Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kawaii 06-11-04, 08:49 PM	I'm part of a play group that is made up of some pretty nice people. With one exception. And boy is he an exception. He's like the joke of D&D. The stereotype of a frustrating player. The person you always hear about and never want at your table. Checklist: Fat? Yes. Beard? Yes. Always plays female characters? Yes. A Lesbian female characters? Yes. Claims there's a good reason for that in "backstory?" Yes. Lives with his mother? Maybe (I'm afraid to ask). Watches a lot of anime? Yes (his character has an anime name!). Whines and complains all the time? Yes. Has the social skills of a retarded sloth? Yes (doing a disservice to sloths here!). Has messy hair? Yes. Old enough he is starting to go bald? Yes. Tries to min/max but is really bad at it? Yes. Tries to powergame but is too incompetent? Yes. Almost never seems to remember what dice to use for what? Yes. If he does remember what dice to use, can' remember what to add to it? Yes. Cheats on his die rolls? Yes. (At least once a game. We all have to watch him.) Picks on other players when he can get away with it? Yes. Annoys the crap out of everyone? Yes. Smells bad? Yes! (Soap, man! Didn’t your mamma teach you about soap?!) Always acts friendly but is really creepy? Yes. Can never remember what his spells do? Yes. Even though he writes down his spells he has trouble "remembering" what he has cast? Yes. Will always take time to look up what spells do during his combat turn? Yes! Argues with the DM at least once a game? Yes. Uses the fact he is the party cleric to "bully" other players by threatening to refuse healing for their characters? Yes. Is actually rather stupid? Yes. Is very immature? Yes. Throws a tantrum when his character dies? Yes. Insists that when he is acting in-character that he always, always ALWAYS directly says so? Yes. Never acts in character according to his own rules? Yes. Only complains he wasn't in-character when it would be something 'bad'? Yes. Arrrgh! By now, most of you are probably wondering why we're still playing with him. I'm not sure! The DM doesn't like him. The other players don't like him. No one would be bothered if he left the table. I don't think anyone would be bothered if he died tonight. What's worse, I've known the guy for almost a year now and he is just... devolving. Becoming even more immature. Very scary! Our DM has been told several times by all present (at least I think everyone... maybe not the youngest player) that they're tired of him and would like him to leave. But it doesn't happen. For some reason, we keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. Like we hope that he'll suddenly grow up, or something. Like a shelf of computers at his geek-job will fall on him and when he regains consciousness he'll suddenly be an adult. Heck, even if he went insane and developed the personality of his gay female character he'd be easier to live with. Okay. Now that I have ranted... my question: Does anyone else have a player like this? Someone that makes you cringe every time he opens his mouth yet you can't get rid of? It's like this guy is a relative or something! Oh, and just for fun... if any of you can think of more negative gamer stereotypes to add to the list, just ask! I'll give yes's and no's. And I bet an embarrassing number will be no's! Any suggestions for getting the point across to him? This guy is really dense. He can't even tell that he has already been ostricised from our out-of-game activities. Make it stop. Please. Anyone?
Crossover-Chronicler 06-11-04, 09:19 PM	No, I have no-one quite like that. In fact, you make me thankful for the players I have. And if you knew my players, you'd know that's saying something. As for "making it stop," nobody can do that but you. Why not get the other players (and DM) together, and poll them all at once as to whether they really want this guy around. If the overwhelmong majority says "no," then give him notice and boot him from the game. As for more negative gamer stereotypes: Poor impulse control? Always plays Chaotic Neutral as Chaotic Stupid? (un)Predictably violent?
kawaii 06-11-04, 09:30 PM	As for "making it stop," nobody can do that but you. Why not get the other players (and DM) together, and poll them all at once as to whether they really want this guy around. I have! We talk about it after almost every game. It's so frustrating... I'm thinking of leaving. But, other than him, I do love the game we're playing. And the other people are fantastic! It doesn't help that we're conscientious enough that even though his character has died a couple times we've arranged for ressurrection, since that's what our characters would have done. We looked at eachother with anguished eyes the last time. One of the other players was even seriously thinking of doing something to interrupt the spell so we'd loose the diamonds! Check list: Poor impulse control? Yes! Always plays Chaotic Neutral as Chaotic Stupid? Probably! He plays everything as stupid... ouch. (un)Predictably violent? Not sure what you mean by that one... I've never seen him be physically violent. But he starts arguments over the stupidest things! And another of my own: Causes the first post on a D&D board to be complaining about him? Yes.
Moonstonedragon 06-11-04, 09:33 PM	Uhhh, wow, all my players have pretty bad quarks, but I think I'd stab this guy, why are you even playing with him?
Geethree 06-11-04, 09:37 PM	It baffles me why you let this guy play with you.
Tasaleen 06-11-04, 09:42 PM	This post makes me sad for the future of D&D. I say that players such as you are the problem. This guys has some problems with playing the game yes, but pointing out physical and social problems make you look like the a**. Look not everyone is the perfect cool guy such as you, maybe you should help the guy socialize more. All people are different and some are special, but not in a bad way. We should help those that are picked on and tuaunted because thats the right thing to do. As far as D&D having a stereo typical player, you yourself are promoting and spreading that stereo type. If the guy has problem with game mechanics help him. The DM should limit him and inforce the rules, but never ever disregaurd someone just because they are different or play the game different then you. From your post I would choose not to have you at my table not the other guy.
Eldren 06-11-04, 10:18 PM	Tasaleen: While you have some valid points (it generally isn't cool to point out someone's physical deficiencies; it usually isn't cool to point out their mental deficiencies...), I think you're otherwise overreacting to what Kawaii has posted. This is the board where people come when they're asking, "What's a player to do?!" The only thing missing from the board's title is the proper punctuation to communicate the true sense of desperation that this board's purpose is to (hopefully) alleviate via others' commiserating input. Kawaii: It sounds to me as though this individual does fulfill most of the negative stereotypes that long-time gamers attempt to avoid, both in themselves and others. Sometimes, though, it may just be a bad fit. I've met people in some games that, in hindsight, I would have never agreed to game with if I knew what they were like beforehand. Funny thing about hindsight, though, is that it's 20/20. You always see nearly perfectly when you're looking in the rearview mirror. But even the rearview mirror has blind spots. Point of it is, sometimes some individuals just don't work well together. In such a case, it's often best to cut your losses and attempt to excise the damaging portion from the greater whole. In other words, it sounds like this individual is the one glaring black spot in an otherwise pure white gaming experience for you and the others in your group. Whatever your Dungeon Master's reasons for not asking this individual to not show up for the next, or subsequent, sessions (maybe your DM is one of those chronically nice people who just doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings; treasure such individuals, as they're exceedingly rare), this might be the time for the group to (politely) indicate to the DM, when the offending individual in question isn't present, that his continued presence is no longer wanted, and that it's negatively affecting their ability to enjoy the game. Don't give ultimatums (those ultimately come back to bite you in the ass), just indicate that everyone in the group would have a lot better time in the DM's campaign if the individual weren't present. Then trust to the Dungeon Master to handle it privately with the offending player, and hopefully you can all move on from this and treat it as a really bad nightmare from which you've awoken. If the DM, after hearing your group's final word on the subject, still isn't able to ask the offending player to leave, then take it on yourself, as the spokesman for the group, to let the player know that the entire group, including the Dungeon Master, doesn't want the person to be there any longer. Don't go into accusations, don't go into any manner of argumentative tone of voice, just simply let the individual know that the group doesn't feel that person's continued presence is a good idea, that they don't feel that person is a good fit in the group. If the person wants to get confirmation from the DM, they can. At that point the DM's hand has been forced, and he can hopefully be honest and let the offending individual know what's up. Hopefully these steps will avoid hurt feelings, but if they don't, it isn't anyone's fault but the offender. Every reasonable step was taken to avoid offense leading up to that point, so most peoples' consciences should be clear. I hope it works out for you.
trapspringer 06-11-04, 10:56 PM	DnD is a game of social interaction. I make a point to show up as neatly as I do for interviews (though less formally dressed). I suggest that you point out these flaws to him. He may storm off indignantly, and if so... good, right? He may actually be unaware of his problems, and maybe you will improve his life. It's a win-wins situation, and by that I mean you will win no matter what.
Thorak 06-11-04, 11:04 PM	Judgemental? Yes Superficial? Yes Feelings of superiority? Check Arrogance? Tons Absolute inability to grow a spine and deal with their problems themselves? Good god yes. Came to a public forum to see if people would pat them on the back and say they're right. IMHO, I'd rather have the guy you posted about in my group than you. I can handle an immature, smelly guy who always plays stupid lesbian characters. I couldn't handle not knowing whether you were choosing to badmouth me behind [/i]my[/i] back about whether or not I brushed my teeth twice today, or only once. Some friend you are. And if you're not a friend, then bloody well have the spine to do your own dirty work. If you don't like him and don't want to play with him any more, you need to tell him so. Yes, you'll probably hurt his feelings. But if he's not a friend, why the heck do you care?. It's because nobody in your group has the backbone to speak up about how they feel that this guy's still around. If all of you dislike him, you've got noone to blame but yourselves, and nobody's going to do your dirty work for you. Either grow a backbone and kick him out, or shut your yap and stop complaining about something you're too cowardly to deal with.
kawaii 06-11-04, 11:51 PM	Thorak: "I'd rather have the guy you posted about in my group than you." Tasaleen: "From your post I would choose not to have you at my table not the other guy." If you two mean that, pm me your contact information and I'll gladly give it to him after the next game. This is not a snide comment. I'd be quite happy if he found a new group that would accept his faults as well as his strengths. And thank you, Tasaleen, for reminding me of his strengths. In my general overwhelming frustration it was easy to disregard the things I like about him. "If you don't like him and don't want to play with him any more, you need to tell him so." I have. The damnedest thing happened. He thought I was joking and even told others so. Talk about a rebound... I have never seen such optomism before. "Yes, you'll probably hurt his feelings. But if he's not a friend, why the heck do you care?" An extremely good point. Shall I strive to be as callous and direct as you manage so effortlessly? I'm curious, though. This is a forum on the internet... How the heck could anyone here handle the problem for me? Is there a browser plugin for that? Eldren: "maybe your DM is one of those chronically nice people who just doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings; treasure such individuals, as they're exceedingly rare." True, such people are. I wish I could be more like my DM, he has a depth of patience to make a saint jealous. Quoting myself: "Okay. Now that I have ranted... my question: Does anyone else have a player like this? Someone that makes you cringe every time he opens his mouth yet you can't get rid of? Any suggestions for getting the point across to him?" I did not ask these questions in jest. In my situation I have a person that embodies so many of the negative images of players that it worries me. I was hoping to open a dialog with others that have found themselves in the same situation. And I thank everyone for their advice (even the rather biting form that Thorak's took--should his first points be reflected?). But remember, anger begets anger. It is bad enough that I am already incensed and started this off badly; but why add more fuel to the fire?
Bulabase 06-11-04, 11:59 PM	Most problems I have seen regarding problem players are the result of having problem friends. If this your gaming group is a collection of friends as opposed to a more official club-type organization, than you will probably have to deal with it. Some friends are difficult to handle, but they are friends, so you have little choice. If, on the other hand, the social bonds connecting him to the group are not so strong, action may be appropriate. If the other players are as bothered by his behaviour, both in and out of character, all of you should bring these feelings to the attention of your DM. If the DM won't either give him the boot or strongly encourage him to reform, find or create another group. You have the right to be upset about this player's effect on your gaming experience. This is the place to do it. To those who take issue with the tone of kawaii's first post (ever, I might add), it seemed clear to me that the intent of the post was to paint a humorous picture of a frustrating situation. The player in question fits a stereotype that most people can agree upon. Certain physical characteristics are an integral part of that image. I doubt this thread would have started if the player in question were fat, balding, bearded, clean and a great role-player.
green_yawgmoth 06-12-04, 01:36 AM	Do you have a car? Yes? Good. Do you care about your fender? No? Excellent. :smirk:
Edward 06-12-04, 02:47 AM	1st paragraph is an anecdote. Useful information follows I have a player almost as bad as this (maybe worse). He doesn’t smell and is young witch are pluses ()he may only bathe because he isn’t old enuf that his mother cant make him. I don’t know) but he doesn’t even put enough effort into role playing to say his character is a lesbian. His most reason character is a barbarian in light armor. When I asked what type of clothing he had he didn’t know. I asked wether it was good cloth cheep cloth or furs (most prominently visible) and he couldn’t choose. My character is not going to be working with him for long as he has displayed no regard for authority, honesty, no willingness to keep his word and father determining that there as nothing of value in a mining camp (all minors dead) he burned it down and suggested I was stupid for suggesting that the next of kin may have wanted to retrieve personal effects. (out of character he was surprised). My character is used to working with intelligent people and is a dwarven abjurer of LG alignment. As we are in a combined town guard/military organization unless he dose something right my character will be requesting his transfer to the military side of it. That is where he belongs, with the other barbarian shock troupes. As to how I am dealing with the player I tell him everything I think he dose wrong. He has shown signs of improvement in the past and a willingness to learn. I am going to right a partial character profile (not class or race specific limiting alignment to non chaotic non evil) and try to convince him to play a character that builds on that. If you just cross your fingers and hope he will never change. You should ether kick him out or try to teach him. If when you try to teach him he shows no willingness to learn then kick him out. But do not despair for the future of D&D. my friends 10 year old brother is a consumet role player if a little prone to get lost in the dentales and demand attention but he will grow out of that in time. I look forward to playing under him in a few years time. Edward
Twisted Puppy 06-12-04, 06:09 AM	I at first wondered if you were one of my players - but I don't have anyone who is skinny and blonde in my group (looked at your profile.) I'm hesitant to toss my problem out on his ear, for several reasons: First, he agreed to play a cleric when he joined because the party needed one. Second, I know that I have a very bad temper - if I make a mistake, I have responsibilities (as DM and head of our game club by default) that dictate making the mistake on the side of letting him stay. While yes, I won't be upset if he leaves, unless I can actually catch him cheating, or he bullies someone OOC - then I'm going to have to exercise some care. Besides, always remember: No one is completely useless. They can always serve as a bad example.
Raynard the Black 06-12-04, 08:40 AM	In our group, the person that invited him to play would have to be the one to kick him out. I feel that the DM is in charge at the table, however kicking someone out of the group is a group decision and handled based on the consensus of the group. The DM is not always responsible for inviting someone to a game and therefore they should not be solely responsible for kicking someone out. We did have an individual in our group whose characters would sometimes die two to three times per session (4-5 hours long) and sometimes it was on purpose to make way for a new character. He would make new characters that had stupid ineffective character concepts with no background story to substantiate any of it and they would fail miserably. Eventually he got on the DM's last nerve and most others wanted him to leave the group as well. The person that first invited him to play with us asked him to leave in a nice way and most of us are still in contact with him about non-game related topics (except the DM of course.) We used to call his weekly attempts at character building the Freak of the Week.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 06-12-04, 09:24 AM	Originally posted by Twisted Puppy I at first wondered if you were one of my players - but I don't have anyone who is skinny and blonde in my group (looked at your profile.) I'm hesitant to toss my problem out on his ear... Oh my god, I thought the same thing. Worse though, this means there are two of them. :eek: I have friend who runs a game store. He has a sign in the back room. Amoung other things it says... Bathing is not optional. It is a sad comentary that he finds it necessary to post this sign. I was not disappointed then our problem left in a snit, after he had completely invaded my personnal space by leaning over me, his arm pit in my face, to argue with the DM. Can anyone say cloud kill? He was back next session though. When it comes down to it though, I don't believe this person is a bad person. I don't want to hurt his feelings, even though he is not a friend. I like to think I can rally up a modicum of compassion for him. He does seem to live for the gaming sessions. Likewise, after a week at home with my kids, the gaming sessions are a pretty important escape for me as well. (I dress up for sessions. No grape kool-aid mud pies present to be dumped in my lap, Yahoo!!) I grit my teeth, sit up wind, and play with the poor bastard. Our campaign has been going for 3 years now. People come and go for many reasons. Only 2 of the orignial players remain. We play in a public setting, so we can attact new players. This is the price we pay. We get good ones and bad ones, and you can't know until you play with someone. It's not perfect, but it works. Kawaii, to answer your question, yes there are others. You are going to have to decide for yourself, what to do. Kick or deal.
kawaii 06-12-04, 10:42 AM	Bulabase: "it seemed clear to me that the intent of the post was to paint a humorous picture of a frustrating situation." Huzah! I try to meet every challenge with humor. It is much better than meeting a challenge with anger. "I doubt this thread would have started if the player in question were fat, balding, bearded, clean and a great role-player." To tell the truth, I could tolerate this example even if he were a bad roleplayer. The cleanliness issue I can even withstand... at least we play in a big room with some good ventilation. It's his immaturity that compounds his other failings to make for a horrible experience. Edward: "You should ether kick him out or try to teach him. If when you try to teach him he shows no willingness to learn then kick him out." Oh, God. If only such a course were simple. Unfortunately, teaching him would mean focusing attention on him... His main goal in causing disruption. Twisted Puppy: "Besides, always remember: No one is completely useless. They can always serve as a bad example." So true! And thanks for your PM, while so short, it actually cheered me up immensely! green_yawgmoth: At first I thought you meant that I should put up with a problem like I should a messed-up bumper. Cosmetically challenging but something you either live with or fix. Then I realized your words suggested an alternative solution... :giggle: Raynard the Black: He would make new characters that had stupid ineffective character concepts with no background story to substantiate any of it and they would fail miserably." Something to add to the checklist! He, at least, sticks with one character. As long as I've known him he's played the same character, at least. I think he played another one before I joined the club, but that was over a year ago. The thing is, I am sure he likes this character because he has become very emotionally attached to her (the kind of emotional attachment one sees in Hitchcock thrillers not the "oh, man, I just love my ranger" most players are comfortable with.) Either that or he just doesn't want to try and create an alternate character, which is understandable since he seems rather intimidated by the rules as it is (we're playing 18th level characters with every indication from the DM that we'll be going into Epic levels). "The person that first invited him to play with us asked him to leave in a nice way and most of us are still in contact with him about non-game related topics (except the DM of course.)" The Master Weaver Is Warped: "When it comes down to it though, I don't believe this person is a bad person. I don't want to hurt his feelings, even though he is not a friend. I like to think I can rally up a modicum of compassion for him. He does seem to live for the gaming sessions." I understand your position clearly... it is the same for those of us in our group. Maybe it's the week's time between each session... so easy to forget what we don't like and look forward to what we do like. So far, there has been 3 groups that have a player much like mine that are tolerating him. Though it seems that Twisted pUppy is close to asking his to leave. At least, that's what I infer by the catching or bullying part--it seems patience has been worn to a minimum. There's been advice from one that has had one of these players and asked him to leave, with it seems a good reaction (still in contact away from game). Two that suggest the group toss me (I am not adverse to that... if the rest of my group is willing to tolerate the problem and I am not, I really should leave). One for running him over with my car. I think I should mention something. I do not hate this guy. He is, in fact, generally pleasant. Very generally. He has a few flaws that combine to cause major problems with a group, however. And we as a group are comprised of generally nice people. The problem is that he is making several people frustrated and unhappy. A couple people have made some very good suggestions: take the time to help improve him. Either he'll improve, leave, or I have another reason to try and excise him. The problem I have with that is he is an adult. He should be capable of at least some ability to work with a group, especially one that he has sought out. I have my own responsabilities in life... I don't really want to take on the additional responsability of raising someone that should have already benefited from parents and society. I come to the sessions to play a game. Somewhat selfish of me, I admit. But games are supposed to be fun, no? And yet, if I honestly believed some good would come of "teaching" him, I would try it anyway. Maybe I will anyway... if nothing else, I can go find another game. Because the more I think of it, the less I want my own experience of D&D ruined, despite the pleasures of playing with the other people at the table. Maybe this is also a problem when you have too many nice people at a table. Someone that is willing, whether by design or fault, to take advantage of other's compassion can do so quite readily. It was suggested that I look past my own problems and deal with him as a person since weaker people should be protected. A commendable attitude and something in which I believe. But what about the other people at the table? They are frustrated as well. He takes advantage of their kindness as much as mine (and mine has been very sparing of late).
Jenny With The Lantern 06-12-04, 11:19 AM	Sit down at the gaming table, (all of you, mind!) and TALK to the guy.. NOT your DM, NOT just you; ALL of you that have a problem with him. Tell him the things you've told here: Yes, you're a nice enough guy - and we *really* mean that -, but we would like to talk about some issues we have with your style of playing. Then sum up two or three of the biggest issues you have with him that have to do with the game: ie. you should prepare before your turn comes up, have the spell you need ready and the page it is on open before you, stop disagreeing with the DM all the time - do that after the session - etc. Then see how he responds. - If he is laughing about it, tell him you are SERIOUS. If he does not want to change, tell him sorry, but you don't fit our style of playing, goodbye (tough as this may be!). - If he gets upset, tell him again it's not HIM you have a problem with, but his playing style. Talk about how combat could speed up etc, all the benefits. Then, give him a chance to change.. If it still doesn't work, repeat some of the things you've said before and ask the DM to skip his turn if he's not cooperating (don't do this too fast or too often, just when he really had enough time and didn't have any questions etc). If this still doesn't work, tell him sorry, you just don't fit. After all, DnD is not a game depending on only the DM, but on the entire group to be a succes (at least, I think it is!); don't talk behind his back about him, he probably doesn't know all of you feel that way.. I don't think you should mention his physical problems unless you're real friends and you think he can handle it.
Crossover-Chronicler 06-12-04, 11:54 AM	Originally posted by Tasaleen This post makes me sad for the future of D&D. I say that players such as you are the problem.:rolleyes:This guys has some problems with playing the game yes, but pointing out physical and social problems make you look like the a**.Physical problems I might give you, but social problems are the point. If one has a gripe about a player's inability to function in a social situation (which is what a game is), for whatever reason, I fail to see how one is unjustified in pointing it out. Also, venting and ranting are one of the more constructive applications of the internet.Look not everyone is the perfect cool guy such as you, maybe you should help the guy socialize more. All people are different and some are special, but not in a bad way. We should help those that are picked on and tuaunted because thats the right thing to do.D&D is a game, not a career as a social worker. The goal is to have an enjopyable game, not adopt the cause of "helping" a player. To be honest, I prefer honest malice and resentment to pity any day - In my experience, people who dislike you are often a lot easier to handle than people who have made you one of their causes.As far as D&D having a stereo typical player, you yourself are promoting and spreading that stereo type. If the guy has problem with game mechanics help him. The DM should limit him and inforce the rules, but never ever disregaurd someone just because they are different or play the game different then you.Actually, they should. A DM is under no obligation to alter an otherwise entertaining and productive game to accomodate a single disruptive player, nor is said DM required to continue to accomodate said player.From your post I would choose not to have you at my table not the other guy. Originally posted by Thorak Judgemental? Yes Superficial? Yes Feelings of superiority? Check Arrogance? Tons Absolute inability to grow a spine and deal with their problems themselves? Good god yes. Came to a public forum to see if people would pat them on the back and say they're right.Doesn't everyone? Besides which, I don't think anyone here is coming off as particularly humble.IMHO, I'd rather have the guy you posted about in my group than you. I can handle an immature, smelly guy who always plays stupid lesbian characters. I couldn't handle not knowing whether you were choosing to badmouth me behind [/i]my[/i] back about whether or not I brushed my teeth twice today, or only once. Some friend you are.I thought you were against a judgmental attitude.And if you're not a friend, then bloody well have the spine to do your own dirty work. If you don't like him and don't want to play with him any more, you need to tell him so. Yes, you'll probably hurt his feelings. But if he's not a friend, why the heck do you care?. It's because nobody in your group has the backbone to speak up about how they feel that this guy's still around. If all of you dislike him, you've got noone to blame but yourselves, and nobody's going to do your dirty work for you. Either grow a backbone and kick him out, or shut your yap and stop complaining about something you're too cowardly to deal with.Though here you have a point. Discussing the problem among the other players constantly solves nothing unless at some point you apply some kind of solution. And it's best of the enire group does so. I know from experience that even if an entire group agrees on such an issue, they'll recant and blame the messenger if it ever comes to a tense confrontation.Originally posted by kawaii I have. The damnedest thing happened. He thought I was joking and even told others so. Talk about a rebound... I have never seen such optomism before.Either that, or he's smarter than you give him credit for. More than once, an absolute jerk has gotten off by playing his reprimand off as a joke.I'm curious, though. This is a forum on the internet... How the heck could anyone here handle the problem for me? Is there a browser plugin for that?I think perhaps the point is that few of the people here can tell you much that you don't already know (except perhaps what scum you are for disliking a player's habits and having the audacity to complain about them publicly). You need to get your players together and, as a body, tell this guy to shape up or ship out.Does anyone else have a player like this? Someone that makes you cringe every time he opens his mouth yet you can't get rid of? Any suggestions for getting the point across to him?"Don't tell him as a single person. Write a letter or petition and have all the players sign it, or have all the players tell him in turn to get out. After booting him, don't allow him back into the game just because he shows up.
D+1 06-12-04, 02:55 PM	Originally posted by Tasaleen This post makes me sad for the future of D&D. I say that players such as you are the problem. This guys has some problems with playing the game yes, but pointing out physical and social problems make you look like the a**. Maybe it's impolite to denigrate a guy anonymously on a message board, but how is it the responsibility of ANYONE at that game to turn a sows ear into a silk purse? It sounds to me like they have been only kind to this guy even if he is being talked about behind his back. He's STILL THERE. Nobody has complained TO him, only about him. Therein actually lies the problem methinks. If the player in question has even half of the social traits that have been listed it's VERY tough to deal with such a person. Assume that you DO want to help him. People do NOT generally have extensive experience at approaching others and telling them, "You STINK, you have irritating habits and your gaming sucks too, but otherwise you're a nice guy. So, let me tell you how you OUGHT to be..." It's too easy to mishandle it or even if handled VERY well for the intent of it to be misinterpreted. The other players and the DM are NOT responsible for this one players ability or inability to game or mix in polite society. They are only doing themselves a disservice for having to tolerate his presence and doing so without saying anything to him. He can and probably should be removed from the group for his playing style alone. I have no doubt that the group was NOT formed as a remedial gaming class. If they've spoken to the player about how his gaming does not mesh well with what their group wants to do why NOT kick him out? It actually sounds like the others at the table have been TOO polite. There's no indication that anyone has spoken with him about ANY of the listed issues. That only makes it a bigger problem when he's exceeded his tolerance level. They will be doing HIM a disservice only if they tell him to go away without explaining - as politely as they can - ALL their reasons. Foremost is undoubtedly not his gaming but simple personal hygiene. It is NOT going to be easy to do that - and it may not be easy to hear but it is also NOT their responsibility to coerce or convince him to conform nor endure him until he does. They only have the responsibility to ask that he conform. If by some cathartic miracle he immediately admits his failings and asks to be given another chance it'd be rather cold to deny him. But then I don't see that as a likely probability. Ultimately it's the DM's responsibility to ask him to leave and tell him why, but it would be terribly unfair of the players to make him do it alone when it's a group decision. If it's a group decision his expulsion should be handled as a group and by the group. If it's the DM's decision then the DM should handle it alone. However, don't have everybody at the table start chiming in - don't gang up on him. Let one person, generally should be the DM, do the talking. The rest of the group is there to demonstrate that the DM is not isolating the player. My suggested DM's speech would be something like: "John (Doe), we need to tell you something and you're not going to like it. For quite a while now we've found a number of things about you... irritating. These personality traits, these things about your gaming, and even your personal hygiene [Do this WITHOUT going into petty levels of detail - your purpose is to demonstrate your point of view, not to critique him on the spot at length] are things we just don't want to deal with anymore. We should have said something to you earlier about most, if not all of these things but we wanted to be polite. But we've been talking and we've decided that while we think you're a nice guy, these things about you add up to too much. I'm sorry it came down to this and it's coming at you out of the blue but this IS where we stand. We know you're gonna be really upset and maybe you have a right to be, but one way or another it's NOT gonna work out amongst us from this point forward. So, good luck. We hope you can find another game to play in, but without a lot of things changing it won't likely be one of ours." This should be discussed AT LENGTH by all those concerned because this is far less about the game than about dealing with another human being. You don't have to like him but you still owe him as much dignity and respect as you can muster. Although it needs to be done as a group you want to try to minimize the feeling for him that he's being ganged up on and picked on UNFAIRLY. Remember how HE'S going to feel when you tell him all this and then be very clear and careful about what you say to minimize the natural feelings of animosity, embarrassment and sadness he's going to have as a result. It'll be one of the toughest things you'll ever do so Man Up and do it right.
Edward 06-12-04, 03:32 PM	Hay I never said teaching him would be easy. With Blake (the person I described) by giving him more attention (in the form of teaching from one of the other players) he became immediately less disrupt full because he was having whispered conversations with his mentor. The mentor just needs to be able to keep half an ear on the rest of the game. Of cause before I would be wiling to mentor your player I would need to tell him to wash. I find the only way to do this is to try for blunt honesty in private without making fun of him. I have had to do it before (not in gaming). It is the only way. Jokes and groups of people just make people feel piked on. Edward
Edymnion 06-12-04, 04:13 PM	Originally posted by kawaii Watches a lot of anime? Yes (his character has an anime name!). And what exactly is WRONG with watching a lot of anime? And more importantly, how do you define an "anime name"? Any japanese name? I mean, I've seen animes with characters named Ross, or Amy. Are these "anime names"? Even better than that, how do you explain dissing somebody for watching anime when you're using "Kawaii" as a board name here, which is Japanese for "cute", which very few people outside of the anime community would even know about? Watching a lot of anime is no more disruptive to D&D than watching CSI or Star Trek, and I for one am tired of seeing people insulting the style just because they either don't know what they're talking about, or base their entire opinion on only one or two episodes of shows like Pokemon and Dragonball Z.
Geethree 06-12-04, 04:55 PM	And what exactly is WRONG with watching a lot of anime? The problem (generally speaking, not necessarily with this incident) is that the anime fanboys try to turn their RPGs into their own little anime fantasy. They'll give characters japanese names (even if it doesn't fit the character) or be the mysterious loner samurai or some other Asian stereotype. Watching anime is not a bad thing; trying to turn every D&D game into Dragonball Z is. That kind of behavior is disruptive. If I run a game and my players want to name their character Kyoko-San Wa Sugoi and play a cat-girl, I'm going to tell them "no." I don't consider that any different than playing "Bob the dwarf" or some other silly character. For the record, I enjoy some anime (I'm a big fan of Cowboy Bebop).
Tasaleen 06-12-04, 05:43 PM	Kawaii, I see you are not your post. I didn't want to add fuel to the fire, I am sorry. I was just adding humanity to an issue that seemed to be grounded in anger and pettiness, but I now see you were frustrated and thats ok. I've been there and actually have dealt with a problem much like this that is much better now. I'll suggest the things my group did. 1. First we talked as a group without this person present. In this dicussion we talked about our problems with him and how we felt about the main issues. You must be sure to keep this to game issues only, personal and hygene issues will come latter. 2. We held an open forum for everyone including the problem player to speak on issues that we had with other players or the DM. In this you can each bring up issues with this player and hear his issues with you other players or the game. This insures that it does not feel like an all out attk on the guy, as he can also have the floor for his own problem. Again make sure that you don't mention personal or hygene problems. Keep this to game issues. Make sure that you comunnicate all problems clearly and also any problems you have with anyone else as well. DO NOT GANG UP! 3. Give it a few sessions after this. See if the game problems reseed. If they do let the guy know with a pat on the back. If they don't then he need specific examples of play. Everytime he plays the way that was discussed point it out, nicely. Say, " That what I meant when I said....". If this guy feels attked back off and let it cool down. SEE # 4 4. It is now time for another group talk with the guy present. Let him know the problems the group has with him and him alone. Be serious and direct. If he gets mad so be it, this means he will not understand. He will hopefully leave on his own. If this doesn't work and he doesn't leave on his own, the DM and only the DM needs to ask him to leave. If the guy straightens out then most likely the person problems with fix theirselves as the atmosphere lightens and becomes more joyable. The hygene problems may also fix theirselves, it did in our situation, but if they don't this is the responsibility of the DM to talk to the player. All in all talk to him as a human being and never gang up if you really want to fix things.
allenchan 06-12-04, 06:13 PM	i would just like to say this has been an awesome post to read. Very insightful on all fronts (except for the random flames , but what can ya do. :rolleyes: )
Edymnion 06-12-04, 09:42 PM	Originally posted by Geethree Watching anime is not a bad thing; trying to turn every D&D game into Dragonball Z is. That kind of behavior is disruptive. If I run a game and my players want to name their character Kyoko-San Wa Sugoi and play a cat-girl, I'm going to tell them "no." I don't consider that any different than playing "Bob the dwarf" or some other silly character. Yes, but you get the same thing with anything. I knew a guy that refused to play D&D unless I let him play an Ewok with a lightsabre. Or wanting to play a Ja'fa with a Staff Weapon. An immature, problem causing gamer is going to find some way to do it regardless of what they like to watch, and as a long time anime fan (20+ years), I'm not exactly happy to see people putting it down like that.
Tasaleen 06-12-04, 10:52 PM	Ok when I first replied I searched for Kawaii responses and that reply was for him as I saw that his post was not who he was. Which by the way I figured anyway, but the post sounded callus. This response is more for Crossover-chronicler and D+1. In my opinion and thats what it is an opinion of which you guys can have one as well, which I will respect and give credit to. D&D has not always been the bastion of socialization. We as gamers run across some very misunderstood souls who are sometimes seen by the world as wierd and strange. We as gamers have also found that most of these individuals are great people and we would have never have meet them had it not been for the game. So since these people have poor socialization skills and have been treated that way there whole life should we brush them to the side and say helping a fellow human is not my job, I mean this is just a game? Well I think not, this is the same additude we get from outsiders to the game who think we're all strange and odd people who live in their own little world. I say its every humans responsibility to help another human thats got problems. If that means inviteing the guy out for a beer or to grab a bite to eat to show him that lifes right outside the door then so be it. This is not a job, but I think it should be the nature of humans and expecially the nature of gamers who at one time or another have felt this attitude from others. I don't want this to be a flame on you guys I just thought I should clarify my opinion for you.
Astanphaeus 06-12-04, 11:12 PM	Originally posted by kawaii Does anyone else have a player like this? No. Someone like that wouldn't even make it through the door. I've had 2 players over the years that were serious problems. Both were let go. I'm a DM, Jim, not a therapist. Someone that makes you cringe every time he opens his mouth yet you can't get rid of? I've been in a situation as a player, where there was another player who made my teeth itch. He was a friend of the DM (grew up in the same neighborhood), and he was completely hopeless. Once, I watched in utter dismay as he argued for a good 45-60 minutes that his character could no longer be a ranger, because his Constitution score had dropped below the requirement (this was before the arrival of 3E). He continued to argue the point after both DMs repeatedly told him 1. no, it doesn't work that way, it's a requirement to enter the class, not to stay in it, and 2. even if it did work that way, we, as the DMs, would override the rule. The fact of the matter was, he just didn't want to lose the Constitution. Truth be told, had only his friend been DMing, his whining probably would've prevailed. Luckily, it was a game run jointly by two people, and the other guy lacked the soft spot for him. However, even if he had succeeded in getting his Constitution restored, while I would've been annoyed, I wouldn't have made a stink about it. I considered him the price I had to pay to game with what was an otherwise excellent group. The DMs knew I wanted to put him in a meat grinder, so they made efforts to minimize the necessity of my interaction with him... which was more than I could've asked for. After all, I always had the option to bow out. It was obvious that this guy, due to his connection to the (primary) DM and to other neighborhhod friends in the group, wasn't going anywhere. Which, perhaps mercifully, brings me to the point of my post... I'd say how this situation should be handled (by you) depends a lot on the interpersonal dynamics of your group. Are you the DM (doesn't seem like it, but I want to make sure)? If not, what is this guy's relationship to the DM? How did he get into the group to begin with? Judging by the picture you paint, red flags should've been going up long before he ever reached the table. Why was he let in, who let him in, and who invited him? Did the players have a vote on it, or did the DM just say, "have a seat?" I think these questions need to be answered in order for everyone to have a solid grasp of the situation... which should make feedback much more useful and specific to your case. ~ A.
Thegreatmonkey 06-13-04, 02:04 AM	I didn't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if someone else already said this. The DM doesn't have complete control over who plays and who does not. The DM isn't god out of game, if you guys all deside you don't want to play with this dude then as a group you kick him out. During your talk after the next game call for a vote. If at least say 2/3 or 3/4 of the party wants him gone, he's out. Simple. And don't be afraid to me mean. Alot of gamers put up with this kind of bull because they want to be nice. There is NO reason you and the rest of the group have to sit around and have your night of fun ruined because of ONE person. Think about it would you hang out with someone outside of gaming (let him over to your house to watch a game or go out to a movie) if you really disliked them?... Hell No! So why put up with it while your gaming?? Give... Him... The.... Boot!
