I am running an entirely home brew campaign that I have been working on for over a year to build. Trying to gt just right. When I asked the 4 players to play my campaign and what it entailed, they were all excited to do it. I asked them to build their characters so that I could personalize quests to them and really craft the story into something where they each have personal attachments, losses and wins in.
However, one player seems to continually throw off group cohesion to the point where I have had to stall the really big interesting plot points in order to give the players more minor quests to build them up into an actual group. The PC continually runs away from the group, refuses to talk to certain members, can be a snot to others and will actively try and intimidate those around him. I have tried talking to the Player about how straight RP is different from a Group DND setting and he really needs to work with the group a little more but he doesn't seem to have taken the discussion to heart, simply claiming that 'that's what my character would do'. I even managed to pull the Plot Hook for his particular story line into the game, as the rest of the group seemed to finally be a fairly stable group, and try and get his character more into a position to ask for their help after essentially putting them through trust excersizes, but the PC left the area and, as I had no other plot hooks I could pull that wouldn't be WILDLY above the rest of the group's level, I had to end the session early.
He is a good friend and was very excited about having a personalized story for himself but when his character ran away from the plot hook, I was left floundering with the rest of my players trying to figure out what to do. Does anyone have any tips on how to talk to him about playing a GROUP game and a character that can be the brooding untrusting person but still actually cooperate with a GROUP?
Does anyone have any tips on how to talk to him about playing a GROUP game and a character that can be the brooding untrusting person but still actually cooperate with a GROUP?
Yeah, tell him to stop being an obnoxious prick. You can DEFINITELY be a "brooding untrusting" character without being a ****. There isn't much to this in my own estimation, perhaps someone else will have something better. But I don't think there is much you can do, they are just going to be this way or somehow they have to come to this realization on their own. In my own experience, D&D is also fun with just 3 PCs too. The other players might need to be the ones to say something to him.
Ok, just thought of something. If he's excited about his character having his own story. Perhaps suggest this concept to him, which would not surprise me if they are incapable of comprehending this. But it's a fundamental aspect of story telling and that is character development. Suggest to him that maybe his character could work on trying to become more trusting of others, and eventually they can learn and grow into this more team-based and trusting character. That's the best I've got, if that doesn't work they're just an asshat.
Matt Colville calls that the Wangrod Defense. Good video for that topic.
If he thinks "that is what his character would do", then tell him, that he spoils the fun of everyone else on the table and that he needs to build another character concept. He chose to build an arse of a character, and he knew up front, that he will play that char as an arse. No excuse possible there.
The not trusting this is the flaw he put forth before, and he said over the course of the game he would be working on opening his character up. I might have to point out the points where the group held him up and how, just maybe, that might be rewarded with a little trust in them. I didn't think of it from that angle, I was mostly frustrated at the time at being a DM being left in the woods with nothing to give and having to call the game early because all the planning had been, essentially, tossed aside. He came back and picked up the hook after I talked to him but after talking to the other players, they were frustrated at the early call too, because with how he was acting, the plot hook was obvious it was for him.
Thanks for the thoughts, and the Matt video, I'll talk to him about it that way. If he doesn't change, there are situations coming up very very soon that require trust and I have told players that have been frustrated that they dont have to kotow to him. He will be left in the dust and the campaign will eat him. Then, if he wants to roll a new character, he will need someone that can work with the group, or he wont be rolling up a new character
I personally want to give a little personal advice, as I'm experiencing this now, even disregarding player behavior, be careful about having such vital plot hooks or other vital information so dependent on one specific character at a very specific time.
I'm currently playing the Yawning Portal and little did I know it's all a compilation of adventures and they did ZERO to actually link them all together so I've worked on personal hooks as either personal sidequests or direct hooks/seeds to the next adventure... and I would like to say that my group has solid attendance, EXCEPT for when it's their character's turn for the thing!!
For the most part I've been given a heads up and so far most of the times it got worked out one way or another (they were able to make it, even late, or the group did not end up getting that far, etc) but I will say that really stressed me out. I loved adding those parts in and don't know how I would do it differently, but oh man. those were not easy times...
my group has solid attendance, EXCEPT for when it's their character's turn for the thing!
Yup.
