So my roommate and I have been recently attempting to get a near totally homebrew campaign underway, but this being a social game, it's (amended statement:ALMOST) always more fun with more players. Ok, I have no problem with letting another one or two people play, but one of them is rapidly trying to become a problem. The first thing to note is this; my roommate is the DM so he gets the primary say in how things work, not me. I simply help out in an advisory capacity. One of the people that I'm supposed to be adventuring with is causing more than enough problems for just 2 players and a DM. Firstly, he's an anime fanatic; which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it becomes one when he only wants to play an anime based character, even when it doesn't fit the existing concept. Not even if you force it into the lore and jump on it repeatedly to cram it in. Another issue is that when told that he can't be his desired anime based character, he wants to Ubergame, not metagame, but Ubergame. He's one of those players that wants nothing more than to exploit every loophole and weakness in the story and game mechanics. I understand that coming from AL to a small game setting is a tricky transition, but its just a couple of friends that are playing for fun and to alleviate boredom, but this  guy comes in trying to play like its for money. there's something distinctly unfair and train-wreckish about playing a gunslinging warrior\arcane archer; not only is he trying to spam multi attack but also imbue his shots with op magic for it being early in the game. So after hearing me whine and complain about all of this, I have to ask. Am I being a toxic gamer by not wanting him to play because he just wants to break the game? Or is this feeling justified and something I should discuss with the DM? 

Need help.

Wait, what class is he? Arcane archer?

He's trying to make his own which combines the two most op facets of both the Arcane Archer and Fighter. Imbuing his shots with magic, multi attack, highly dextrous, and highly durable. He's really all over the place with it, but the concept always remains "how can I totally destroy the stumbling blocks that are intentionaly set before us by the DM for progression's sake.

An example that's no longer going to make it into story because of this guy, is an early game boss battle that we're supposed to lose for the sake of story progression. Its been explained to him tht this is supposed to be an "impossible" battle, like fighting the pig demon at the beginning of the original dark souls was. You're meant to get killed by it if you fight it then. But much to my dismay, when I explained it like that, he just giggled and said that it was cute that I couldn't beat it at first and he could. He's trying to be super (metagame) saiyan lvl 27.8 basically.

We've even gone far enough in the attempt to nerf his stuff that the whole campaign has been shifted down from starting at lvl 10 to lvl 5 and he's still finding ways to try and overkill everything. It's making me not even want to play the game.

If he is using an overpowered homebrewed subclass, definitely have him tone it down. It sounds like a combination of gunslinger and arcane archer, just have hime pick one of those to be.

This certainly sounds like an issue the DM let happen, so talking to DM definitely sounds like a necessary step.

I've tried to explain things along a similar vein, but all I get in response is a giggle that no grown man of 24-26 years should be able to produce, followed by insert some overtly cliche anime quote or one plagiarized from any number of video games. The deal with the DM is that he's not an overly outspoken person, we, me AND he both have few friends to play this with so he's worried that if he doesn't at least give some ground on the issue, we'll lose our only other player besides me. And I have no problem in admitting that part of the problem is my fault, I AM a toxic gamer. I believe that once we lay down the premise for a campaign, there's a right way and a wrong way and now a WAAAAAAAAAY wrong way to play it. I don't try and make everybody roleplay, I don't constantly speak in character even away from the table, but I digress; In order for me to enjoy the game, a few basic things are needed.

1. I don't approve of metagaming at all even in the slightest. I'm one of those people that likes to be dropped into a story not knowing what is going on, that way discovering the lore is just as big a part of the game as playing it is.
2. I don't have a problem with otaku players, I despise weeaboo players with the fiery heat of 1000 white dwarf stars. Your character (and by extension, you) should not go through life or a game telling people to shut up in japanese just because you know how to and it makes you feel superior. That makes you seem crass in my opinion.
3. I like a DM that isn't afraid to just tell a player, "No you can't do that because if you do it'll break things later on. I get that an allowance should be made for flexibility in the story, that's what keeps players engaged, but that's it. Bend your lore to account for some unexpected things, don't just break your own canon that you made just to accommodate a grown ass child *pardon my french* But that's almost exactly what I'm dealing with here.

I find that a lot of these problems boil down to incompatibilities in playing style, or expectations as to what you want out of the game.

Some players - like the one you're describing - are almost impossible to find anyone with whom they're compatible - but it's really just style/expectation compatibility writ large.

