Billy has caused arguements between players, doesn't take advice, and is a downer at the table. His character life expectency is roughly .75 a session. He doesn't understand tactics in going into a fight. He DM's a game himself and doesn't even know the rules. He will actively try to start fights at the table with other players. He doesn't pay attention to the game table. His characters are useless and serve no purpose besides the few times he will run up to kill something when it has one hit point left anyway.
Currently, I had been given permission to kill of his character in-game. I'm what would be considered the party's problem solver (at the table) and banker. The DM of the game does not want to get involved with party problems and depends on the party to work as a majority with him having veto power in things we want.
My DM doesn't particularly enjoy having to kick people out of his game. Of the five other players, I know all of them will instantly agree to kick him out except perhaps Willy who plays in Billy's game. I'm just looking for some general advice and was hoping to get some from here.
Tell him it's nothing personal, but he's not contributing to the game in a positive way and maybe he should stick to running his own game for now. Pull the good player aside and tell him he's welcome to continue gaming with you.
Don't be passive aggressive. Be honest. Be direct.
If Willy doesn't want to leave he may pay for it in Billy's game, but I'd guess you'd rather be rid of Billy than keep Willy, and also that Willy being a decent player probably doesn't enjoy Billy's game that much (unless he is a fantastic DM by some twist). Anyway, I'd leave Willy out of it- the discussion, the "we" statements etc, as even bringing up how he feels about Billy's play could put him in an awkward situation. Let him leave the game with Billy or stay without, but try not to put him in a bad way with Billy (as in don't start with, "Willy, we think you're a great player and want you to stay. Billy, you on the other hand...")
Good luck!
If he reacts positively and starts to work with the rest of the party and not against them, great - you just saved a player!
If he acts like an ass you can boot him then, but at least you tried! On the subject of booting him, it's best if you do it up front and openly, and explain to your DM that it's a clash in play styles and as this guy won't change, someone has to go.
Seriously, what is up with this nonsense? Killing him in game to send him a message? Thats bull. You won't get rid of the problem like that. Unlike in RL, in D&D you can't kill all your problems away. The kid will still be sitting at your table after you back stab his character.
You think he'll just take the hint and leave or will you have just completely insulted a guy through a proxy.
Don't be stupid and passive aggressive. That just raises tension because your motivation remains vague. Do your best to just man up and tell him what you don't like. If your styles don't mesh, you won't have fun together regardless of how hard you try, so it would be best to just part ways.
The DM needs to disinvite him. Not your job, nor problem.
Personally, If the DM told me to do it, I'd go for the "I've been hired to kill you, but I want to give you one more chance to mend your ways." And see what happens.
Again, this is the DMs duty to handle this.
Only caveat I would add to this is that him DM'ing Willy's game is a moot point. If he acts out against Willy because of this game then he has no right to sit behind the screen.
Seriously, what is up with this nonsense? Killing him in game to send him a message? Thats bull. You won't get rid of the problem like that. Unlike in RL, in D&D you can't kill all your problems away. The kid will still be sitting at your table after you back stab his character.
QFT
Instead of any annoying player with crappy characters, you will have an annoying player with crappy characters who feels justified in derailing the plot with metagame revenge PvP horseshit.
Solve the problem; don't pour gas on the fire.
This is your DMs job to get rid of his PC, not yours.
The DM needs to disinvite him. Not your job, nor problem.
Personally, If the DM told me to do it, I'd go for the "I've been hired to kill you, but I want to give you one more chance to mend your ways." And see what happens.
Again, this is the DMs duty to handle this.
It's everyone's job to make sure that they are having fun, not just the DM. The entire group needs to confront him and say "you're killing our fun, now get out."
It's not the DM's job to babysit, nor is it the DM's job to handle interpersonal conflict. The OP and his friends have the problem, and it sounds egregious enough that simply asking him to stop being an assclown isn't going to work. It needs to be a team effort, not just one person. He needs to be made aware that this is a group decision and that he's burnt bridges with everyone.
My DM doesn't particularly enjoy having to kick people out of his game.
Tough. He may not have known it or thought about it when he took the job - but that IS his responsibility.
I'm just looking for some general advice and was hoping to get some from here.
Your DM needs to tell him that his "playing style" doesn't fit your group and invite him NOT to attend future games.
It is no more complicated than that.
I've had DMs in the past that were very passive. Their style was more reactive than declarative and we didn't get anything back that we didn't give. He hated interfering in a groups decisions because he felt it took away independence.
When I DM, I'm more of a peer to my players. The only thing I have absolute control over is rules arbitration. I don't keep other players in line and I don't pass messages. In a group where we're all buddies, it would almost be disrespectful if we got all impersonal and didn't just bring up the problem as a group and get a consensus.
D&D is a social game. As such, the idea is to forge and strengthen friendships with people. Presumably, this person is a friend or at least an associate or potential friend. He just isn't a particuarly good player. So...
Imagine you folks were doing some other social event. Say tennis partners, or a member of a band? How would you approach someone who isn't that good? Do you wack him with a tennis ball, mess with his drum set, try making it so unpleasant that he leaves, etc. Would that work? Even if it did, you've lost a friend, made everyone angry, etc. Most folks wouldn't do that. They would try helping him improve, and/or ask him to leave.
In the end, how you handle this says more about you than it does him. Lots of folks don't have the maturity, patience, or aptitude for the game. Sometimes people just don't fit in well.
1. Try improving his game
Not easy, but you have to ask yourself why not try.
a) Have the DM talk with him. Say that he has noticed that problems with the other PCs and ask if he is having any problems outside the game, if there is anything the DM can do, etc.
b) Try taking him out to public games or conventions. RPGA type stuff, where he isn't with the group and/or DMs don't allow anti-social behavior.
c) Try having the DM run some one-on-one stuff with him.
d) Try inviting a guest to the game. A female player if you can find one. Many people act much differently in front of strangers and most male gamers suddenly start acting mature with ladies present. A young person at the table might also discourage anti-social players.
e) Enforce some type of 'anti-social' rules. No evil alignments, no swearing or threatening other players, no player vs. player, etc. RPGA ethical play guidelines or something.
f) Find another guest DM. Someone who can lay down the law and help show him the way folks are expected to work together. Again, a public game day might be helpful.
g) Try having the DM invoke in-game reasons for him to cooperate. Backgrounds, NPCs, personal quests, etc. which require him to work with other PCs.
h) Try different styles of games or encounters. Try some short-term modules with pregens for a bit. Try dungeon crawls. Try core-only rule sets.
i) Try making some in-game effort to be friendly to his PC. Buy him some personalized equipment, invite his PC to a play, come up with a party "oath", etc.
j) Try improving friendships outside the game. Bring snacks, try other activities besides gaming (movie nights, birthday dinners, sporting events, etc.), etc.
2. Ask him to leave
Never fun but you can do a number of things so that you aren't a complete idiot.
a) Talk with him individually, and let him know that you are not appreciating the table fighting and ask if there is anything you can do to help. i.e. guilt sometimes works. Have the DM to it the next week if things aren't improving.
b) Talk with him as a group and let him know that you aren't enjoying gaming with him. Let him know that he is welcome to movie nights and other events, but that your gaming styles don't appear to match well, and that the resulting fighting isn't good for friendships.
c) Keep in touch with him. Invite him to other events, public game days, etc. No need to be bitter or resentful about having him leave. If he wants to be angry, fine. Then at least you have done your best.
That has to be some of the better advice I've heard in a long time, BW0222If the group overall doesn't want to give Billy a second chance, then ask him to leave as nicely as possible, explaining that his style doesn't mesh with yours.
If the overall feeling is to let him stay, then you need to honestly explain the problems to him and get him to accept your assistance - advice (but not control) on character creation, tactics, roles within the party and so on.
Whichever way it goes, leave Willy completely out of it. It's up to him to decide which group(s) he plays in. If you dump Billy and he then puts pressure on Willy to make a choice, you have to trust that your group is good enough to be the one that Willy sticks with.
Currently, I had been given permission to kill of his character in-game.
To be frank, this would be the most stupid course of action you could possibly take. It solves absolutely nothing, gives Billy good reason to be even more difficult, and adds further woe to the inter-personal troubles you're having. Whatever problems you may be experiencing with Billy's character in-game, the root cause of them is the player himself - that's where you need to focus your efforts.
I don't think that fixing this is specifically the DM's job. Depending on group dynamics, that could be a bad idea. Not every group has a king DM.
Somebody is in charge at a D&D game. Somebody has the final say about what is acceptable and what's not as regards others at the table. Yes, it's better if the players police their own, and that decisions about who gets to play and who gets kicked out are obvious and agreed upon by all, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. Somebody has to be the King. That person, by default at least, is the DM. Assign the duties of King to someone else if you like, but the end result is the same.
If you are gaming with someone you DO NOT LIKE, you are NOT under an obligation to start liking them, you are NOT under an obligation to make them a better gamer or better person. That is NOT why they were invited to play. Now, you're hardly going to be winning humanitarian awards for being calculatingly callous to people you CHOOSE to game with - BUT IT IS YOUR CHOICE and any player should understand that joining a new group is ALWAYS provisional. They need to play well with others and that doesn't always work out for the best.
