So I have a pretty delicate player situation that I wanna throw out to the hivemind. I'm just gonna list my grievances and I'll let you guys pick what you answer lol
1. All characters made by this player are completely insufferable to other players. They are all "Naïve" to an extreme to the point where they're just dumb. EX. Spoiled heiress who was sheltered and doesn't know how the "real world" works. Sheltered homebody who doesn't understand how the world works, Escaped test subject who's lived in a tube their whole life... you guessed it, Doesn't know how the world works. Normally, I'd be fine with "Naïve" but all of the characters are like: Other player: "Hey, we're gonna run to the store real quick, you want anything?" This player: "Why do you need to run?"
Other player: "No its just a figure of speech, we're just going to GO to the store."
This player: "but you said run? is there something to run from?"
Other player: "Its just a phrase! don't think to much about it"
This Player: "So you lied? I thought we were friends"
Continue this for EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION..... so now, my PC's actively avoid interacting with her character just to save the hassle.
2. Player thinks "more talking" is "better RP". When we're in a more social encounter and the group is going around talking to NPC's, the other players say their bit, respond to NPC, and move on. If unchecked, this player will go on for an HOUR(s!) just repeating things in different ways cause they think that more words=better RP. This also comes into play with Player <--> Player conversations. ESPECIALLY when forming a plan. A player will suggest something, she'll say "well what if this happens?" so they'll come up with something that fits this player's complaints and then its "well what if THIS happens?" and the other players will be like "That's what our original plan suggested against!" and this player will just respond "ah so neither work...." They'll just keep giving critiques and issues with plans without actually offering any plans themselves. and in the rare event this player DOES comeup with a plan, its SO horribly convoluted and FILLED with contingencies for wild assumptions, that the rest of the party is like "WAT..." I think she does this for the same reason as said above, more arguing over plans=more talking= better RP. It has got to the point where the other PC's actively try to split the party to plan so that this PC isn't there.
3. HUUUUUUUUGE main character syndrome with no sense of "give-n-take"/"checks-n-balances" They believe their character should be good in everything and they get upset and grumpy when they're not "the-best (tm)" We have a whisper bard/rogue changling character in our level 15 group with an OUTRAGEOUS (rightfully so) stealth/persuasion/Deception bonus with the ability to steal appearance AND Memories. So naturally we send her in for infiltration/scouting to which this player gets all huffy cause "but but, I also have proficiency in stealth" so the rest of the party has to accommodate them by saying " well I guess you go to?" or they'll be grumpy the rest of the session.
In one of our campaigns where I'm a player and the DM (this character's spouse) had to GIVE a magic item that allowed their monk to roll a d6 per turn and regen Ki points on a 6 and they had the nerve to tell our artificer "Monk kinda sucks cause theres no way to generate more Ki in combat" as if ANY class had an ability to generate resources in combat? They complained enough that the spouse (DM) changed the already busted magic item (the ki regen was only ONE feature) to regen Ki on a 5-6 every turn
4. Relationship ties. This is the reason I'm hiveminding this situation. Normally, the easy answer to these type things are "talk to them about behavior" or "Kick them from table". But because of this player's relationships, that would more than likely cause about 1/2 the party to leave (this player, the spouse, and the friend they brought in). This isn't something I wanna risk cause the spouse has been my best friend for like 14 years, but I KNOW he would take his spouses side immediately (which he should). And to top it off, the problem player isn't ALWAYS like this, this personality ONLY comes up when any game is involved. they HAVE to be the best, they HAVE to make the most optimal solution, they HAVE to have the most contribution.
I'm trying to look for subtle ways to encourage OTHER behaviors. Either IN character or out. For example, In a campaign where I'm a player with this PC, whenever they start dismantling plans from other players, I've started to, In-character, ask, "Ok (MONK), what should we do?" and then proceed to sit and wait until we inevitably get a convoluted, reluctant, painfully admitted "I don't know" and THEN they're more open to suggestions.
You need to talk to this player. I understand that they have close ties to other players. I understand that it's a really awkward situation. But if you're concerned enough to ask the community for advice, then you're concerned enough to address it.
In your case, I'd talk to the player in private. Calmly, respectfully, and (In terms of family/close friends) lovingly explain to them how you feel. (Yes that sounds really dumb. But it's the truth.) See if you can help them put their own behavior into context.
