That player in the back of the room

[Byakugan]

My general assumption is that GMs are neither bad nor good until I play with them. All that stuff is generally applicable. In my experience, I am willing to put up with most of your typical GM flaws/eccentricities, just because they are willing to DM for me and I like to play. But there are plenty of specific practices that annoy the out of me, and as a player you just have to adapt to those things. It's not unlike the way you learn to avoid/get around the annoying habits of your spouse. You know you can't change it, it caused problems when you tried, so you learned to cope.

A couple of the things that annoy me: GMs that require you to make a dice roll to do -everything-, from tying your shoes to remembering to pick your sword up(even if you already SAID you picked it up). The other main one is GMs that treat every word uttered at the table as in-character gospel. table-side discussion is inevitable, but it always seems like passive-aggressive punishment when the DM pulls stuff like this.

But I think it is a pretty fair general goal that the DM should make an effort to make sure each character getting xp should be under the same threat of death. I fudge dice rolls, usually in the characters favor to make the game more enjoyable. Actually I have a knack for rolling big crits when they are low on health. I really dont want to kill a PC every week, but beating them within an inch of it is fine . When players launch their hands up and proclaim victory and start breathing again I know I got them invested in the fight.

In the OPs case, it seemed to me like this 1 PC was staying out of fights and putting all of the burden on the rest of the group. IMO, that is no bueno. He needs to be reminded of the consequences, preferably in a way that will change the characters behavior, but that also does not alienate the player.

 

[cmad1977]

Fourth, have the other players RP their characters being disgusted with his actions after combat. See if that provokes a response.

I like to do this with problem characters. Mostly this has come up with the 'I'm a chaotic asshat so I don't wanna help the villagers'. My response is usually something along the lines of 'ok. Then stand in the corner because the rest of the party does and nobody cares about you or has any desire to convince you to join us.'

In this case my response would come after a couple combats and would go something like this.
'Go away. We don't want you in our party because your cowardice puts our lives in jeopardy and makes accomplishing our mission more difficult. Seriously. Go away.'

Note that this doesn't apply to the person who is 'watching the back door/covering the escape/keeping tabs on something or someone' while the rest of the party clears a room. At least that person is performing an important function that positively affects the safety of the party.

 

[DocSharpe]

The OP just seems to be asking for the best advice on how to deal with the situation. I hope to heaven he doesn't recommend any of the advice quoted above.

No...not really. I've been listening. The plan was, and has always was, to talk to the person outside of the game. Since this person is, as you have probably guessed, a bit of a 'special and unique snowflake', I was just trying to collect as much advice as possible. (To the point of bullying...the other players have been chatting with me privately about this because some of them are concerned about not crossing that line)

Just to close the loop...I did chat with him this weekend, and in his words, he's not taking action in games because "he doesn't have to". He has designed his character so that he has to do as little as possible. "Not the face, not the tank, not the sneak". When I asked him if there was a way we could get his character involved, he smiled and said "Nope...that's the whole point." I told him that this was disappointing, and that it was bordering on 'disruptive'. I also suggested that if it continues I'll need to engage the store owner.

But thank you. It was helpful to know that I'm not really missing any obvious 'carrots'.

 

[Steve_MND]

So... he's playing a game in which he's specifically set himself up to be able to NOT play the game...? Sounds more like this guy should be sitting on the sidelines, and just watching other people playing the game, as opposed to taking up a slot. Ah well, best of luck there.

 

[HERESY]

You're much more patient than me, he would have already been kicked off of my table.

 

[Byakugan]

Seems like such an odd situation.

I am curious about what he gains by acting in such a specific way. Does he have an unresolved conflict with one of the players? Is he just acting like a dick on purpose?

 

[Eltab]

He has designed his character so that he has to do as little as possible. "Not the face, not the tank, not the sneak". When I asked him if there was a way we could get his character involved, he smiled and said "Nope...that's the whole point."

D&D is a cooperative game.
He can watch from the sidelines*, but he should give up - willingly or under compulsion - the slot at-table he is occupying. By his own confession, he's not contributing anything.

* Is your room big enough to _have_ sidelines behind the table?

 

[DocSharpe]

He's definitely got some social issues. I've got the store owner involved...we spoke to the player...and we'll see.