That doesn't make your annoyance wrong in any way. Ultimately, it doesn't make his style objectively wrong, either ( although I would find that style annoying as well ). You just don't mesh.

The solution is pretty simple, although not fun:

• Decide if you can live with this player playing like they are, in this campaign. Can you just shut up, and let them play, and still find your fun? If so, maybe just roll with it.
• If not - and there's nothing wrong with that - tell your DM. Give your DM some space to deal with the issue, reign in the player, propose some compromise solutions for both of you.
• If the DM is working the problem, figure out how long you can "hold out" - what's the point where you feel the DM has had enough time, and hasn't solved the problem, so you no longer have faith that they can, or are not willing to do so.
• If the DM is unwilling to mediate and resolve the situation, ( or is taking too long according to you ), and you can't have fun playing with this player, walk away. As much as that sucks, you have to decide which sucks worse: finding a different gaming group, or playing with that player.

Thank you for the advice. I've sat down and talked to the DM about this and we're going to try one session with him getting to play his way, if the DM and I  neither one like it, then we have a solution already worked out; swapping campaigns for my own hardcore, survival oriented, dark fantasy epic. 

The Trials of Dys

Just break out the big guns. Have a Lich appear and turn the guy to soup. Disintegrate him and scatter the dust to the corners of the world. If he rolls another like it, do the same again. "Oh, you have an OP character? He steps on the grass and discovers a sinkhole, dropping him into the Lair of a Beholder. Zap, cooked chicken. Roll again." This kind of player will need to be squashed over and over until they learn the lesson: You are not God. The DM makes Gods their puppets. Do Not Attempt To Overstep.

If what he likes is using the mechanics to overkill things, then spend a session or two using the biggest monsters to break that mindset. No level 5, no matter the class, can survive a Tarrasque. Anything with Legendary Actions and Lair rules is on the table, particularly those that can be negotiated with. You want to make him understand that fighting everything means certain death, but that there are alternatives to fighting. This is big carrot-and-stick psychology here. Physical character sheets get torn up at the table. Digital characters are deleted. Make all that work a waste of time and do it again until they rein in these impluses. At first they will go the other way, making even more broken characters. That's fine. "Niv-Mizzet descends and eyeballs Brokey McHanicus. 'This is my realm' and bites off Brokey's head. Their body slumps on the grass and the only lasting mark on this world is the blood stain which too will disappear in short order."

They might pout and complain, at which point you explain that characters should grow with time, not start out of the gate as world-striding Colossi. If they complain more, the in-world explanation is that these creatures can sense powerful enemies. Building high damage dealers with low hit points is just you making the monsters of the world a sandwich. Power Word Kill is unsurvivable with less than 100HP. They might be able to dish it out, but they need to be able to take it as well, and that comes with levels which only come with time. Tell them to make a character who is flawed. Start off with a drunk, a beggar, a degenerate gambler, an amnesiac. Enforce character ability scores done through Standard Array to prevent "lucky" dice rolls. Use the Ideals, Bonds, Flaws and other fluff. Make a person.

If he screws up and gets himself put in my campaign, I won't have to have monsters come humble him. In Dys, the terrain can be just as humbling as any monster. He'll learn the first time he makes a scantily clad anime style female character and freezes to death the first night he spends out of shelter in a thunder or snow storm. Trials of Dys is all about the survival aspects of adventuring. Got to find food, water and shelter. Have to sleep regularly. There are incredibly hefty penalties that go with trying to play Dys like munchkin or name any other murder-hobo game.

Good, bringing in the DM is a good step. It gives you a 3rd party viewpoint, and it lets you know it's not just you.

However, I would caution maybe against doing the "hey, we're swapping out the campaign" tactic.

It would work - but ( in my mind ) it's slightly dishonest. I get that you're trying not to be confrontational - and that's understandable - so I'm not criticizing you for wanting to go that route.

The issues here isn't "we have a bad campaign" its "you trying to have fun that way is spoiling other peoples' fun".

I think if you are up front about the issue, you may be surprised at the outcome. Maybe this person can find their fun a different way, and they can agree to cut out behaviors X,Y, and Z. It is possible that your current campaign can be saved.

If you are not up front as to what the root cause is, then there is the possibility that they will try and find a new way to find their kind of fun in the new campaign, and cause new kinds of problems: different behaviors, different problems, because the underlying root cause has not been addressed.

