What’s not clear from the OP is what sort of communication has happened with the player. They mention “comments” and a “meme”. Comments could be merely comments made between the other players that don’t really help the new player understand what’s expected of them. Someone sitting down with her to talk through the group’s concerns and how she might improve her playing might help.
Cooperation is a two way street. Regardless of what the rest of the group can/could do to meet one persons expectations if the problem player isn't willing to change over 10 sessions of the group pointing out issues that they are unhappy with, it is past time to boot them from the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
My 2cp worth: Maybe try running a sessions similar to the final mission in Mass Effect 2. The party have to split up to accompish several goals within a certain time limit. Each person gets their own time to shine and hopefully they all end up at the same point for a final encounter. The DM can tailor make each little scene for each character and this might just prompt the player in question to look into their characters abilities a bit more whilst giving them the chance to maybe flex a few character muscles they otherwise may not feel they get to do or realise they have been forgetting some things.
EDIT: also worthing remembering, everyone was new to the game at some stage and if that is the case for this particular player then maybe some additional hand holding is in order.
How much time do you think a DM has in a week? Most people have stuff going in their lives that consume time. How much time do you expect a DM to allocate to a game, say a weekly game, and how much should be designated for catering to every individual unique need or want of a player? These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know how much time you think a DM should spend in a week prepping for a session, and how much time to " tailor make each little scene for each character "?
A halfway competent DM can do this as part of their regular session planning—it really is not that hard to say “hey, I’m planning anyway, might as well consider my players while doing this planning” and takes no additional time.
No additional time.......
Yeah no additional time we work it into our normal prep which is going to vary wildly from DM to DM. We all deal with time management issues most of us have jobs and families if on any given week we do not have time we make time get up early or stay up a little later or maybe work on the session we are planning on break at work while we eat lunch.
There is no way "no additional time" is required. It just isn't.
Many players are more interested in RP than their common roles in a party. It's the reason i take proficiency in thieves' tools (and search for traps if I have high perception) when I get the chance even though I don't run rogues. And, you have another rogue anyway, so you are covered. If the DM is cool with the way she plays her character, there is nothing you can do about it. You definitely shouldn't micromanage other players.
What if the problem player is actually a double agent or undercover espionage type character and we are helping spoil the game?
It has been 10 sessions after all.
There is a million and one reasons why the game has played out the way it has and why players are behaving the way they are. Its why conversations/questions like this are generally impossible to answer as the only way to know what is going on here is to have been there for 10 sessions at the table with full knowledge of what everyone is thinking. Its an impossible-to-answer question and at the end of the day the only real agenda is that the OP is looking for a kind of weird internet-based communal answer that supports both what he thinks to be true and what he wants as an outcome. Meaning, the OP is not really asking a real question.
Just think about the statement prior to the question, it's already filled with an assumption that we can neither prove or disprove that the player in question "hasn't read her class". I have serious doubts that this is a true statement. "We have made multiple comments"... A very vague statement. Imagine if a group of players made multiple comments about the way your running your character, would you not have a response to that? I think most people would have said something, there would have been a conversation and some reasoning.
And what is "playing as a rogue poorly" exactly? Modern D&D doesn't have archetypes like old school D&D, like, Rogues don't have some sort of "job" or presumed responsibility in an adventuring party like the thief did in old school D&D. I'm not sure how you could objectively prove that a player was playing a class correctly or incorrectly.
There are just far more questions than answers here and as you point out, there could be any number of reasons that explain the players behavior that the OP is simply not aware of. My guess is that the OP is very aware of why the player is behaving the way they are, but the OP has chosen to ignore or doesn't accept the answer.
Players trying to control what other players do and how they play the game is one of the most common problems at a D&D table. I find I have to correct such behavior as a DM all the time. The classic "you should....." is something I shut down quite regularly.
What if the problem player is actually a double agent or undercover espionage type character and we are helping spoil the game?
It has been 10 sessions after all.
There is a million and one reasons why the game has played out the way it has and why players are behaving the way they are. Its why conversations/questions like this are generally impossible to answer as the only way to know what is going on here is to have been there for 10 sessions at the table with full knowledge of what everyone is thinking. Its an impossible-to-answer question and at the end of the day the only real agenda is that the OP is looking for a kind of weird internet-based communal answer that supports both what he thinks to be true and what he wants as an outcome. Meaning, the OP is not really asking a real question.
