I'm a fairly new DM, and I have one very successful group that I run, and another that I've just started. One of my players is a casual friend of mine, but we're not terribly close, and he is a very sensitive and defensive person, who has a tendency to try and godmod other player's characters. I can see my other players starting to get frustrated, and I have, time and time again, told the group as a whole that they can't have lengthy in character/decision making conversations during combat, as each round is 6 seconds, and yet he repeatedly interrupts other players on their turn to suggest what HE thinks they should do. Any ideas on how to firmly, but kindly, get him to stop doing this? It's driving everyone crazy. I don't want to start a fight, but if he doesn't give it a rest, I'm fairly certain the group is going to dissolve.
This is a tough one, because you say he is defensive. This means that the normal means of addressing this, which is to take the player aside and one-on-one explain the situation, will probably backfire. He will get his back up and you will not be able to have a constructive conversation.
Matt Colville calls the type of player you are talking about "the Tactician." He describe it as someone who wants to min-max your adventure rather than his character, and wants to manage everyone else. "They tend to second-guess everyone else's decisions," "want the team to do the optimal thing," etc. I won't link the video though because uncharacteristically, he doesn't present a solution to it, although he does acknowledge it as a problem.
He also points out in another video that no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if you don't do something about a problem player, the other players will come to that conclusion and simply drop out.
Colville's overall advice on Problem Players:
He recommends confronting the person at the table. But again, this could be an issue with your sensitive player. Around 6:00 he talks bout how to word things.
I could swear I have seen a video from Colville in which he addresses this exact situation specifically -- and how to stop it. But I can't find it in about 40 minutes of searching. I think one thing he suggested was setting in place a rule like, "Only the player whose turn it currently is can talk." But he had more details than that, sorry... I can't locate it.
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.
Call him and have a talk just the two of you. If he has a tendency of getting defensive, the last thing I would have done is to address it at the table in front of others. Do it under "four eyes" (with social distance of course...). Try not to make this "his" problem, but a problem for the "group" and the way YOU want to run this game. Acknowledge that he has a lot of good ideas (even if you don't think so), then try to explain to him that he takes some of the fun away from the other players because they want to decide this for themselves. Might work, might not, but this is the first thing I would have tried.
I also thought about what BioWizard wrote: Implying some kind of rule that no-one talks on another characters turn, but that can possibly have other implications. I think it would have made my games a lot more boring.
If the person is defensive, would a general email, addressed to the entire group work? E.g - "Recently, I've noticed that some people have a tendency to ..... ".
This gets the issue out there, and your frustration with it communicated, without making them feel singled out.
I'd be sure to BCC everyone in the group rather than CC them though, so no one can hit "reply all" and go, "Yeah, _______ does that!" which kind of defeats the purpose of not calling them out specifically.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Depending on your players, you could try implementing a rule where the only person who talks about the game on a player's turn is that player unless they specifically ask for input or suggestions. Explain it to the players as creating a balanced play experience where everyone gets to contribute. Don't single out the person who is offering up tactical advice but make it clear that no one else can offer suggestions unless the player asks. The purpose of this is to help the player role play better and get more comfortable with their characters and their decisions and not to keep the particular person quieter ... even if it has that side effect.
However, you may find that the tactical noisy player will get more frustrated as folks make non-optimal choices (in their opinion), so you may have to have a chat with them later to sort out how to proceed. You probably don't want to have the chat first since then any actions you take to minimize interaction on a players turn (like limiting table talk) will be more likely to be taken personally.
So my suggestion would be to have a chat with your players, explain that you would like to see everyone role playing and getting more comfortable with their characters and making decisions for them and then describe the rule limiting table talk during combat so that each player can decide what their character would do, with the exception that if the player wants advice they can ask for some brief input. If the problem player keeps interrupting, remind them of the rule everyone agreed to and ask them to stop - however, be sure to also enforce the rule on anyone else that also jumps in with unasked suggestions - you aren't singling out a player, you are implementing a rule to help role playing and hopefully cut down on the tactical chatter which happens to be dominated by the one player. Also, describe it as an option that you will use for 2 or 3 sessions and then can revisit it and see if the players want to keep using it.
