Hi everyone I was wondering if I could have some advice.
In my last session I had issues with one of my players not joining up with the party. The party for the session was a level 5 Halfling Sword Bard with a level in Barbarian, a level 6 Warforged Artificer (playing a hombrew archetype the Selforged) and a level 5 Lizardfolk warlock of the fey(the player I'm having issues with). There are other players but they could not make it that session.
At the start of the session the bard and the artificer spend some time buying items from shops and the Warlock goes to check the bounty board and sees a bounty for a Chimera and leaves to kill it. The other party members end up catching up to him and they finish the bounty.
The next day the Warlock again leaves after checking the bounty board and finding a bounty to kill some of the things they fought the day before. When he says he wants to leave again without trying to meet up with the other party members the artificer makes a comment (out of character) about how the point of DnD is to play together to which the warlock says "that's forced association". The party ends up being split for the rest of the session between the Warlock in one part and the Bard and Artificer in another. The Bard and Artificer could have linked up with the warlock but decided not to. ( there were other things that the warlock did that session that had them irritated at him)
It's important to note that the party has been working together for a while and haven't just met.
Anyway I'm a new DM and I was under the impression that it's a given that the party should work together and I wouldn't have to worry about PC going off to complete bounties that are made for an entire party by themselves.
Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated.
you could kill em a few times for getting into more than one player can handle by ambushing his bounty hunt with a band of raiders.
You could invoke DM decision and simply say nothing is posted on the bounty board. And further with "No bounties today, but you do have a quest the party could complete." after hearing "I know the book has bounties" or some other player lawyering.
Also.... Some people just aren't that fun to play with if all they want to do is back seat DM and break out rule books all day.
Talk with the warlock out of character. He might be trying to role-play a lizardfolk as solitary, having difficulties working with the "softies", but try to see if you can work with him to find a way that he can role-play like that, and still stick with the party. Maybe the other party members get into some trouble, and now he feels protective of them, or maybe he gets in way over his head, and is now scared to leave the party?
Ether way, tell him that, as a DM, it's a nightmare for you to run a split party (since it basically forces you to run two different games simultaneously), and that, while D&D is about doing what you want, it's not a video game. Players have to consider that there are other players around the table.
Or, as Smallpoxx17 said, you can just kill him. I usually shy away from that sort of advice, but if he insists on doing things that he shouldn't be able to do alone, he has to know there are consequences for that sort of thing. If you don't want to have him die, you can do something like he's hired to kill some [insert level-and-setting appropriate mook here], have them overwhelm him, and then have him wake up, taken as either a meal to be killed and eaten at a later date, or as a slave. Make sure the bard and artificer know something is wrong ("[Warlock] hasn't come back yet. That's unusual"), until they go and rescue him, teaching him a lesson about the values of having backup. And then write a letter to Princess Celestia about friendship or something.
Pretty much what others have said, talk to the player in question. If it is a roleplay choice then try to work on ways to roleplay a more independent character that doesn't have the party split all the time. However if he just wants to do his own thing then there is no real reason to have him and the party sat around at the same time, meaning either 2 sessions, 1 for the party and a 1-1 session for the loner, or if for whatever reason you would rather not run a second session his character goes off and does things in world, the player can rejoin once the character had learned a bit about cooperation. But a second session or outright kicking is a last resort, even if the conversation gets you nowhere you should probably try some in game ways to highlight the issue first.
In game, making sure anything on the bounty board is too strong for a single character to beat, or include rumours of people going missing, then when he does a solo bounty he can be ambushed and taken hostage, or while he is away the rest of the party get roped into a relatively easy and high paying job he misses, something that will make the character and/or player realise that a bit of working together is beneficial.
Also you will ideally be giving roughly equal time to each player, meaning that if say you have 5 players 4/5 of your time will be spent on the party and only 1/5 on the isolated player, so you should make sure he is not monopolising your time. Being sidelined as you attempt to balance everyones activity could help reign things in if he just likes being the centre of attention.
This is a tricky situation you've ended up with. What level did they start at? I know it sounds silly but for a level 5/6 party there should be enough of a "trial by fire" for any broody loner types to have formed some sort of bond, if he's playing up the Lizardfolk animosity (for want of another name off the top of my head) towards other races I would have thought that he's seen enough to respect the various party members strengths by now and can see the value of having them around.