 

[Eltab]

...and we'll see.

There might be a home table with a place for that character - I remember a thread about what you could do at a Masked Ball; lots of role-playing but little/no combat - but AL isn't designed for his concept.

 

[RevelationMD]

Its not the first time this has come up with this player, and when I chatted about people being frustrated with his playstyle, he shrugs and says that it's his character and it's how HE wants to play it. (The argument that it's a group game doesn't hold water with him).

It strikes me that this is'n't something that the DM has to get involved with. Sure the players are getting mighty P-off with this player not pulling his weight but that's not entirely relevant. What is relevant is that their characters are getting mighty P-off with his character. Or if they are not annoyed with him they at the very least don't see the value of him coming along and risking his life. Either way the party just needs to tell this rogue that he's not coming 'down the haunted well' as it's not a safe place for an entertainer.

If the party is generally Good/Neutral the last thing they want to do is bring civilians on their heroic quests - they do the crazy heroic stuff so that normal 'non-combatant, entertainer types' don't have to.

If the party is generally Evil the last thing they want is to split their loot with someone who brings nothing to the table. Easier to just cut his throat dump him in the well and sell his belongings.

Either way, RP fixes the issue.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The one thing I might recommend to the DM is that, if this player is consistently avoiding combat, and not even doing things like attempting Medicine checks to stabilize fallen party members, then the DM should experiment with not counting that player against the size of the party when adjusting encounter difficulty. The downside to that option is that the party will receive less combat XP as part of their adventures because of it, but since AL has no guarantee that a party will ever receive more XP in an adventure than the minimum allowed, that's just the breaks.

But isn't that ALSO a house rule and not allowed in AL? If he's sitting at the table with a character, he has to be counted, right?

 

[KahlessNestor]

Yes, but most of those reasons don't make sense most of the time. Sure, there are reasons to ignore PCs and go for the one in the back, but they aren't going to be present most of the time.

I think one of your examples was evil. Well, evil doesn't equal stupid, and it would be stupid to ignore the 3 PCs who are killing you in order to attack the one doing nothing.

If the DM contrives to attack the PC, it's almost always going to be obvious that it was a contrived attack and not really the monsters having a true reason.

A monster seeing someone hiding and doing nothing should first think: ROGUE! SNEAK ATTACK! KILL KILL KILL! unless there's an insight check involved.

I often tend to have monsters even out so everyone gets attacked, unless tactics are specifically mentioned. Is that wrong, by your lights?

 

[Maxperson]

A monster seeing someone hiding and doing nothing should first think: ROGUE! SNEAK ATTACK! KILL KILL KILL! unless there's an insight check involved.

First, that's a gross over generalization. Many monsters aren't bright enough to know what a rogue is. Second, even knowing what a rogue is and being aware of abilities doesn't mean that they are going to ignore THREE other people trying to kill it in order to go run and attack a rogue who is making no effort to actually sneak towards it.

I often tend to have monsters even out so everyone gets attacked, unless tactics are specifically mentioned. Is that wrong, by your lights?

That isn't a yes or no question. It really depends on the monster. Most of the time, though, I'm not going to have a monster behave in a suicidal manner just to even out attacks.

 

[Pauper]

But isn't that ALSO a house rule and not allowed in AL? If he's sitting at the table with a character, he has to be counted, right?

Considering that every adventure published by the AL contains the following text:

"Therefore, five categories of party strength have been created for you to use as a guide. Use these as a guide, and feel free to use a different adjustment during the adventure if the recommended party strength feels off for the group."

(taken from Suits of the Mists)

I'd say you can set the difficulty to whatever you as the DM feel is an accurate representation of the party's strength.

--
Pauper

 

[KahlessNestor]

Considering that every adventure published by the AL contains the following text:

"Therefore, five categories of party strength have been created for you to use as a guide. Use these as a guide, and feel free to use a different adjustment during the adventure if the recommended party strength feels off for the group."

(taken from Suits of the Mists)

I'd say you can set the difficulty to whatever you as the DM feel is an accurate representation of the party's strength.

--
Pauper

Okay. Never having DMed an AL session, I didn't know it was loose like that.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk