How do you handle players glory hogging?

[Boge]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Sometimes it's even the opposite - that they compete to *not* be the one to do something: fight the big guy, go first into the dark pit etc. let that happen as well.

I wish we had more moments like these. Even characters without Impusive or Curious or Overconfidence tend to do this because they, the players KNOW they aren't in any serious harm. It's bad for business to kill off your players and the players know and abuse that. It hurts gameplay...but that's another topic.

For the record, everything I complain about here, I'm guilty of it too. It is just nice to hear some suggestions on how to correct it for all of us.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Boge

I wish we had more moments like these. Even characters without Impusive or Curious or Overconfidence tend to do this because they, the players KNOW they aren't in any serious harm. It's bad for business to kill off your players and the players know and abuse that. It hurts gameplay...but that's another topic.

Convince them that you're perfectly willing to kill the characters if they take excessive risks. Of course, at this stage, you might have to actually kill a character to do that. But it sounds as if they're putting themselves into lethal situations; just play them out straight, with no fudging dice rolls.

Of course, to be fair, you really should tell them that you're planning to boost lethality. Surprising them would be resented, I think.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Boge

Are the other players in the moment with them, roleplaying with them, or are they just blurting things out when they're not even included?

The player who stepped on the other player's line was one of the two best roleplayers I've ever had. He just couldn't resist the chance to roleplay, even when the other player had stepped into the spotlight. I hear they're still clashing in another GM's campaign now. . . .

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Boge

It's bad for business to kill off your players and the players know and abuse that.

Well, yeah, I don't kill Players either.

But Characters are fair game. Peter Del'Orto regular kills Characters and business in Felltower is booming.

I'm not as meat-grindery as Mr. Del'Orto, but I've killed my share of Characters and never felt a loss for it.

[Boge]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Convince them that you're perfectly willing to kill the characters if they take excessive risks. Of course, at this stage, you might have to actually kill a character to do that. But it sounds as if they're putting themselves into lethal situations; just play them out straight, with no fudging dice rolls.

Of course, to be fair, you really should tell them that you're planning to boost lethality. Surprising them would be resented, I think.

I'm one of the players, not the GM. I'm more just ranting about the vulnerability. That aspect of pen & paper RPGs is very important to me, but not to most others, so it's more something I have to tolerate.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Boge

I'm one of the players, not the GM. I'm more just ranting about the vulnerability. That aspect of pen & paper RPGs is very important to me, but not to most others, so it's more something I have to tolerate.

When my players had issues with things in my GMing, they told me privately that some aspect of it was making them not have fun. In extreme cases they offered to resign; in others they just let me know they were dissatisfied. How to address the problems was up to me. But have you told the GM that this is a problem for you?

[talonthehand]

Originally Posted by Boge

I'm one of the players, not the GM. I'm more just ranting about the vulnerability. That aspect of pen & paper RPGs is very important to me, but not to most others, so it's more something I have to tolerate.

As a player, I handle it through immediate escalation.

[Boge]

Originally Posted by whswhs

When my players had issues with things in my GMing, they told me privately that some aspect of it was making them not have fun. In extreme cases they offered to resign; in others they just let me know they were dissatisfied. How to address the problems was up to me. But have you told the GM that this is a problem for you?

Any time I bring it up and even have suggestions for a possible solution, most don't care, but one other seems to oppose me no matter what it is. The one opposing me is the GM's wife. So, I just tolerate the issues as best I can.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Boge

Any time I bring it up and even have suggestions for a possible solution, most don't care, but one other seems to oppose me no matter what it is. The one opposing me is the GM's wife. So, I just tolerate the issues as best I can.

What I did, the last time I had a problem that was seriously hindering my enjoyment of a campaign, was offer my resignation. The GM and the other players ended up agreeing to alter the focus of their sessions, but if they chose not to, I was perfectly prepared to go through with leaving; it wasn't a bluff.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by Boge

I couldn't think of a better term, but we all know it...

Your group walks into a room and there is a locked chest. All players want to open it or try lock picking it. All players want to rescue that princess. All players want to disarm that bomb. Granted, not all of them will be capable, but those that could, want to. How do you determine who gets to be the one to get the glory? First person to blurt out? Person with the highest skill, fastest speed? Should the players be running to it, racing each other?

How does your group handle this sort of thing?

On a player level, it rarely came up in recent years, due to an increasing tendency to game in smaller groups (3-4 people). If it's a big problem as a player, I'd recommend suggesting to the GM that he or she modify encounters so that there are multiple simultaneous problems that need solving based on the size of the player group. If there are three players who routinely like opening locks, having a number of locked chests (or whatever) or a complex trap with multiple components. If there are two player characters interested in romance, instead of a single princess, suggest the GM make them twins that need rescuing, etc.

I think it's the responsibility of a good GM to include enough rewards for each player, and if in a particular group the most coveted reward is a chance to shine by using certain skills the answer is probably to point that out to the GM and have them make the stage larger: rather than a sequence of individual singular problems that must be handled in sequence to reach an objective, suggest more complex encounters with more going on at once that can involve each player.

In the past, when I played with a bigger group of seven or so players, some players tended to have more dominant personalities and tried to hog a lot of the limelight. Where possible the GM generally tried to deal with this by strict "around the table" sequencing to give everyone a chance to do something, or in social situations, a chance to speak up. If there was some loot to be grabbed or a button to be pushed first or whatever, we'd just go to combat sequencing, but in most cases the problem didn't come up that much as long as the GM was on the ball and tried to make sure everyone was enjoying themselves.