Difficult Player Type

[Vagrant]

Maybe all for the best then, focus can be resumed on the game at hand ;) Wishing you all the best for a long and eventful campaign :D

[moldymaltquaffer]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It's been awhile since I read Robin's Laws and I don't currently have a copy, so I'm not entirely sure if he covers this. At any rate, I could use whatever advice that the hive mind can give. I have a huge problem with "Looney" or "Wacky" players.

This is a type that I've had problems with in the past (and can reasonably consider it a taxonomic category as I've played with half a dozen individuals of this type over my gaming career). It's recently become a concern of mine again as some friends of a player are perhaps interested in joining my game, and have been described as matching this type. I'd rather not simply ban them from playing, as my inability to handle an entire type of player seems a weakness on my part, not on theirs.

These players have the following traits: <snip>

Advice appreciated.

Now, I'll admit to guilt with respect to these. (Although certainly not to the fishmalk level.) So I'll try to provide a bit of perspective from the other side.

The starting point to me, is the assumption that someone who gets caught up in The Conspiracy, deliberately crawls down dark holes to face terrors, or spends months surrounded by the icy soul-sucking void is most likely not a well-adjusted individual. IMO, A telepathic mouse in a gritty space game is more likely to be a power-gamer looking for an abusive angle. It's the anarchist asteroid miner that'll take your game off the rails.

The second major point, is that an RPG is a cooperative story-telling exercize. The plot isn't solely up to the GM. He's much more of an arbiter than an entertainer of passively-watching players.

Now, if the player is mature, there's a hard-and-fast rule to playing an off-the-wall character. That is, not to deliberately spoil anyone else's fun. This includes the GM. I'll often set up personality conflicts with other players (e.g. "wine snob" vs "thinks only wussies drink wine" quirks), if the other player feeds on it and riffs with me, that's great! If they don't, it'll mostly fade into the background.
That said, it can be a tricky line to walk. There are some players who like to exercize their Power Fantasy by trying to control you (and your character). And that's simply not going to happen. That's them deliberately trying to spoil *your* fun. (GMs have a bit more latitude here, because the have all the resources in the world, and can direct me by supplying the appropriate bait in the direction they want me to go.)

Now, to the list.[*]They like to do "wacky", outre', and implausible things in game.
Like dressing up like a bat to scare criminals. Yes, it's out there. WAYYY out there. Completely frigging bonkers. But it tells you a lot about the character.
[*]They are adept at rationalizing their actions in-game, in a way that makes sense apparently to them, and therefore don't respond well to iron handed statements of "You simply wouldn't do that"
I give the GM a write-up at the beginning of the game explaining the character's motivations and how he sees the world in some detail. While I frequently throw things at the GM from deep in left field, they're always perfectly appropriate to the character. (Often to the point where the GM will marvel that he didn't see it coming.) And IMV, they add something interesting to the game. (Even if they do tend to derail or divert the focus for a bit.) If I don't supply the GM with several interesting story arcs during the campaign, I don't feel like I'm contributing. In that case, I might as well be playing Pong.
[*]They tend to instigate and escalate conflicts in game.
Plots are all about conflict. An interesting character isn't some poor shmuck who just has things *happen* to him, or always gets along with everybody (except for the people who are inexplictably trying to kill him.)
[*]They don't seem to generally fear narrative consequences for their actions, and will happily get the entire party killed or arrested rather than desist.
See above about ruining other people's fun. That said, all stories have endings, and not all of them are (or should be) "happily ever after". There are some things worth dying for, as well as tragic character flaws.
[*]They tend to become progressively stranger as the campaign continues, as though they are deliberately establishing limits and then pushing them.
There are three parts to this.
If the character isn't growing emotionaly due to his experiances (and in some cases, this means escalation of existant deviant tendancies) that's a bad thing.
If the character isn't pushing his limits to meet his motivation, that's a bad thing. He should be prompting greater and greater conflict in his quest for resolution. (Or you can drive the conflict internal by handing it to him as an anti-climax. e.g. Finding out that the man who killed your father is now a crippled beggar.)
The third is strictly trying to get a reaction (generally a laugh) from increasingly-jaded players. Boo the minature giant space hamster is hilarious. For a while. Then it just becomes annoying if you don't mix it up, or escalate the weirdness.

But the biggest thing is to talk to the player.
If the character doesn't fit the campaign, I can easily come up with another.
If an arc I introduce will sink the campaign, stop the game, pull me aside, and let's chat. I'm not unreasonable. (But if we completely ret-con it out of existance, I deserve a big ol' bone. And believe me, I'll be asking for it.)
If you want to run a linear, predetermained story, let me know ahead of time. I don't want to be involved any more than you want me involved. (The problem comes when I find myself in this type of game without warning, and the GM attempts to force me into fufilling his vision. I don't react well.)