This post is specifically about a PC, not the player. The player is fine.
The player's old character died, and he was replaced with a new one that I have some problems with. As far as I know, his only motivation is money, but it gets worse. In the campaign's home base town, he stole the leader's crossbow, for no other reason than it's magical and therefore valuable. This might be fine, but the other characters are very good-oriented, so the problem character doesn't fit in.
Do you have any ideas on good ways to resolve this?
This sounds like a “but that’s what my character would do” situation, and I would therefore argue that the problem here is actually the player and not the character. The player is not some passive observer; the player is the one choosing to give the character those motivations, and choosing to have the character take those actions. The player can simply choose to make the character behave differently, and problem solved.
This calls for a talk with the player to have them rein in the character’s behavior. Especially since they are not new to the group, they should know the general vibe of the campaign. It’s up to them to make a character that will fit with the group.
I was thinking to just ask the player to change the character. As for the problem being with the player, that's not exactly accurate. This is not how the player normally plays his characters. He's always a bit on the chaotic, greedy side as far as characters go, but this is the only time it's caused problems. I think he just thought playing a very greedy character would be fun, which is fair, but annoying.
Speak to the player and explain how you feel their characters motivations could be/are problematic in that they do not contribute towards an enjoyable game. Then explain that you're more than happy to work with them to narratively justify a change in the character's motive, seemingly "abruptly". Maybe they're obsessed with money because they're in debt to someone powerful, but they keep that hidden out of shame. Then during some downtime the character gets a bit drunk and shares it with the rest of the group and now it's a small side quest to kill this debtor and end the hold they have on the PC.
Or perhaps the next quest they go on, they encounter someone driven mad by a pursuit of wealth and the PC has a revelation that they don't want that to be them.
The point is there's plenty of ways you and the player can work together to segue their character out of this disruptive behaviour without putting the character in the bin.
However, if the player rejects that, tell them they can always come up with a new character and you'll help come up with a situation to transition over to that character instead
I was thinking to just ask the player to change the character. As for the problem being with the player, that's not exactly accurate. This is not how the player normally plays his characters. He's always a bit on the chaotic, greedy side as far as characters go, but this is the only time it's caused problems. I think he just thought playing a very greedy character would be fun, which is fair, but annoying.
I didn’t mean to imply the player was being malicious or was a bad person. Most of the time people doing this sort of thing don’t fully realize what they’re doing. But they are still the one making the mistake here. There can be a way to play a greedy character without disrupting the rest of the campaign. Just make them aware of what they are doing. It’s really a question of their version of fun stepping on the other players’ version of fun.
At my table, we call this a "Shared fun" violation.
It's not that the player or character is inherently bad, but rather they are not in sync with the tone of the other characters and the party as a whole. I'd bring this up, involving the other players for transparency (and to get their feelings on it), and then allow the player to make any character changes they like (within the rules) to make a better fit.
Had the same kind of issue some years ago. We all spoke with the player who insisted that "that's how the character is supposed to act..." After multiple attempts at counseling the player about the character' mindset, the other players took matters into their own hands.
Needless to say after multiple in-game warnings he was fireballed, smote, bashed, blasted, raged upon, etc...by the other party members in unison without warning. Then ressurected and that process was repeated. After that, they took back all their stuff.
Not saying that's the way to handle it, but after that all the shenannigans stopped.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Aut Inveniam Viam Aut Faciam (Find a way or make one) - Hannibal Allegedly
Lessons learned in blood are not soon forgotten. - Clyde Shelton
The truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is and you must bow to it's power or live a lie. -Miyamoto Musashi
Had the same kind of issue some years ago. We all spoke with the player who insisted that "that's how the character is supposed to act..." After multiple attempts at counseling the player about the character' mindset, the other players took matters into their own hands.
Needless to say after multiple in-game warnings he was fireballed, smote, bashed, blasted, raged upon, etc...by the other party members in unison without warning. Then ressurected and that process was repeated. After that, they took back all their stuff.
Not saying that's the way to handle it, but after that all the shenannigans stopped.
That's certainly one way to deal with it. Hopefully less drastic measures will work for my case.
Just roll with it in game. Bring down the repercussions for stealing said items. Have the long arm of the law, arrest him and the group. When group gets tired of it, they will reign him in. It could add flavor to the campaign. Wanted signs posted for them in various towns, rewards so bounty hunters come in to play. Could make for interesting encounters for sure.
This sounds like a “but that’s what my character would do” situation, and I would therefore argue that the problem here is actually the player and not the character. The player is not some passive observer; the player is the one choosing to give the character those motivations, and choosing to have the character take those actions. The player can simply choose to make the character behave differently, and problem solved.
This calls for a talk with the player to have them rein in the character’s behavior. Especially since they are not new to the group, they should know the general vibe of the campaign. It’s up to them to make a character that will fit with the group.