I would couple it with a change to the table rules. That is, you would say, "Since I have noticed that occasionally during battle, people are second-guessing each other and this is not appropriate during an encounter for IC reasons, we are going to try out a new rule next session..." Make it clear this is a test and after a couple of sessions you will all re-assess whether you like the new rule. Blame us if you want -- the DnD Beyond forum DMs suggested...
My suggestion of the new rule is what I said above: At the top of each round, the players have a few moments (no more than a minute of real time) to discuss what they want to do as a party for this round. Time it if you have to. At the end of the minute, you start the initiative order for the round. At that point, no one but the person currently going is allowed to speak, unless directly addressed by the DM or the person who is on initiative order (for example, one player might need to ask another how the Haste spell he just cast on his character works). Anyone who violates this rule gets a warning. After that, you lose your next turn in combat each time you speak out of order.
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.
I'm personally not a fan of calling out at the table. I'd first try to talk after or before a session, maybe even through text if in person is not possible. "Hey, this type of behavior is happening, it's ruining the fun or some. Let people play their own characters. It's part of the game, we will grow closer as a group if we allow people to play their characters. Mistakes will happen and we will play through those as they happen. It's part of the game so let's just have a good time."
If something like that doesn't work. Then a more direct approach will be needed. If a player cannot follow the rules and behave and be a team player, then they might need to fail a few death saving throws.
I'd recommend not doing the group email. In my experience, that usually leads to every single person understanding who it's really about, except that person. They're usually oblivious to the fact they're doing it, and so just shrug at the email, and agree that sure, whoever is doing that should definitely stop.
I get they become defensive, but a private chat is the best option. But come armed with some ideas. IF their character is some sort of battle genius, they might have a military history or be highly intelligent, then suggest that they do it OUT OF COMBAT. "Hey guys, next time we face a group like that, it would be better if we do A, B and C. Then blah blah blah." That way, he gets to RP it, tries to fix the combat issues as he sees them, and it can be a fun part of the game. if he does well, maybe make a note and next time they're in combat, throw a combat inspiration dice their way because of the little training sesh they had. So now he gets to play general AND the group gets a bonus. Everyone wins.
That said, this only works if its reasonable his player has that knowledge. If they DON'T, explain that too. Hey, your gnomish druid hermit wouldn't know anything about battle tactics, so you can't be all "FLANK AND WHEEL!!!!!" Because that may help him have a bit more foundation for why it's inappropriate (beyond being a wangrod).
I'd put everyone on a short timer for their turns, use a minute glass or something. When the turn changes, flip the glass. your players can either listen to the controller guy, or they can act on their own free will, but when the sand runs out and the glass flips, the next person's turn is up whether player 1 has gone or not. Your trouble player will not feel singled out, and your other players get to make their own decisions because they don't have time to listen to him and argue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Yeah I am pretty flexible as a DM but the one thing I remain pretty strict on is pacing in combat. Min/maxing is absolutely unrealistic in combat as a bad guy, especially a boss of villain, wouldn't just stand there staring at players shouting at each other different ideas and ways to attack them. I also try to promote characters being forced to talk in character-especially in combat-which severely reduces the ability for the 'Tactician' to bog things down.
For instance, if the characters have to communicate their plans to each other in the middle of combat a bad guy probably isn't going to be caught by surprise by this plan these guys are hatching 2 feet away from him talking loudly to each other. These are ways to reduce this issue without causing a direct confrontation since they apply to everyone.
That being said I am always a proponent of just sitting down and being honest. Your job as a DM is to host this game, to put forth a quality product, and to ensure that 'all' of your players are having fun. I haven't had an issue with a bad PC in my campaign yet (mostly because I was resistant to embracing my nerd side for awhile so I only have games with close friends) but as anyone who has managed people at work can tell you the more honest and engaging you are up front the less opportunity there is for defensiveness and further issues.
Hi!