From what you've told us, I'm inferring that they need to understand the following:
1. Every character in a party has specific roles. No single player is good at everything, and no single player has to be involved in every situation. The most capable character, or the character that is most appropriate for the role-play at the moment should handle any given event. When you make a character, you should have a vision of a role they can fill in the party, and for the most part, stick with that role. If you're a tank, be a tank. If you're a stealth, be a stealth. If you're a healer, be a healer. While a healer who has some tanking capabilities should certainly make use of that ability, they should leave tanking primarily to the party's designated tank.
2. Everyone has their own idea of what role-play means, and clashing ideas can lead to conflict. Some players like gritty realism, some like emotional tales, and some are just hooligans. If everyone is in agreement on how role-play should work, everyone will have more fun in social encounters.
3. Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to role-play. Making a character with a personality that conflicts with other's personalities certainly starts conversations, it doesn't really lead anywhere. But making unique characters that can work well with others leads to very interesting story and role-play.
But I do not believe that you need to teach them all of these points. In your case, I'd merely talk to the player and let them know that there is a problem. Most problem players don't even know that they're problem players, and realizing this fact may help them to look at their behavior from a new perspective.
If you really don't want to talk to the player and risk hurting them or anyone involved, then simply have a firmer hand in-game. Vocalize your opinions in a calm, respectful way. But above all, Make the problem known.
Is this player a newer player? You usually don't see a ton of veteran players trying to "win d&d", is why I ask. Maybe have that talk with your table. You know, the "there's no winning or losing, the goal is to have fun, and you can't plan for every contingency because conflict and chance of failure are where the fun is often derived from" conversation.
Maybe also discuss lethality during session 0. Maybe she isn't determined to "win d&d", maybe she's just terrified of losing a character that she's really invested in. If you don't intend to run a high-lethality game, maybe go over that with the players to assuage her fear. Or, if you do intend to run high-lethality, let them know that and maybe they'll make a character they're less personally invested in and more ok with potentially losing.
As far as what you can do at the table, I've often found gentle nudges to help. Just a quick "ok, cute, but back to the story" if they're side-tracking, or like a "love your energy but I wanna see how [X character] responds since we just did your thing", stuff like that. Just quick reminders to keep moving the pace along and to make sure everyone's included. And if the player is super needlessly extending dialogue, don't be afraid to use Matt Coville's advice from his "Orcs Attack!" video.
Of course those only work if the player is on board for changing their behavior. If you have a talk with them outside of game and they don't see a problem with how they act, then no amount of in-game solutions will fix it.
So I have a pretty delicate player situation that I wanna throw out to the hivemind. I'm just gonna list my grievances and I'll let you guys pick what you answer lol
<snip>
4. Relationship ties. This is the reason I'm hiveminding this situation. Normally, the easy answer to these type things are "talk to them about behavior" or "Kick them from table". But because of this player's relationships, that would more than likely cause about 1/2 the party to leave (this player, the spouse, and the friend they brought in). This isn't something I wanna risk cause the spouse has been my best friend for like 14 years, but I KNOW he would take his spouses side immediately (which he should). And to top it off, the problem player isn't ALWAYS like this, this personality ONLY comes up when any game is involved. they HAVE to be the best, they HAVE to make the most optimal solution, they HAVE to have the most contribution.
This is the real issue. Everything else is a symptom of the inherent problem. You *feel* like you are being held hostage by one players actions because of the pressure that your friendship with the spouse applies. IF this friend of 14 years is truly your friend, and also a decent DM, they will understand your taking issue with the problem player. They will absolutely NOT take kindly to your taking issue with their spouse, and rightly so. If you approach the player, keep it professional and remove your personal opinion. And then your follow-on problem is most likely that the problem player will not remain a player when confronted, but suddenly transform into the spouse.
So to keep my suggestion succinct: Kick them both from the game, or quit the game yourself. Ensure that the specific reason is known as to why you are setting this down. This player has made the game un-fun for you, and you in good faith cannot attempt to force someone to play a PC outside of the way that they want. Sure, you could point out that your problem player takes on "the wangrod defense" or the "that's what my character would do / that's how my character would act". You could point out that they are not abiding by the same social contract that everyone else at the table, including your friend, by characers that want to be part of a team. You could try to convince them that winning D&D means that everyone has fun and that by trying to be the constant spotlight, they fail.
I'm trying to look for subtle ways to encourage OTHER behaviors. Either IN character or out. For example, In a campaign where I'm a player with this PC, whenever they start dismantling plans from other players, I've started to, In-character, ask, "Ok (MONK), what should we do?" and then proceed to sit and wait until we inevitably get a convoluted, reluctant, painfully admitted "I don't know" and THEN they're more open to suggestions.