I just ran a session with a clue that was supposed to lead to the next adventure but the player whose background that related to was not there. So that clue could not be given.
And then I have another player who wants to know "how come you don't tie more of our background stuff into the adventures?" This is why. Because the more I entangle the adventure to the background of one character, the less we can play of it (if at all) when that player fails to show.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
glad I just make events happen on the bad guys agenda not caring what the players would or wouldn't do. that way we can keep going even when certain PC's aren't at the table.
My suggestion is allow the character to do "what my character would do" but also insist that the player AND character LEARN from the consequences of their actions. It is up to you as the DM that actions have reasonable consequences.
I'm running a game for a group of long time friends but who like to play independent characters. There have been a few times when they go off to do their own thing or explore on their own ... and quite naturally, they have occasionally run into things they couldn't handle. None of them have died yet but if it happens I won't step in as DM and I think they know that. As a result, the character learns that even if "that is what my character would do" ... after the experience, the character might not do that again.
Keep in mind that the character doesn't want to die.
I have a character who had a wisdom of 9 and would sometimes take ill considered actions. He climbed into an attic to explore despite some party members suggesting otherwise, triggered an encounter, almost died, fell out of the attic with something like one hit point left, the party dealt with the creatures but my character learned that maybe that wasn't the type of action to take when adventuring. From a role play perpective the character became a bit more cautious. Similarly, later on, the character was experimenting with the Mask of Many Faces and while exploring a strange ship he changed himself to look like a spider humanoid and said "BOO" to the party ranger. The ranger was not impressed, especially when the next room we opened happened to include an Ettercap or two (spider based humanoid) ... it was actually coincidental but from a role playing perspective the character again learned something about how to interact with the other characters ... so he swapped invocations at the next level up. However, some folks play a character and say "that is what my character would do" without also changing what their character would do as a result of their ongoing experiences. Characters should learn that running away off on their own is bad after only one risky experience. Any player running a character that doesn't learn is there to cause problems not to role play their character.
I am running an entirely home brew campaign that I have been working on for over a year to build. Trying to gt just right. When I asked the 4 players to play my campaign and what it entailed, they were all excited to do it. I asked them to build their characters so that I could personalize quests to them and really craft the story into something where they each have personal attachments, losses and wins in.
However, one player seems to continually throw off group cohesion to the point where I have had to stall the really big interesting plot points in order to give the players more minor quests to build them up into an actual group. The PC continually runs away from the group, refuses to talk to certain members, can be a snot to others and will actively try and intimidate those around him. I have tried talking to the Player about how straight RP is different from a Group DND setting and he really needs to work with the group a little more but he doesn't seem to have taken the discussion to heart, simply claiming that 'that's what my character would do'. I even managed to pull the Plot Hook for his particular story line into the game, as the rest of the group seemed to finally be a fairly stable group, and try and get his character more into a position to ask for their help after essentially putting them through trust excersizes, but the PC left the area and, as I had no other plot hooks I could pull that wouldn't be WILDLY above the rest of the group's level, I had to end the session early.
He is a good friend and was very excited about having a personalized story for himself but when his character ran away from the plot hook, I was left floundering with the rest of my players trying to figure out what to do. Does anyone have any tips on how to talk to him about playing a GROUP game and a character that can be the brooding untrusting person but still actually cooperate with a GROUP?
Players that say "thats what my character would do" to excuse shitty behavior are what I like to call "an *******."
Yeah, tell him to stop being an obnoxious prick. You can DEFINITELY be a "brooding untrusting" character without being a ****. There isn't much to this in my own estimation, perhaps someone else will have something better. But I don't think there is much you can do, they are just going to be this way or somehow they have to come to this realization on their own. In my own experience, D&D is also fun with just 3 PCs too. The other players might need to be the ones to say something to him.
Ok, just thought of something. If he's excited about his character having his own story. Perhaps suggest this concept to him, which would not surprise me if they are incapable of comprehending this. But it's a fundamental aspect of story telling and that is character development. Suggest to him that maybe his character could work on trying to become more trusting of others, and eventually they can learn and grow into this more team-based and trusting character. That's the best I've got, if that doesn't work they're just an asshat.