If the group doesn’t say something either out of character or in character, then let it roll. Stealing is neither bad or good in dnd. Rogues wouldn’t be fun without the ability to do it. The challenge is the rush. Greed is also part of the game mechanics, I want this item or that. If the player legitimately gets away with pickpockets (using class ability) I would award them. If the party members are mad about it, then they should speak up. If you are mad, because you think it’s ruining the party’s alignment (good), stealing could be good (Robin Hood). You can be lawfull alignment and still could condone stealing. Just my point of view. The table should talk out of character or in character between each other. That’s the best advice if it’s bothering anyone
This sounds like a “but that’s what my character would do” situation, and I would therefore argue that the problem here is actually the player and not the character. The player is not some passive observer; the player is the one choosing to give the character those motivations, and choosing to have the character take those actions. The player can simply choose to make the character behave differently, and problem solved.
This calls for a talk with the player to have them rein in the character’s behavior. Especially since they are not new to the group, they should know the general vibe of the campaign. It’s up to them to make a character that will fit with the group.
If the group doesn’t say something either out of character or in character, then let it roll. Stealing is neither bad or good in dnd. Rogues wouldn’t be fun without the ability to do it. The challenge is the rush. Greed is also part of the game mechanics, I want this item or that. If the player legitimately gets away with pickpockets (using class ability) I would award them. If the party members are mad about it, then they should speak up. If you are mad, because you think it’s ruining the party’s alignment (good), stealing could be good (Robin Hood). You can be lawfull alignment and still could condone stealing. Just my point of view. The table should talk out of character or in character between each other. That’s the best advice if it’s bothering anyone
Clearly it is a problem, or the OP wouldn’t be here asking for advice.
This is a common problem and one of the simplest solutions is that all characters that are designed, both mechanically and their backgrounds/backstories/motivations should be approved by not just the GM, but all of the players. I agree with the "shared fun" violation, you can't bring a character to the table that is intentionally a bad fit for the adventuring party. The assumption has to be that there is good reason why these characters travel together and if there is a clear conflict, they wouldn't, so you have to recognize that before you introduced them.
When that's not done, you can end up with problems like this and at that point there is not much you can do other than either re-write the characters personality or make a new character
I will say however If the player comes to the table and says, I made my character, he is a greedy thief, everyone agrees including the GM that the character will be fine, its a bit uncool to come back after a few sessions and complain that "hey your characters a bad fit, we don't want a greedy thief in the party". I mean, assuming the cards where on the table at the start, it would suck to be that player at that point.
Doesn't really change anything about the situation your in now, but it does highlight the importance of session 0 discussions and when a character dies or leaves the party, when a new character joins, you kind of need to have that discussion again before they join.
Chalk it off as a lesson learned, but I would suggest assuming the responsibility as the DM. Just tell everyone its your fault for not anticipating this problem, apologize and ask the player with the problem character to either change their background or make a new one. That way its clear its nothing personal, the conflict can be resolved and you hopefully if everyone is mature you won't have any hard feelings about it.
You can't fix it until you know why they built a character like that. It could be the player is bored with being all good oriented and wants to bring some chaos to the game. It could be that they find the party dynamic boring and want to stir up drama between different PCs so they want the other PCs to get made at their character. It could be that they want their character to actually have a noticable arc and want them to start off bad but be convinced to become good by the rest of the party. Or it could be they are power-gaming and just want a character that will justify them doing whatever to get as much powerful stuff as possible.
You can't fix it until you know why they built a character like that. It could be the player is bored with being all good oriented and wants to bring some chaos to the game. It could be that they find the party dynamic boring and want to stir up drama between different PCs so they want the other PCs to get made at their character. It could be that they want their character to actually have a noticable arc and want them to start off bad but be convinced to become good by the rest of the party. Or it could be they are power-gaming and just want a character that will justify them doing whatever to get as much powerful stuff as possible.
I agree with this take 100%.
In addition, I find some players also get tired of being fed a story and are looking for some sort of agency in the plot. They want to act and have the world react, not to wait for the villain to act and then have to react to that. Not sure if that's the situation, but if it is they might enjoy a more sandboxed environment than a linear campaign story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have Darkvision, by the way.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This post is specifically about a PC, not the player. The player is fine.
The player's old character died, and he was replaced with a new one that I have some problems with. As far as I know, his only motivation is money, but it gets worse. In the campaign's home base town, he stole the leader's crossbow, for no other reason than it's magical and therefore valuable. This might be fine, but the other characters are very good-oriented, so the problem character doesn't fit in.
Do you have any ideas on good ways to resolve this?
This sounds like a “but that’s what my character would do” situation, and I would therefore argue that the problem here is actually the player and not the character. The player is not some passive observer; the player is the one choosing to give the character those motivations, and choosing to have the character take those actions. The player can simply choose to make the character behave differently, and problem solved.
This calls for a talk with the player to have them rein in the character’s behavior. Especially since they are not new to the group, they should know the general vibe of the campaign. It’s up to them to make a character that will fit with the group.
I was thinking to just ask the player to change the character. As for the problem being with the player, that's not exactly accurate. This is not how the player normally plays his characters. He's always a bit on the chaotic, greedy side as far as characters go, but this is the only time it's caused problems. I think he just thought playing a very greedy character would be fun, which is fair, but annoying.