To deal with it I'd say the first port of call is to find out why the player is choosing to do this and explaining the side effect it is having on everything. Talk to them out of character and see if there is anything you can do to help with this. This is a hobby for all and the idea of feeling a need to push someone away or kill their character due to them being difficult to deal with is something that I'd never want to do or see happen. While the "forced association" may not always make sense these things are ironed out and developed as game continues, it may not make sense for a goblin, elf, dwarf, gnome and a dragonborn to just hook up on the road and be mates for life but that's one of those acceptable breaks. They find they have common goals, they go through hell together, respect each other and hey we have a party of adventurers. A conversation to try and work out the next course of action (a session 0.2 so to speak) hopefully will iron out the issues and set up for going forward. While the warning shot of biting off more than the character can handle may help out some matters it could also disillusion the player because they feel you're trying to drive them away rather than get a message that "you need to work together".
What are the rest of the group like? You alluded to the rest of the party being a little bit annoyed by things over the course of a session, is it that they're more role play focused while the warlock player wants to just smash things up for example? Are they more interested in intrigue and politics than doing jobs and gaining wealth and notoriety? I'm trying to see if there's some sort of player make up difference that could be having an influence as it sounds almost like as it stands the warlock is wanting to play a different type of game to the others. People and scenarios are all varied so it's trying to find out what's making this situation and issue.
"Forced incarceration" is a good way to handle it. Rather than have them be ambushed/captured for going out on their own, don't even let them leave town to begin with. Come up with a social encounter to throw at them as they try to leave. Have a guard patrol mistake them for another lizardfolk with a bounty on their head. Let them be released on bond to the custody of the party, contingent on them agreeing to complete the original quest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The party started at level 1 but the warlock didn't join the campaign until around level 3. They have been through a bit together previously they had fought through an underground ruin that was occupied by a Durgar warband during which the party helped the Warlock capture a dragon wyrmling on the behest of his patron(though the wyrmling pet of the Dreugar commander just knocked it unconscious instead of killing it at the warlocks request).
As for why the other players were irritated with the warlock, I think it's less to do different play styles , (I've made it pretty clear that as this is my first campaign that it's going to be fairly combat heavy since I'm still getting comfortable with role playing). And more to do with the Warlocks actions after the Chimera hunt. On the way back from the hunt they encounter a commoner being attacked by a monster(it's a homebrew one I found and wanted to try out: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L_PAGKXAXXersIBDVwg ) after the fight artificer stays to dissect it for useful materials to make potions from and the bard has an intelligence of 4 now and needs to be led back to the town and the warlock heads back to town by himself. Since he has a head start he gets back first and turns in the bounty claiming he killed it by himself(since he had taken part of it to make a dagger he had proof if its' death) He passes the decpetion check and 200 gp ( though in my campaign the reward listed on bounties is how much each person how helped complete the bounty gets instead of a lump sum). He then meets the artificer and bard at the gate and gives them 25gp each for their "contributions" and leaves. The Artificer and bard do go collect their portion of the reward later and return the money the warlock gave them. But I think that might have pissed off the artificer a bit.
Sure during the fight with the Chimera the Warlock did do the most damage and didn't take any but that was due to a) being the blastest member of the party, the artificer fought in melee and the bards spells were mostly for support ( he did cast bane on the Chimera which helped alot) and b) due to the fact that the chimera has and inteligence of 4 I didn't think it would be able to draw the connection between what the warlock was doing and the effects of his spells and so it focused however attacked it more directly which was the artificer and bard.
As for the suggestion about making it clear that the bounties shouldn't be done by a single person on the second day the bounty said specifically to not try to hunt the monsters alone and to do it in a group in part because the monsters were dangerous and also because anything that gets killed by them turns in to another one after a few hours.
Follow through with the threats, quit bluffing. If the Warlock wants to play solo because of an "angsty/edgy/loner is cool" attitude, then he's going to suffer his consequences. If/when that player gets upset at his character's death, you can fall back on the warning that it was supposed to be a team effort and he chose to go it solo. Then go on to explain that it's a team game and the "I don't work with partners" attitude will not benefit him or the game.
That a dick move by the player. The win condition in D&D is "Everyone had fun" not "I got the most gold". Party members shouldn't be trying to screw each other out of significant amounts of gold / loot unless they really know each other and are comfortable with it.
