TL;DR - how does one deal with a player who wants to tell other characters how to play?
Hey there hive mind! I'm a new-ish DM (been doing it for a couple years now, but just running the one campaign, and wasn't playing for very long before deciding to DM), and I've run into a bit of an issue with a player. Some background, he's the only player that has actually made it to every session in the campaign thus far. I started out with way too many players, lost almost all of them, and then gained a couple more. The party has settled into a good routine with three consistent players, and the story has been progressing very well.
The problem player is playing an elf wizard, and is positively thirsty for anything magical. Every time he walks into a room, "Is there anything magical in here?". Anytime something dies, "I cast detect magic as a ritual to find any magic items it was carrying". It has made for good role play, and it has also been a source of conflict when trying to keep the game moving. I've straight told my players that if they want some magic item or to accomplish some goal, they just need to let me know and I'll try to make it happen for their character. At one point earlier in the game, I allowed him to commission a local artisan to build a crossbow that would shoot two bolts before needing a reload, and because he rolled so well during the role play I let him pay (most of his gold at the time) to build several of these to pass out to the party. Basically everyone has this weapon available to them, and it's kind of cool, but its use is limited.
The problem came up in the last session. Our paladin/tank usually rolls very low initiative, but managed to get first initiative in a fairly inconsequential battle (in a small cavern fighting a group of zombies shambling towards them). They discussed strategy for a bit, and the wizard wanted the paladin to use the crossbow rather than run up and fight. The paladin decided to run in and fight. The wizard got pissed off because he wanted to try an AoE spell, accused everyone at the table of shitting on his ideas, and he rage-quit out of the session (we are playing online). He came back about 20 minutes later, somewhat reticent but still a little pissed off, and we were able to finish the session, but the post-session talk turned back to that one battle and our paladin's choice to use his initiative as he wanted. We tried to let the wizard know that we appreciate the strategy, but ultimately the decision is up to the person with initiative. Keep in mind, the wizard almost always goes first in initiative, as he has the highest init bonus in the group. This one rare time he had to craft his strategy to fit someone else, and he lost his shit over it. He was practically telling the paladin how to play his own character, and casting himself as the victim because the rest of the table didn't agree.
We had to take a break for a few weeks after that, and last night our session got derailed because our monk couldn't make it, and I (as a bad DM) didn't have an alternate adventure ready to go. The paladin brought up the previous discussion, and made it clear that he's open to strategy discussion and advice, and asked the wizard to be sure to point out future scenarios where he may want to use a different tactic, but that he wasn't always going to agree. The wizard said it's not his responsibility, the paladin has been warned, and if he keeps rushing into battle he may end up taking a fireball in the back. There was a little more discussion, but it became clear that the wizard wants to play everyone's part, so that the game will go *his* way. And I get that, he's been at the table longer than any other player and has a lot more invested in the adventure, but he's making it uncomfortable for the other players, and honestly making me want to scrap this adventure and start a new one, without him as a player.
Anyone dealt with this before? Any advice on how to proceed?
I would mostly approach the problem from the perspective of: "Is this person respecting me and my fellow players?" If not then you address that first with a conversation around communication and how you feel their actions create strife and undue tension about a literal game.
The intent is to have fun and if you are not having fun then I would communicate that. I think that sometimes its harder to figure out exactly why you are not having fun but in this case its at least pretty clear!
No way to avoid the conversation if you wish to try and continue gaming with this person as they will need to address their behavior and work on it. Alternatively you might just have to politely tell them they are not working out in the game.
1) an option is to be made. is this player a major part of the game. if yes then you should keep him in and try to address this habit (as a habit is what it is. he is most likely used to playing games where he makes the choice) and break the habit. he needs to learn he is not in charge. he doesn't call the shots for other players . if he is not necessary then kick him from the game
2) requires him to leave that game but still want to play. you could try a 1 on 1 game with this player. it's not super hard to do if your decent at dming. the main thing that is bad is that even a 1v1 fight is dangerous even if your playing a martial class(this can be avoided with sidekicks that he would pay for or train (like a pet dog). that way he gets his strategy every time. you would be the one to play and make the sidekicks however). the obvious pro's are that he gets all the attention and gets to decide what's done. this eliminates the fighting and bickering between party members as he calls the shots. i would not recommend it if this player does not like roleplay as the amount of roleplay skyrockets in a 1 on 1 game
Yeah. This isn’t an easy conversation to have is it? Why is that? Thats because the Wizard is pushing your buttons to get what he wants.