Whatcha'll think?
Putting the problem player into the spotlight first might seem to solve the problem, but it most likely has the opposite effect of giving them what they want and enabling this behavior. At the end of all of this, the problem player has to want to make the game fun for others. I'm not reading anything that you've described as this player being concerned about other players' fun. It is possible that the issue lies with how you perceive this player/person. There exists a great potential for your bias to have a large impact on what I'm reading. I only have your words to work with.
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
1. So first of all I would argue how the problem player's character is acting doesn't make any realistic sense, If the problem player's character knew the language and could speak it (which they can), then they would naturally have picked up on common figures of speech and intended meanings along the way just as a result of learning that language just like anyone else.
For the roleplaying issues here's something that worked in one of my groups.
In the group we had two players who'd both invested in charisma as spellcasting modifiers and wanted to be the party spokespersons. They would end up competing with each other and getting to into arguments both in and out of character. One of the other players suggested this strategy, and it worked pretty well. It's called a charisma initiative.
When a social interaction begins with an important NPC, the DM calls for initiative. Instead of using dexterity modifiers, players add their charisma modifier. This determines the order that the characters get to interact with the NPC. On your turn, you get one or two questions and responses before the charisma initiative moves on to the next player. There can be more then one round if the players have more to say, and it doesn't have to be really strict.
This may feel stilted and awkward at first, but it really helped my group. It removed the dynamic of 'the two persuasive ones are arguing and everyone else can't get a word in edgewise'. It allowed everyone the opportunity to roleplay their character. Once the players got used to it, it got more flexible, and now everyone is more willing to listen to one another and let other people talk during roleplay, so sometimes we don't need it anymore.
If necessary, this can also be implemented during a planning session, so that everyone gets a say.
It very much improved my game, and I think it would help in yours as well. It applies to everyone, so the problem player wouldn't feel like they're being singled out.
Try fleshing out their character with them one on one more. I find that (usually) the people who make “main characters” have trouble commiting to who they actually want to play as.
I suspect that the DM, as spouse, may see what is going on and may sympathise. If this is the kind of thing that can go on in a D&D game, there's also the possibility of potential issues in other aspects of the relationship.
So, the player's character has talked for a fair bit more than 6 seconds. Maybe cut in and say, while X is talking I want to do such and such.
If it becomes an option of talking or being involved in action, many players will opt for action.
Other player: "Hey, we're gonna run to the store real quick, you want anything?" This player: "Why do you need to run?"
Other player: "No its just a figure of speech" to DM "I start going to the store", "you're welcome to join us". (even if it's a lie it's a pleasantry).
Keep going with the action where it's called for.
Appreciate as many positive contributions of this player as won't be too obvious. Appreciate when the party also gives space for other party members to shine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I have a pretty delicate player situation that I wanna throw out to the hivemind. I'm just gonna list my grievances and I'll let you guys pick what you answer lol
1. All characters made by this player are completely insufferable to other players. They are all "Naïve" to an extreme to the point where they're just dumb. EX. Spoiled heiress who was sheltered and doesn't know how the "real world" works. Sheltered homebody who doesn't understand how the world works, Escaped test subject who's lived in a tube their whole life... you guessed it, Doesn't know how the world works. Normally, I'd be fine with "Naïve" but all of the characters are like:
Other player: "Hey, we're gonna run to the store real quick, you want anything?"
This player: "Why do you need to run?"
Other player: "No its just a figure of speech, we're just going to GO to the store."
This player: "but you said run? is there something to run from?"
Other player: "Its just a phrase! don't think to much about it"
This Player: "So you lied? I thought we were friends"
Continue this for EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION..... so now, my PC's actively avoid interacting with her character just to save the hassle.
2. Player thinks "more talking" is "better RP". When we're in a more social encounter and the group is going around talking to NPC's, the other players say their bit, respond to NPC, and move on. If unchecked, this player will go on for an HOUR(s!) just repeating things in different ways cause they think that more words=better RP. This also comes into play with Player <--> Player conversations. ESPECIALLY when forming a plan. A player will suggest something, she'll say "well what if this happens?" so they'll come up with something that fits this player's complaints and then its "well what if THIS happens?" and the other players will be like "That's what our original plan suggested against!" and this player will just respond "ah so neither work...." They'll just keep giving critiques and issues with plans without actually offering any plans themselves. and in the rare event this player DOES comeup with a plan, its SO horribly convoluted and FILLED with contingencies for wild assumptions, that the rest of the party is like "WAT..." I think she does this for the same reason as said above, more arguing over plans=more talking= better RP. It has got to the point where the other PC's actively try to split the party to plan so that this PC isn't there.