'Forced Association', I would think, would be part of the unspoken social contract between the DM and each of the players. It might be time to make that a SPOKEN social contract. It is kind of how the game works. This player cannot win unless he/she is part of the party. Only then can everyone win as they are acting as part of a whole and with the DM to create an awesome story and lasting memories together that will carry on through the years.
Otherwise, Skyrim is an awesome game. I love playing it when I wanna go solo.
I'll let the player know that I expect them to work together with the party instead of going off on their own and ask them why they haven't been doing that. Hope fully I'll be able to work something out if not then they might have to find a different campaign.
I think “Never split up the party” is important for two reasons.
1. Characters get killed.
2. The players who are doing nothing get bored or worse.
If the player insists on going it alone, let him but don’t give him roleplaying time. Just say “Roll perception.” On a failure say “You don’t find the target.” On a success say “You find the target and it surrenders” or something similarly brief. Then spend time roleplaying with the other players.
The Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) actually has a section dealing with real-life issues at the table in chapter 8. Pretty much "Table Rules" and every subsection under it would be really helpful to read over and enforce. One of the first things written is, "Ideally, players come to the gaming table with the same goal: to have a fun time together."
DMG - Ch 8: Running the Game - Table Rules
The solo adventurer has been an issue almost as long as the game has existed. The character Robilar, created by Rob Kuntz (close friend of Gary Gygax) during the 2nd test session of D&D in 1972, often played solo. Rob Kuntz was impatient with the slowness of having multiple people play characters and would play solo one-on-one sessions with Gygax to power up his character.
This character eventually caused a problem when Robilar entered into the original Temple of Elemental Evil that Gygax made and trashed it. Gygax didn't like that his masterpiece dungeon had been destroyed by a single adventurer so he sent an entire army after Rob Kuntz's character. Robilar fled back to his castle and even had to abandon it as a major loss.
Wikipedia and other snippets of reading
This being a warlock and cheating his companions out of money, I assume that he is evil. Proper respect to someone who takes a risk and accurately plays an evil character, but the point of playing D&D (or really any game) is to have fun. D&D being a multiplayer co-operative game means that all people should have fun. Part of the character may need to be retconned so that he'll fit better with the other players.
I remember reading, I assume in a 2e or 3e/3.5e book, that stated that it would be a good idea to not allow evil characters unless everyone is already sure that they are fine with evil things happening. This is because evil characters will do things to each other that can cause players to not like each other OR players roll evil characters and then never argue or fight or cheat or do anything to each other and thus are probably not really playing their characters as evil.
I would probably personally handle this in one of two ways.
A DM shouldn't try to outright kill players until a final confrontation when a boss uses everything at their disposal and puts a party to the test. This does not include protecting players who are being stupid. DM: "The queen's dozen elite god-like guards surround her." Rogue: "I am going to try to pick pocket the queen." DM: "They kill you." I would feel that a solo adventurer going off to take on a group quest by themself is asking for death and either should meet it, or you should -really- up your definition of "challenge" for a group. I will add that you don't have to kill them. Having them captured may work a little.
Have non-combat issues set up that a solo person can't cope with. Two levers separated by distance that need to be pulled at the same time. Getting lost while trying to travel to the dungeon. Hidden doors that need a good skill check to proceed. Encountering the person you need to rescue and they need healing before they can be moved. Heck, even putting so much treasure (of a low quality, mundane type OR just heavy) that it takes multiple people to carry it back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Good luck and may you roll 20's when you need them and 1's when you need a laugh. - myself
Would be fun to deal with in my brain. Would probably make up some little story that leaves a bounty on one of the players in the group. This bringing him to them and let the players decide what to do. If it ends up in combat it's all up to the dice. Lots of paths can fork from that. Such like during the encounter they are all ambushed. Players put him down and choose either death or Mercy. Traps behind the players can catch him. Perhaps a door the players went through required a certain weight limit on a switch or enough people to turn a pully system to raise the door which closes behind them leaving him stuck with a few roaming mobs to run into him.
Regardless, I'll never force someone to play with a group. If a person comes to my game acting in such manner I'll simply ask him to leave and find another group that fit his story and style better.
Just a random thought that, from skimming through the responses, seems to have been overlooked.