Astanphaeus 06-13-04, 05:56 AM	Originally posted by Thegreatmonkey The DM doesn't have complete control over who plays and who does not. Actually, if I'm running a game... that's exactly what I have. The DM isn't god out of game, if you guys all deside you don't want to play with this dude then as a group you kick him out. During your talk after the next game call for a vote. If at least say 2/3 or 3/4 of the party wants him gone, he's out. Simple. Actually, no, not so much. Maybe some DMs would go along with that. Others wouldn't. I wouldn't, nor would any that I've been involved with. With me, that would be the entirely wrong way to handle it, and the end result would likely be no game at all, for anyone. I don't run a democracy, and I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate players trying to dictate the attendance of the game behind my back. So you might not want to be so cavalier with handing out that kind of advice. And don't be afraid to me mean. Alot of gamers put up with this kind of bull because they want to be nice. There is NO reason you and the rest of the group have to sit around and have your night of fun ruined because of ONE person. Again, I couldn't disagree more. There's no reason to be mean or cruel about it, particularly if the person is a guest in someone's home. Even if someone has a laundry list of odious personal habits, it doesn't give you free reign to be anything less than civil and mature when dealing with the person. Even when he or she is getting booted. Think about it would you hang out with someone outside of gaming (let him over to your house to watch a game or go out to a movie) if you really disliked them?... Hell No! I've gamed with a handful of people who I wouldn't hang out with outside of gaming. I don't expect people at a table to be my best buds. Perhaps that's what you're accustomed to, and that's fine, but that's not the way it is with everyone. ~ A.
Capn Charlie 06-13-04, 06:54 AM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Actually, if I'm running a game... that's exactly what I have. Ok, your players never dissent, then? I guess that is rationalized by the argument that if they dissent they are no longer your players, or some such. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Actually, no, not so much. Maybe some DMs would go along with that. Others wouldn't. I wouldn't, nor would any that I've been involved with. With me, that would be the entirely wrong way to handle it, and the end result would likely be no game at all, for anyone. I don't run a democracy, and I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate players trying to dictate the attendance of the game behind my back. No game at all, for anyone? Actually, I find that statement a little frightening. So, how do you enforce your malevolent edicts iso as to alter the lives of your players? Originally posted by Astanphaeus So you might not want to be so cavalier with handing out that kind of advice. Advice is what it is: Advice. IF someone advises me to stick hunks of metal through various parts of my anatomy to spice up my love life I would take a pass on it, not go out and make myself look I got cought in the explosion of a hardware store and bemoan my fate. You accept, or even register the advice that could apply to you, putting things out there hurts noone. Originally posted by Astanphaeus Again, I couldn't disagree more. There's no reason to be mean or cruel about it, particularly if the person is a guest in someone's home. Even if someone has a laundry list of odious personal habits, it doesn't give you free reign to be anything less than civil and mature when dealing with the person. Even when he or she is getting booted. Ast? IS that you? I am not so sure, somehow.... Originally posted by Astanphaeus I don't expect people at a table to be my best buds. Perhaps that's what you're accustomed to, and that's fine, but that's not the way it is with everyone. So you game with a group of near strangers on which you exert your dominance by hiding behind the screen? THis just doesn't seem to be a healthy personality trait. I can understand not letting players hijack the game with res arguments, but when it comes down to the fundamental policies of the game, outside of the interpretation of the rules, and their implementation, it does become a democracy. I am an official elected by my players to serve our group as DM. If I abuse my position, perhaps stroking my ego by lording my authority as DM over them, they voice their problems wit hit, and if the problems are not addressed, they leave. I can't Dm for three empty chairs and my captain kirk lunchbox, you know. I mean, this is a game, afterall. It is supposed to be fun for the people involved. All the people involved. These are absolutes of the concept. Whenever the call comes down to takea hit for theteam, and maybe one person not enjoy himself fully for the rest to have a killer time for awhile it is the responsible thing to go along withit for a bit. Just because you once were abducted by light fearing sewer people is no reason to pull some balk-like-a-mule tantrum and refuse to run the underdark excursion your players have been wanting for the last six months. However it is also not good for things to slip too far the other way and your players terrorize you until you are getting no fun out of the game for long periods. Personally I dislike random wanderings interspersed with random overland monsters. Some of my players just love to see how far they can walk in one direction, and how many orcs they can find and slay. I compromise. I am a good enough DM to accomodate some of my player's wishes, so that we all have a good time for the most part But they aren't going to belabour the point and go too far, refusing to enter towns, or take the occasional plot hook I toss their way so I get to do my little interaction intrigue things, either. We give, and take. I also game with my friends. Not all of them started as my friends, though. Half the people I met for the first time at the table. But quite frankly, I don't want to spend several hours a week around people I dislike, so we became friends or parted ways. I however, am a likable guy, so the percentage that stayed is far larger than those that went. And even if I was compelled by some urge to game with strangers, and those I do not like, if all of them were itching for a game of say, godsawful powergaming, with no interraction and no plot I would feel compelled to give it to them. They are spending their hours in the game too, and there are four of them and only one of me. If it got tiring or ceased being any fun for me I would turn over the screen to somebody else. However, I am fairly onfident in my ability to give everyone what they want, even myself.
Asigoth 06-13-04, 07:14 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion Yes, but you get the same thing with anything. I knew a guy that refused to play D&D unless I let him play an Ewok with a lightsabre. Or wanting to play a Ja'fa with a Staff Weapon. An immature, problem causing gamer is going to find some way to do it regardless of what they like to watch, and as a long time anime fan (20+ years), I'm not exactly happy to see people putting it down like that. Gonna have to side with Edymnion here. I'm an anime fan, two of the people in my gaming group are anime fans, and none of us have made characters based upon anime. I hope he doesn't read this, but one (slight) problem character in our group isn't really a big anime fan. His characters are always based upon ones found in video games or movies.
Astanphaeus 06-13-04, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by Capn Charlie Ok, your players never dissent, then? It isn't about dissent. It's about who invites and who dismisses. If I'm running the game, that's me. If it's Joe running the game, it's him. Players don't get to kick someone out of the game I'm running anymore than they can foist someone new on me. A DM decides who they're running the game for and for how many. That's the way a lot of people, including myself, handle it. No game at all, for anyone? Actually, I find that statement a little frightening. Oh? Well, I find the idea of a bunch of players going behind the DM's back and decreeing that X player will no longer be involved to be inconsiderate and way out of line. So, yes, if that's what was done, me disengaging myself from said group would be a very likely possibility. So, how do you enforce your malevolent edicts iso as to alter the lives of your players? Pardon me? Malevolent edicts? Mind explaining that? I get to decide who'll be playing in the game I'm running. Sorry if that strikes you as malevolent. Advice is what it is: Advice. Yep, and that goes both ways. So you game with a group of near strangers on which you exert your dominance by hiding behind the screen? Did I state that I was always behind the screen? No. In fact, further up the thread I describe a scenario in which I was not behind the screen. THis just doesn't seem to be a healthy personality trait. I would agree. I can understand not letting players hijack the game with res arguments, but when it comes down to the fundamental policies of the game, outside of the interpretation of the rules, and their implementation, it does become a democracy. No, actually, it doesn't. I am an official elected by my players to serve our group as DM. That's you. If I abuse my position, perhaps stroking my ego by lording my authority as DM over them, they voice their problems wit hit, and if the problems are not addressed, they leave. Yes, that's their option. I can't Dm for three empty chairs and my captain kirk lunchbox, you know. Well then, it'd be in your best interests to behave appropriately, wouldn't it? In almost 20 years, and with dozens upon dozens of players, I haven't had a single person leave my table over my conduct. Not one. I mean, this is a game, afterall. It is supposed to be fun for the people involved. All the people involved. Yes, all the people involved. That includes the DM. Whenever the call comes down to takea hit for theteam, and maybe one person not enjoy himself fully for the rest to have a killer time for awhile it is the responsible thing to go along withit for a bit. Wait, didn't you just state that it's to be fun for all the people involved? My, didn't that changed fast. I don't do the amount of work I do to "not enjoy myself fully". Sorry. Anyone who thinks I am somehow obligated to run a game for them is in for a very big surprise. Fortunately, I've never had a player with such a grossly misplaced sense of entitlement. Just because you once were abducted by light fearing sewer people is no reason to pull some balk-like-a-mule tantrum and refuse to run the underdark excursion your players have been wanting for the last six months. Oh, knock it off with the hyperbole, please. If you have to resort to such insulting exageration, then the point you're trying to make must not be able to stand on its own very well. The initial assertions were: 1. A DM doesn't have complete control over who's allowed to play. Sorry, that's quite simply not the case in all situations. Attacking me doesn't change that. 2. Players can vote someone out, without consulting the DM. Again, that isn't always how it works. And if I were the DM, such a stunt as that which was advised would be beyond insulting... and if I don't want to put up with that sort of behavior, I don't have to. Neither does anyone else. Players can get up and walk... so can the DM. It's a two-way street. We give, and take. Absolutely. Best you remember that. I also game with my friends. Not all of them started as my friends, though. Half the people I met for the first time at the table. But quite frankly, I don't want to spend several hours a week around people I dislike, so we became friends or parted ways. 1. There's a whole lot of gradiation between "dislike" and "best friends". 2. I've gamed with a whole lot of people with whom I shared zero interests outside of gaming. Thus, there was no reason to hang out with them outside of gaming. You might be surprised at how often this is the case. The point was, don't assume just because you do it one way, that everyone does it that way. And even if I was compelled by some urge to game with strangers, and those I do not like, if all of them were itching for a game of say, godsawful powergaming, with no interraction and no plot I would feel compelled to give it to them. That's you. I'm of the camp that believes it should be fun for everyone... a tenet you appear to be selectively applying. If I don't want to run something, I don't run it. First of all, it wouldn't be any fun for me. Secondly, it probably wouldn't be that great for the players either, because the solidity of the game depends a lot on the DM's level of interest. They are spending their hours in the game too, and there are four of them and only one of me. Maybe you don't put a lot of work in your games. I do. No player at my table comes anywhere near the amount of investment in time and work that I put into a game. Once again: there is no one way in which a game is handled. If it got tiring or ceased being any fun for me I would turn over the screen to somebody else. I've never had to do that. However, I am fairly onfident in my ability to give everyone what they want, even myself. Good for you. So am I. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic, though. ~ A.
Capn Charlie 06-13-04, 07:52 AM	I side with Edymnion on the anime subject as well. Being a bit too "into" any genre can ruin the game, not just anime. I n fact I adore several anime series. However, the "well rounded anime fan" doesn't fit the stereotypical gamer gamer rant that started this thread. As such, it would have either been exaggerated, or ignored. Now, I do have issue with this: Originally posted by Asigoth His characters are always based upon ones found in video games or movies. Well, there are generally two broad groupings of characters: Those who belong to an archetype, and conform to it to at least some degree, and those who are intentionally oddball so as to not conform to any given archetype. There really are only so many character concepts out there. I personally have no issue with say, good drow(they happen), I do have problems with good drow rangers with two scimitars, ranger levels, and a figurine of wondrous power that is a panther. THose did happen, and once is enough, thank you. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to go for the general feel of the archetype, being unusual, hunted, not trusted, getting the minor trappings of an established character to belabour the point cheapens the whole concept. No, I say, the problems is with not having the skills to gte the feel of the archetype you want without having to resort to usinfg props like scimitars and guenwhyvars to get your message across.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 06-13-04, 09:48 AM	Originally posted by Geethree or be the mysterious loner samurai or some other Asian stereotype. for the record this is what our problem player wanted to play, and the DM told him no. I don't have a problem with anime, except when it is the subject of conversation in the middle of D&D battle, and someone is insisting that I watch it.