3. HUUUUUUUUGE main character syndrome with no sense of "give-n-take"/"checks-n-balances" They believe their character should be good in everything and they get upset and grumpy when they're not "the-best (tm)" We have a whisper bard/rogue changling character in our level 15 group with an OUTRAGEOUS (rightfully so) stealth/persuasion/Deception bonus with the ability to steal appearance AND Memories. So naturally we send her in for infiltration/scouting to which this player gets all huffy cause "but but, I also have proficiency in stealth" so the rest of the party has to accommodate them by saying " well I guess you go to?" or they'll be grumpy the rest of the session.
In one of our campaigns where I'm a player and the DM (this character's spouse) had to GIVE a magic item that allowed their monk to roll a d6 per turn and regen Ki points on a 6 and they had the nerve to tell our artificer "Monk kinda sucks cause theres no way to generate more Ki in combat" as if ANY class had an ability to generate resources in combat? They complained enough that the spouse (DM) changed the already busted magic item (the ki regen was only ONE feature) to regen Ki on a 5-6 every turn
4. Relationship ties. This is the reason I'm hiveminding this situation. Normally, the easy answer to these type things are "talk to them about behavior" or "Kick them from table". But because of this player's relationships, that would more than likely cause about 1/2 the party to leave (this player, the spouse, and the friend they brought in). This isn't something I wanna risk cause the spouse has been my best friend for like 14 years, but I KNOW he would take his spouses side immediately (which he should). And to top it off, the problem player isn't ALWAYS like this, this personality ONLY comes up when any game is involved. they HAVE to be the best, they HAVE to make the most optimal solution, they HAVE to have the most contribution.
I'm trying to look for subtle ways to encourage OTHER behaviors. Either IN character or out. For example, In a campaign where I'm a player with this PC, whenever they start dismantling plans from other players, I've started to, In-character, ask, "Ok (MONK), what should we do?" and then proceed to sit and wait until we inevitably get a convoluted, reluctant, painfully admitted "I don't know" and THEN they're more open to suggestions.
Whatcha'll think?
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
You need to talk to this player. I understand that they have close ties to other players. I understand that it's a really awkward situation. But if you're concerned enough to ask the community for advice, then you're concerned enough to address it.
In your case, I'd talk to the player in private. Calmly, respectfully, and (In terms of family/close friends) lovingly explain to them how you feel. (Yes that sounds really dumb. But it's the truth.) See if you can help them put their own behavior into context.
From what you've told us, I'm inferring that they need to understand the following:
1. Every character in a party has specific roles. No single player is good at everything, and no single player has to be involved in every situation. The most capable character, or the character that is most appropriate for the role-play at the moment should handle any given event. When you make a character, you should have a vision of a role they can fill in the party, and for the most part, stick with that role. If you're a tank, be a tank. If you're a stealth, be a stealth. If you're a healer, be a healer. While a healer who has some tanking capabilities should certainly make use of that ability, they should leave tanking primarily to the party's designated tank.
2. Everyone has their own idea of what role-play means, and clashing ideas can lead to conflict. Some players like gritty realism, some like emotional tales, and some are just hooligans. If everyone is in agreement on how role-play should work, everyone will have more fun in social encounters.
3. Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to role-play. Making a character with a personality that conflicts with other's personalities certainly starts conversations, it doesn't really lead anywhere. But making unique characters that can work well with others leads to very interesting story and role-play.
But I do not believe that you need to teach them all of these points. In your case, I'd merely talk to the player and let them know that there is a problem. Most problem players don't even know that they're problem players, and realizing this fact may help them to look at their behavior from a new perspective.
If you really don't want to talk to the player and risk hurting them or anyone involved, then simply have a firmer hand in-game. Vocalize your opinions in a calm, respectful way. But above all, Make the problem known.
Is this player a newer player? You usually don't see a ton of veteran players trying to "win d&d", is why I ask. Maybe have that talk with your table. You know, the "there's no winning or losing, the goal is to have fun, and you can't plan for every contingency because conflict and chance of failure are where the fun is often derived from" conversation.
Maybe also discuss lethality during session 0. Maybe she isn't determined to "win d&d", maybe she's just terrified of losing a character that she's really invested in. If you don't intend to run a high-lethality game, maybe go over that with the players to assuage her fear. Or, if you do intend to run high-lethality, let them know that and maybe they'll make a character they're less personally invested in and more ok with potentially losing.