You said there are other players in the group, but that not all of them were present? Out of character, was it one of those players that brought the Warlock? Perhaps the Warlock player is not having fun because they personally feel alone, since their actual friend was not there to participate. It can be very isolating when the person who brought you into a group of strangers can't make it, but you are expected to still be there. Not everyone is comfortable with that. This may have also affected their choice of character, since they picked Lizardman. Lizardmen tend to be loners when away from their tribe. Have there been any other indications that might support that possibility?
They also may be very disenfranchised with the "idling in down because part of the group isn't here" thing. At least, that kind of sounds like what's happening. Was that a conscious decision on your part, to not progress the story and have some in-town Downtime to occupy the players who are present, while other players are absent? They may simply be bored, and bad at waiting for more action.
Tell him, yes, you can make any character you want. But you happen to be the only person who made their character an *******. Do you really not notice anything wrong with that?
D&D is a cooperative, team-based adventure game, which means pretty much by definition, you need to create a character who can cooperate, is capable of being on a team, and is an adventurer. This is like sitting down to a game of Monopoly and never buying any properties or collecting any money from another player ... you're literally missing the entire f**king point.
Spend 100% of your time on the team players and when the solo guy complains tell him that forcing you to DM just him is forced association.
(Don't actually do this. It's passive/aggressive and snarky. I just wanted to say it).
In my less enlightened days, I'd do a variant of that when someone played some brooding loner who wouldn't take a plot hook. Rest of the party (or really just 'the party', since this guy never went along) goes off on the adventure, he sits around twiddling. When he'd complain, I'd just be 'the action went that way, you decided not to go with it'. "But I was playing my character!" "Then you've picked the wrong character, you should have picked one that actually wants to, you know, go on adventures."
This in part reads like the Warlock is not respecting the other players in the social contract.
However I am not there and I have to ask. How are the other characters responding? Not the players, the characters. Meaning not saying, "Hey man don't split the party." Instead do they wise up and trank the warlock and keep him sedated until its on their terms. Or threatening to kill him if he betrays them again.
Now if the warlock is just trying to win, have the most, do the most and so on. They need to learn that its a co-op game and if they leave to handle a mission on their own. The action is going to follow the party.
1) first and foremost talk to the player and set the expectations. I would tell them social encounters in town is one thing. Leaving time to go hunting is another.
2) if after talking if player still does it I would start by making his turns unfruitful and short. Spend twice as long on the other players and when it is his turn tell him his hunt bares no fruit.
3) if he continues have him get ambushed by multiple creatures in an encounter where he dies due to action economy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi everyone I was wondering if I could have some advice.
In my last session I had issues with one of my players not joining up with the party. The party for the session was a level 5 Halfling Sword Bard with a level in Barbarian, a level 6 Warforged Artificer (playing a hombrew archetype the Selforged) and a level 5 Lizardfolk warlock of the fey(the player I'm having issues with). There are other players but they could not make it that session.
At the start of the session the bard and the artificer spend some time buying items from shops and the Warlock goes to check the bounty board and sees a bounty for a Chimera and leaves to kill it. The other party members end up catching up to him and they finish the bounty.
The next day the Warlock again leaves after checking the bounty board and finding a bounty to kill some of the things they fought the day before. When he says he wants to leave again without trying to meet up with the other party members the artificer makes a comment (out of character) about how the point of DnD is to play together to which the warlock says "that's forced association". The party ends up being split for the rest of the session between the Warlock in one part and the Bard and Artificer in another. The Bard and Artificer could have linked up with the warlock but decided not to. ( there were other things that the warlock did that session that had them irritated at him)
It's important to note that the party has been working together for a while and haven't just met.
Anyway I'm a new DM and I was under the impression that it's a given that the party should work together and I wouldn't have to worry about PC going off to complete bounties that are made for an entire party by themselves.
Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated.
Thanks for reading.
you could kill em a few times for getting into more than one player can handle by ambushing his bounty hunt with a band of raiders.
You could invoke DM decision and simply say nothing is posted on the bounty board. And further with "No bounties today, but you do have a quest the party could complete." after hearing "I know the book has bounties" or some other player lawyering.
Also.... Some people just aren't that fun to play with if all they want to do is back seat DM and break out rule books all day.
Talk with the warlock out of character. He might be trying to role-play a lizardfolk as solitary, having difficulties working with the "softies", but try to see if you can work with him to find a way that he can role-play like that, and still stick with the party. Maybe the other party members get into some trouble, and now he feels protective of them, or maybe he gets in way over his head, and is now scared to leave the party?
