Difficult Player Type

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I fear that I cannot even do this, and suspect that failure here is what starts the collapse. How do you deal with the first two?

I give them free reign for a while and just adapt the game to suit. But they suffer in-game consequences for stupid/illegal actions. The problem is that this won't work in your case because of point 4.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by ladyarcana55

What do you do about the players who play over the top characters to the extent that they will impede and cause drama in game because it's what their character would do and screw everyone who doesn't like it?

I try to identify them in the pre-game phase and negotiate a mutually-satisfactory agreement as to how the campaign is going to be played: and if no agreement can be reached they choose to leave. That is, I vet character concepts for fit with other players and their characters before generation, and then vet character designs, and I do not allow anyone to generate a character who is going to spoil my fun or that of the other players, or if they insist on it I don't let them enter the game.

If a player agrees to play a suitable character, and generates a suitable character, and then plays a problematic character I fire the lying sadistic welshing bum.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Is it not possible though that I'm a boring stick-in-the-mud and I turn perfectly good players into these kind of problem players, by not allowing them a constructive outlet for their preferred play style? I've seen this quite a few times in the last 20-some years, surely the common factor is myself. Do other people have this problem?

That's not you, that's a maturity issue with the players, they have to be finessed, but sometimes they're not worth it, depending on your patience.

It's not an age thing per se either, I've known immature 40+ and 50+ year old gamers who fall into that category.

There isn't any catch-all prescription for dealing with this type of immaturity, besides canning the player, since they'll respond differently to any given situation, and someone who you've been able to co-opt into playing a good role in one game can be a waste in another game.

That being said, and with the caveat that immaturity differs like snowflakes, in trying to co-opt one of these players the best method I've seen is to explicitly define what their characters would and would not do in advance, building up the characterization of their personality and putting it in writing.

So you have them agree, and write down, that the character isn't a twit who'll do idiotic things.
If it's an especially immature player though, you may need to require that they take "Common Sense" and listen to it.

And of course, the easy answer, if you don't have the patience to deal with their in game twittiness, just can them.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by ladyarcana55

I was a player in this particular game (thank GOD I would have gone nuts if i were the GM!)

The GM in this game let people play unusual characters. A half elf/half demon, a Drow, a sentient Golem. I had to fight to play my boring elven thief.

This particular player was playing a weretiger. He had a strength of 30 (this was D&D) and I was 8 levels above him and even if I rolled a critical and maxed my damage, he would still be standing, and this with all of my pluses and magic. So he was able to do whatever he wanted because even if we all banded together, we couldn't stop him.

The GM in this game is his best friend so he gets away with so much, it's ridiculous. My character would have left the group but then the GM makes it so that my character is vital to the success of the mission so now my character is trapped. When we try to bring it up to the GM

"It's only in your head, that's not what's actually happening."

Do I need to tell you how frustrating this is?

The problem isn't that player, it's the GM. He enables and encourages this guy to be an idiot running amok. For all I (or you) know, in a campaign with a no BS GM running games he might even be a tolerable player.

New group or encourage someone else there (that includes you) to try running a game.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by ladyarcana55

The GM in this game is his best friend so he gets away with so much, it's ridiculous. My character would have left the group but then the GM makes it so that my character is vital to the success of the mission so now my character is trapped. When we try to bring it up to the GM

"It's only in your head, that's not what's actually happening."

Do I need to tell you how frustrating this is?

By not taking action, you're basically telling the GM and the problem player that despite your verbal protestations that you're actually really enjoying what is happening and that you want to continue playing a masochistic target for their sadism.

That's a valid stand and no one is going to tell you to stop being a masochist if that's something you're truly enjoying.

However, if you actually aren't enjoying playing the masochistic role, stop playing at being a masochist.

[Crispythemighty]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

These players have the following traits:

• They like to do "wacky", outre', and implausible things in game.
• 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"
• They tend to instigate and escalate conflicts in game.
• 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.
• They tend to become progressively stranger as the campaign continues, as though they are deliberately establishing limits and then pushing them.

Advice appreciated.

I had a player like this once. Although he seemed to be balanced out by the creative power of the rest of the party and a strong word of caution from myself if he got too far away from "reality."

His characters had a tendency to get into more trouble than it was worth but I tried to keep the "whacky" trouble he spawned localized to him and some characters began to understand that he was going to get them in trouble and bolted (in game) at the first sign of his typical wackiness.

He only had to make a new character once out of the four games I run with him and he was pretty reasonable about the consequences of his actions. He didn't really "care" about the consequences but he never argued about it. He might be a mild version of what you've seen in the past.

My suggestions:

• Don't have more than one of these kinds of players at a time.
• Let the character have a wackiness outlet during the game but don't allow them to forgo consequences. This should keep people who want to play from getting weirder and weirder.
• Protect or lessen the punishment on other characters for the wacky players actions. Also give the other players a heads up in these situations.

With that said, if the player is just rapidly destroying plot, NPC, and other characters and does not respond (even by leveling out) to consequences than I'd ask (or tell) the player to leave. They don't want to play they just want an outlet to be destructive.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Crispythemighty

My suggestions:

• Don't have more than one of these kinds of players at a time.
• Let the character have a wackiness outlet during the game but don't allow them to forgo consequences. This should keep people who want to play from getting weirder and weirder.
• Protect or lessen the punishment on other characters for the wacky players actions. Also give the other players a heads up in these situations.

Seconded.

I assume we're all familiar with the Scooby-Doo RPG archetypes? http://home.comcast.net/~efbq/Scooby/ There CAN be room for some "loony" in a group, but the zaniness has to be kept inside boundaries. For example, in a classic Scooby-Doo episode, Scooby's gluttony and cowardice mostly had consequences for him and Shaggy, but didn't interfere much with the mainstream investigation (and occasionally assisted it by accident; a clever GM at work). Had Scooby's "player" decided he was simply going to have the dog run away and force the rest of the group to abandon their mission in order to track him down, things would have clearly gotten out of hand.

Morale of the story? Zaniness actually requires a MORE mature player to roleplay properly most of the time ... if your goal is to have fun and avoid frustration, anyway.

[zorg]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Is it not possible though that I'm a boring stick-in-the-mud and I turn perfectly good players into these kind of problem players, by not allowing them a constructive outlet for their preferred play style? I've seen this quite a few times in the last 20-some years, surely the common factor is myself.

Even if that were true - which I doubt, going from your online persona - it wouldn't really change anything, would it? The point is that you won't enjoy gaming with this sort of person. So don't.

Do other people have this problem?

Have you ever heard of the term "fishmalk"? Yes. This is a common problem.

Random anecdote: I was GMing a gritty, dark SpacePunk game. One of the players submitted - as his PC - a hairy, blue, talking bear with magical powers granted by invisible faeries.
We didn't get along.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by zorg

Random anecdote: I was GMing a gritty, dark SpacePunk game. One of the players submitted - as his PC - a hairy, blue, talking bear with magical powers granted by invisible faeries.
We didn't get along.

Random anecdote: I was GMing a gritty necro-Amber Caine inspired game when one of the players wanted to play an intelligent telepathic mouse.
My refusal killed that game, I never talked to that player again.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by zorg

Have you ever heard of the term "fishmalk"? Yes. This is a common problem.

Please, do expand upon this term.