Stop playing into the manipulation and tell him to knock it off, or find another group.
It sounds mean, but if this guy is screwing up the game with his unasked for advice, then he has to change or leave. It’s players like this that get campaigns derailed and forgotten about. If you let this behavior continue, then it’ll be your fault that the campaign fizzles out. Which I’ve seen 100/100 times, you get a prima Donna like this and they get comfortable enough to start table drama, then it’s a short time later when everyone else has something else to do besides play in your campaign.
The Wizard might not realize what he's doing (unlikely, not impossible), and might just think that naturally, everyone wants to do the optimal strategic thing, and therefore doesn't understand why people are upset at him for giving what he considers objectively optimal advice.
Maybe have that conversation with him out of game, not on the spot. Explain that people have different playstyles (the Matt Coville video on Different Types of Players talks about this exact scenario), and ask that he respect other players decisions. At the game table if you notice him doing this just say briefly, something like "hey, that's [paladin]'s choice" or "ok cool, but let him play it out".
His attitude and rage-quitting during a session is another problem. It's petty and disrespectful, and if that's not something he's willing to work on then you might not have the best game with this guy in it.
As for ritually casting detect magic in every single room - ask the other players what their characters are doing during those 10 minutes. Perhaps some of the PCs will wander off to the next room while the wizard is still ritually casting; it might discourage the wizard - especially if his high initiative roll for the next fight just means that he gets to run into the room with the encounter and miss out on casting an AOE first.
Note that if initiative has already been rolled, then it is probably too late for the PCs to be discussing tactics. Each player should declare their actions in turn order.
The wizard doesn't want a party, only an entourage. He'll want the paladin to shield him from danger yet, if the paladin steps out of line, he'll shoot him in the back.
If advice (orders) is being given just cut it short. Cut in and say, "let so and so make their own decisions". "But I was ..." Just cut in again "no, [and repeat]".
Enjoy the individuality. It may be sub-optimal. Great, I hope. How do players feel about possible character death? If it's not a worry then it won't matter how chaotic it may potentially get.
Perhaps ask the player to watch some acquisitions incorporated to get ideas on how very individual players can develop interesting stories.
I (as a bad DM) didn't have an alternate adventure ready to go.
You are not a bad DM for not being able to run an alternate campaign with so little warning. I think its awesome how you were able to handle so much group composition change earlier in your campaign.
It sounds like this guy has issues beyond agreeing on a party strategy, but one thing you could do is offer to retcon his subclass to Evocation if he wants to cast AOEs so badly. That would give him Sculpt Spells which allows him to ignore a few allies in his blasts.
As for constant rituals, it really shouldn't slow down the game at the table. If there is no time constraint, just say "10 minutes pass, here's what you see." Other times, make it clear that there's a clock ticking and any delay will have consequences. If it's a situation where they could double back at the end of the adventure to collect loot, point that out and encourage them do it later.
This is not an in-game issue, it's very much a player behaviour issue, and as such only communicating will work here.
The difficulty is going to be that a player who rage-quits is not going to be someone who is open to communication. He became so overwhelmed by his feelings about something inconsequential that he ditched out of the game on you and the other players. I do not think it's likely that this player can be saved from himself, but it's worth a go if only so that you've done everything in your power to allow him to change.
Speak to the player outside the game, and tell him that if he rage quits a second time, he won't be allowed back to the table. Once can be put down to a bad day. Twice means he doesn't respect you, or the other players' time. It's not acceptable behaviour in any environment, and you won't stand for it.
Tell him that he has to respect that every player gets to make their own choices in D&D, and even if he thinks those choices are wrong then that's irrelevant to everyone else. Remind him that as DM, you have the power to say "A huge crack opens in the sky, a meteor flies through and everyone on the planet suffers a billion points of damage." He cannot win, ultimately, and D&D is not about winning. Each player gets to choose whatever their character does.
Advise him that threatening other characters is considered PvP behaviour. I have a house rule that if a spell, attack or requested ability check would affect another PC, the targeted PC has the option of saying "the spell fizzles/the attack misses/the ability check fails." This prevents any possible PvP attacks taking place, as PvP moves are 'power moves' and the house rule takes all the power away from the aggressor. Sometimes my PCs allow an AoE spell to hit them because it's reasonable. Last sessions someone asked for an insight check on another character, and I offered the targeted character the choice of whether it succeeds or not, and they chose no.
