I understand that the common solution is to talk to the player, but I worry that they are to engaged in their character and how they operate and act to be willing to change, even if they say they are. What I am looking for is experiences on situations like this so I know what to expect going forward and advice on how to hopefully avoid making the situation any worse then it needs to be. I don't want to loose the player, but I think they are either completely oblivious to the obvious, or to stubborn to see reality. Going to lay the ground work real quick.
We have a player playing an edgy dragon ancestry Sorcerer. Was being used as a sacrifice to summon a demon, yada yada. Grew up among the pirate type and decides to be un-trusting. The problem here is that she is making her character be so edgy that I can only describe it as a rusty knife. Enough edge that she is cutting herself, but so undesirable that no one wants anything to do with her and she hasn't tried to clean herself up at all. We have an edgy vampire rogue in the party that managed to put her character through a character arc and warm up to the party to where we actively include her in things, but the sorcerer hasn't tried. She consistently talks down to everyone in the group, bashes various party members because she can, and basically holds a knife to anyone we are employed by or that is willing to offer us aid, payment, or information, threatening them on the regular. We are a new group and our DM has been doing a great job. World is built well enough that, even with combat encounters, we haven't killed anything in about 3 sessions. It has been mostly role play and everyone is enjoying it, when we can get the Rusty Knife to cooperate and not try to throw our efforts in the trash. We are to about session 20 ish and she has yet to put her character through any sort of development that would make her more appealing to the party.
Yall can get a pretty good idea of how this sort of behavior would work towards any individual that is of the Religion side of things. My and one other character are priests. Our main quest is sort of split into multiple quests and one is to resurrect our deity that has disappeared. Person we are staying with is an ascended deity (Was mortal, figured out how to become a god). Said Deity has been providing shelter, aid, and a HUGE amount of information to help us moving forward. Effectively the lore dump npc of the game. Rusty Knife still thinks its a good idea to threaten a deity that has been providing us with aid.
Discussing it with my DM, she says she has one more plan in mind to try and get the player to work their character into becoming more appealing before she is willing to let me try my idea, which I am glad she is going first. My idea will be to kick the character and let the player make a new one that is more appealing. Given how her character hasn't gone through any sort of development at all and hasn't shown any signs of wanting to try and trust the party or warm up to them, I don't see that my character or me for that matter would want the player to stick around or be willing to trust her given she has proven she doesn't trust anyone when given plenty of opportunities and no reason not to. Read a post somewhere that said being a jack ass is not a substitute for a personality. My kicking will be something that happens in character with me hopping out of character periodically to explain the problems. Its the situation where I would rather take the title of the bad guy if it resolves the problem and makes sure the game stays enjoyable rather then the DM having to take that title. There is a saying where things have to get worse before they get better and I feel like we have been forced into this situation.
Was hoping to use the in game role play to help prevent the situation from escalating out of control, but based on your response I can see how that would actually cause more problems.
So fully drop that, explain the problem in person, then discuss possible solutions to fix it.
I don't think kicking will work if talking out of character won't work. If the player is as attached to the character as you say, and unwilling to change it, she will only take offense at you kicking the character. I see a major tantrum in your future if you try and do it in character.
This may be one of these situations in which it's better to just ask the player not to return to the table with you, if everyone agrees, than trying to get this to work without a blow-up.
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 think pulling the player aside and saying that they are making the Roleplay difficult and stating, with no uncertain terms, that if it continues, they will be asked to leave the table. If they don’t cut it out, kick them
Well, the OP seems to think that this won't work. Which leaves them with not a lot of options. If a player is making others miserable and won't listen to reason... you really can either decide to just live with the pain (not an option in my book) or part ways.
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.
Well, the OP seems to think that this won't work. Which leaves them with not a lot of options. If a player is making others miserable and won't listen to reason... you really can either decide to just live with the pain (not an option in my book) or part ways.
That was why I said if they don’t listen, kick them
Has anyone talked to her outside the game? Yes, this really is the best thing to do first. In private. Ideally the DM, but it could be a fellow player that expresses their own feelings.
Sometimes, people don't know how to balance roleplay with real life friendship. If no one has talked to her, then ya'all are kinda having a whole imaginary conversation with her, that she's not a part of, and it might not be accurate at all. If someone has talked to her, well, that's different.
Also, a DM is free just flat out declare that no PvP actions are allowed at the table. Just nope. The DM is free to say to the character (in private), "I know this is your character, but for your real life friends' sake, direct that dark energy towards the enemies, NOT your friends and their allies."
They can also add a "pause" between one player's impulsive, group affecting action, and the result, allowing more moderate players to intervene.
Definitely a sit down with the player to talk it over is the first thing that should be done.
This may sound easier than it is in person than typing it out and is a little rough around the edges.
From a role-play situation I would get the group together before the next game sans 'Rusty' and work on an RP Intervention. Discuss how their character would address the situation and almost build a script of sorts that their characters would say to address her behavior.