Your player is being a wangrod. See Matt Colville's video on the subject and how to deal with it, as he says it better than I ever could:
To quote him, "Saying 'It's what my character would do' is the last defense of the toxic player."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You had a talk. He didn't listen... This is usually the time I use the "Rocks fall, you die". Thank you for playing. now leave the table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoYR3eCFqoA&t
Matt Colville calls that the Wangrod Defense. Good video for that topic.
If he thinks "that is what his character would do", then tell him, that he spoils the fun of everyone else on the table and that he needs to build another character concept. He chose to build an arse of a character, and he knew up front, that he will play that char as an arse. No excuse possible there.
The not trusting this is the flaw he put forth before, and he said over the course of the game he would be working on opening his character up. I might have to point out the points where the group held him up and how, just maybe, that might be rewarded with a little trust in them. I didn't think of it from that angle, I was mostly frustrated at the time at being a DM being left in the woods with nothing to give and having to call the game early because all the planning had been, essentially, tossed aside. He came back and picked up the hook after I talked to him but after talking to the other players, they were frustrated at the early call too, because with how he was acting, the plot hook was obvious it was for him.
Thanks for the thoughts, and the Matt video, I'll talk to him about it that way. If he doesn't change, there are situations coming up very very soon that require trust and I have told players that have been frustrated that they dont have to kotow to him. He will be left in the dust and the campaign will eat him. Then, if he wants to roll a new character, he will need someone that can work with the group, or he wont be rolling up a new character
Again Colvile's quote -- "We're all just doing what our characters would do but you're the only one making everyone else miserable."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I personally want to give a little personal advice, as I'm experiencing this now, even disregarding player behavior, be careful about having such vital plot hooks or other vital information so dependent on one specific character at a very specific time.
I'm currently playing the Yawning Portal and little did I know it's all a compilation of adventures and they did ZERO to actually link them all together so I've worked on personal hooks as either personal sidequests or direct hooks/seeds to the next adventure... and I would like to say that my group has solid attendance, EXCEPT for when it's their character's turn for the thing!!
For the most part I've been given a heads up and so far most of the times it got worked out one way or another (they were able to make it, even late, or the group did not end up getting that far, etc) but I will say that really stressed me out. I loved adding those parts in and don't know how I would do it differently, but oh man. those were not easy times...
Yup.
I just ran a session with a clue that was supposed to lead to the next adventure but the player whose background that related to was not there. So that clue could not be given.
And then I have another player who wants to know "how come you don't tie more of our background stuff into the adventures?" This is why. Because the more I entangle the adventure to the background of one character, the less we can play of it (if at all) when that player fails to show.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
glad I just make events happen on the bad guys agenda not caring what the players would or wouldn't do. that way we can keep going even when certain PC's aren't at the table.
My suggestion is allow the character to do "what my character would do" but also insist that the player AND character LEARN from the consequences of their actions. It is up to you as the DM that actions have reasonable consequences.
I'm running a game for a group of long time friends but who like to play independent characters. There have been a few times when they go off to do their own thing or explore on their own ... and quite naturally, they have occasionally run into things they couldn't handle. None of them have died yet but if it happens I won't step in as DM and I think they know that. As a result, the character learns that even if "that is what my character would do" ... after the experience, the character might not do that again.
Keep in mind that the character doesn't want to die.
I have a character who had a wisdom of 9 and would sometimes take ill considered actions. He climbed into an attic to explore despite some party members suggesting otherwise, triggered an encounter, almost died, fell out of the attic with something like one hit point left, the party dealt with the creatures but my character learned that maybe that wasn't the type of action to take when adventuring. From a role play perpective the character became a bit more cautious. Similarly, later on, the character was experimenting with the Mask of Many Faces and while exploring a strange ship he changed himself to look like a spider humanoid and said "BOO" to the party ranger. The ranger was not impressed, especially when the next room we opened happened to include an Ettercap or two (spider based humanoid) ... it was actually coincidental but from a role playing perspective the character again learned something about how to interact with the other characters ... so he swapped invocations at the next level up. However, some folks play a character and say "that is what my character would do" without also changing what their character would do as a result of their ongoing experiences. Characters should learn that running away off on their own is bad after only one risky experience. Any player running a character that doesn't learn is there to cause problems not to role play their character.