How much time do you give the party to discuss before each combat, when I run combat as soon as I tell players to roll initiative we are into it and I dont allow more than a couple of words between players to discuss tactics. It prevents this kind of behaviour because the player is not allowed to tell people what to do. If the players take time at the start talking then have the monsters advance on them and then get a free round of hitting them.
My dude, the problem solved itself. If this cat rage quit and left the session, that's all that needs to be said. Your description paints the picture of someone throwing a temper tantrum to get what they want. At the same time, they expect you to value them more highly than anyone else because they threatened to take themselves away from you. (I'm taking my dice and logging off.)
I might suggest that you talk to your players about continuing the game without 1 or 2 or up to 1/3 of the party. If one person can't make the session because of last minute life getting in the way, everyone else's plans need not be smashed upon the rocks of real life. If you have a player out, maybe push them to the background for the session, have the table make the decisions for that character during combat based on what that player normally chooses or how they would act. All of this is assuming that you have access to their character sheet and that the players trust each other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This sounds, unfortunately, like the wizard player sees himself as the only important player at the table. I can’t remember the term I saw for it on the forums, but it is essentially that he is the hero and the rest of the party are all the sidekicks. Sadly with a mindset like that, the longer it is allowed to persist, the harder it will be to change it. Act swiftly, being firm but fair. Assume he is capable of change, but be ready to kick him from the table if he refuses. I’m sorry to see that you are experiencing this.
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I will be chatting with this player away from the table before the next session, and we'll see if we can come to an agreement.
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I will be chatting with this player away from the table before the next session, and we'll see if we can come to an agreement.
Good for you mate. Talking is always the best solution for dealing with problem players. Regardless of the player’s relationship to you and the other players, don’t be to take actions necessary to eliminate problems that arise. If any individual is dampening the air of the table (Literally or metaphorically), it is the DM’s responsibility to address the issue and find the best way fix it.
This sounds, unfortunately, like the wizard player sees himself as the only important player at the table. I can’t remember the term I saw for it on the forums, but it is essentially that he is the hero and the rest of the party are all the sidekicks. Sadly with a mindset like that, the longer it is allowed to persist, the harder it will be to change it. Act swiftly, being firm but fair. Assume he is capable of change, but be ready to kick him from the table if he refuses. I’m sorry to see that you are experiencing this.
I think the term your looking for is "egomaniacal narcissist"
TL;DR - how does one deal with a player who wants to tell other characters how to play?
Hey there hive mind! I'm a new-ish DM (been doing it for a couple years now, but just running the one campaign, and wasn't playing for very long before deciding to DM), and I've run into a bit of an issue with a player. Some background, he's the only player that has actually made it to every session in the campaign thus far. I started out with way too many players, lost almost all of them, and then gained a couple more. The party has settled into a good routine with three consistent players, and the story has been progressing very well.
The problem player is playing an elf wizard, and is positively thirsty for anything magical. Every time he walks into a room, "Is there anything magical in here?". Anytime something dies, "I cast detect magic as a ritual to find any magic items it was carrying". It has made for good role play, and it has also been a source of conflict when trying to keep the game moving. I've straight told my players that if they want some magic item or to accomplish some goal, they just need to let me know and I'll try to make it happen for their character. At one point earlier in the game, I allowed him to commission a local artisan to build a crossbow that would shoot two bolts before needing a reload, and because he rolled so well during the role play I let him pay (most of his gold at the time) to build several of these to pass out to the party. Basically everyone has this weapon available to them, and it's kind of cool, but its use is limited.
The problem came up in the last session. Our paladin/tank usually rolls very low initiative, but managed to get first initiative in a fairly inconsequential battle (in a small cavern fighting a group of zombies shambling towards them). They discussed strategy for a bit, and the wizard wanted the paladin to use the crossbow rather than run up and fight. The paladin decided to run in and fight. The wizard got pissed off because he wanted to try an AoE spell, accused everyone at the table of shitting on his ideas, and he rage-quit out of the session (we are playing online). He came back about 20 minutes later, somewhat reticent but still a little pissed off, and we were able to finish the session, but the post-session talk turned back to that one battle and our paladin's choice to use his initiative as he wanted. We tried to let the wizard know that we appreciate the strategy, but ultimately the decision is up to the person with initiative. Keep in mind, the wizard almost always goes first in initiative, as he has the highest init bonus in the group. This one rare time he had to craft his strategy to fit someone else, and he lost his shit over it. He was practically telling the paladin how to play his own character, and casting himself as the victim because the rest of the table didn't agree.