Speak to the player and explain how you feel their characters motivations could be/are problematic in that they do not contribute towards an enjoyable game. Then explain that you're more than happy to work with them to narratively justify a change in the character's motive, seemingly "abruptly". Maybe they're obsessed with money because they're in debt to someone powerful, but they keep that hidden out of shame. Then during some downtime the character gets a bit drunk and shares it with the rest of the group and now it's a small side quest to kill this debtor and end the hold they have on the PC.
Or perhaps the next quest they go on, they encounter someone driven mad by a pursuit of wealth and the PC has a revelation that they don't want that to be them.
The point is there's plenty of ways you and the player can work together to segue their character out of this disruptive behaviour without putting the character in the bin.
However, if the player rejects that, tell them they can always come up with a new character and you'll help come up with a situation to transition over to that character instead
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I didn’t mean to imply the player was being malicious or was a bad person. Most of the time people doing this sort of thing don’t fully realize what they’re doing. But they are still the one making the mistake here.
There can be a way to play a greedy character without disrupting the rest of the campaign.
Just make them aware of what they are doing. It’s really a question of their version of fun stepping on the other players’ version of fun.
At my table, we call this a "Shared fun" violation.
It's not that the player or character is inherently bad, but rather they are not in sync with the tone of the other characters and the party as a whole. I'd bring this up, involving the other players for transparency (and to get their feelings on it), and then allow the player to make any character changes they like (within the rules) to make a better fit.
Thank you everyone for the all the help.
Had the same kind of issue some years ago. We all spoke with the player who insisted that "that's how the character is supposed to act..." After multiple attempts at counseling the player about the character' mindset, the other players took matters into their own hands.
Needless to say after multiple in-game warnings he was fireballed, smote, bashed, blasted, raged upon, etc...by the other party members in unison without warning. Then ressurected and that process was repeated. After that, they took back all their stuff.
Not saying that's the way to handle it, but after that all the shenannigans stopped.
Aut Inveniam Viam Aut Faciam (Find a way or make one) - Hannibal Allegedly
Lessons learned in blood are not soon forgotten. - Clyde Shelton
The truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is and you must bow to it's power or live a lie. -Miyamoto Musashi
That's certainly one way to deal with it. Hopefully less drastic measures will work for my case.
Just roll with it in game. Bring down the repercussions for stealing said items. Have the long arm of the law, arrest him and the group. When group gets tired of it, they will reign him in. It could add flavor to the campaign. Wanted signs posted for them in various towns, rewards so bounty hunters come in to play. Could make for interesting encounters for sure.
If the group doesn’t say something either out of character or in character, then let it roll. Stealing is neither bad or good in dnd. Rogues wouldn’t be fun without the ability to do it. The challenge is the rush. Greed is also part of the game mechanics, I want this item or that. If the player legitimately gets away with pickpockets (using class ability) I would award them. If the party members are mad about it, then they should speak up. If you are mad, because you think it’s ruining the party’s alignment (good), stealing could be good (Robin Hood). You can be lawfull alignment and still could condone stealing.
Just my point of view. The table should talk out of character or in character between each other. That’s the best advice if it’s bothering anyone
Clearly it is a problem, or the OP wouldn’t be here asking for advice.
This is a common problem and one of the simplest solutions is that all characters that are designed, both mechanically and their backgrounds/backstories/motivations should be approved by not just the GM, but all of the players. I agree with the "shared fun" violation, you can't bring a character to the table that is intentionally a bad fit for the adventuring party. The assumption has to be that there is good reason why these characters travel together and if there is a clear conflict, they wouldn't, so you have to recognize that before you introduced them.
When that's not done, you can end up with problems like this and at that point there is not much you can do other than either re-write the characters personality or make a new character
I will say however If the player comes to the table and says, I made my character, he is a greedy thief, everyone agrees including the GM that the character will be fine, its a bit uncool to come back after a few sessions and complain that "hey your characters a bad fit, we don't want a greedy thief in the party". I mean, assuming the cards where on the table at the start, it would suck to be that player at that point.
Doesn't really change anything about the situation your in now, but it does highlight the importance of session 0 discussions and when a character dies or leaves the party, when a new character joins, you kind of need to have that discussion again before they join.
Chalk it off as a lesson learned, but I would suggest assuming the responsibility as the DM. Just tell everyone its your fault for not anticipating this problem, apologize and ask the player with the problem character to either change their background or make a new one. That way its clear its nothing personal, the conflict can be resolved and you hopefully if everyone is mature you won't have any hard feelings about it.
You can't fix it until you know why they built a character like that. It could be the player is bored with being all good oriented and wants to bring some chaos to the game. It could be that they find the party dynamic boring and want to stir up drama between different PCs so they want the other PCs to get made at their character. It could be that they want their character to actually have a noticable arc and want them to start off bad but be convinced to become good by the rest of the party. Or it could be they are power-gaming and just want a character that will justify them doing whatever to get as much powerful stuff as possible.
I agree with this take 100%.
In addition, I find some players also get tired of being fed a story and are looking for some sort of agency in the plot. They want to act and have the world react, not to wait for the villain to act and then have to react to that. Not sure if that's the situation, but if it is they might enjoy a more sandboxed environment than a linear campaign story.
I have Darkvision, by the way.