Try to see if you can make a breakthrough with Rusty explaining we've been together long enough that we are due your trust. If she fires back "I'm a loner. A rebel" a response along the lines of "yeah, we got that already now what we need is a companion someone we can trust on this quest. If that is something you cannot give us then why are you here? If it is to mock us then go away be on your loner journey because we have no longer time for your crap."
At least the characters stood up against her for what they believe and maybe even if a battle breaks out, the numbers will outweigh her so it should be quick. Knock her unconscious, tie her up give her one last chance if not leave her for the wolves.
If this player is SO heavily invested in playing a character this way that you think she'd be unwilling to change of confronted, maybe change tack. Maybe when talking to her out of game, find out WHY she wants to play this very specific type of character. What is she going for? Do you think she's achieving it? How does she envision the group dynamic with that character in a way where everyone in the group is having fun?
Finding out her reasons are important for determining whether or not you have a Wangrod on your hands. If she has a vision for the character that's just not properly being realized, then maybe she'll be open to compromise. If she's just a Wangrod, then compromise is generally unlikely and you may just have to play a different game when you hang out.
One thing I do not recommend is trying to handle it in-game, in character. Rusty will feel ganged up on, might not get whether the characters or the players are talking, and might learn all the wrong lessons from any in-game contrivance you might throw her way. This is definitely more of a OOG just-talk-to-her solution.
Thanks for all the advice and input everyone. I am hoping that the player isn't as attached to this character idea as I think she is and that she will be willing to compromise. My DM apparently had an idea that was intended to be a game way of making sure all the characters are on the same page and not going full murder hobo, or something along the lines. She hasn't actually given me the details yet.
Ill suggest the sit down talk first. This should actually set things up for the DM's plan assuming the player is receptive and will give a character arc moment for development. If nothing changes then I will take her outside to discuss the problem more sternly. A few of our players are a bit more of what I would call, a fragile heart. Our DM is one of them so I don't want to force them into having to be the stern one in this situation. So it will give her 3 strike chances to let her character develope before I put on the bad guy mask.
First is the initial discussion. If she is receptive and changes then she moves on to two. If not she has to make a new character or leave.
Second is the DM's test. If she actively changes it will be evident in this test. It will give her the character development moment needed to salvage this. If not then she takes the high chance of three.
Where I discuss it more firmly to make it more clear what the problem is. (Probably exaggerated, but you get the idea)
Really hoping she passes test one and two. Not looking forward to that mask when the individual is a nice person out of character.
Again, thanks for all the feedback and help.
If there are any high level wizards out there that know 9th tier magic, you know the spell I want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I understand that the common solution is to talk to the player, but I worry that they are to engaged in their character and how they operate and act to be willing to change, even if they say they are. What I am looking for is experiences on situations like this so I know what to expect going forward and advice on how to hopefully avoid making the situation any worse then it needs to be. I don't want to loose the player, but I think they are either completely oblivious to the obvious, or to stubborn to see reality. Going to lay the ground work real quick.
We have a player playing an edgy dragon ancestry Sorcerer. Was being used as a sacrifice to summon a demon, yada yada. Grew up among the pirate type and decides to be un-trusting. The problem here is that she is making her character be so edgy that I can only describe it as a rusty knife. Enough edge that she is cutting herself, but so undesirable that no one wants anything to do with her and she hasn't tried to clean herself up at all. We have an edgy vampire rogue in the party that managed to put her character through a character arc and warm up to the party to where we actively include her in things, but the sorcerer hasn't tried. She consistently talks down to everyone in the group, bashes various party members because she can, and basically holds a knife to anyone we are employed by or that is willing to offer us aid, payment, or information, threatening them on the regular. We are a new group and our DM has been doing a great job. World is built well enough that, even with combat encounters, we haven't killed anything in about 3 sessions. It has been mostly role play and everyone is enjoying it, when we can get the Rusty Knife to cooperate and not try to throw our efforts in the trash. We are to about session 20 ish and she has yet to put her character through any sort of development that would make her more appealing to the party.
Yall can get a pretty good idea of how this sort of behavior would work towards any individual that is of the Religion side of things. My and one other character are priests. Our main quest is sort of split into multiple quests and one is to resurrect our deity that has disappeared. Person we are staying with is an ascended deity (Was mortal, figured out how to become a god). Said Deity has been providing shelter, aid, and a HUGE amount of information to help us moving forward. Effectively the lore dump npc of the game. Rusty Knife still thinks its a good idea to threaten a deity that has been providing us with aid.
Discussing it with my DM, she says she has one more plan in mind to try and get the player to work their character into becoming more appealing before she is willing to let me try my idea, which I am glad she is going first. My idea will be to kick the character and let the player make a new one that is more appealing. Given how her character hasn't gone through any sort of development at all and hasn't shown any signs of wanting to try and trust the party or warm up to them, I don't see that my character or me for that matter would want the player to stick around or be willing to trust her given she has proven she doesn't trust anyone when given plenty of opportunities and no reason not to. Read a post somewhere that said being a jack ass is not a substitute for a personality. My kicking will be something that happens in character with me hopping out of character periodically to explain the problems. Its the situation where I would rather take the title of the bad guy if it resolves the problem and makes sure the game stays enjoyable rather then the DM having to take that title. There is a saying where things have to get worse before they get better and I feel like we have been forced into this situation.