Ether way, tell him that, as a DM, it's a nightmare for you to run a split party (since it basically forces you to run two different games simultaneously), and that, while D&D is about doing what you want, it's not a video game. Players have to consider that there are other players around the table.
Or, as Smallpoxx17 said, you can just kill him. I usually shy away from that sort of advice, but if he insists on doing things that he shouldn't be able to do alone, he has to know there are consequences for that sort of thing. If you don't want to have him die, you can do something like he's hired to kill some [insert level-and-setting appropriate mook here], have them overwhelm him, and then have him wake up, taken as either a meal to be killed and eaten at a later date, or as a slave. Make sure the bard and artificer know something is wrong ("[Warlock] hasn't come back yet. That's unusual"), until they go and rescue him, teaching him a lesson about the values of having backup. And then write a letter to Princess Celestia about friendship or something.
"What do you mean I get disadvantage on persuasion?"
I don't know, Sneet, maybe because your argument is "Submit and become our pet"?
-Actual conversation in a game.
Pretty much what others have said, talk to the player in question. If it is a roleplay choice then try to work on ways to roleplay a more independent character that doesn't have the party split all the time. However if he just wants to do his own thing then there is no real reason to have him and the party sat around at the same time, meaning either 2 sessions, 1 for the party and a 1-1 session for the loner, or if for whatever reason you would rather not run a second session his character goes off and does things in world, the player can rejoin once the character had learned a bit about cooperation. But a second session or outright kicking is a last resort, even if the conversation gets you nowhere you should probably try some in game ways to highlight the issue first.
In game, making sure anything on the bounty board is too strong for a single character to beat, or include rumours of people going missing, then when he does a solo bounty he can be ambushed and taken hostage, or while he is away the rest of the party get roped into a relatively easy and high paying job he misses, something that will make the character and/or player realise that a bit of working together is beneficial.
Also you will ideally be giving roughly equal time to each player, meaning that if say you have 5 players 4/5 of your time will be spent on the party and only 1/5 on the isolated player, so you should make sure he is not monopolising your time. Being sidelined as you attempt to balance everyones activity could help reign things in if he just likes being the centre of attention.
This is a tricky situation you've ended up with. What level did they start at? I know it sounds silly but for a level 5/6 party there should be enough of a "trial by fire" for any broody loner types to have formed some sort of bond, if he's playing up the Lizardfolk animosity (for want of another name off the top of my head) towards other races I would have thought that he's seen enough to respect the various party members strengths by now and can see the value of having them around.
To deal with it I'd say the first port of call is to find out why the player is choosing to do this and explaining the side effect it is having on everything. Talk to them out of character and see if there is anything you can do to help with this. This is a hobby for all and the idea of feeling a need to push someone away or kill their character due to them being difficult to deal with is something that I'd never want to do or see happen. While the "forced association" may not always make sense these things are ironed out and developed as game continues, it may not make sense for a goblin, elf, dwarf, gnome and a dragonborn to just hook up on the road and be mates for life but that's one of those acceptable breaks. They find they have common goals, they go through hell together, respect each other and hey we have a party of adventurers. A conversation to try and work out the next course of action (a session 0.2 so to speak) hopefully will iron out the issues and set up for going forward. While the warning shot of biting off more than the character can handle may help out some matters it could also disillusion the player because they feel you're trying to drive them away rather than get a message that "you need to work together".
What are the rest of the group like? You alluded to the rest of the party being a little bit annoyed by things over the course of a session, is it that they're more role play focused while the warlock player wants to just smash things up for example? Are they more interested in intrigue and politics than doing jobs and gaining wealth and notoriety? I'm trying to see if there's some sort of player make up difference that could be having an influence as it sounds almost like as it stands the warlock is wanting to play a different type of game to the others. People and scenarios are all varied so it's trying to find out what's making this situation and issue.
"Forced incarceration" is a good way to handle it. Rather than have them be ambushed/captured for going out on their own, don't even let them leave town to begin with. Come up with a social encounter to throw at them as they try to leave. Have a guard patrol mistake them for another lizardfolk with a bounty on their head. Let them be released on bond to the custody of the party, contingent on them agreeing to complete the original quest.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Thanks for the advice!