We had to take a break for a few weeks after that, and last night our session got derailed because our monk couldn't make it, and I (as a bad DM) didn't have an alternate adventure ready to go. The paladin brought up the previous discussion, and made it clear that he's open to strategy discussion and advice, and asked the wizard to be sure to point out future scenarios where he may want to use a different tactic, but that he wasn't always going to agree. The wizard said it's not his responsibility, the paladin has been warned, and if he keeps rushing into battle he may end up taking a fireball in the back. There was a little more discussion, but it became clear that the wizard wants to play everyone's part, so that the game will go *his* way. And I get that, he's been at the table longer than any other player and has a lot more invested in the adventure, but he's making it uncomfortable for the other players, and honestly making me want to scrap this adventure and start a new one, without him as a player.
Anyone dealt with this before? Any advice on how to proceed?
"World's okayest Dungeon Master"
I would mostly approach the problem from the perspective of: "Is this person respecting me and my fellow players?" If not then you address that first with a conversation around communication and how you feel their actions create strife and undue tension about a literal game.
The intent is to have fun and if you are not having fun then I would communicate that. I think that sometimes its harder to figure out exactly why you are not having fun but in this case its at least pretty clear!
No way to avoid the conversation if you wish to try and continue gaming with this person as they will need to address their behavior and work on it. Alternatively you might just have to politely tell them they are not working out in the game.
Either way I wish you luck!
now i have two suggestions for this scenario.
1) an option is to be made. is this player a major part of the game. if yes then you should keep him in and try to address this habit (as a habit is what it is. he is most likely used to playing games where he makes the choice) and break the habit. he needs to learn he is not in charge. he doesn't call the shots for other players . if he is not necessary then kick him from the game
2) requires him to leave that game but still want to play. you could try a 1 on 1 game with this player. it's not super hard to do if your decent at dming. the main thing that is bad is that even a 1v1 fight is dangerous even if your playing a martial class(this can be avoided with sidekicks that he would pay for or train (like a pet dog). that way he gets his strategy every time. you would be the one to play and make the sidekicks however). the obvious pro's are that he gets all the attention and gets to decide what's done. this eliminates the fighting and bickering between party members as he calls the shots. i would not recommend it if this player does not like roleplay as the amount of roleplay skyrockets in a 1 on 1 game
Yeah. This isn’t an easy conversation to have is it? Why is that? Thats because the Wizard is pushing your buttons to get what he wants.
Stop playing into the manipulation and tell him to knock it off, or find another group.
It sounds mean, but if this guy is screwing up the game with his unasked for advice, then he has to change or leave. It’s players like this that get campaigns derailed and forgotten about. If you let this behavior continue, then it’ll be your fault that the campaign fizzles out. Which I’ve seen 100/100 times, you get a prima Donna like this and they get comfortable enough to start table drama, then it’s a short time later when everyone else has something else to do besides play in your campaign.
The Wizard might not realize what he's doing (unlikely, not impossible), and might just think that naturally, everyone wants to do the optimal strategic thing, and therefore doesn't understand why people are upset at him for giving what he considers objectively optimal advice.
Maybe have that conversation with him out of game, not on the spot. Explain that people have different playstyles (the Matt Coville video on Different Types of Players talks about this exact scenario), and ask that he respect other players decisions. At the game table if you notice him doing this just say briefly, something like "hey, that's [paladin]'s choice" or "ok cool, but let him play it out".
His attitude and rage-quitting during a session is another problem. It's petty and disrespectful, and if that's not something he's willing to work on then you might not have the best game with this guy in it.
As for ritually casting detect magic in every single room - ask the other players what their characters are doing during those 10 minutes. Perhaps some of the PCs will wander off to the next room while the wizard is still ritually casting; it might discourage the wizard - especially if his high initiative roll for the next fight just means that he gets to run into the room with the encounter and miss out on casting an AOE first.
Note that if initiative has already been rolled, then it is probably too late for the PCs to be discussing tactics. Each player should declare their actions in turn order.