You can and generally should make efforts to make things work, but failing that, STOP freaking gaming with them. Though there's no reason to be cruel or vindictive about it you should DISINVITE them nonetheless. That job, by default as I said, is the DM's. The DM creates the game, runs the game, decides who he does and doesn't want to play in the game he works up. But, whoever... Somebody has the final authority to kick people out for the very simple fact that who you HOPED they would be when you invited them is not who they turned out to be when they actually started playing. It's a right, and ultimately an obligation to ask "undesirables" to leave, whether anybody understood that to be the case or not.
I am not advocating that a DM should kick people out at the first sign of incompatibility or a misstep. In fact the first, best thing you can do - and when a thread like this is begun is the one thing that HASN'T been done - is to communicate clearly and openly that there is a problem and that you are committed to solving it.
It was my understanding from the OP (and I see I misread it to a degree) that the problem player was already all-but-universally agreed upon as needing to be removed, that the DM was reluctant to perform what is by default the DM's job (to remove problem players), and that the OP was contemplating in-game shenanigans to make the game undesireable for the player rather than simpler, more direct, and more proper tactics. Assuming that IS the case, my advice is the same: tell the player their gaming is incompatible and that they should not return.
If there is reason to hope that things can be worked out - COMMUNICATE. After that, boot 'em.
Somebody is in charge at a D&D game. Somebody has the final say about what is acceptable and what's not as regards others at the table. Yes, it's better if the players police their own, and that decisions about who gets to play and who gets kicked out are obvious and agreed upon by all, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. Somebody has to be the King. That person, by default at least, is the DM. Assign the duties of King to someone else if you like, but the end result is the same.
No. I don't want to assign anybody in my group the title of king or even head of human resources. If somebody had to be a king, it is invariably the DM (unless something funny is going on at your table) but that wasn't my point. Not all groups function with their DM as head mediator. Players at my table are able to interact with each other without having to go through me. They aren't wearing blinders. I'm not the server hub for the online RPG. Issues are addressed freely, but that's just my group. Which is my point.
I don't like people relegating peacekeeping duty to DMs like they're the only adult at the table. I don't like people claiming things are OOC issues or IC issues as if the answer is so simple, either. Not without ifs. Groups are different.
Otherwise, I don't think claiming something is somebody else's problem is very helpful.
The rest of your post was golden, Man in the funny hat. As usual.
I also think, it is the DMs job, since it is the DMs game.
i agree with whoever said DM has final say, but that doesn't make the other players less responsible.
Personally I'm trying to get a game together but I don't want to DM... I prefer to play, however when instigating the game and inviting people, my house etc. it seems almost de facto that I'm going to be the DM- it's expected and accepted because I'm trying to organize it. Sure down the line I can ask another player to take over, or someone might want to run a game with our group etc. but that's not really what I want.
Anyway, so I'm curious about your group dynamics and how it could be applied to a group of strangers. Thoughts?
One advantage to this is that these two jobs don't necessarily have the same prime requisites. A good DM tells a good story, and focuses on keeping the game moving. A good coordinator is well organized and a good mediator. Some people can do both jobs well, some cant.
I'm not saying thats better or worse, but there are more ways around group dynamics than just "DM is king" and "everyone is equal".
That's why we enjoy your game. Old School.
Exposed Wires Wrote:
You and I, Etarnon, have entirely different styles.
Yes we do. I don't like a game that is "Run by committee."
My style comes from my military experience. It doesn't make the players less than me, it is an overall drive toward "Here's the plan, you guys figure out how you want to do it, go for it, Solve the problem / Take the initiative / anticipate problems / and move on with the game / mission."
Anything that gets in the way of that process is dealt with, or swept aside, because it is blocking the execution of the plan.
People that don't want to get on board with unit cohesion (of the group), and morale, or cause problems for me personally, or the group as a whole get transferred off / out of the group, so that we can get back to the task at hand.
Certainly, it rubs people the wrong way if they come from the mindset of "The DM is there to give us our fun as players, no matter the cost to him, personally in time, materials, or aggravation."
I've met people like that, and it's always led to long arguments about what is the role of the DM vs. what is the role of the Player.
I'm not suggesting you fall in to that camp, Exposed_wires, but a lot of the players that have problems with my style do fall into it.
C'est la vie. It's worked for me, so I use it.
