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.
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
Playing in person is so vastly superior to online, and this is just another reason why.
My current D&D group is spread across three continents and it's a considerably better group of players than any in-person party I've been in in the last 25 years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
... 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.
My point on reading and comprehension is thus proven
Yes i am dismissing their issue as a non issue that any experienced DM should. Of all the things to complain about they are complaining that she won't use sneak attack and she gets 3 spells wrong if this is disruptive to you or any other DM here talk to me when you see a male player get verbally aggressive with a female player or physically assaults a new DM. When you have witnessed those things or have had them happen to you you might understand why i can look at their issue and dismiss it for exactly what it is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sorry, but you don't get to do a comparison test. If a player is annoying the group, or even a subset of the group, for ANY reason, the group can say "sorry, we are not compatible". Examples you are giving are in the extremis. But annoying is annoying. If a player is detracting from the enjoyment of players, especially if this is a new player to the group, everyone has a right to express their displeasure. Many, many, many people are simply incompatible.
I have kicked people out of my games for a wide range of reasons but it was never because someone was annoying or I didn't like them. You don't get an invite if you annoy me or I don't like you, so you would never even get a foot in the door without us already having some sort of established relationship.
Usually, when I kick someone out of a campaign, I'm doing it because of some more esoteric reason, something about the combination of players, or a playstyle misalignment or story that isn't jiving with a particular player or mixture of players and my asking them to leave the campaign is usually out of defense of the integrity of the game. As such in most cases these players will get invites in the future, hopefully under better conditions for them and its rarely something done out of frustration.
As a DM it's your job to make sure that the game will jive so in a sense it's almost like a job interview situation, you need to root out the problem players and problem personalities in advance and I think it's in particularly important if you are working online and with new un-established players. Players that are completely new to the game, those are the toughest cases because even they don't have a reference for personal preferences, so they can't answer a lot of questions most more experienced players can answer.
It's why with new players and new groups I will usually very actively put them in short stories and short campaigns to do a sort of initial assessment so I can identify potential issues in long-running campaigns.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Instead of inferring the OP is lying, by dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full.
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Instead of inferring the OP is lying, by dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full.
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Handwave what you want, speculation is speculation.
I see no reason to dismiss anything presented without other statements from people at the table, which we don't have.
And yet based on speculation you vote to have the player eliminated from the game.
The one other perspective we need to have is the targeted player. I would really like to know what she is thinking.
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?"
My solution is to smile, and start asking questions like: hey do you have a backstory for your character? Are you enjoying the game? How do you like your character? oh and here is a players handbook, some dice and a mini to paint and welcome them to the group. If that doesn't get her to engage more and she just wants hangout and participate as much as she wants i will poke gentle fun at her and leave her be she is not hurting anything. I lose nothing by having a person like that at my table
Well if it is virtual what if it is not really a girl? or if it is a girl what if it is an older woman who has just recently found D&D or what if it is in person and the girl is dating one of the guys or one of the guys wants to date the girl... talk about awkward....
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!
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
Just published a map on DriveThruRPG The Forgotten Temple
My current D&D group is spread across three continents and it's a considerably better group of players than any in-person party I've been in in the last 25 years.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
My point on reading and comprehension is thus proven
Yes i am dismissing their issue as a non issue that any experienced DM should. Of all the things to complain about they are complaining that she won't use sneak attack and she gets 3 spells wrong if this is disruptive to you or any other DM here talk to me when you see a male player get verbally aggressive with a female player or physically assaults a new DM. When you have witnessed those things or have had them happen to you you might understand why i can look at their issue and dismiss it for exactly what it is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Just published a map on DriveThruRPG The Forgotten Temple
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I have kicked people out of my games for a wide range of reasons but it was never because someone was annoying or I didn't like them. You don't get an invite if you annoy me or I don't like you, so you would never even get a foot in the door without us already having some sort of established relationship.
Usually, when I kick someone out of a campaign, I'm doing it because of some more esoteric reason, something about the combination of players, or a playstyle misalignment or story that isn't jiving with a particular player or mixture of players and my asking them to leave the campaign is usually out of defense of the integrity of the game. As such in most cases these players will get invites in the future, hopefully under better conditions for them and its rarely something done out of frustration.
As a DM it's your job to make sure that the game will jive so in a sense it's almost like a job interview situation, you need to root out the problem players and problem personalities in advance and I think it's in particularly important if you are working online and with new un-established players. Players that are completely new to the game, those are the toughest cases because even they don't have a reference for personal preferences, so they can't answer a lot of questions most more experienced players can answer.
It's why with new players and new groups I will usually very actively put them in short stories and short campaigns to do a sort of initial assessment so I can identify potential issues in long-running campaigns.
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you feel like i have attacked you. You have a path of recourse open to you. You can report me.
Just published a map on DriveThruRPG The Forgotten Temple
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
And yet based on speculation you vote to have the player eliminated from the game.
The one other perspective we need to have is the targeted player. I would really like to know what she is thinking.
"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
My solution is to smile, and start asking questions like: hey do you have a backstory for your character? Are you enjoying the game? How do you like your character? oh and here is a players handbook, some dice and a mini to paint and welcome them to the group. If that doesn't get her to engage more and she just wants hangout and participate as much as she wants i will poke gentle fun at her and leave her be she is not hurting anything. I lose nothing by having a person like that at my table
Just published a map on DriveThruRPG The Forgotten Temple
Well if it is virtual what if it is not really a girl? or if it is a girl what if it is an older woman who has just recently found D&D or what if it is in person and the girl is dating one of the guys or one of the guys wants to date the girl... talk about awkward....
Just published a map on DriveThruRPG The Forgotten Temple