whatever reason) didn't kick John out, then such hilarious stories wouldn't grace my Internet.

My advice is to keep him, and post more funny stories about your suffering. That will amuse me.

Honestly, I read this, paused, and then considered it for a moment

Sounds somewhat similar to a former friend.

He always wanted to play complex, powerful characters with lots of Kewl Powerz, but never put in the effort to know how to use them. At the table, he was an absolute DRAG. Very gregarious and fun to have around, except for the whole GAME part, where when it got to his turn, he hadn't the slightest idea what was going on and would then proceed to very dramatically....take five minutes to carefully research what he was going to do.

THEN, more often than not, the end result of five minutes or more of dramatic sighs, pauses, staring at the board and slowly flipping through his rulebook was to.....move to there and do nothing.

John's never made a powerful character to the best of my knowledge. Instead, he likes making tricky characters, with somewhat convoluted tactics. Here's a true example, if you'd like:

Round One:
John throws a grappling hook to the left of an orc.

Round Two:
John, holding on to the rope attached to the grappling hook, tumbles to the right.

Round Three:
John runs to the grappling hook and pulls both the hook and his end of the rope, attempting to trip the orc.

To me, John seems to be playing a sidekick or henchman, not a hero.

The bottom line, IMO, is that he just wants to be the hero, the one who saves the day, the one who arrives in just the nick of time. There's a word for those kinds of people... and it is the Glory Hound.

I think John likes to be the "Morpheus" (Matrix, not Sandman) of the group. We used to play a game called Hunter: The Reckoning, which, for those that don't know, is a modern day game where people fight the supernatural. His character was the only survivor from the last game, and stumbled into the new group while they were fighting the undead in a junkyard. At one point, one of the players was fighting for his life, and John's character continued to slowly pace around the player and his opponent, arms behind his back. He told the player "you can't fight the undead like that. Show me you are worth the time! Show me you are worth the effort of my aid." He refused to help the group and they almost died. After the fight was over, he spoke down to them and their technique, and wasn't sure if he should even stick around with them.

John's character, by the way, was John. He was playing himself.

 

[WizarDru]

Thanks! I really like it here. I've been on some unwelcoming boards before and wasn't sure how things would turn out here, but this has been amazing. I really want to say how thankful I am that so many people gave me so much input. Some of the players in my group read this thread, and were also very grateful. Actually, more than one of them said "it's great to know that we're not just crazy, that other people see it too."

I'm glad to hear that the discussion has been a help to you.

Honestly, though this may not be the most pleasant interaction you'll have with a person, it will work out for the better. I don't know John, so I wouldn't hazard to guess at his goals or playstyle...but it seems fairly clear that he has a disconnect with you and the rest of your players. He may have the best of intentions or be completely clueless that he's having this affect on the game. But the fact is that not every group of players can be in the same game and have fun.

We asked one player to leave our group a few years back. He's still a friend, he still plays D&D...but he found a group that matched his playstyle in a way we simply did not. He had very different desires from the game than the rest of us and that led to friction. But we discussed it, then presented the facts to him....and he was actually kind of relieved. He knew he wasn't the best fit for our group, either. Part of the disconnect was due to my inexperience with D&D as a DM at the time...but at the end of the day, it worked out OK. He found a group more suited to his playstyle and we had a more harmonious game. Everyone got to increase the amount of fun they were having and reduce the drama.

I hope you have a similar experience.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In Magic: the Gathering terms, John sounds like a Johnny.

Timmy, Johnny and Spike

 

[the Jester]

Good luck with this. It's never pleasant, but it will improve things in the long run- and it probably won't take long to notice it, either.

 

[Izmo]

WizarDru:

I hope our situation turns out like that. It works both ways, like you said. Our group isn't a good fit for him, either. He likes playing morally ambiguous characters. I still don't think he likes the story I'm doing. Maybe he'll be happy to finally get out, like others were saying.

 

[Haltherrion]

It is tempting to kick a player like that. You need to evaluate your external friendship with him and his impact to your own game enjoyment as well as the other players to make a decision.

As much as it annoys you, it is tolerable if it is not overly impacting the other players. But if it is annoying them, you will almost certainly in time find them being "less available" for game sessions and ultimately quitting which makes the decision easy and clear cut: he goes.





However, if it looks retrievable and you have already tried the "talk to him about it" approach, as a ref, I'd do these things:

• Go to an XP system where XP is granted by session or adventure arc and characters are rated at the end of the arc for "contribution" meaning did they play their character effectively. Not necessarily expecting a healer to do the most damage but did they use their character well. You could have 3 or 4 buckets:
  • Exceptional play, receive 120% XP
  • Well-played, receive 100% XP
  • Played below expectations, receive 50% XP
  • Made no real contributions, 0% XP
  • Optionally allow a roleplaying bonus to this. Maybe he made no real contribution (0% XP) but did it in a very in-character way that everyone liked so he gets 0 + 20% RP bonus.
• Give each player a fixed time for their turn. It's not like people don't have lots of time to think about what to do while the ref and everyone else is doing their thing. Time runs out and the character does nothing which is perfectly reasonable for a short round (often these rounds are 6 seconds or such).
• Talk to John about these changes and why they exist with respect to his specific behavior. No sense pretending he didn't create the situation. He might, of course, quit at that point, but so be it.
• Talk to the group as a whole and explain the changes and reason for it. Optionally, you could involve the group in the proposed changes and instead highlight the problem as you see it, let them comment on their perceptions and have the group come up with methods as a whole to control it. That would likely consume an entire game session and depending on your group you might not get a good solution out of them but it is a possibility.