Capn Charlie 06-13-04, 09:55 AM	Ok, in no particular order: It isn't about dissent. It's about who invites and who dismisses. If I'm running the game, that's me. If it's Joe running the game, it's him. Players don't get to kick someone out of the game I'm running anymore than they can foist someone new on me. A DM decides who they're running the game for and for how many. That's the way a lot of people, including myself, handle it. I believe it comes down to a matter of point of view here. Maybe I am just seeing the game as a group effort, and you aren't. If all your players stop playing with you, and keep playing, with one of them taking over as DM, they did not leave the game, they booted you. Oh? Well, I find the idea of a bunch of players going behind the DM's back and decreeing that X player will no longer be involved to be inconsiderate and way out of line. So, yes, if that's what was done, me disengaging myself from said group would be a very likely possibility. I was referring to the way that you implied the statement. Maybe some DMs would go along with that. Others wouldn't. I wouldn't, nor would any that I've been involved with. With me, that would be the entirely wrong way to handle it, and the end result would likely be no game at all, for anyone. That sounds one of two ways, a deeply disturbed individual saying "my way or no way", or a parent scolding children what might be described as "less than aplomb". My references to enforcing your "malevolent will" apply to this. However, it might be a matter of point of view again. You might really see "the game" as being where the dm is, and not where the players are. Did I state that I was always behind the screen? No. In fact, further up the thread I describe a scenario in which I was not behind the screen. Very well, I will rephrase the statement. Will "When you DM you do so with a group of near total strangers, and exert your dominance over them by hiding behind the screen" work? I will restate that this does not seem to be a healthy personality trait. Yes, all the people involved. That includes the DM. Right you are. quote:Whenever the call comes down to takea hit for theteam, and maybe one person not enjoy himself fully for the rest to have a killer time for awhile it is the responsible thing to go along withit for a bit. Wait, didn't you just state that it's to be fun for all the people involved? My, didn't that changed fast.[quote] No, not if you have a concept of enjoyment beyond instant gratification. IF your players aren't following your plot just right, they are taking their time interviewing what you consider to be people they shouldn't, do you drop rocks from the sky on their heads until they go the way you want? Not if you are a decent Dm. [quote]I don't do the amount of work I do to "not enjoy myself fully". So then, you go by the sentiment that "if momma's not happy, then noone's happy", huh? Seriously, that just seems to be either the sentiment of a control freak or that of someone with little impulse control or sense of moderation. I mean, I believe you are in the wrong hobby, writing seems like it would bring you far greater fulfillment than having to contend with the petty desires of your lessers when their idea of a "good time" does not completely coincide with yours. You don'ty go through "dozens and dozens" of them over the years, either. Sorry. Anyone who thinks I am somehow obligated to run a game for them is in for a very big surprise. Fortunately, I've never had a player with such a grossly misplaced sense of entitlement. Obligated? No. Required? No. Expected? Yes, in a way. I always assumed that the job of a DM was to make it fun for everyone in his game, not consider crushing the enjoyment of his players to be acceptable collateral damage for his having a good time. There is such a thing as waiting your turn. However, it does seem to come back to my belief that the game is a shared experience, not my experience that they get to be a part of if they do my will. Oh, knock it off with the hyperbole, please. If you have to resort to such insulting exageration, then the point you're trying to make must not be able to stand on its own very well. Okay, fine. I will endeavor to be more blunt, so as to not bring any mirth to those who are countlessly watching this and already enjoying it immensely. The initial assertions were: 1. A DM doesn't have complete control over who's allowed to play. Sorry, that's quite simply not the case in all situations. Attacking me doesn't change that. DM's do not have complete control over who plays. To say they do is as arrogant as it is mistaken. One cannot force players to play, can they? Lure them in, perhaps. But force them? NOt really, at best one might be able to force them to go through the motuions, but they would not really enjoy it, so it is not really "playing". Players must be enticed in, and then encouraged to stay. At least if you wish to have long term players, that is. 2. Players can vote someone out, without consulting the DM. Again, that isn't always how it works. And if I were the DM, such a stunt as that which was advised would be beyond insulting... and if I don't want to put up with that sort of behavior, I don't have to. Neither does anyone else. Players can get up and walk... so can the DM. It's a two-way street. It is a two way street. All your assertions aside, it seems that you realize this at some level, and try to retain a grip on the game. THough the players seemingly trickle through your fingers the harder you grasp. Or is that not blunt enough for you? How about this: It sounds like your players flee your games in droves. Their sheer volume alone lends credence to the assumption of either your being "the one horse in town" and players making their way to you, then movinfg along, or your being on some kind of constant prowl for potential players to fill the ever increasing gaps in the ranks at your table. Or then again maybe they quit your game not because of table conduct, but because you made sure that "there would be no game at all" for any of them. No, actually, it doesn't. Touché. Very well, I will make the argument for my side first. This is a democracy. THe votes may not be cast with raised hands, "yeas" or "nays", secret ballots, or levers, but there is voting going on. WHen players leave a game, the yare voting against it. When players give up on having a good time, they are voting a gainst it. And when they consistantly show up, or are always talking it up, thus bringing people around to see if it is that great, they are voting for it. I hold that whether you realize it or not, ore even wish to acknowledge it, this is a democracy. WIth each new sale of a handbook, people vote for dnd. And with each year that passes and my players consistantly come back to my table, and "dozens and dozens" keep coming to and leaving yours, playerws are indeed voting. That's you. I'm of the camp that believes it should be fun for everyone... a tenet you appear to be selectively applying. If I don't want to run something, I don't run it. First of all, it wouldn't be any fun for me. Secondly, it probably wouldn't be that great for the players either, because the solidity of the game depends a lot on the DM's level of interest. OH no, I apply it not selectively at all. But with moderation in all cases. Notice my caveat: compelled to game with the group. I also did not say how long I would give it to them, did I? I would indulge them for a bit, then expect them to indulge me. That is only fair for them to get to go first since there are several of them, and they all want the same thing. Absolutely. Best you remember that. Oh, I do. Excellent advice, that. Advice we should all follow. Maybe you don't put a lot of work in your games. I do. No player at my table comes anywhere near the amount of investment in time and work that I put into a game. Ah, you have players that show a no real interest in your game. That would explain a lot. If I had to watch a constant parade of what sounds to be a vast number of faces coming and goinfg from my table over the years, perhaps I too might have become so callous o a gamer as to put my own instant gratification above the long term enjoyment of my players. Especially i they are so seemingly insensitive to not put back in what they get out. Once again: there is no one way in which a game is handled. Well, with that I might have an issue or two. I believe that "fairly", "in a balanced manner", and "compassionately" are all pretty good conditions for ways to always handle a game. AS well as "in an enjoyable manner". I can think of no reason except petty and hurtful or exploitive ones in which at least the last one should be applied, and then I believe that in those cases it really ceases to be a game, and more devolves into self gratification at the expense of others. I've never had to do that. Oh? So, then what motivates you to give up the screen, as you have just stated you have never done? Or are you mistaken now, or when you said: Did I state that I was always behind the screen? No. In fact, further up the thread I describe a scenario in which I was not behind the screen. Good for you. So am I. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic, though. Let me rephrase that. Perhaps this time with a little less tact: I apparently seem to be capable of giving everyone what they want to have faun, without having to resort to always putting myself first, and above all the others. From the way you act, and react on the topic, I am fairly confident with my read on your attitude and general personality. IT falls well within the parameters for what most(I am fairly certain) would describe as a "control freak". Your method of DMing seems to be centered around your own personal gratification with little, if any, concern to the enjoyment of your players. I could extend the personality profile further, but the areas are far from applicable to the game, and thus inconsequential. This isn't an attack, I assure you. Wee I attacking you I am relatively certain I would be banned soon after the attack was posted. I feel no need to attack you, in fact. Nothing I think do or say will sway any of your beliefs, or goals, and I feel such an amount of what could almost be called pity for what your game is, that I would derive no personal pleasure or gratification from doing so. I guess there is just such a schism between the two standpoints of definition of what the game is, that there is no use in debating them. In fact, all our verbal jousting is indeed pointless. However, at least we agree on at least one portion of the subject at hand: THe part or parties involved in the situation that brought up this post should, whatever their course of action, be both polite, and tactful in it's resolution. The peron is at least a comrade in gaming, and thus deserves a modicum of respect, and is at best a guest, thus deserving of an amount of hospitality and politeness. There is no need to act worse than you make this fellow out to be by being a pack of insensitive clods, ganging up on him and plotting behind his back to have some self serving intervention of some kind. If you don't have the strength of character to confront him in a decent manner, at least have the common decency to not humiliate him by having some ambush of character asassination. As at least a final act of kindness don't betray him completely.
Astanphaeus 06-13-04, 12:07 PM	Okay, first of all, I'm going to ask: 1. Please stop putting words into my mouth. 2. Please stop insulting me. 3. Please stop resorting to these ridiculous exagerations in order to make your argument. Thank you. Originally posted by Capn Charlie I believe it comes down to a matter of point of view here. Maybe I am just seeing the game as a group effort, and you aren't. If all your players stop playing with you, and keep playing, with one of them taking over as DM, they did not leave the game, they booted you. Not sure where this scenario enters the picture. The scenario presented was not a bunch of players leaving a game. The scenario presented was a bunch of players going behind a DM's back and then decreeing that another player was no longer going to participate. Again: there's a lot of DMs that would not put up with that... and rightly so, as it's a rotten way to behave. I'm sorry you're apparently having a tough time with this. In any event, if a bunch of players leave and go start up another game... it's another game. Now, it could be argued that I was expelled from the group... but no, not the game. Why? It's simple. The DM designs the game. The DM hosts the game. The DM runs the game. That's how it generally works. You have some other arrangement? That's fine. If it works for you, great. Again: it's not the only way to do things, and I'd go as far as to say, it's not commonly the way it's done. I was referring to the way that you implied the statement. I'd say you were referring to the way you chose to twist the statement to suit your own viewpoints. That sounds one of two ways, a deeply disturbed individual saying "my way or no way", or a parent scolding children what might be described as "less than aplomb". Or it can be taken as me saying: I don't appreciate being walked all over, bypassed, and not consulted about who's going to be attending a game I am running, and I don't appreciate such a bomb being dropped on a session without any forewarning whatsoever. Now, if you can't see how such behavior would be more than a little disrespectful to a DM, I can't do anything for you. Of all the people I've played with, none of them -- none of them -- would even think of doing something like that. I wouldn't think of doing that. If you think it's even remotely acceptable, hey... good luck to you. And incidentally, instead of reading between the lines and jumping to ridiculous, insulting, and asanine conclusions, maybe you should stick with just what's written. If you're unclear on any particular point I've made, I'd be happy to clarify. Very well, I will rephrase the statement. Will "When you DM you do so with a group of near total strangers, and exert your dominance over them by hiding behind the screen" work? 1. Where did I mention anything about "near total strangers"? Please cite it. 2. The phrase "exert your dominance over them by hiding behind the screen" is an insulting, self-serving remark. I will restate that this does not seem to be a healthy personality trait. And I will restate: I agree. So then, you go by the sentiment that "if momma's not happy, then noone's happy", huh? Nope. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Seriously, that just seems to be either the sentiment of a control freak or that of someone with little impulse control or sense of moderation. Probably would be. I mean, I believe you are in the wrong hobby, writing seems like it would bring you far greater fulfillment than having to contend with the petty desires of your lessers when their idea of a "good time" does not completely coincide with yours. "Contend with the petty desires of lessers when their idea of a "good time" does not completely coincide with yours." is another insulting attempt to put words into my mouth. You don'ty go through "dozens and dozens" of them over the years, either. Oh, I have to spell this out for you too? Okay. Did I state I "went through" dozens and dozens of players? No, I did not. That's your embellishment. I stated: "In almost 20 years, and with dozens upon dozens of players, I haven't had a single person leave my table over my conduct. Not one." Now, how did you draw from this that I "went through" players? Did I not state, in the same sentence, that NO ONE has ever left my table due to my conduct? How then did you get that I "went through" players? How are you jumping to these ridiculous conclusions when I have stated that I have been DMing successfully for nigh on 20 years? I'm thinking that you're deliberately misinterpreting and embellishing my statements for the sake of being insulting. Is that what you're doing? If so, knock it off. I always assumed that the job of a DM was to make it fun for everyone in his game, not consider crushing the enjoyment of his players to be acceptable collateral damage for his having a good time. Unbelievable. Apprently, you're not going to take this interchange even remotely seriously. There is such a thing as waiting your turn. However, it does seem to come back to my belief that the game is a shared experience, not my experience that they get to be a part of if they do my will. Yeah, okay sport. DM's do not have complete control over who plays. To say they do is as arrogant as it is mistaken. One cannot force players to play, can they? Lure them in, perhaps. But force them? NOt really, at best one might be able to force them to go through the motuions, but they would not really enjoy it, so it is not really "playing". Yeah, that's all well and good when you take the statement out of context. The context, however, was a table of participants. Players must be enticed in, and then encouraged to stay. At least if you wish to have long term players, that is. Is 5-15 years long-term by your standards? It is a two way street. All your assertions aside, it seems that you realize this at some level, and try to retain a grip on the game. THough the players seemingly trickle through your fingers the harder you grasp. No, sorry. How about this: It sounds like your players flee your games in droves. No, sorry. Apparently your assumptions are wrong. Their sheer volume alone lends credence to the assumption of either your being "the one horse in town" and players making their way to you, then movinfg along, or your being on some kind of constant prowl for potential players to fill the ever increasing gaps in the ranks at your table. No, sorry. Apparently your assumptions are wrong. Or