The party started at level 1 but the warlock didn't join the campaign until around level 3. They have been through a bit together previously they had fought through an underground ruin that was occupied by a Durgar warband during which the party helped the Warlock capture a dragon wyrmling on the behest of his patron(though the wyrmling pet of the Dreugar commander just knocked it unconscious instead of killing it at the warlocks request).
As for why the other players were irritated with the warlock, I think it's less to do different play styles , (I've made it pretty clear that as this is my first campaign that it's going to be fairly combat heavy since I'm still getting comfortable with role playing). And more to do with the Warlocks actions after the Chimera hunt. On the way back from the hunt they encounter a commoner being attacked by a monster(it's a homebrew one I found and wanted to try out: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-L_PAGKXAXXersIBDVwg ) after the fight artificer stays to dissect it for useful materials to make potions from and the bard has an intelligence of 4 now and needs to be led back to the town and the warlock heads back to town by himself. Since he has a head start he gets back first and turns in the bounty claiming he killed it by himself(since he had taken part of it to make a dagger he had proof if its' death) He passes the decpetion check and 200 gp ( though in my campaign the reward listed on bounties is how much each person how helped complete the bounty gets instead of a lump sum). He then meets the artificer and bard at the gate and gives them 25gp each for their "contributions" and leaves. The Artificer and bard do go collect their portion of the reward later and return the money the warlock gave them. But I think that might have pissed off the artificer a bit.
Sure during the fight with the Chimera the Warlock did do the most damage and didn't take any but that was due to a) being the blastest member of the party, the artificer fought in melee and the bards spells were mostly for support ( he did cast bane on the Chimera which helped alot) and b) due to the fact that the chimera has and inteligence of 4 I didn't think it would be able to draw the connection between what the warlock was doing and the effects of his spells and so it focused however attacked it more directly which was the artificer and bard.
As for the suggestion about making it clear that the bounties shouldn't be done by a single person on the second day the bounty said specifically to not try to hunt the monsters alone and to do it in a group in part because the monsters were dangerous and also because anything that gets killed by them turns in to another one after a few hours.
Follow through with the threats, quit bluffing. If the Warlock wants to play solo because of an "angsty/edgy/loner is cool" attitude, then he's going to suffer his consequences. If/when that player gets upset at his character's death, you can fall back on the warning that it was supposed to be a team effort and he chose to go it solo. Then go on to explain that it's a team game and the "I don't work with partners" attitude will not benefit him or the game.
That a dick move by the player. The win condition in D&D is "Everyone had fun" not "I got the most gold". Party members shouldn't be trying to screw each other out of significant amounts of gold / loot unless they really know each other and are comfortable with it.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
'Forced Association', I would think, would be part of the unspoken social contract between the DM and each of the players. It might be time to make that a SPOKEN social contract. It is kind of how the game works. This player cannot win unless he/she is part of the party. Only then can everyone win as they are acting as part of a whole and with the DM to create an awesome story and lasting memories together that will carry on through the years.
Otherwise, Skyrim is an awesome game. I love playing it when I wanna go solo.
Thank you.
ChrisW
Ones are righteous. And one day, we just might believe it.
Thanks for all the advice everyone.
I'll let the player know that I expect them to work together with the party instead of going off on their own and ask them why they haven't been doing that. Hope fully I'll be able to work something out if not then they might have to find a different campaign.
I think “Never split up the party” is important for two reasons.
1. Characters get killed.
2. The players who are doing nothing get bored or worse.
If the player insists on going it alone, let him but don’t give him roleplaying time. Just say “Roll perception.” On a failure say “You don’t find the target.” On a success say “You find the target and it surrenders” or something similarly brief. Then spend time roleplaying with the other players.
The Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) actually has a section dealing with real-life issues at the table in chapter 8. Pretty much "Table Rules" and every subsection under it would be really helpful to read over and enforce. One of the first things written is, "Ideally, players come to the gaming table with the same goal: to have a fun time together."
DMG - Ch 8: Running the Game - Table Rules
The solo adventurer has been an issue almost as long as the game has existed. The character Robilar, created by Rob Kuntz (close friend of Gary Gygax) during the 2nd test session of D&D in 1972, often played solo. Rob Kuntz was impatient with the slowness of having multiple people play characters and would play solo one-on-one sessions with Gygax to power up his character.
This character eventually caused a problem when Robilar entered into the original Temple of Elemental Evil that Gygax made and trashed it. Gygax didn't like that his masterpiece dungeon had been destroyed by a single adventurer so he sent an entire army after Rob Kuntz's character. Robilar fled back to his castle and even had to abandon it as a major loss.