Just think about the statement prior to the question, it's already filled with an assumption that we can neither prove or disprove that the player in question "hasn't read her class". I have serious doubts that this is a true statement. "We have made multiple comments"... A very vague statement. Imagine if a group of players made multiple comments about the way your running your character, would you not have a response to that? I think most people would have said something, there would have been a conversation and some reasoning.
And what is "playing as a rogue poorly" exactly? Modern D&D doesn't have archetypes like old school D&D, like, Rogues don't have some sort of "job" or presumed responsibility in an adventuring party like the thief did in old school D&D. I'm not sure how you could objectively prove that a player was playing a class correctly or incorrectly.
There are just far more questions than answers here and as you point out, there could be any number of reasons that explain the players behavior that the OP is simply not aware of. My guess is that the OP is very aware of why the player is behaving the way they are, but the OP has chosen to ignore or doesn't accept the answer.
Players trying to control what other players do and how they play the game is one of the most common problems at a D&D table. I find I have to correct such behavior as a DM all the time. The classic "you should....." is something I shut down quite regularly.
That was my attempt to add a little levity to the thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
10 sessions is not a whole lot of experience in some groups that could be a month of play in others it could 6+ months of play. When we have had new people join I would give them six months to a year before i expected they knew what they were doing..
10 sessions is not a whole lot of experience in some groups that could be a month of play in others it could 6+ months of play. When we have had new people join I would give them six months to a year before i expected they knew what they were doing..
6 to 12 months...to learn how to play a game, and actually, just one PC class inside a game. Sorry, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. I have NEVER heard of, let alone played at, a table that would tolerate such a thing. If a player still can't get the simplest spell correct, after 10 sessions, after having it explained who knows how many times.....
Some people in this thread need to remember there is a difference between reading and comprehension. While D&D is a little more mainstream than it was when i started playing in the 80's we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact i have say this at all disappoints me.
I would maybe suggest take some time and encouraging her to read about her class in the PHB, especially if you are the DM. Not necessarily hand holding, but showing them the boundaries and abilities their class can do.
Some people in this thread need to remember there is a difference between reading and comprehension. While D&D is a little more mainstream than it was when i started playing in the 80's we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact i have say this at all disappoints me.
I think many people forget what they were like when they first started playing RPGs. They ignore that they already have a gamer mind set. They ignore that the player in question has never played anything before.
Nobody becomes an expert after trying something new, even after 10 trials.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
What if the problem player is actually a double agent or undercover espionage type character and we are helping spoil the game?
It has been 10 sessions after all.
There is a million and one reasons why the game has played out the way it has and why players are behaving the way they are. Its why conversations/questions like this are generally impossible to answer as the only way to know what is going on here is to have been there for 10 sessions at the table with full knowledge of what everyone is thinking. Its an impossible-to-answer question and at the end of the day the only real agenda is that the OP is looking for a kind of weird internet-based communal answer that supports both what he thinks to be true and what he wants as an outcome. Meaning, the OP is not really asking a real question.
This is quite astute. It doesn’t matter what any of us think about the “problem” player or their so-called problems because we’re only getting half the story anyway.
OP needs to figure out whether they are the odd man out. If the entire group dislikes playing with her, she should be kindly disinvited. OTOH, if it turns out that OP is the only one or in the minority of people who dislike playing with her, OP needs to learn how to enjoy the game with her included or find a different table themself.
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
We definitely have huge problems retaining DM's, far more so than players. Seriously, players out number DM's by a huge amount, and is a severe problem with the game overall that I never see addressed by WotC in the slightest... so even if half of all D&D players quit, we still wouldn't have enough DM's to run games.
As a community, we need to do a better job at giving everybody who plays D&D some leeway when making mistakes, or finding their own way to have fun with the game without having to worry about being criticized on the internet by a bunch of strangers. While it doesn't happen too often on these forums, shaming is an all to common occurrence everywhere else D&D is discussed.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Back on topic; taking OP's post at face value, it looks like a group of serious players with one player that is still learning, or is not that invested and is just looking to have some fun. In my own experience, I have players that have been playing for years that still don't know how their character abilities work, nor have read the PHB, so to me this is a rather common thing, but I also don't care as long as they listen, and are respectful to me, when I tell them what the rules are as they need to know them.
