Putting up with him... Or simply not playing?

[Oryan77]

What about if the next time the OP starts a new game, everyone makes the same kind of PC as what the annoying player likes to play?

Then maybe that character type will no longer be cool and original in that players eyes.

Wow, I don't know where I come up with these brilliant ideas. I must be some kind of guinness or something.

 

[RainOfSteel]

You said he's your friend. Well then:

Dude, in the games, you've been driving me nuts. I'd really appreciate if you could avoid:

When someone says they're going to do something, you don't cut in and tell them how to do it.

When someone asks the GM something, you don't cut in and answer.

When the GM finishes explaining something, you don't repeat what the GM just said or provide footnotes of related information.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think it isn't a crime to play the same character over and over.

Certainly not a crime but as a less experienced player, despite the years, he approaches the game very differently from someone who works regularly to integrate themselves into games from a multitude of viewpoints. He is, in essence, requiring the GM to mold his game (and by extension all of the other players and their characters) to be inclusive of the same character concept time after time. In this case, that same modus operendi seems to be spilling over into (or mirrored by) how this player expects the GM(s) and other players to accept what he repeatedly does at the table out of game. Sometimes newer players have trouble integrating, too, so there seems to be some parallel in this situation. Please don't read the above as an indictment of all players who like to repeatedly play the same character concept. I'd find it less than fulfilling but not everyone does, and most experienced players who table-hop or play multiple systems know how to make that work.

 

[the Jester]

Start by talking to him, outside of the game, and tell him it's annoying as heck when he does those things.

If that doesn't work, when you ask the dm a question or for a ruling and duder starts to spout off, look him in the eye and say (loudly enough that he hears you over his own talking) "I AM ASKING THE DM, NOT YOU, SO PLEASE BE QUIET."

Don't do that for anyone else- it isn't really your place- but do something similar when he tries to tell you what to do; politely but firmly, "I WAS NOT ASKING FOR YOUR ADVICE, SO PLEASE HUSH SO I CAN DECIDE WHAT I AM GOING TO DO."

When he starts to spout off about Werewolf, tell politely but firmly, "I AM NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT THIS AGAIN, SO PLEASE STOP DISTRACTING ME FROM THE GAME WE'RE ACTUALLY PLAYING."

If he still doesn't get it, run a game without him. If he asks to join, tell him, "Sorry, duder, I already talked to you about the problem out of game and in game multiple times, and the whole point of my running this game is because you won't respect my wishes and STFU."

If he gets all butt hurt, tell him that if can respect your wishes in everybody else's games, you may reconsider, but as long as he continues his problematic and distracting behavior, you absolutely will not. And stick to it.

 

[GSHamster]

Regarding playing the same character, I wonder how many people would really object if the guy always played a "group-friendly" character like a healer.

Is the objection really that he plays the same character, or that he plays a Lone Wolf? If the latter, maybe it would be better to see if you can get him to make his Lone Wolf work better within the group, rather than making him play a different archetype that he is not interested in.

 

[Kzach]

Is the objection really that he plays the same character, or that he plays a Lone Wolf? If the latter, maybe it would be better to see if you can get him to make his Lone Wolf work better within the group, rather than making him play a different archetype that he is not interested in.

I think, as a DM, this is possibly my greatest pet peeve of all my numerous pet peeves about players. I swear there is a GENRE of players who just don't get the concept of working as a team. These people are so fundamentally self-absorbed that no matter how often you tell them or kick them out of a group, they will continue to play a disruptive, lone-wolf style of character.

And worse, often it's not even out of any genuine interest to go off in one direction by themselves. It, more often than not, seems to be done PURELY out of an antagonistic need to be contrary.

DM: "Ok, so everyone goes down the right side of the tunnel and..."

Lone Wolf: "I go down the left."

DM: "Err... but everyone just agreed to go down the right side, you've all been discussing it for the last half an hour."

Lone Wolf: "Yeah. I go down the left tunnel."

DM: "..."