then again maybe they quit your game not because of table conduct, but because you made sure that "there would be no game at all" for any of them. No, sorry. Apparently your assemptions are wrong. Ah, you have players that show a no real interest in your game. Ah, no I don't. Sorry, your assumption is wrong. If I had to watch a constant parade of what sounds to be a vast number of faces coming and goinfg from my table over the years, perhaps I too might have become so callous o a gamer as to put my own instant gratification above the long term enjoyment of my players. There hasn't been a constant parade of faces. It's been 2 decades. People do things, like, for example... move out of state. Schedules change. Responsibilites change. I'm beginning to get the impression you haven't been doing this for long. Either that, or, again, you're deliberately interpreting everything in as negative a way as you can. Especially i they are so seemingly insensitive to not put back in what they get out. Sorry, your assumption is wrong. Player = 1 character. DM = Entire campaign and game world. There's only so much a player can do. Please don't forget that I've been a player. There is no comparison to the amount of responsibilty a player has and the amount of responsibility the DM has. The DM's job is much, much more comprehensive and involved. Well, with that I might have an issue or two. I believe that "fairly", "in a balanced manner", and "compassionately" are all pretty good conditions for ways to always handle a game. That doesn't preclude a variety of approaches. Straw man. Irrelevant. Oh? So, then what motivates you to give up the screen, as you have just stated you have never done? Are you capable of running a game and playing in a game at the same time? Maybe not. I am. It's called: running for one group and playing with another. I don't "give up the screen". Sometimes I'm playing at the same time, sometimes I'm not. Clear? I apparently seem to be capable of giving everyone what they want to have faun, without having to resort to always putting myself first, and above all the others. So am I. I am also able to do this without having to shortchange myself in the proccess. Novel concept, I know. From the way you act, and react on the topic, I am fairly confident with my read on your attitude and general personality. Likewise. IT falls well within the parameters for what most(I am fairly certain) would describe as a "control freak". Your method of DMing seems to be centered around your own personal gratification with little, if any, concern to the enjoyment of your players. Sorry, no. Your assumptions are wrong. This isn't an attack, I assure you. Yes, it was. Quite consistently. You'll note, for example, that I have not made one disparaging remark about your apparent approach. I have simply stated: there are different ways to approach it, and you ought not assume yours is the only way to do so. You, on the other hand, have taken my statements out of context, failed to extend any benefit of the doubt, jumped to gross conclusions, misrepresented my statements, and endeavored to paint my situation in as unflattering and insulting a light as you could manage. The ad hominems have been many. Do you know what that is? Many of your "arguments" are text book examples. And then you have the audacity to counsel anyone on conduct and fair and decent behavior? You apparently couldn't stand to have anyone advocate a different methodolgy than you're own, and you call me a control freak? Seriously, who the hell are you? What are your all-mighty credentials, that I should even acknowledge this vindictive, smarmy routine? Arrogant? Domineering? Dismissive? Patronizing? Look in a mirror, sport. How about letting me do a little psych profile, eh? You're projecting. Any time you want to compare campaign quality, level of player enjoyment, level of player commitment, or anything else RPG related... you go right ahead and send me a PM. I'll be happy to engage in that little experiment with you. Although, I gotta tell ya, I really doubt you'd dare. ~ A.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 06-13-04, 12:28 PM	Astanphaeus and Capn Charlie you both need to stop now! Your sniping at each other is not going to help Kawaii and I, and others like us. There are problem players and players who need sound advice for dealing with these problems. Your collective behavior will get this thread locked, maybe before we get the help we need. Please, let it go now. MWiW
kawaii 06-13-04, 12:48 PM	Wow. The thread sure got busy while I was gone! I'd like to thank everyone for participating. :) Now to address a few points that were brought up: First, our concerns about his playing have not gone unsaid. His habbit of "take backs" on RP have been called on several times, his inability to 'accurately' read the dice have been called on, his lack of portraying his character (even the aspects he insists on his character having) have been called on. Etc, etc. Just about everything except for his physical imperfections has been brought up (although, humouressly enough, a player that has returned to the game who has been absent a year or so (this is a very long-running campaign) had a contest of "who weighs more and which is more blubber".) While I admit to being a bit shallow, I am not shallow enough to refuse the company of people based on their appearance. He has been repeatedly told by various members of the group of what we take exception with. Generally right after he performs an act. This is, by the way, not something limited only to him. We are quick, as a group, to point out problems or to suggest solutions and help each other out. He just takes up an inordinate amount of time and resources. Most of our discussions "behind his back" have been on the order of the best way to deal with him. We don't really want to excise him from the group; we wouldn't want to tell any player to "go away". Many of us have heavy work, school or home schedules and our weekly game is a major entertainment. We sometimes meet for lunch before the game and often for dinner after the game. Because of this we have become friends over time since we have grown to respect and like each other. With a notable exception. We are not mean to him; we have no desire to be mean or cruel to him. But I, and I believe others, have become tired of him taking advantage of our patience. Edymnion: "Even better than that, how do you explain dissing somebody for watching anime when you're using "Kawaii" as a board name here, which is Japanese for "cute", which very few people outside of the anime community would even know about?" I wondered if anyone would catch that. Yes, I am a big fan of anime as well. I enjoy the art style, the stories that are often told, and the cultural differences that make for a new experience. While I only recently (the last 4 years or so) been exposed to the wide variety of anime/manga out there I still consider it one of my favorite entertainment mediums. (Though I have the advantage of watching fansubs and dvds rather than what usually ends up on American TV.) I actually admire and respect the asian anime industry. They have taken animation that is treated by Western culture as nothing more than children's entertainment and developed it into a full-range, genre-crossing medium. My using anime for a couple examples of the problem player's behavior were not meant to belittle anime but instead show how his behavior has taken something I respect and admire and turned it into almost an embarrassment. Just like he does with D&D. This player is still sullen, after a year, that the DM would not allow him to play a character straight from his favorite fantasy animes in the DM's homebrewed campaign setting. I do not think you, or the other anime fans that have joined this thread, would behave in such a manner. I took a broad range of stereotypes in that list, ranging from anime-fandom to personal hygiene. It is okay to take exception to the examples. The point of the examples were to show how he takes things that we normally tolerate, or enjoy ourselves, and turns them into something much worse. Tasaleen: Thank you, Tasaleen. I believe that I took your post in the spirit it was offered. At least, I hope so. :) And thank you for sharing your experience and advice, I'll make sure interested parties from our game read it... as well as the posts of others. Astanphaeus & Capn Charlie: You both bring up valid points, and I find myself agreeing with much of what you two say. But, please, can we focus on handling a delicate problem diplomatically? Let's not chew up eachother's posts to subject ourselves to differences of opinion. While quite well-fed, we ultimately do not get very far. :) And, from what I've read, you two are very close to agreeing on several points but approaching from different directions, thus viewing them from differing viewpoints. (Oh, my. What a horribly constructed sentence.) On to the main subject: We played last night and he was mildly better than usual. I feel that he was trying to impress the player that was new to him (the rejoining player I mentioned earlier; I haven't gamed with him either). He acted much the same when I was new to the table. But he still became sullen when he was told to use a different set of dice (he likes to use dice that are difficult to read from more than 1-foot away), when other characters rushed to check on a fallen character to see if she was alright, the new player informed us that it looked like 'problem player' changed the spells his character had memorized, and the problem player insisted he had cast a few buffing spells before the night's combat started that no one else at the table heard him say anything about. These probably seem like little things to most of you. And, reading it, they feel petty and unkind even to myself. But something that should be understood... this is how he acts in general. His behavior has logic inconsistencies: he will become upset when other PCs act with precise teamwork together but not with his, despite how he deliberately placed his character far from the action. Etc. I know none of us are perfect (I speak for those of us at my table, someone viewing this post may well be perfect (and, if female, could you PM me your phone number? ;) )). We all make mistakes at the table and occasionally get on each other's nerves. We've had some volitle arguments... we all have very different personalities. But, as a group, we get along quite well. Arguments are dropped rapidly, differences are settled quickly, we apologize and mean it, we help each other find rules and give eachother ideas, etc. That is why I am posting here... different viewpoints and experiences are needed to help us deal with a problem. We may ask him to leave. We may try to accomodate him better in our group. We may try to change him to the better (though we have encouraged him; we've not made an actual effort). Although, despite the excellent suggestion, I don't think we'll be running him over with a car. ;) But, when it comes right down to it, we just want to enjoy our Saturday games. Oops. I need to go look at fridges. I'll check in again tonight. :)
Astanphaeus 06-13-04, 01:16 PM	If I were the DM, I'd tell him he was out. I'd do it between sessions. I probably would've done it a long time ago. It's not fun, booting a player. It wasn't fun the two times I've had to do it... but it has to be done, and I think the responsibility is on the DM's shoulders. It's part of the gig. Do it with all the players around, and the guy's going to feel humilated and ganged up on, no matter how nicely everyone behaves... so I advise a one-on-one. ~ A.
Twisted Puppy 06-13-04, 05:09 PM	I agree with Astanphaeus that it is the job of the DM to toss the guy, and do it one-on-one. And quite a few posts - both here and on other threads - are very clear about the DM booting problem players immediately. In my case, while I'm sure the game will be better without the problem player, and events from a previous session have taken my patience to the breaking point, it is not something I look forward to. For those of you who would gleefully toss a problem player from the game without regard to his/her feelings, I submit that in that case you are lowering yourself to their level. Regardless of action that needs to be taken, as a rule you should treat other people the way you would wish to be treated.
Tasaleen 06-13-04, 06:06 PM	Kawaii, I amend my post! You are welcome at my gaming table anytime! As for your problem player, it sounds like your group has operated much along the lines I suggested already. The more you have told us of the offending player I see him not as irritating but as a cheater. Fudging dice rolls is a disrespect to the DM and the other players that roll straight. The DM needs to call this at the time exactly what it is, cheating. This will most likely bring matters to a head right away. If this is not the case, no matter what happens give it time and think. I to dislike asking players to leave but once have had to do it. Ask yourself this, " Does this player ruin my fun everytime I sit down at the table?" if the answer is yes then maybe this player need to be asked to leave the group. This was the clear question I had to be reminded of in order to finally agree to ask our player to leave.
Thorak 06-13-04, 07:25 PM	Originally posted by kawaii Thorak: "I'd rather have the guy you posted about in my group than you." Tasaleen: "From your post I would choose not to have you at my table not the other guy." If you two mean that, pm me your contact information and I'll gladly give it to him after the next game. This is not a snide comment. I'd be quite happy if he found a new group that would accept his faults as well as his strengths. "If you don't like him and don't want to play with him any more, you need to tell him so." I have. The damnedest thing happened. He thought I was joking and even told others so. Talk about a rebound... I have never seen such optomism before. "Yes, you'll probably hurt his feelings. But if he's not a friend, why the heck do you care?" An extremely good point. Shall I strive to be as callous and direct as you manage so effortlessly? I'm curious, though. This is a forum on the internet... How the heck could anyone here handle the problem for me? Is there a browser plugin for that? First, I apologize for the overly biting tone of my first post, and that I haven't been at a computer all weekend to respond sooner. While I don't think my comments were 'wrong' based on your first post, Kawaii, your later ones seem to show you were only guilty of the same form of bad judgement I'm (chronically) blessed with. Lord I apologize too often. Ah well, back to the point at hand. Yes, I was callous and direct. But I assumed that, if you were willing to badmouth this friend behind his back to complete strangers, you were a relatively callous person. And the intent wasn't so much to suggest you be callous to your friend, but to make you stop and think of why you'd have difficulty telling him your issues. Chances were there were good things you weren't thinking of that offset the bad, at least to some extent, and that has come through in these later posts. I still think that someone needs to step up and be non-hostile and direct about the issues though. A lot of the social problems in modern Western society, IMHO, stem from the general *****-footing attitude we tend to have, and I include myself in that 'we'. I come off strong on these forums, but I'm much more of a pansy in real life and avoid confrontations more often than I perhaps should. However, I think the world would be a better place if people were more directly honest about things; being too 'nice' means people like your friend often have absolutely no idea why people don't seem to like them. They might think showering once a week is plenty. Someone needs to speak up. They'll be embarassed, but if you're friendly about it and genuinely like them save for the physical things like showering more often, you'll probably get closer as a result, because you're the first person who's told them the truth.
ORC_Tuhteth 06-13-04, 10:35 PM	Okay, guys, there are some posts that are getting dangerously close to "baiting" and/or "harassment". At the same time, I can see that people are trying to stay within the bounds of the CoC -- the real problem is that once you start discussing individuals, those individuals' feelings are almost certain to get involved, no matter how tactful anyone tries to be. Therefore, to avoid any hurt feelings, I'd like everyone to keep their posts more general in nature. For example, saying something like "If a DM is in situation X1, I think the players would take action Y1; however, in situation X2, the players would probably take action Y2." Discussing hypothetical situations doesn't take that much away from the utility of the thread, but it also avoids getting anyone's feelings too involved. If anyone feels that someone is getting a little too personal in their posts, feel free to use the Report button to bring it to our attention, as always.
Frodo Lives 06-14-04, 12:21 AM	The DM has got to tell the player that he is no longer wanted at the table. he can make up any excuse he wants, tell little white lies to spare the cheaters feelings (and ease his own guilt for kicking him out) do what ever he has to do. The bottom line is that this player makes the game less enjoyable for EVERYONE else, including the DM. He has been doing this for quite a while with many, many opportunities to change his behaviour, and failed to do so. Kick him out. BTW I do believe that the players, if they are all in agreement, have the right to go to the DM and request the offending player be booted. It is up to the DM to do the right thing for the game, which is most likely, to comply.