I understand that my players have busy lives with jobs, children, and other responsibilities; so they may not have the extra time to sit down and read through the books, and to them D&D is just a way to escape their lives for a few hours every other week. As a DM, I chose to do this, so there is a very real expectation that I should know the rules inside and out, even when it comes to the PC's and their abilities (not saying I actually memorized everything in the books, but I do know the PHB/DMG, and my PC's inside and out). But if I started forcing my players to memorize the rules, then they would probably quit just due to not having enough time in their personal lives.
At the end of the day, what we have here is a mismatched group, based on what OP is telling us. The best possible solution would be to politely ask the player in question to leave the group, and perhaps even help her find another game (if possible) that fits her playstyle better, so she doesn't leave with a bad taste in her mouth for playing D&D by thinking all groups play like OP's.
Good Luck OP, hope everything works out in your game!
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
Playing in person is so vastly superior to online, and this is just another reason why.
Playing in person is so vastly superior to online, and this is just another reason why.
I whole heartedly agree, I only play in person games. Which tools depends on the group, beginners is usually digital character sheets and maps on a screen. I do have a group that is pencil and paper with maps and books at the table, and some games in-between.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
Playing in person is so vastly superior to online, and this is just another reason why.
This is probably the only thing we will ever agree on. However, it is not always easy and or possible for groups to meet physically Discord and VTT can fill the void
Matchmaking is very likely coming, you will see it in the VTT.
Another tool I have no interest in, I am planning on trying the maps tool on a game in Jan. I generally use InfinitasDM and like it, but I like the tokens on maps and I already pay for a master tier for content sharing, and will be running the new Lairs of Etharis so I figured might as well give it a go.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What’s not clear from the OP is what sort of communication has happened with the player. They mention “comments” and a “meme”. Comments could be merely comments made between the other players that don’t really help the new player understand what’s expected of them. Someone sitting down with her to talk through the group’s concerns and how she might improve her playing might help.
Cooperation is a two way street. Regardless of what the rest of the group can/could do to meet one persons expectations if the problem player isn't willing to change over 10 sessions of the group pointing out issues that they are unhappy with, it is past time to boot them from the group.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
There is no way "no additional time" is required. It just isn't.
Many players are more interested in RP than their common roles in a party. It's the reason i take proficiency in thieves' tools (and search for traps if I have high perception) when I get the chance even though I don't run rogues. And, you have another rogue anyway, so you are covered. If the DM is cool with the way she plays her character, there is nothing you can do about it. You definitely shouldn't micromanage other players.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
What if the problem player is actually a double agent or undercover espionage type character and we are helping spoil the game?
It has been 10 sessions after all.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
There is a million and one reasons why the game has played out the way it has and why players are behaving the way they are. Its why conversations/questions like this are generally impossible to answer as the only way to know what is going on here is to have been there for 10 sessions at the table with full knowledge of what everyone is thinking. Its an impossible-to-answer question and at the end of the day the only real agenda is that the OP is looking for a kind of weird internet-based communal answer that supports both what he thinks to be true and what he wants as an outcome. Meaning, the OP is not really asking a real question.
Just think about the statement prior to the question, it's already filled with an assumption that we can neither prove or disprove that the player in question "hasn't read her class". I have serious doubts that this is a true statement. "We have made multiple comments"... A very vague statement. Imagine if a group of players made multiple comments about the way your running your character, would you not have a response to that? I think most people would have said something, there would have been a conversation and some reasoning.
And what is "playing as a rogue poorly" exactly? Modern D&D doesn't have archetypes like old school D&D, like, Rogues don't have some sort of "job" or presumed responsibility in an adventuring party like the thief did in old school D&D. I'm not sure how you could objectively prove that a player was playing a class correctly or incorrectly.