As a player, I anticipate what my PC is going to need, buy equipment accordingly, modified by what the setting allows, permits, or hints at. I prefer low magic games with treasure rare, where we got to work for it, and it's a fight for survival, each mission, such that at the end, we return to HQ / Inn / Base exhausted, and out of supplies, ammo, and food, mission freakin' accomplished, high five. Because we are the feces, life-takers and heart-breakers, all.
I make my character well rounded, to try to fit into the team as a whole, and don't hog the spotlight, and aid other PCs where possible. If no one else steps up, I take the lead. If someone else screws up, I counsel them with advice, then directly one to one, and if it continues after that, will make political moves towards removal of that character from the unit, such as it exists. I don't think any PC is generally useless, because in the military, I was taught to "make use of who you have, find a job for that guy."
But because it's a game, the players come with their own agenda, which might not be for the good of the group as a whole. Sometimes a player is just a bad fit for my groups, like:
"My PC gets to do this, because I am CN / Evil / Possessed / Insane"
"All that matters is that I 'Win.'"
"DM, I'll let you know right now, that / I'm here to 'crack the scenario wide open' / You're not gonna Railroad me. / I kill the quest-giver..just because...so there."
My biggest challenge is in playing things like fey folk (like pixes, whatever), or happy go lucky types. I like and prefer to play grizzled military veterans, mercenaries, beggars with nothing, (maybe robes, and a stick), survival scouts/experts, dwarves, or grumpy old wizards who have seen too much...and sci fi characters of all ranks, types, and ability (only because it's my favorite genre, not fantasy.).
This is not to say that the DM was power mad, he wanted to give a good game experience to the whole group and a DM cannot do this if players are second guessing his every ruling or not paying attention because their too busy looking up the weakness of a Shambling Mound so they can metagame the right formula of spells into their daily allotment. It was achnowledged that the players more or less showed up the day of the game to play while the DM sweated all week to get everything in pristine order for their adventure. Obviously not every DM was good about carrying out their responsibilities (in fact a great many were not) and thus these DMs ended up carrying less clout with their players but a good DM (and I have known a few) could merely raise an eyebrow at you across the table and you would snap too because to do less would mean someone else would be in your seat the next session. The payoff was worth it though, he provided us great roleplay.
In the end it's a matter of respect. When you second guess and micro manage your DM, you are in essence showing disdain for his abilities. My group, including Etarnon, are all older players who demand the same respect I do when they run. In return, so long as I carry out my responsibilities they will show me that respect. For being such a tyrant (as many reading this might see me) I have no unhappy players that I am aware of and everyone shows up every week. We have not had an empty chair since we started almost 2 months ago. It's really a matter of trust, if you trust your DM to reign responsibly over the game and not railroad or interfere with the parties decision making then why not let him set the rules, then you as the player can focus on playing instead of being some sort of co-runner. Thats just my opinion. So long as it works, I'll stick with it.
It's fun, we get along, he runs the game, the PC group nearly gets killed off in a near-half-party-TPK, when one PC left the party, got in over his head, and some ran to his aid to save him, nearly getting whacked in the process. But by luck and skill, the party survived, no one was crippled, or died.
We pressed on, and have gained a new level.
My 4 HP Wizard PC for most of this had one spell per day, which was "Light", (Because he failed his % to learn spell rolls on most of them) a Quarterstaff, a dagger, and some darts. He stays mostly in the back, but has gotten more than his share of critical hits to the forces of evil, and some wounds.
And it has just been a hell of a good time. As I told the group last session one of the high points of my week. 1e, old school.
If a problem player showed up, he might last two sessions. Not because we're Control freaks, but because we're serious players, and we all work together, as a party, as players, as a DM-Player team, each with a part of a shared story.
I'm 100% sure any other players of the group polled would agree.
The sad truth is, a lot of the reason it works so well is because it is 1e, it is simple, and most of the players are veterans. It's sad because...since we play older editions, without all the 3.X stuff, it's seen as "Replaced, and broken, clinging to the past." I've seen many threads like that here, telling the grey beards to just "fade into obscurity, because we're stuck in park, while the world moves on."
There are many on these forums who will decry the experience of the vets, who they say "are prejudiced against the younger crowd." That's not true. I see a need for the older crowd, and the younger crowd. It's a circle, as the vets retire, new players come in. Like life.
It is just that the younger crowd don't have the game experience to have been through and dealt with the problems that all the people that post in "What's a DM / Player To Do?" keep running into, over and over, and over which boil down to (As I personally see it):
-Your best friends are not necessarily your best gamers to hang out with.
-Recruit people for your game group carefully.
-Open Communication about the game from DM to players is key, in campaign setup, pre-recruitment, and especially during the actual running it, and in between sessions.