Hathorym 06-14-04, 01:36 AM	New people in my gaming group goes like this: New people may be invited, but only one at a time. The rules of attendance and acceptance are explained prior to the start of the game by the person who invited. You play a session with us. At the end of the night, all current members of the group make a decision and that decision is given to you the next day. If you are accepted, you come back for a probationary position of two sessions. If, during those two sessions, you show yourself to be someone we want to keep around, then welcome to the group! If not, it's the inviter who gets the task of telling you not to come back. As far as dealing with this situation right now, however, I wish you good luck. It sounds like your DM needs to resolve the issue.
Crossover-Chronicler 06-14-04, 02:36 AM	First off, I want to address the assumption that this is an issue that should be handled by the DM. The DM is just a person, a player like any other. He just happens to be the referee, storyteller, and general "manager" of the game. This does not (in my opinion) confer upon the DM any social responsibility outside that sphere. While the DM exercises the greatest degree of authority in the game and theoretically controls who can and cannot play within the campaign he is running, it does not necessarily follow that he should - a DM expelling a well-adjusted and likeable player would be seen by most as abusive, and I think that even many on this thread would consider it a misue of the DM's power. From this basis I believe that the while the DM might be able to expel a "problem" player, that does not mean that the responsibility should be dumped in his lap. To be frank, I (as DM) have attempted to remove a player I considered disruptive from one of my games - many of the players had voiced to me a desire to be rid of him, and I made my decision only after polling all my players. Oddly enough, when this came up in discussion later, all involved parties swore to said player's face (and to mine) that they pleaded on his behalf. Experience tells me that any attempt by the players, to make such a decision the sole responsibility of the DM, quite possibly springs from the desire to "play both sides" - to reap the benefits of the hard decision, while using the DM as a human shield to avoid the backlash. While I acknowledge that this is not always the case, I feel that players willing to be rid of another player can put it in writing, thus giving proof that it really is what the majority of the group wants. The DM walks a fine line anyway, and I see no need to make that job any harder. And making him solely responsible for filtring out "problem" players ceryainly makes it harder Now on to this:Originally posted by Tasaleen Ok when I first replied I searched for Kawaii responses and that reply was for him as I saw that his post was not who he was. Which by the way I figured anyway, but the post sounded callus. This response is more for Crossover-chronicler and D+1. In my opinion and thats what it is an opinion of which you guys can have one as well, which I will respect and give credit to. D&D has not always been the bastion of socialization. We as gamers run across some very misunderstood souls who are sometimes seen by the world as wierd and strange. We as gamers have also found that most of these individuals are great people and we would have never have meet them had it not been for the game.Speak for yourself ;) Many of the gamers in my area exhibit symptoms of very frustrating mental illnesses, from mildly irritating neuroses to people who literally scare me. I and my own gaming group make up quite possibly the most rational and well-adjusted gamers in my locale, despite the fact that many of us think that having opinions excuses us from any form of basic etiquette (and that calling them "opinions" should allow us to voice them with impunity). As much as I complain about my own group (check my old posts and you'll see that I complain alot), I stick with them because 90% of the local alternatives are worse. As they say, "better the devil you know..." Perhaps if I'd had more positive experiences in my attempts to socialize such people, I might see the value of your point of view. But I haven't had that kind of luck.So since these people have poor socialization skills and have been treated that way there whole life should we brush them to the side and say helping a fellow human is not my job, I mean this is just a game?I think so. If I wanted to better society, I would join a cause. I'd make donations, do social work and community service, march in rallies, organize events, draft letters and all those wonderful things citizens are supposed to do in order to make the world a better place to live in. On the other hand, D&D is a game with pens, paper, and dice with optional minis, boards and sundry accessories. It's an extremely well-organized variation on "let's pretend." It's not a cause; it's a shared interest. If I wouldn't consent to endure a game of Monopoly, a hand of cards, a game of chess or other hobby with such a person (to be fair, I might play once before deciding I didn't want to deal with such a person), I fail to see why I should bend the rules just because it's a game of D&D instead of a game of Risk.Well I think not, this is the same additude we get from outsiders to the game who think we're all strange and odd people who live in their own little world.I suppose that's the difference in outlook. I don't look at the world as "us vs. them." Or if I do, "Us" doesn't mean "gamers." Gaming is a hobby. It's a way to have fun with my friends, and occasionally make new friends. If a stranger comes in, and the "make new friends" part doesn't stick, I fail to see any reason to maintain the farce, nor to exhaust myself taking on this person as a personal cause when my other friends and other causes are exhausting enough. If I'm playing a game, it's to enjoy myself and the others at the table. If some other player is screwing that up, I fail to see how that entitles said player to more of my time and energy. Helping one's fellow human being is a good idea, but I fail to see why the "better socialized" players should be the ones required to make extra effort. Nor do I see why several players should bend to accomodate the excesses of an individual. From where I stand, it would seem to be the irritant's responsibility to correct himself; nobody can change him but him (with the excpetion of extreme and generally unethical methods).I say its every humans responsibility to help another human thats got problems. If that means inviteing the guy out for a beer or to grab a bite to eat to show him that lifes right outside the door then so be it. This is not a job, but I think it should be the nature of humans and expecially the nature of gamers who at one time or another have felt this attitude from others.I fail to see why gamers should be held to a higher standard. Either the attitude is wrong, or is not. Past treatment of gamers does not demand they act more admirably than others; it only implies that they should know what it's like to be on the receiving end. And to be perfectly fair, the idea of making some one an "improvement project" instead of having an honest relationship ("I like you."/"I dislike you."/"I like you, but you also irritate me."/"What are you doing Saturday night?"/any other sentiment you could name) just rubs me the wrong way. As far as "attitudes I have received," that kind of treatment is at least as infuriating as being excluded (at least when people exclude me, they leave me alone). Honestly, I don't get the sentiment here. Much less disruptive players have gotten near-unanimous "boot him and get on with your life" verdicts from these boards. But this guy - who is apparently a trial to associate with even outside the game's frame of reference - gets some of the most rabid defense I have seen on these boards. Why does being less socially adjusted make a player worth more effort?
Asigoth 06-14-04, 07:46 AM	Originally posted by Frodo Lives The bottom line is that this player makes the game less enjoyable for EVERYONE else, including the DM. He has been doing this for quite a while with many, many opportunities to change his behaviour, and failed to do so. Kick him out. If this is true for you Kawaii, then I agree with him. If everyone's fun is being taken away by this individual, and you've tried to talk to him in the past, then it's time to give him the boot. Make it clear why everyone has come to this decision. However, if you haven't talked to him about this in the past, and your group feels he should be given a second chance (and he should), then do so, but explain to him why he's ruining everyone elses fun. Also, Capn Charlie, I should've worded what I said differently. When I said "based upon characters in video games and movies", I should've said "99% identical to characters in video games and movies, with only one minor detail changed." A random example: Nightmare from Soul Calibur 2, except human instead of whatever race Nightmare might be. Oversized greatsword with an eye in it and all. (the Soul Edge) I guess STILL it could possibly be considered original, but its SO close to an existing character that it just irks me.
Astanphaeus 06-14-04, 08:28 AM	Originally posted by Crossover-Chronicler First off, I want to address the assumption that this is an issue that should be handled by the DM. The DM is just a person, a player like any other. He just happens to be the referee, storyteller, and general "manager" of the game. This does not (in my opinion) confer upon the DM any social responsibility outside that sphere. While the DM exercises the greatest degree of authority in the game and theoretically controls who can and cannot play within the campaign he is running, it does not necessarily follow that he should - a DM expelling a well-adjusted and likeable player would be seen by most as abusive, and I think that even many on this thread would consider it a misue of the DM's power. From this basis I believe that the while the DM might be able to expel a "problem" player, that does not mean that the responsibility should be dumped in his lap. Well, as I've said above, different groups do things in different ways. The role of DM might shift from week to week, or month to month. A group might have a laid-back view regarding the invitation of new players. This is why I asked Kawaii several posts ago how this guy came to be in the game. In what I think is safe to call a non-traditional group dynamic, it could very well be someone else other than the DM that should be dealing with this situation: specifically the person who brought him in. However, if no one person brought him in, and if we're dealing with a more traditional arrangement (I get the impression that we are), the default is that the responsibility falls on the DM's shoulders, because, traditionally, the DM is the host of the party. He arranged it, prepared it, and invited the participants. He decided how many could be involved and, if the local community is fairly large, he invited only certain players: those who weren't playing in a game at the time, whose schedules were compatible, who enjoyed the game's genre, and so on. In such a scenario, it's clear that the DM, as the coordinator and host of the event, should deal with it. This doesn't necessarily mean he has to tackle it alone. It might be good having one of the other players around, depending on the personalities involved... but I don't think the offending party should be ganged up on by the whole group. That's just cruel. As for "little white lies" (referring to a post further up), I wouldn't recommend that either. The guy should be told precisely why he's being booted. Perhaps certain things could be omitted, but I'd say: if you can deliver all grievances in a diplomatic fashion, do so. The guy's issues are probably far too ingrained to be dislodged by a single confrontation... but you never know. It might be the wake-up slap he needs. In fact, it might even be a good idea to tell him that, if he cleans up his act, he might be able to get back in the game/group. Finally, this... To be frank, I (as DM) have attempted to remove a player I considered disruptive from one of my games - many of the players had voiced to me a desire to be rid of him, and I made my decision only after polling all my players. Oddly enough, when this came up in discussion later, all involved parties swore to said player's face (and to mine) that they pleaded on his behalf. Nice. Real nice. This is another example of something I wouldn't tolerate, whether I was a player or a DM. No (expletive) way. I'd have a hard time justifying remaining with such a group after a stunt like this. If there's any doubt about the players having enough backbone to stand behind their own stance on the matter (if there is, I'm sorry... I genuinely feel for you), make 'em sign something first. Sorry you had to deal with that, CC. ~ A.
D+1 06-14-04, 03:13 PM	Originally posted by Tasaleen I say its every humans responsibility to help another human thats got problems. I wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't mean you personally have to travel to Africa to hand out sandwiches in a famine, grab a random bum off the street and force upon him a job, food, rehab, and psychotherapy. We are all responsible for the choices we make - and if that means that HIS choices are to be unbathed and annoying then the consequences are his as well. You can't always save people from themselves. If that means inviteing the guy out for a beer or to grab a bite to eat to show him that lifes right outside the door then so be it. This is not a job, but I think it should be the nature of humans and expecially the nature of gamers who at one time or another have felt this attitude from others. But they ARE offering him the opportunity for socializing with that life outside his door. What makes you think that taking the guy out for a beer and pizza in ADDITION to gaming with him for so long is going to make him start showering? Put it this way; it's not that he doesn't shower because nobody asks him out for a beer - nobody asks him out for beer because he doesn't shower. I don't want this to be a flame on you guys I just thought I should clarify my opinion for you.I don't feel any heat so no problem. Gaming IS a social situation. That's an advantage - but it can also be a pitfall because not all human beings socialize in the same way. Social, interpersonal problems is that hidden pitfall that can occasionally become an obstacle. Roleplaying ITSELF is a good tool to use when learning how to handle those problems, but when people form an RPG group they aren't volunteering to help people with their social problems. It isn't what they are looking to use roleplaying for - they just want entertainment for a few hours once a week. Finding yourself playing alongside a gamer whose social skills don't match your own doesn't turn that relationship into a greater social obligation. That said, gaming is still a social situation and whether any of us ever THINK we've bargained for it or not, dealing with social/interpersonal problems is baggage that inseperably goes with face to face roleplaying games. If you have a player like the one in question you don't have to transform him and you don't have to endure him in silence. What you DO have to do is treat him with dignity when you decide on whatever else you're going to do in dealing with him. Whether you decide to take him under your wing and try to literally and figuratively clean him up, or simply ask him to leave is irrelevant. But you can't leave it as it is when there IS a problem bubbling underneath it all. It's only going to get worse by failing to address it one way or another.
trapspringer 06-14-04, 05:44 PM	wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't mean you personally have to travel to Africa to hand out sandwiches in a famine, grab a random bum off the street and force upon him a job, food, rehab, and psychotherapy. We are all responsible for the choices we make - and if that means that HIS choices are to be unbathed and annoying then the consequences are his as well. You can't always save people from themselves Something about that is just really funny.