There are just far more questions than answers here and as you point out, there could be any number of reasons that explain the players behavior that the OP is simply not aware of. My guess is that the OP is very aware of why the player is behaving the way they are, but the OP has chosen to ignore or doesn't accept the answer.
Players trying to control what other players do and how they play the game is one of the most common problems at a D&D table. I find I have to correct such behavior as a DM all the time. The classic "you should....." is something I shut down quite regularly.
That was my attempt to add a little levity to the thread.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
10 sessions is not a whole lot of experience in some groups that could be a month of play in others it could 6+ months of play. When we have had new people join I would give them six months to a year before i expected they knew what they were doing..
6 to 12 months...to learn how to play a game, and actually, just one PC class inside a game. Sorry, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. I have NEVER heard of, let alone played at, a table that would tolerate such a thing. If a player still can't get the simplest spell correct, after 10 sessions, after having it explained who knows how many times.....
Some people in this thread need to remember there is a difference between reading and comprehension. While D&D is a little more mainstream than it was when i started playing in the 80's we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact i have say this at all disappoints me.
I would maybe suggest take some time and encouraging her to read about her class in the PHB, especially if you are the DM.
Not necessarily hand holding, but showing them the boundaries and abilities their class can do.
I think many people forget what they were like when they first started playing RPGs. They ignore that they already have a gamer mind set. They ignore that the player in question has never played anything before.
Nobody becomes an expert after trying something new, even after 10 trials.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
This is quite astute. It doesn’t matter what any of us think about the “problem” player or their so-called problems because we’re only getting half the story anyway.
OP needs to figure out whether they are the odd man out. If the entire group dislikes playing with her, she should be kindly disinvited. OTOH, if it turns out that OP is the only one or in the minority of people who dislike playing with her, OP needs to learn how to enjoy the game with her included or find a different table themself.
I second this for DM's as well.
We definitely have huge problems retaining DM's, far more so than players. Seriously, players out number DM's by a huge amount, and is a severe problem with the game overall that I never see addressed by WotC in the slightest... so even if half of all D&D players quit, we still wouldn't have enough DM's to run games.
As a community, we need to do a better job at giving everybody who plays D&D some leeway when making mistakes, or finding their own way to have fun with the game without having to worry about being criticized on the internet by a bunch of strangers. While it doesn't happen too often on these forums, shaming is an all to common occurrence everywhere else D&D is discussed.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Back on topic; taking OP's post at face value, it looks like a group of serious players with one player that is still learning, or is not that invested and is just looking to have some fun. In my own experience, I have players that have been playing for years that still don't know how their character abilities work, nor have read the PHB, so to me this is a rather common thing, but I also don't care as long as they listen, and are respectful to me, when I tell them what the rules are as they need to know them.
I understand that my players have busy lives with jobs, children, and other responsibilities; so they may not have the extra time to sit down and read through the books, and to them D&D is just a way to escape their lives for a few hours every other week. As a DM, I chose to do this, so there is a very real expectation that I should know the rules inside and out, even when it comes to the PC's and their abilities (not saying I actually memorized everything in the books, but I do know the PHB/DMG, and my PC's inside and out). But if I started forcing my players to memorize the rules, then they would probably quit just due to not having enough time in their personal lives.
At the end of the day, what we have here is a mismatched group, based on what OP is telling us. The best possible solution would be to politely ask the player in question to leave the group, and perhaps even help her find another game (if possible) that fits her playstyle better, so she doesn't leave with a bad taste in her mouth for playing D&D by thinking all groups play like OP's.
Good Luck OP, hope everything works out in your game!
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Playing in person is so vastly superior to online, and this is just another reason why.
I whole heartedly agree, I only play in person games. Which tools depends on the group, beginners is usually digital character sheets and maps on a screen. I do have a group that is pencil and paper with maps and books at the table, and some games in-between.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Matchmaking is very likely coming, you will see it in the VTT.
This is probably the only thing we will ever agree on. However, it is not always easy and or possible for groups to meet physically Discord and VTT can fill the void
Another tool I have no interest in, I am planning on trying the maps tool on a game in Jan. I generally use InfinitasDM and like it, but I like the tokens on maps and I already pay for a master tier for content sharing, and will be running the new Lairs of Etharis so I figured might as well give it a go.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.