 

[the Jester]

I think, as a DM, this is possibly my greatest pet peeve of all my numerous pet peeves about players. I swear there is a GENRE of players who just don't get the concept of working as a team. These people are so fundamentally self-absorbed that no matter how often you tell them or kick them out of a group, they will continue to play a disruptive, lone-wolf style of character.

And worse, often it's not even out of any genuine interest to go off in one direction by themselves. It, more often than not, seems to be done PURELY out of an antagonistic need to be contrary.

DM: "Ok, so everyone goes down the right side of the tunnel and..."

Lone Wolf: "I go down the left."

DM: "Err... but everyone just agreed to go down the right side, you've all been discussing it for the last half an hour."

Lone Wolf: "Yeah. I go down the left tunnel."

DM: "..."

My suggestion: If there are four other guys heading right, give Mr. Leftie ten minutes of play time and then give them forty (well, start with them).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

DM: "Ok, so everyone goes down the right side of the tunnel and..."

Lone Wolf: "I go down the left."

DM: "Err... but everyone just agreed to go down the right side, you've all been discussing it for the last half an hour."

Lone Wolf: "Yeah. I go down the left tunnel."

DM: "..."

In my game, Lone Wolf would be allowed to go left as he wanted. I'd give him a quick description of the next area he encounters, then return to the main group's progess.

45 minutes or so later, I'd return to Lone Wolf's section. If he advances to another area away from the main body of the party, I'd describe it, then return to the main group's progess.

Rinse, wash, repeat until Lone Wolf gets killed/captured, rejoins the party, or leaves he table for the evening.

If he asks why I did what I did, I will respond "Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." I'd also tell him that if he wanted to continue the solo stuff at a faster pace, I'd be happy to run some sessions with just him & me and the waitress at Denny's. On his dime.

The next group session, if he didn't get the message and rejoin the party, MY pattern would continue as well.

 

[Mark CMG]

In my game, Lone Wolf would be allowed to go left as he wanted. I'd give him a quick description of the next area he encounters, then return to the main group's progess.

45 minutes or so later, I'd return to Lone Wolf's section. If he advances to another area away from the main body of the party, I'd describe it, then return to the main group's progess.

Rinse, wash, repeat until Lone Wolf gets killed/captured, rejoins the party, or leaves he table for the evening.

If he asks why I did what I did, I will respond "Sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." I'd also tell him that if he wanted to continue the solo stuff at a faster pace, I'd be happy to run some sessions with just him & me and the waitress at Denny's. On his dime.

The next group session, if he didn't get the message and rejoin the party, MY pattern would continue as well.

I deal with such things in a similar manner (much in the way I handle PCs that turn evil) except that I inform players that I don't run two games nor solo games (and evil is for NPCs and monsters at my table, except in special circumstances). A PC is welcome to go off on their own and I'll run things split for the session, breaking up the time appropriately, but if by the end of the session the PC is still off on their own (or evil) then it becomes an NPC and they need a new character for the next session. Being clear about the potential consequences but always allowing the choice seems as fair as I can be to myself and the group as a whole. While it is cool to allow everyone to play a character they enjoy, I also find it uncool that a player can sometimes assume just because he enjoys a character concept the others players cannot reject it, despite that in many circumstances the actual PCs would likely not even allow a member without the group welfare at heart to join the group.

I feel a GM has to provide a buffer against players being railroaded into game situations by another player. I had a player once who went from one character to another with each game for a number of sessions, sometimes two in one session, because he would try one and then either get bored or find it not as fun as he had hoped. It became problematic when I suggested he settle into one for a while and he agreed but then attempted to suicide by town guard, jeopardizes the PC party for purely metagame reasons, and seemingly to show me he would do as he pleased regardless of how it damaged the fun for everyone else. After his character died he began rolling up a new one and I asked him to hold off until we had a talk, post-session, which became the irreconcilable differences conversation.

 

[pawsplay]

This sounds like a player who needs a lot of love. Do you have a lot of love to give him?