As far as what you can do at the table, I've often found gentle nudges to help. Just a quick "ok, cute, but back to the story" if they're side-tracking, or like a "love your energy but I wanna see how [X character] responds since we just did your thing", stuff like that. Just quick reminders to keep moving the pace along and to make sure everyone's included. And if the player is super needlessly extending dialogue, don't be afraid to use Matt Coville's advice from his "Orcs Attack!" video.
Of course those only work if the player is on board for changing their behavior. If you have a talk with them outside of game and they don't see a problem with how they act, then no amount of in-game solutions will fix it.
This is the real issue. Everything else is a symptom of the inherent problem. You *feel* like you are being held hostage by one players actions because of the pressure that your friendship with the spouse applies. IF this friend of 14 years is truly your friend, and also a decent DM, they will understand your taking issue with the problem player. They will absolutely NOT take kindly to your taking issue with their spouse, and rightly so. If you approach the player, keep it professional and remove your personal opinion. And then your follow-on problem is most likely that the problem player will not remain a player when confronted, but suddenly transform into the spouse.
So to keep my suggestion succinct: Kick them both from the game, or quit the game yourself. Ensure that the specific reason is known as to why you are setting this down. This player has made the game un-fun for you, and you in good faith cannot attempt to force someone to play a PC outside of the way that they want. Sure, you could point out that your problem player takes on "the wangrod defense" or the "that's what my character would do / that's how my character would act". You could point out that they are not abiding by the same social contract that everyone else at the table, including your friend, by characers that want to be part of a team. You could try to convince them that winning D&D means that everyone has fun and that by trying to be the constant spotlight, they fail.
Putting the problem player into the spotlight first might seem to solve the problem, but it most likely has the opposite effect of giving them what they want and enabling this behavior. At the end of all of this, the problem player has to want to make the game fun for others. I'm not reading anything that you've described as this player being concerned about other players' fun. It is possible that the issue lies with how you perceive this player/person. There exists a great potential for your bias to have a large impact on what I'm reading. I only have your words to work with.
“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
I we'd all agree, you just need to fake you own death so you can stop subjecting yourself to these people.
1. So first of all I would argue how the problem player's character is acting doesn't make any realistic sense, If the problem player's character knew the language and could speak it (which they can), then they would naturally have picked up on common figures of speech and intended meanings along the way just as a result of learning that language just like anyone else.
For the roleplaying issues here's something that worked in one of my groups.
In the group we had two players who'd both invested in charisma as spellcasting modifiers and wanted to be the party spokespersons. They would end up competing with each other and getting to into arguments both in and out of character. One of the other players suggested this strategy, and it worked pretty well. It's called a charisma initiative.
When a social interaction begins with an important NPC, the DM calls for initiative. Instead of using dexterity modifiers, players add their charisma modifier. This determines the order that the characters get to interact with the NPC. On your turn, you get one or two questions and responses before the charisma initiative moves on to the next player. There can be more then one round if the players have more to say, and it doesn't have to be really strict.
This may feel stilted and awkward at first, but it really helped my group. It removed the dynamic of 'the two persuasive ones are arguing and everyone else can't get a word in edgewise'. It allowed everyone the opportunity to roleplay their character. Once the players got used to it, it got more flexible, and now everyone is more willing to listen to one another and let other people talk during roleplay, so sometimes we don't need it anymore.
If necessary, this can also be implemented during a planning session, so that everyone gets a say.
It very much improved my game, and I think it would help in yours as well. It applies to everyone, so the problem player wouldn't feel like they're being singled out.
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
Try fleshing out their character with them one on one more. I find that (usually) the people who make “main characters” have trouble commiting to who they actually want to play as.
I suspect that the DM, as spouse, may see what is going on and may sympathise. If this is the kind of thing that can go on in a D&D game, there's also the possibility of potential issues in other aspects of the relationship.
So, the player's character has talked for a fair bit more than 6 seconds. Maybe cut in and say, while X is talking I want to do such and such.
If it becomes an option of talking or being involved in action, many players will opt for action.
Other player: "Hey, we're gonna run to the store real quick, you want anything?"
This player: "Why do you need to run?"
Other player: "No its just a figure of speech" to DM "I start going to the store", "you're welcome to join us". (even if it's a lie it's a pleasantry).
Keep going with the action where it's called for.
Appreciate as many positive contributions of this player as won't be too obvious. Appreciate when the party also gives space for other party members to shine.