Yet Another Problem Player Thread
- Thread starter Ramien Meltides
- Start date
Graf
Explorer
I’m generally of the not-worth-the-hassle-just-drop-him/her school of thought.
Having said that I (somewhat miraculously) don’t see the problem with this player from your post above.
Mis-communications happen, and some (otherwise very smart) people don’t read email regularly so in and of itself 2 isn’t an issue. He has another game, you may feel some competition with him because of it but evidence to the contrary aside it doesn’t sound like it –had- to be purposeful.
DnD involves people who can make different levels of commitment to the game. Your “recap method” and “blue booking” both sound fun but I could easily see people not having time to do it.
It sounds like you feel these should be “mandatory” but you won’t come out and say it, so long as you keep describing it as “optional” you won’t be able to really come down on him for not participating.
You can set the bar for participation in your games where you like it the most, but setting the bar as high as it sounds like you want to could make it tough for you to find new players.
Having said that I (somewhat miraculously) don’t see the problem with this player from your post above.
Mis-communications happen, and some (otherwise very smart) people don’t read email regularly so in and of itself 2 isn’t an issue. He has another game, you may feel some competition with him because of it but evidence to the contrary aside it doesn’t sound like it –had- to be purposeful.
DnD involves people who can make different levels of commitment to the game. Your “recap method” and “blue booking” both sound fun but I could easily see people not having time to do it.
It sounds like you feel these should be “mandatory” but you won’t come out and say it, so long as you keep describing it as “optional” you won’t be able to really come down on him for not participating.
You can set the bar for participation in your games where you like it the most, but setting the bar as high as it sounds like you want to could make it tough for you to find new players.
Tsillanabor
First Post
When I run a game I tend not to give out experience points for stuff people choose to do on their own. I'll give other benefits relevant to whatever it is they are doing. In my area players are hard enough to come by so I don't really expect much extra effort.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
I think this guy is not so much a casual gamer, but an average one. While the extra stuff you do is certainly very rewarding, it's also generally more of a commitment than I suspect most gamers are used to.
Anyway, it just sounds like it's a mismatch between what you want from a game (and players) and what he wants from a game (and GM). He's probably not going to change, so the question is, do you think he's worth lowering your standards for? And really by posting this here, you've already answered that question...
Anyway, it just sounds like it's a mismatch between what you want from a game (and players) and what he wants from a game (and GM). He's probably not going to change, so the question is, do you think he's worth lowering your standards for? And really by posting this here, you've already answered that question...
Nomad4life
First Post
Hypothetically, just how damaging would it be to let this guy hang-on as a prop? Does he contribute anything at all to the game? If so, you might actually consider giving the guy what he wants- A few hours of not-that-involved play. (Of course, he would also suffer the consequences of this as all the other players got more attention/ have more importance to the story/ get to make the real decisions, etc...) But at least that way everyone would be getting what they came for.
If you think this scenario would be too much to handle- It’s time to cut roots so that the tree survives.
If you think this scenario would be too much to handle- It’s time to cut roots so that the tree survives.
As many have said, this isn't necesarilly a problem player, just one who'se very clearly a lot more casual than you. That's maybe an issue when everyone else is trying to get more deeply involved, but not a critical failure.
You do, however, risk a nasty loop here. I have one player who has a habit of turning up for a session and then saying part the way through that he has to leave early: as in, not "can we stop at ten exactly cause I have a bus to catch" but "I'm going to the pub at 9pm so I'm leaving the game half way through". This means he's forever missing end of session cliffhangers and I can't afford to write heavilly-him-oriented plot threads because the odds are high he'll be away and make it awkward: this means he's going to feel less attached to the plot, so hey, it's not a big deal if he says yes to that pub visit next Thursday, right?.....
In the example I gave tehre's some player tension because it's becoming so frequent that it's bugging the other PCs as well. IN your case, though, do the other players mind that he isn't there at the end or does many online side-quests? If they're happy with him just doing the Minimum Contractually Obliged RP Time, then it's not really a problem IMHO.
THe miscommunications are perhaps more annoying for all, but this is a generic Person Problem and not a uniquely D&D one: you just need to be careful how you word things, explicitly tell him "do not assume X unless I say Y", and just generally be as clear as possible. If the rest of the players aren't getting confused, it's clear the problem is with him, not you, but there's no nice way to say "You follow instructions as well as a pet rock", so you need to do your best to stop it happening. :>
And re: his curtness when you asked for his help.... well, he does have a point. If you're not the GM of a game, you are in no way obligated to have the same investment in a game as it's GM does. Some of my PCs contribute to our campaign wiki, talk about D&D with me almost every day on IM, look up new feats/spells/etc at home.... and others basically turn up at sessions, do their thing, and go home. This gets annoying when it leads to extra work (i.e. I write plot catchups online for my group, but several of themd on't read them and instead have to be told mid-game when they forget who X NPX is that they met a few sessions ago) but that's, frankly, just the nature of some players.