I'm a fairly new DM, and I have one very successful group that I run, and another that I've just started. One of my players is a casual friend of mine, but we're not terribly close, and he is a very sensitive and defensive person, who has a tendency to try and godmod other player's characters. I can see my other players starting to get frustrated, and I have, time and time again, told the group as a whole that they can't have lengthy in character/decision making conversations during combat, as each round is 6 seconds, and yet he repeatedly interrupts other players on their turn to suggest what HE thinks they should do. Any ideas on how to firmly, but kindly, get him to stop doing this? It's driving everyone crazy. I don't want to start a fight, but if he doesn't give it a rest, I'm fairly certain the group is going to dissolve.
This is a tough one, because you say he is defensive. This means that the normal means of addressing this, which is to take the player aside and one-on-one explain the situation, will probably backfire. He will get his back up and you will not be able to have a constructive conversation.
Matt Colville calls the type of player you are talking about "the Tactician." He describe it as someone who wants to min-max your adventure rather than his character, and wants to manage everyone else. "They tend to second-guess everyone else's decisions," "want the team to do the optimal thing," etc. I won't link the video though because uncharacteristically, he doesn't present a solution to it, although he does acknowledge it as a problem.
He also points out in another video that no gaming is better than bad gaming, and if you don't do something about a problem player, the other players will come to that conclusion and simply drop out.
Colville's overall advice on Problem Players:
He recommends confronting the person at the table. But again, this could be an issue with your sensitive player. Around 6:00 he talks bout how to word things.
I could swear I have seen a video from Colville in which he addresses this exact situation specifically -- and how to stop it. But I can't find it in about 40 minutes of searching. I think one thing he suggested was setting in place a rule like, "Only the player whose turn it currently is can talk." But he had more details than that, sorry... I can't locate it.
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.
Call him and have a talk just the two of you. If he has a tendency of getting defensive, the last thing I would have done is to address it at the table in front of others. Do it under "four eyes" (with social distance of course...). Try not to make this "his" problem, but a problem for the "group" and the way YOU want to run this game. Acknowledge that he has a lot of good ideas (even if you don't think so), then try to explain to him that he takes some of the fun away from the other players because they want to decide this for themselves. Might work, might not, but this is the first thing I would have tried.
I also thought about what BioWizard wrote: Implying some kind of rule that no-one talks on another characters turn, but that can possibly have other implications. I think it would have made my games a lot more boring.
Ludo ergo sum!
If the person is defensive, would a general email, addressed to the entire group work? E.g - "Recently, I've noticed that some people have a tendency to ..... ".
This gets the issue out there, and your frustration with it communicated, without making them feel singled out.
I'd be sure to BCC everyone in the group rather than CC them though, so no one can hit "reply all" and go, "Yeah, _______ does that!" which kind of defeats the purpose of not calling them out specifically.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Depending on your players, you could try implementing a rule where the only person who talks about the game on a player's turn is that player unless they specifically ask for input or suggestions. Explain it to the players as creating a balanced play experience where everyone gets to contribute. Don't single out the person who is offering up tactical advice but make it clear that no one else can offer suggestions unless the player asks. The purpose of this is to help the player role play better and get more comfortable with their characters and their decisions and not to keep the particular person quieter ... even if it has that side effect.
However, you may find that the tactical noisy player will get more frustrated as folks make non-optimal choices (in their opinion), so you may have to have a chat with them later to sort out how to proceed. You probably don't want to have the chat first since then any actions you take to minimize interaction on a players turn (like limiting table talk) will be more likely to be taken personally.
So my suggestion would be to have a chat with your players, explain that you would like to see everyone role playing and getting more comfortable with their characters and making decisions for them and then describe the rule limiting table talk during combat so that each player can decide what their character would do, with the exception that if the player wants advice they can ask for some brief input. If the problem player keeps interrupting, remind them of the rule everyone agreed to and ask them to stop - however, be sure to also enforce the rule on anyone else that also jumps in with unasked suggestions - you aren't singling out a player, you are implementing a rule to help role playing and hopefully cut down on the tactical chatter which happens to be dominated by the one player. Also, describe it as an option that you will use for 2 or 3 sessions and then can revisit it and see if the players want to keep using it.
I like the idea of a group email.