Regarding tiered XP awards, it is a big, heavy club that ought to do the trick. Determining the tier for a character could be done by the group, although that has its downside. One thing that works well is for the ref to rate the characters with player input. I.e., solicit advice from the players but ref makes the final decision.

I have occasionally done a 2 tier XP system (100 and 120%) but don't tend to do that any more. This 4 tier system will quickly turn John's character into the lackey he acts like if he doesn't start participating at a higher level so it does have some virtue and does leave it in his hands. He wants to play a lackey, he gets to play a lackey. Oddly enough, he might end up earning XP at the old AD&D minion rate of 50% (IIRC).

It is kind of messy to enforce extra rules like the ones I suggest just for one player but I understand where you are coming from. If he wasn't a friend, easy to kick him. As a friend who isn't getting the message from being talked to and from other player's reactions, change the game model to better reflect individual contributions and the time available to make the decision.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I like the option of routing around his play behavior, treat his characters like NPCs. Balance encounters as if he isn't part of the equation. When his character decides to participate on the PCs behalf maybe toss in some extra action points the monsters to even things out.

Secondly, try shaming the character in the world. If some encounter occurs within sight of true NPCs, and "John's" character behaves as standard, then have NPCs start reacting favorably towards the PCs that were heroic. Have the true NPCs begin to create songs about the way things happened, with the party heroically fighting for their lives when some glory hound came in swooping at the last minute to steal victory from the party. Have John's character earn infamy in the realms while the other characters earn fame. John's character has a permanent mark of blight that no good word from the other PCs can overcome, only acts of heroism by John's character.

 

[Chimera]

I always wonder if the other players are going to speak up at any point in time, or if they're too passive-aggresive.

I've shut down some bad play in the past, and some horrible character concepts, by pointing out that I cannot imagine ANY circumstances where I would be friends with, travel with, or worse yet, adventure with such a character. I mean, the business of Adventuring is to go out and risk your life to kill things and take their stuff. You don't set out to do that with the guy you know is going to steal your stuff, or run off at the first sign of trouble. And frankly, if you do, then you are a moron and deserve to die.

It is something that I almost never see in D&D, being a social activity. Because people want to play with friends, or they all want to get along at the table, so people put up with some pretty horrible actions in and out of the game on the part of the other people they play with. People wring their hands and fret over the mere idea of pointing out that Johnny is being a jerk and is ruining their fun, or make it less fun than it should be. People drop groups rather than say something, or entire groups do stupid things like telling people that they're no longer playing while they secretly play somewhere else, just to avoid telling people to stop acting stupidly.

Bottom line is that there comes a time to speak up, to be an adult, a real human being, and tell people when they're doing things that are ruining your fun. You owe it to yourself, you owe it to them.

 

[Wolf1066]

Have the true NPCs begin to create songs about the way things happened...

Have John's character earn infamy in the realms while the other characters earn fame. John's character has a permanent mark of blight that no good word from the other PCs can overcome, only acts of heroism by John's character.

Suddenly I'm thinking of:

"Sir Robin ran away. He boldly ran away, away. When danger reared it's ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled..."

 

[WizarDru]

However, if it looks retrievable and you have already tried the "talk to him about it" approach, as a ref, I'd do these things:

To be honest, I really would advise against this sort of approach, for a few reasons. IME, tiered XP systems, where you reward certain styles of play and punish others, has a strong tendency to backfire. Instead of enforcing desired behaviors, it merely punishes and adds an air of favoritism to the affair. It lets the problem player feel persecuted, which can actually REINFORCE their bad behaviors as a passive-aggressive form of protest.

Worse, this puts a burden on the rest of the party to have to accommodate a system that is solely to punish one player. Beyond that, it creates an air of competition. A player might have a great session and then not get the bonus and wonder "Didn't I roleplay well? Why did I only get normal XP?" and can actually have a damaging effect on existing good players.

In short, this is forcing everyone else in the game to make concessions or deal with extra work and burdens just in the effort to try and 'train' a problem player. It hurts the game overall. It's not fair to the people who aren't causing problems and it reduces their fun in the hopes of forcing someone else to act more maturely. IME, it does more harm than good, which is why I abandoned such a system after trying it for a similar situation with one of my groups. It didn't solve the problem, but created a new one.