Wikipedia and other snippets of reading
This being a warlock and cheating his companions out of money, I assume that he is evil. Proper respect to someone who takes a risk and accurately plays an evil character, but the point of playing D&D (or really any game) is to have fun. D&D being a multiplayer co-operative game means that all people should have fun. Part of the character may need to be retconned so that he'll fit better with the other players.
I remember reading, I assume in a 2e or 3e/3.5e book, that stated that it would be a good idea to not allow evil characters unless everyone is already sure that they are fine with evil things happening. This is because evil characters will do things to each other that can cause players to not like each other OR players roll evil characters and then never argue or fight or cheat or do anything to each other and thus are probably not really playing their characters as evil.
I would probably personally handle this in one of two ways.
DM: "The queen's dozen elite god-like guards surround her."
Rogue: "I am going to try to pick pocket the queen."
DM: "They kill you."
I would feel that a solo adventurer going off to take on a group quest by themself is asking for death and either should meet it, or you should -really- up your definition of "challenge" for a group. I will add that you don't have to kill them. Having them captured may work a little.
Good luck and may you roll 20's when you need them and 1's when you need a laugh. - myself
Would be fun to deal with in my brain. Would probably make up some little story that leaves a bounty on one of the players in the group. This bringing him to them and let the players decide what to do. If it ends up in combat it's all up to the dice. Lots of paths can fork from that. Such like during the encounter they are all ambushed. Players put him down and choose either death or Mercy. Traps behind the players can catch him. Perhaps a door the players went through required a certain weight limit on a switch or enough people to turn a pully system to raise the door which closes behind them leaving him stuck with a few roaming mobs to run into him.
Regardless, I'll never force someone to play with a group. If a person comes to my game acting in such manner I'll simply ask him to leave and find another group that fit his story and style better.
Just a random thought that, from skimming through the responses, seems to have been overlooked.
You said there are other players in the group, but that not all of them were present? Out of character, was it one of those players that brought the Warlock? Perhaps the Warlock player is not having fun because they personally feel alone, since their actual friend was not there to participate. It can be very isolating when the person who brought you into a group of strangers can't make it, but you are expected to still be there. Not everyone is comfortable with that. This may have also affected their choice of character, since they picked Lizardman. Lizardmen tend to be loners when away from their tribe. Have there been any other indications that might support that possibility?
They also may be very disenfranchised with the "idling in down because part of the group isn't here" thing. At least, that kind of sounds like what's happening. Was that a conscious decision on your part, to not progress the story and have some in-town Downtime to occupy the players who are present, while other players are absent? They may simply be bored, and bad at waiting for more action.
Tell him, yes, you can make any character you want. But you happen to be the only person who made their character an *******. Do you really not notice anything wrong with that?
D&D is a cooperative, team-based adventure game, which means pretty much by definition, you need to create a character who can cooperate, is capable of being on a team, and is an adventurer. This is like sitting down to a game of Monopoly and never buying any properties or collecting any money from another player ... you're literally missing the entire f**king point.
In my less enlightened days, I'd do a variant of that when someone played some brooding loner who wouldn't take a plot hook. Rest of the party (or really just 'the party', since this guy never went along) goes off on the adventure, he sits around twiddling. When he'd complain, I'd just be 'the action went that way, you decided not to go with it'. "But I was playing my character!" "Then you've picked the wrong character, you should have picked one that actually wants to, you know, go on adventures."
This in part reads like the Warlock is not respecting the other players in the social contract.
However I am not there and I have to ask. How are the other characters responding? Not the players, the characters. Meaning not saying, "Hey man don't split the party." Instead do they wise up and trank the warlock and keep him sedated until its on their terms. Or threatening to kill him if he betrays them again.
Now if the warlock is just trying to win, have the most, do the most and so on. They need to learn that its a co-op game and if they leave to handle a mission on their own. The action is going to follow the party.
Couple things
1) first and foremost talk to the player and set the expectations. I would tell them social encounters in town is one thing. Leaving time to go hunting is another.
2) if after talking if player still does it I would start by making his turns unfruitful and short. Spend twice as long on the other players and when it is his turn tell him his hunt bares no fruit.
3) if he continues have him get ambushed by multiple creatures in an encounter where he dies due to action economy.