Was hoping to use the in game role play to help prevent the situation from escalating out of control, but based on your response I can see how that would actually cause more problems.
So fully drop that, explain the problem in person, then discuss possible solutions to fix it.
I don't think kicking will work if talking out of character won't work. If the player is as attached to the character as you say, and unwilling to change it, she will only take offense at you kicking the character. I see a major tantrum in your future if you try and do it in character.
This may be one of these situations in which it's better to just ask the player not to return to the table with you, if everyone agrees, than trying to get this to work without a blow-up.
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 think pulling the player aside and saying that they are making the Roleplay difficult and stating, with no uncertain terms, that if it continues, they will be asked to leave the table. If they don’t cut it out, kick them
Well, the OP seems to think that this won't work. Which leaves them with not a lot of options. If a player is making others miserable and won't listen to reason... you really can either decide to just live with the pain (not an option in my book) or part ways.
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.
That was why I said if they don’t listen, kick them
Has anyone talked to her outside the game? Yes, this really is the best thing to do first. In private. Ideally the DM, but it could be a fellow player that expresses their own feelings.
Sometimes, people don't know how to balance roleplay with real life friendship. If no one has talked to her, then ya'all are kinda having a whole imaginary conversation with her, that she's not a part of, and it might not be accurate at all. If someone has talked to her, well, that's different.
Also, a DM is free just flat out declare that no PvP actions are allowed at the table. Just nope. The DM is free to say to the character (in private), "I know this is your character, but for your real life friends' sake, direct that dark energy towards the enemies, NOT your friends and their allies."
They can also add a "pause" between one player's impulsive, group affecting action, and the result, allowing more moderate players to intervene.
Definitely a sit down with the player to talk it over is the first thing that should be done.
This may sound easier than it is in person than typing it out and is a little rough around the edges.
From a role-play situation I would get the group together before the next game sans 'Rusty' and work on an RP Intervention. Discuss how their character would address the situation and almost build a script of sorts that their characters would say to address her behavior.
Try to see if you can make a breakthrough with Rusty explaining we've been together long enough that we are due your trust. If she fires back "I'm a loner. A rebel" a response along the lines of "yeah, we got that already now what we need is a companion someone we can trust on this quest. If that is something you cannot give us then why are you here? If it is to mock us then go away be on your loner journey because we have no longer time for your crap."
At least the characters stood up against her for what they believe and maybe even if a battle breaks out, the numbers will outweigh her so it should be quick. Knock her unconscious, tie her up give her one last chance if not leave her for the wolves.
If this player is SO heavily invested in playing a character this way that you think she'd be unwilling to change of confronted, maybe change tack. Maybe when talking to her out of game, find out WHY she wants to play this very specific type of character. What is she going for? Do you think she's achieving it? How does she envision the group dynamic with that character in a way where everyone in the group is having fun?
Finding out her reasons are important for determining whether or not you have a Wangrod on your hands. If she has a vision for the character that's just not properly being realized, then maybe she'll be open to compromise. If she's just a Wangrod, then compromise is generally unlikely and you may just have to play a different game when you hang out.
One thing I do not recommend is trying to handle it in-game, in character. Rusty will feel ganged up on, might not get whether the characters or the players are talking, and might learn all the wrong lessons from any in-game contrivance you might throw her way. This is definitely more of a OOG just-talk-to-her solution.
Thanks for all the advice and input everyone. I am hoping that the player isn't as attached to this character idea as I think she is and that she will be willing to compromise. My DM apparently had an idea that was intended to be a game way of making sure all the characters are on the same page and not going full murder hobo, or something along the lines. She hasn't actually given me the details yet.
Ill suggest the sit down talk first. This should actually set things up for the DM's plan assuming the player is receptive and will give a character arc moment for development. If nothing changes then I will take her outside to discuss the problem more sternly. A few of our players are a bit more of what I would call, a fragile heart. Our DM is one of them so I don't want to force them into having to be the stern one in this situation. So it will give her 3 strike chances to let her character develope before I put on the bad guy mask.
First is the initial discussion. If she is receptive and changes then she moves on to two. If not she has to make a new character or leave.
Second is the DM's test. If she actively changes it will be evident in this test. It will give her the character development moment needed to salvage this. If not then she takes the high chance of three.
Where I discuss it more firmly to make it more clear what the problem is. (Probably exaggerated, but you get the idea)
Really hoping she passes test one and two. Not looking forward to that mask when the individual is a nice person out of character.
Again, thanks for all the feedback and help.
If there are any high level wizards out there that know 9th tier magic, you know the spell I want.