I'd have a word with him and say that, while all the other players are into these extra things, he doesn't seem to be as engaged with your game, and you'd like to know if there's anything you can do to help involve him more. Don't phrase it like you're accusing him of something bad: make it clear you'd be happier if you could make him happier with the game. He might simply say "I don't have the time/inclination to play beyond the X hours our normal session lasts": in which case, you just have to build your game around that. If he isn't actually bugging the other players than chucking him might cause more strife in the group than it's worth.
You do, however, risk a nasty loop here. I have one player who has a habit of turning up for a session and then saying part the way through that he has to leave early: as in, not "can we stop at ten exactly cause I have a bus to catch" but "I'm going to the pub at 9pm so I'm leaving the game half way through". This means he's forever missing end of session cliffhangers and I can't afford to write heavilly-him-oriented plot threads because the odds are high he'll be away and make it awkward: this means he's going to feel less attached to the plot, so hey, it's not a big deal if he says yes to that pub visit next Thursday, right?.....
In the example I gave tehre's some player tension because it's becoming so frequent that it's bugging the other PCs as well. IN your case, though, do the other players mind that he isn't there at the end or does many online side-quests? If they're happy with him just doing the Minimum Contractually Obliged RP Time, then it's not really a problem IMHO.
THe miscommunications are perhaps more annoying for all, but this is a generic Person Problem and not a uniquely D&D one: you just need to be careful how you word things, explicitly tell him "do not assume X unless I say Y", and just generally be as clear as possible. If the rest of the players aren't getting confused, it's clear the problem is with him, not you, but there's no nice way to say "You follow instructions as well as a pet rock", so you need to do your best to stop it happening. :>
And re: his curtness when you asked for his help.... well, he does have a point. If you're not the GM of a game, you are in no way obligated to have the same investment in a game as it's GM does. Some of my PCs contribute to our campaign wiki, talk about D&D with me almost every day on IM, look up new feats/spells/etc at home.... and others basically turn up at sessions, do their thing, and go home. This gets annoying when it leads to extra work (i.e. I write plot catchups online for my group, but several of themd on't read them and instead have to be told mid-game when they forget who X NPX is that they met a few sessions ago) but that's, frankly, just the nature of some players.
I'd have a word with him and say that, while all the other players are into these extra things, he doesn't seem to be as engaged with your game, and you'd like to know if there's anything you can do to help involve him more. Don't phrase it like you're accusing him of something bad: make it clear you'd be happier if you could make him happier with the game. He might simply say "I don't have the time/inclination to play beyond the X hours our normal session lasts": in which case, you just have to build your game around that. If he isn't actually bugging the other players than chucking him might cause more strife in the group than it's worth.
I'll just echo what others have said. I've been the player who immediately schedules an alternate commitment for game night. I've been the player who has no interest in blue-booking. And I would, if the issue arose, be the player who didn't have much to say in the wrap-up round about the game.
The only area where I would disagree with others is that I would say the player is not so much less into the game as he is into other aspects of gaming that you do not emphasize. Have you asked him what he would like to see more of in the game?
The only area where I would disagree with others is that I would say the player is not so much less into the game as he is into other aspects of gaming that you do not emphasize. Have you asked him what he would like to see more of in the game?
I actually think you're being more of a problem DM than he is being a problem player.
Unless there are in-game issues (and you didn't mention any) just leave the guy alone and get on with the game!
Showing up for and participating in game sessions should be enough to ask. If you have some players who are willing to do more, just be grateful for that. You can't expect it from everyone, and trying to force it out of players who aren't interested just leads to frustration.
Unless there are in-game issues (and you didn't mention any) just leave the guy alone and get on with the game!
Showing up for and participating in game sessions should be enough to ask. If you have some players who are willing to do more, just be grateful for that. You can't expect it from everyone, and trying to force it out of players who aren't interested just leads to frustration.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
I really don't see a "problem" here.
I see the GM having expections A and the player having expections B.
If the two never meet and the game isn't injured by it, no harm no foul.
Might be interesting to see how player B does.
One of my friends is pretty much a casual gamer and runs a game that shows a lot more dedication probably because he enjoys GMing more than playing.
I see the GM having expections A and the player having expections B.
If the two never meet and the game isn't injured by it, no harm no foul.
Might be interesting to see how player B does.
One of my friends is pretty much a casual gamer and runs a game that shows a lot more dedication probably because he enjoys GMing more than playing.