-The DM sets the tone of play, and has to be the most fair and balanced, fair, and impartial player at the table, generally, or the game will suffer.
-Read the book of the system you are running for. Know it.
-If you don't have time to run, and all the setup required, don't force it, let someone else do it.
-Don't game with people you can't stand.
-No D&D is better than Bad D&D.
-It's not a game of DM vs. Players. Or DMPC Vs. That hot optimized build.
-It's not about the mechanics, it's about the story, of the dramatic choices that the characters make, that affect the game world, and the lives of the pcs for good or ill.
-Mechanics exist, but they should be transparent, and support the game, not with the game based around them.
-All that being said, there is no one right way to play, but the above is my way.
I'm glad I have all of this experience, as a player, as a DM.
Never have I been called "Useless" or engaged in this stuff we see the OP complaining about. Because I take active steps to help the DM when and where I can when I am a player, and Teach / Guide / Mentor the youngest players (if they really want to learn to DM my way) when I am the DM.
My way isn't the right way for all. But I still get email from people that say, "Man, I'm really glad you showed me this technique / method / philosophy, back in the day."
That's one of my lesser life accomplishments, and I'm happy as hell about it.
Recently, my dnd group picked up two new guys. One of them who will be known as "willy", fit in perfect. He asked us what we needed and he went with it. He fit into the group perfectly, starting to understand all of our tactics, and a great motivator at the table. The other guy, know as "billy" is the opposite.
Billy has caused arguements between players, doesn't take advice, and is a downer at the table. His character life expectency is roughly .75 a session. He doesn't understand tactics in going into a fight. He DM's a game himself and doesn't even know the rules. He will actively try to start fights at the table with other players. He doesn't pay attention to the game table. His characters are useless and serve no purpose besides the few times he will run up to kill something when it has one hit point left anyway.
Currently, I had been given permission to kill of his character in-game. I'm what would be considered the party's problem solver (at the table) and banker. The DM of the game does not want to get involved with party problems and depends on the party to work as a majority with him having veto power in things we want.
My DM doesn't particularly enjoy having to kick people out of his game. Of the five other players, I know all of them will instantly agree to kick him out except perhaps Willy who plays in Billy's game. I'm just looking for some general advice and was hoping to get some from here.
Have you ever considered a Mayan Sacrifice solution? Take a ceremonial dagger and make 3 nice cuts, severing the major arteries and disconnecting the heart. Then use your knewfound oracular powers to seek the never-incarnated soul of the Indigo Child, learn the answer to all questions, and become the envy of God himself?
Kinda makes the best of a bad situation, wouldn't you say? One minute, bad player, next minute, Indigo Prophecy Fulfilled For You!
The way my group plays is a lot less gygaxian than most older players are used to. In the Eberron campaign I run, you don't have to worry about dying so much as taking too long to find the serial killer and letting more people die. Batman characters are praised in my group and good and evil is mostly gray.
The social dynamic of my group is more casual. If one of the players is being a jerk, whoever opens their mouth first is the guy or gal who gets to say 'WTF'. If we ever need to kick out a member, I usually do it, but never without consulting other players and even then, it's really only because I'm the most frank.
I only argued before because, generally, I think the person closest to the problem player should be the one to ask them to leave because they would know best how to let them down easy.
Look, if we have anything new to say about this absurdly common situation, trust me there will be a sticky about it and within 5 posts it will devolve into a thread talking about 4th edition and World of Warcraft ruining D&D.
Kill the player.
Take his stuff.
I suggest the classic D&D solution.
Kill the player.
Take his stuff.
..but make sure the whole group is involved and try to end up int he same gaol so you can still play
GM is usually "King" because they are the person who does most of the work and without whom the game would not exist. In most places the players are not particularly keen to take over GMing.
Any D&D is better than no D&D :P [make it good]
Other people can be "King":
- the host: "it's my house I'll invite who I like"
- the 'natural leader': sometimes someone is just naturally more socially adept and can take a lead.. in fact anyone who takes a lead in trying to solve these issues is likely to be successful.
My experience is that in most situations like this outside D&D what people actually do is
- try to avoid direct contact with the person in question (often arranging meetings in secret)
- talk about them 'behind their backs'.
- put up with them
Firstly make sure the person in question understands that you object to their behaviour and why.
Give them a chance to stop and help them do so if they make a genuine effort (changing your habitual behaviour is not easy).
Boot them if you run out of patience.
IT IS PERSONAL
Don't deny that it is personal -"it's nothing personal" is one of the most stupid and aggravating phrases. It is personal but it is not necessarily a fault in the other person that you are incompatible.