So my player is making plans that may go against the group...

[Umbran]

Make the player talk, if he just wants to roll the dice apply a –10 penalty to the roll.

I'm gonna disagree on this bit. Just as the players aren't required to swing swords in order for the character to get a shake in combat, they player shouldn't have to speak in character. Characters can do things players cannot.

However, if the player does not describe what he says and how he says it, it can be the moral equivalent of just walking up to the monster and slugging away, without using any strategy. If he talks and does it well, he can win a bonus, but don't penalize him for failing to do something he himself may not be good at or comfortable with yet.

The general idea - encourage, but don't require role-playing. Use the carrot, rather than the stick. You want to build a better role-player, not turn off someone who isn't in the groove of things yet.

 

[Storyteller01]

Thanks for the advice everyone. It's appreciated.

So far, his plan is using to feats to gain most of the army (Leadership and a 3rd party feat that improves on Leadership). Given his previous gaming background, I don't think he'll mind the additional paper work. His biggest problem will be outfitting the units and keeping them alive in battle, and I'm not sure what his plan is on that.

I'll keep everyone posted if they're interested.

 

[Sandain]

I think he is in for a surprise. From his war gaming background he will assume his army will fight another army and there wil be a clear winner.

DnD armies are like modern armies - they dont fight much, they just clear and hold territory. What wins conflicts are the actions of special units and overwhelming forepower (magic).

His army could be all but wiped out by a mid level mage or druid. He and his companions will have to neutralise threats to his army ahead of time, and do things like breach city walls, kill opposing leaders etc.

His army is just another type of diplomacy, and I dont think he will ever be able to use it to win any battles or invade any country.

 

[Stalker0]

What's the problem?

As others have said, a merc army in dnd is hardly overpowered. Magic solves that real fast.

And its a political game, what's more political than raising and maintaining an amry, sounds like a cool idea to me.

 

[Storyteller01]

He's making plans that go against or deliberately leave the rest of the group out...

 

[Umbran]

He's making plans that go against or deliberately leave the rest of the group out...

Not at all - as has been noted, armies rather need the support of high-powered, elite units to keep them in play. The most obvious choice for that role will be the party...

 

[Mark]

He's making plans that go against or deliberately leave the rest of the group out...

While I agree you should be flexible enough to accomodate the player choices, come what may, I also am a fan of letting players know that I don't run more than one game at the same table at the same time. I do for little bits of time if a group splits to explore a couple of diverging corridors, but two whole games winds up being half the time for both and ultimately not fun for either. I've also run two groups in concurrent timelines of the same campaign and setting, but that was on separate days of the week. If you don't want to run a separate game for this one player and he increasingly shows he wants a separate game, you've either got to explain this to him and work him back into the main game or you need to cut him loose from the group for the good of the majority of players (including yourself).

You don't even need to take him aside, if you prefer not to do so. Explain the situation to the whole group and ask which avenue the majority of the players which to explore. While it might seem like a foregone conclusion, perhaps it is not. Even if it is, at least you make your point and are fully supported by most of the group.

The new player might just be oblivious to the situation and change his tune if he realizes he might wind up with no game to play.