kawaii 06-14-04, 07:19 PM	Thorak “While I don't think my comments were 'wrong' based on your first post, Kawaii, your later ones seem to show you were only guilty of the same form of bad judgement I'm (chronically) blessed with…. And the intent wasn't so much to suggest you be callous to your friend, but to make you stop and think of why you'd have difficulty telling him your issues.” I understand completely and apologize for my own reaction. Looking back, my own response was quite crude rather than a “humorous” attempt at trying the same thing in your direction. Ah, the wonders of the written word… such a staple of humanity yet so easily misconstrued by either party. But, gosh, can not a single person laugh at my browser plugin joke? ;) “However, I think the world would be a better place if people were more directly honest about things; being too 'nice' means people like your friend often have absolutely no idea why people don't seem to like them.” I agree quite a bit with this statement, and try to live much of it. While I seem to have succeeded in my professional life, it is still something I’ve yet to accomplish with any particular success in my personal life. Though, and I must be honest, it is exacerbated by my sense of humor. (“Honey, does this dress make me look fat?” “No, that’s all your butt’s fault.” “Darling, you may have a lousy memory for names, but you’ve never forgotten mine, have you?” “Umm… ever notice how rarely I call you by name?” Etc.) I think we are trained from an early age so much to get along in social situations and let “grownups” handle the problems that it makes us less able to deal with situations when we become the grown ups. But that is another topic altogether… And one more fit for a sociology forum than D&D. :) Though I doubt we can get away from sociology completely, and thus: Some of our players I do not mind being a good example for and helping them with social issues that may arise due to working in a group. But all of these players are in there teens. Which is quite different from a player in his 20s (and late 20s, I believe). Furthermore, the players in their teens have shown improvement in just the short time I have been playing. While the problem player in our group has, as I mentioned at the beginning, actually become worse. So I half agree with Taseleen: some cooperation is necessary in a social setting. But after a certain point (which, to be fair, is much less a point then a blob) it really is not the responsibility of anyone sitting around the table. This individual should have benefited from teaching from those that were legally and morally responsible for him. If nothing else, he should have learned from the examples around him while he has been in the current social setting. To my thinking, setting everything out in front of him and telling him point by point (even limiting to personality or in-game matters) is akin to rubbing a dog’s nose in it’s waste matter. A reasonably intelligent human being should be able to discover such things themselves. That’s what a life of learning is for. But then, I am told I have a rather optimistic opinion of Humanity. Heaven knows that a few years in technical support should have cured me of that one. ;) On the other hand, one reason I do not want to be the spokesman for the players is that if I start explaining the problem I can see myself going quite overboard. Definitely not a course of action for the better in this situation. Originally posted by Frodo Lives ”The bottom line is that this player makes the game less enjoyable for EVERYONE else, including the DM. He has been doing this for quite a while with many, many opportunities to change his behaviour, and failed to do so.” Asigoth “If this is true for you Kawaii…” Unfortunately, it is quite true. le sigh In my experience of dealing with people, though, I have found that second chances are very rarely of any use. Those that do change to the better generally do so with little prompting; those that need quite a bit of prompting (such as my example) rarely change. Or, if they do, it is only for a short while until they feel they have been accepted once again and then they return to their old patterns of behavior. Especially in this case where, I have come to be quite certain, most of the problem behavior is due to a need to focus attention in his direction. To some extent, that is not such a bad thing (we all love at least some attention and recognition). But where most players would do so by being excellent role players or involving themselves in the game in a constructive way and thus garnering accolades he does so in a disruptive and, to be honest, childish manner. Crossover-Chronicler First off, I want to address the assumption that this is an issue that should be handled by the DM” Astanphaeus ”…is why I asked Kawaii several posts ago how this guy came to be in the game. …and if we're dealing with a more traditional arrangement (I get the impression that we are)…” My apologies, Astanphaeus, but our table is part of a gaming club. I was invited in by one of the long-term players and introduced to the group (I think the DM knew about it ahead of time, but I’m not sure) and afterwards to the club as a whole. I don’t know how the other person arrived, I assume he was at (at least) one of the weekly club meetings and was invited to the table (opposite of my own arrival). While I was the one that, ah, “encouraged” them to finally do something about the problem at the table I do not feel I should be the one to take direction action. As mentioned before, I am new to the table, what is more I am the newest. It was rapidly obvious to me though that there was a problem with the more established player. I will admit that he irritated me for personal reasons I have not yet mentioned but I could tolerate that to a degree. I will breath a quite-selfish sigh of relief when I am able to sit at the table without his disruptive presence. But I don’t think I’ll be the only one… and I hope our games can take part of the wonderful experiences we have had during the times he was not present. Oops. Going a bit abroad, there. There are a number of people that are much more established at the table than I. I will help them deal with the problem as best I am able (and thankful of the wonderful advice and sharing of experiences others have given in the thread). If they were to decide that it were best if I left, I would do so willingly (crossing my fingers that will not happen, I don’t think it will, though I have seen bigger surprises). I believe that a good amount of the responsibility in this kind of situation should be with the DM. Not because he is “in charge” of the game, whatever that means in such a social situation, but because he is most likely the most established person. The DM is often the one that does the most organizing and recruiting and tends to have an awful lot of responsibility. Conversely, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, I think that the younger the playgroup the more these kinds of responsibilities need to be shared. A lack of experience in handling such matters can cause untold problems, at least as a group (or committee), there can be a pooling of ideas and sharing of resources. Crossover-Chronicler Oddly enough, when this came up in discussion later, all involved parties swore to said player's face (and to mine) that they pleaded on his behalf.” Ewww. That’s… That is… Just “ewww.” Well. I’ve put my objections in writing, and indeed, they are quite publicly visible. The DM and at least one of the other players are aware of my activity here at the board. :)
Twisted Puppy 07-06-04, 12:52 PM	Thought I'd post so everyone would know how I dealt with my problem player. The bad guys attacked the party, which was defending a fixed location (a bridge). The bad guys had help from a couple of people who had survived earlier attempts to take the bridges, including a wizard. This wizard had observed various tendencies of the party, including that of the problem player's PC (a cleric) to move back and simply throw spells, staying far out of melee - and away from other party members. The same thing happened in this combat, and this time, on round 3, an attacking Rogue used a wand of Ennervation on the cleric (4 on a d4, so minus 4 levels), while the wizard cast a Greater Dispel Magic on the Cloak of Resistance the cleric was wearing. Then an assassin stepped out from behind a tree - having observed the cleric for 3 rounds- and backstabbed her, and she failed the save. Boom, cleric is down and dead. Let me say to begin with that I'm not proud of actually engineering that, however, the overall encounter level was 18, for a party of 19th-21st level characters. Anyhoo, the problem said he'd be back in a little while, that he was going to get something to eat. When he got back, we had completed the session - and none of the other PCs had mentioned resurrecting the character. In fact, they made a point of burying the body, and handing all the equipment over to the cleric's temple, while regretting the loss. I called the player off to the side, and told him that it appeared that his character was not going to be resurrected. He asked why, and I said that it had to do with some conflicts in the game, and that it would be a good idea for him to take a couple of weeks break from the table. My intention was to let him think about the problems - which had been pointed out to him before - before rejoining the group. However, he demanded to know why he was being thrown out of the game, loudly. My reply was he was not being thrown out, just being asked to take a break. He insisted on knowing why, so I told him of the problems: bullying other players, inability to read dice correctly, changing spells in combat. At this point he became very angry, and his language became foul and abusive for me saying he was a cheater. One of the other players heard the exchange, and was kind enough to come up and support what I said, saying he had seen the same things I was talking about. The problem player's language became more offensive, to me and the other player, and he said that he might as well not ever come back to the game club. I told him that was his choice, but after the way he had just acted, that I was NOT going to welcome him at my table again. Sometimes when you try to give people a break, they just don't recognize it for what it is. I was truly intent on bringing him back in after two or three weeks, but he did a wonderful job of changing my mind. :thumbsdow
Frodo Lives 07-06-04, 05:23 PM	Good for you! It's never easy to kick a player out, but obviously it was the best thing for the entire group. Kudos to you
ajmastrean 07-08-04, 10:38 AM	Hey, I know this thread has been running for some time, but I just finished reading it recently. I was playing with a problem player for a while and I think I know what everyone is feeling. As for the stereotypes of bad players or whatever (bald, fat), a lack of respect for one's physical appearance (both cleanliness and "looks") is usually an indicator of one's character. There is something different about someone who takes care of himself and wants to look presentable. I am not saying all clean, well-built people are kind loving gamers, but there is a connection between respect for oneself and your attitude/character. Some people are just unfriendly and despite all attempts to be nice to that person, they will remain the same. There are some character problems that cannot be solved just by being nice and trying to accept someone. There are deeper, perhaps spiritual or psychological issues that that person needs to work out first. This person just needs to be excused from the environment he is causing problems in (i.e. the game session). Character flaws can especially be a problem if the rest of the group does not have any relationship with the person (if they are not a friend, relation, or whatever). It is hard to talk to someone if you do not know their situation or if you are not someone they necessarily see as a peer or look to for advice. Some ways to handle a problem player? buy them cursed gear shaped like embarassing body parts. kill their character off in in-direct ways ("I'm grappled by the mind flayer, he's going to eat my brain!" "Oh no, I can't possibly get there soon enough to help you" *or* "I dont have the spell prepared to save your life" *erase erase erase*). That's what my group did, not to mention the guy actually graduated from college this year, so he's out!
Arbitrary Aardvark 07-09-04, 07:00 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion And what exactly is WRONG with watching a lot of anime? And more importantly, how do you define an "anime name"? Any japanese name? I mean, I've seen animes with characters named Ross, or Amy. Are these "anime names"? Even better than that, how do you explain dissing somebody for watching anime when you're using "Kawaii" as a board name here, which is Japanese for "cute", which very few people outside of the anime community would even know about? Well, it could be a specific name from a specific anime. BTW, I have a Kawai piano, it is very Kawaii right now, with my Tenchy Muyo bigheaded figurines on top of it.
Arbitrary Aardvark 07-09-04, 07:05 PM	Originally posted by Asigoth Also, Capn Charlie, I should've worded what I said differently. When I said "based upon characters in video games and movies", I should've said "99% identical to characters in video games and movies, with only one minor detail changed." The worst I've seen was someoene who, in a superhero game, wanted to run a character just like Batman but psychologically well-adjusted with a happy home life.
trapspringer 07-09-04, 08:24 PM	Hmm... yea. He is my favorite example of a chaotic good-guy. NOT normal, NOT well adjusted, and not 'by the book,' but not evil.
Phantom Reaper 07-11-04, 03:19 AM	I don't have bad players as long as a certain one of them is their. The last time we played he couldn't make it so I said his char had other things to do and left the party. But when the others heard this they only thought of one thing how to act up. Im suprized we weren't kicked out and I'll never play again with out that certain char.
Super Guy 07-12-04, 01:52 PM	lol, that's so terrible. There are stereotypes towards DnD players, but anyone mature knows that one can play DnD and be very popular and successful! I know it's not proper to insult people, but that guy is really pathetic. I mean, it's not so much that playing female is bad (I play female nearly half of the time- it adds to the spice of the game) but the thing is, lesbian female is sick. You shouldn't get... turned on... by your characters :sad: Though, I do know of one guy (I don't play with him). He's about middle-aged, balding, fat, fairly annoying... he's not as bad as that guy, but check this out: I was scanning through the Psionics Handbook, once, and saw that everywhere that it says "she" or "her" (You know how it does that, like, "If a wizard uses her spells in melee, she is subject to an attack of opportunity") he crossed it out and replaced it with he or his. Everywhere. In the entire book. I was thoroughly shocked and disgusted.
LordofIllusions 08-10-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by Tasaleen This post makes me sad for the future of D&D. I say that players such as you are the problem. This guys has some problems with playing the game yes, but pointing out physical and social problems make you look like the a**. Look not everyone is the perfect cool guy such as you, maybe you should help the guy socialize more. All people are different and some are special, but not in a bad way. We should help those that are picked on and tuaunted because thats the right thing to do. As far as D&D having a stereo typical player, you yourself are promoting and spreading that stereo type. If the guy has problem with game mechanics help him. The DM should limit him and inforce the rules, but never ever disregaurd someone just because they are different or play the game different then you. From your post I would choose not to have you at my table not the other guy. You took the initial poster's message way to seriously for something that has nothing to do with you. Ladies and gentleman I believe Tasaleen is the player the initial poster was referring to. :devil: ~~~
Dragonspirit 08-11-04, 04:05 AM	If you're looking for a way out of it while sparing his feelings, the next session say no one can get together. (How do you guys know him btw?) Anyhow, maybe stop playing for a few weeks, and then get together again. Don't speak about it in front of him, or even let him know it's going on. If he somehow finds out, try to play it off like (yeah, some of us decided to get back together...) :rolleyes: And if he asks to come back, say that you're trying to keep the campaign small but you'll invite him if a spot opens up (har har) :)