I would advise to a) be honest, b) be non-confrontational and non-judgmental in how you present it ( OK, you seem to like X, but it's disruptive and causing problems in the group dynamic, so we need to find a way that everyone - including you - can have fun with this ... ), and c) allow this player to come up with possible solutions and compromises as well ( ... so how would you fix this? ), but d) stick to your guns and don't let them talk their way out of the situation, either.

Be honest, non-accusatory, be willing to hear out their side, be open to suggestion and solutions that they propose - but ( and this is crucial ) don't be a pushover, and know where your boundaries are, and the points you're not willing to compromise on.

And - ultimately - be willing to admit that the group isn't workable and be willing to walk away from this game. Even if it's a sucky solution, it's still a solution.

Best of luck. 

When i see these complaints i always try to remind people that the DM has unlimted tools at his disposal. The only time i see a character as broken is when that character outshines the rest of the party. Each party member should feel his or her place and have spot light moments. A good DM will design his campaign with that in mind. Sooooo... If he is an archer with low INT throw in some INT based saves things. Traps puzzles etc. This will allow other players to have their moments. Your job as a DM is to provide a fun engaging environment.  There is no problem you can't handle.

Except that we're really talking about Player incompatibility, not Character spotlight balance.

If you really believe "There is no problem [ the DM ] can't handle"  in that arena with "unlimted tools at [their] disposal" - then I would guess you've been fortunate never to have personality conflicts or different style/expectations at your table, never had a player show up drunk and/or high, people making horrible sexist/intolerant remarks ( and/or character behavior ), which upsets other of your players, etc., ad nauseam.

If that's the case, then I'm really glad you've been that fortunate. I haven't had all those things happen to me personally, but I've talked to people who have each experienced some of it.

Sometimes semi-random groups of people are just not workable.

I have had all that you mentioned. But as a DM you lay down rules. I have had to kick my best friend of 25 years out of a game for showing up drunk. I have had players try arguing over rules for an hour. Finally had to end that by removing a person from the table for not following my ruling. As a DM it is your game. If you are not playing in your house you need to address your rules with the house owner. But good guess on your part of assuming. 

This is verging on the line of 'better off in PMs'.

Lets keep this focused on the topic and less on finger-pointing/personal discussion, please.

Quote from Sedge >>

This is verging on the line of 'better off in PMs'.

Lets keep this focused on the topic and less on finger-pointing/personal discussion, please.

agreed. removed ( now that I've had some breakfast coffee :p ).

Well, he wasn't willing to try and change his approach to play. Still affirms that he's learned to play like this from AL (which I know is a load of tosh) and stepped away himself at the threat of a total campaign swap. BUT; we do now have another player to take his spot. But we did end up switching up the campaign, simply because I had more material drafted up for the Trials than he did for his. So far the players find it enjoyable. The only problem that they have is with my using real-time absenteeism. Our time in the real world away from the table is reflected perfectly in our time away from the story. So the players took 3 days real time off from the game? Then three days have passed in game, the guild halls have all been finished being renovated, more tasks have popped up, and others that were not done before now are no longer available. Its been mildly tricky to run due to the linear story-open world game ratio, but that's a refreshing change actually. There is a finite amount of time before the Planemeld happens. To offset the time frame, I implemented "Regional Minibosses" they're tougher than the average baddie, but they also play important roles in the evil organisation. Therefore killing them sets the overarching plan to execute the Planemeld back days or weeks. I mean if you're going to preform a ritual to drain all of the magic from reality itself, it's going to take quite a while to gather enough of the right kind of people to perform said ritual.

Plus the environment is just as punishing and unforgiving as the monsters within it. Players will have to contend with harsh realities of an adventuring life. Incliment weather, hoping at the end of the session when they're busted up and near dead from being on the road all day, that the cave they chose to shelter in didn't have any extra residents, storms, cold, heat, exhaustion, disease, malnutrition, sleep deprivation, thirst. Any number of these things can kill you. And if you play it safe and stay in town when you're not playing, you'll come back to find a dent in your savings from living it up at the local inn. Some towns have common houses, like the tourist hostels in Europe, they're free to stay at; but you risk having your possessions stolen or catching a disease from dirty bedding. Having no money in a town with no common house is way worse though. I drew inspiration from actual medieval habits of inns during the late middle ages and early Renaissance period. If you don't have the money to pay, you don't get to stay. You'll end up sleeping in the stables (not very bad) or worse, the Pigsty (a nearly guaranteed source of illness) If you have the $$, you'll have a rent and food cost deducted from your cash.

For a full list of the survival debuffs and buffs, PM me and I'll send you a link to check out the campaign materials I have online so far.