The wizard doesn't want a party, only an entourage. He'll want the paladin to shield him from danger yet, if the paladin steps out of line, he'll shoot him in the back.
If advice (orders) is being given just cut it short. Cut in and say, "let so and so make their own decisions". "But I was ..." Just cut in again "no, [and repeat]".
Enjoy the individuality. It may be sub-optimal. Great, I hope. How do players feel about possible character death? If it's not a worry then it won't matter how chaotic it may potentially get.
Perhaps ask the player to watch some acquisitions incorporated to get ideas on how very individual players can develop interesting stories.
You are not a bad DM for not being able to run an alternate campaign with so little warning. I think its awesome how you were able to handle so much group composition change earlier in your campaign.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
It sounds like this guy has issues beyond agreeing on a party strategy, but one thing you could do is offer to retcon his subclass to Evocation if he wants to cast AOEs so badly. That would give him Sculpt Spells which allows him to ignore a few allies in his blasts.
As for constant rituals, it really shouldn't slow down the game at the table. If there is no time constraint, just say "10 minutes pass, here's what you see." Other times, make it clear that there's a clock ticking and any delay will have consequences. If it's a situation where they could double back at the end of the adventure to collect loot, point that out and encourage them do it later.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This is not an in-game issue, it's very much a player behaviour issue, and as such only communicating will work here.
The difficulty is going to be that a player who rage-quits is not going to be someone who is open to communication. He became so overwhelmed by his feelings about something inconsequential that he ditched out of the game on you and the other players. I do not think it's likely that this player can be saved from himself, but it's worth a go if only so that you've done everything in your power to allow him to change.
All I can say is to repeat the exact same advice I gave someone else recently who was in a similar situation:
Good luck.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
How much time do you give the party to discuss before each combat, when I run combat as soon as I tell players to roll initiative we are into it and I dont allow more than a couple of words between players to discuss tactics. It prevents this kind of behaviour because the player is not allowed to tell people what to do. If the players take time at the start talking then have the monsters advance on them and then get a free round of hitting them.
My dude, the problem solved itself. If this cat rage quit and left the session, that's all that needs to be said. Your description paints the picture of someone throwing a temper tantrum to get what they want. At the same time, they expect you to value them more highly than anyone else because they threatened to take themselves away from you. (I'm taking my dice and logging off.)
I might suggest that you talk to your players about continuing the game without 1 or 2 or up to 1/3 of the party. If one person can't make the session because of last minute life getting in the way, everyone else's plans need not be smashed upon the rocks of real life. If you have a player out, maybe push them to the background for the session, have the table make the decisions for that character during combat based on what that player normally chooses or how they would act. All of this is assuming that you have access to their character sheet and that the players trust each other.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
This sounds, unfortunately, like the wizard player sees himself as the only important player at the table. I can’t remember the term I saw for it on the forums, but it is essentially that he is the hero and the rest of the party are all the sidekicks. Sadly with a mindset like that, the longer it is allowed to persist, the harder it will be to change it. Act swiftly, being firm but fair. Assume he is capable of change, but be ready to kick him from the table if he refuses. I’m sorry to see that you are experiencing this.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Respect the DM. Talk to the player. He is NOT the boss of group. And after one talk, the door will open so he can go play with others.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Was it perchance “self-centered, egotistical narcissist?”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks for the advice, everyone. I will be chatting with this player away from the table before the next session, and we'll see if we can come to an agreement.
"World's okayest Dungeon Master"
Good for you mate. Talking is always the best solution for dealing with problem players. Regardless of the player’s relationship to you and the other players, don’t be to take actions necessary to eliminate problems that arise. If any individual is dampening the air of the table (Literally or metaphorically), it is the DM’s responsibility to address the issue and find the best way fix it.
we (the meta in my neck of the woods) always called it "Lead Actor" or "Spotlight Hog" Syndrome... But I like your word choice better.
I think the term your looking for is "egomaniacal narcissist"
Edit: saw someone already posted that, sorry :l
Hi, I am not a chest. I deny with 100% certainty that I am a chest. I can neither confirm nor deny what I am beyond that.
I used to portray Krathian, Q'ilbrith, Jim, Tara, Turin, Nathan, Tench, Finn, Alvin, and other characters in various taverns.
I also do homebrew, check out my Spells and Magic Items
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons, even death may die"