I would couple it with a change to the table rules. That is, you would say, "Since I have noticed that occasionally during battle, people are second-guessing each other and this is not appropriate during an encounter for IC reasons, we are going to try out a new rule next session..." Make it clear this is a test and after a couple of sessions you will all re-assess whether you like the new rule. Blame us if you want -- the DnD Beyond forum DMs suggested...
My suggestion of the new rule is what I said above: At the top of each round, the players have a few moments (no more than a minute of real time) to discuss what they want to do as a party for this round. Time it if you have to. At the end of the minute, you start the initiative order for the round. At that point, no one but the person currently going is allowed to speak, unless directly addressed by the DM or the person who is on initiative order (for example, one player might need to ask another how the Haste spell he just cast on his character works). Anyone who violates this rule gets a warning. After that, you lose your next turn in combat each time you speak out of order.
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.
Just talk to the player one on one in private. Be respectful and kind. Lay the cards out on the table though.
Thank you all so much for your advice! I will definitely sort of go through it and form a plan based on that! I really appreciate y'all!
I'm personally not a fan of calling out at the table. I'd first try to talk after or before a session, maybe even through text if in person is not possible. "Hey, this type of behavior is happening, it's ruining the fun or some. Let people play their own characters. It's part of the game, we will grow closer as a group if we allow people to play their characters. Mistakes will happen and we will play through those as they happen. It's part of the game so let's just have a good time."
If something like that doesn't work. Then a more direct approach will be needed. If a player cannot follow the rules and behave and be a team player, then they might need to fail a few death saving throws.
I'd recommend not doing the group email. In my experience, that usually leads to every single person understanding who it's really about, except that person. They're usually oblivious to the fact they're doing it, and so just shrug at the email, and agree that sure, whoever is doing that should definitely stop.
I get they become defensive, but a private chat is the best option. But come armed with some ideas. IF their character is some sort of battle genius, they might have a military history or be highly intelligent, then suggest that they do it OUT OF COMBAT.
"Hey guys, next time we face a group like that, it would be better if we do A, B and C. Then blah blah blah."
That way, he gets to RP it, tries to fix the combat issues as he sees them, and it can be a fun part of the game. if he does well, maybe make a note and next time they're in combat, throw a combat inspiration dice their way because of the little training sesh they had. So now he gets to play general AND the group gets a bonus. Everyone wins.
That said, this only works if its reasonable his player has that knowledge. If they DON'T, explain that too. Hey, your gnomish druid hermit wouldn't know anything about battle tactics, so you can't be all "FLANK AND WHEEL!!!!!" Because that may help him have a bit more foundation for why it's inappropriate (beyond being a wangrod).
I'd put everyone on a short timer for their turns, use a minute glass or something. When the turn changes, flip the glass. your players can either listen to the controller guy, or they can act on their own free will, but when the sand runs out and the glass flips, the next person's turn is up whether player 1 has gone or not. Your trouble player will not feel singled out, and your other players get to make their own decisions because they don't have time to listen to him and argue.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I like the timer idea. I am currently looking for a sand timer to use.
https://www.amazon.com/Teacher-Created-Resources-Minute-Timer/dp/B00KQ6I47O
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yeah I am pretty flexible as a DM but the one thing I remain pretty strict on is pacing in combat. Min/maxing is absolutely unrealistic in combat as a bad guy, especially a boss of villain, wouldn't just stand there staring at players shouting at each other different ideas and ways to attack them. I also try to promote characters being forced to talk in character-especially in combat-which severely reduces the ability for the 'Tactician' to bog things down.
For instance, if the characters have to communicate their plans to each other in the middle of combat a bad guy probably isn't going to be caught by surprise by this plan these guys are hatching 2 feet away from him talking loudly to each other. These are ways to reduce this issue without causing a direct confrontation since they apply to everyone.
That being said I am always a proponent of just sitting down and being honest. Your job as a DM is to host this game, to put forth a quality product, and to ensure that 'all' of your players are having fun. I haven't had an issue with a bad PC in my campaign yet (mostly because I was resistant to embracing my nerd side for awhile so I only have games with close friends) but as anyone who has managed people at work can tell you the more honest and engaging you are up front the less opportunity there is for defensiveness and further issues.
Hope these help!