|
Post by catcharlie on Nov 3, 2016 23:11:39 GMT
Far be it from me to assume I know what I'm doing. But I think he needs to change character type to be more involved mechanistically and rp-wise. Like another person said: They've got to find their style. And it almost sounds like some passive aggressive nonsense being perpetrated here. That's what I thought to but he was adamant he wanted to be a wizard because he thinks hack and slash characters are uninteresting and wants to play an intellectual type. He chose an illusion based wizard with the aim to control the battles via support and let other characters shine but his play style is totally different from the character type he's chosen. My brother is going to run a campaign for us soonish and we've talked him into playing a bard/rogue for that one. Hopefully branching out into another class will open his eyes but for now I don't think there's anything I can do in that regard :/ On one of the DM Block episodes they talked about doing a 'body swap' where each character gave their character sheet to the person next to them, maybe something like that could help him to try out a different class, also if it's possible to fit it in a flash back sequence or dream sequence where they each play different characters to what they've been playing? I don't know how easy it would be to fit it in to your current game, but it might work/help? Save
|
|
sneakyarrow
Commoner
Pathfinder is soooo much better than D&D.
Posts: 21
Favorite D&D Class: Sorcerer
Favorite D&D Race: Human
|
Post by sneakyarrow on Dec 15, 2016 10:11:36 GMT
When it comes to dealing with players who meta-game (for whatever reason), I have an idea or two that might help.
NOTE: This advice is to be used for players that you have already explained to that meta-gaming is a no-no and keep doing it.
My first bit of advice is, basically, lie to your players. That might seem like a crazy thing, but what I recommend is more nuanced than just blatant lying. When you design an encounter, you can lay a few false trails to make it seem like there is one threat when there really is another. For example, your PCs have never encountered a mimic and they are in a cave. "As you move through the cave, a rectangle appears in the shadows. Moving closer, you see a chest in the middle of the cave walkway." Of course the meta-gaming player will probably think it is a mimic or something and come up with some in-game reason as to why their PC wants to shoot it with a bow. All the while they are focusing on this chest, and a choker is choking the wizard that was hanging out in the rear of the party (I may or may not be evil). You can do this multiple ways. Of course, don't constantly do this, as you will just end up pissing off the rest of the party. Just take your time and note how the meta-gamer meta-games and use it against them using the ol' bait and switch. Another problem you can have (and this is one I have to deal with a lot) is you say something as a DM and the player reacts to that as a PC. For a real life example, I decided to randomly laugh in a really weird way (I'm not crazy) and the problem player was all like "What is that?" I am honest and say it was nothing. He immediately says "I want to roll for perception" (i.e. spot for you D&D peeps). He doesn't see anything, of course, but if I had wanted to be a butt, I could have been like "you see a seedy dude in an ally-way" and have him be some random drug seller. In other words, lay a lot of red harings that lead to bad things when they meta-game.
Again, this is only to be used on the players that meta-game in excess, after they have been warned not to. If you have other ways to be a horrible person, I would love to know.
|
|
dmcabbage
Commoner
Posts: 7
Favorite D&D Class: Monk
Favorite D&D Race: Goliath
|
Post by dmcabbage on Mar 25, 2017 16:59:05 GMT
UPDATE:
That player has been at it again. It has kind of crept in slowly in both campaigns we play together, but it's now getting out of hand. In my friend's game, he dragged a sneak/chase/jailbreak skill challenge sequence to a halt. My friend the DM set up the skill challenge in such a way as to allow some freedom for the players in building the scenario (for example, one player said 'I draw my short sword and ready a swing in case any baddies jump out in front of the escaping prisoners' He rolled well and that's just what happened: he slashed through a small group of evil monks while the prisoners escaped.) For half an hour this player was fighting the DM with his idea "There are no other obstacles between us and the exit we are trying to get to, so we win". While this was going on, after the half hour point, I texted the DM to tell him to give him a specific obstacle to overcome, which he did and we moved forward. He held up combat right after that for another 25 minutes or so because he was trying to strategize to an unreasonable extent (we humor him as a strategist, but there are times when the party is in reaction mode and 15 minutes or more of strategy bores the rest of us). Also in this campaign this character is a wizard with an owl familiar. He treats the familiar like a scout, which is cool, except another player specifically made a scouting character so he basically does nothing outside of combat now. He has knock, which is cool, except that's another thing he imposes so that the rogue doesn't get to use his thieve's tools. He has fog and grease, which is fun, except a third character is a ranger who relies on a bow, and she is useless in combat when he does that. We've all brought these things about his character up to him but he hasn't changed his play. In this case he wants to be THE protagonist. It's his story, rather than ours.
This is getting long.
In my campaign, he is doing much the same thing, except his character is incapable of encroaching on others' abilities and skills because he's a dwarf fighter, but regardless he's back to 'winning is the goal'. He's developed a habit of wanting to take several steps back in turn order during combat, or several minutes of action in a social encounter to do something different based on what has happened since. I've humored him when it doesn't matter, and when it doesn't change anything, he gets frustrated. I regret humoring him at all now, but what is done is done, and I think it's set a precedent for him that he thinks he can do it. After the baddies escaped the encounter, and it was back to social encounter for a few minutes, he wanted to go back and do something different to try to kill one baddie while it was escaping. I kyboshed it and he got frustrated. After the game he texted me and asked if I would reconsider that final retcon, because I let others fix mistakes and change things (which I didn't) and he was surprised I didn't let that one slide. I told him no, and if he feels I'm not being fair to talk with the rest of the group and bring it up to see if they're all feeling the same. A few minutes after that, a player, who DMs the other group, started texting me about the problem player, saying it's getting really old.
Us two DMs are going to set up a little intervention for the problem player. I've laid out a game plan of sorts with specific issues the players and DMs are having and how they are hampering all our fun, and am preparing discussion points for us all to fix the situation. This morning I've been thinking about it though, and I wonder if it's worth the effort. This seems to be hard-wired into his personality, and during the debates and arguments, we (the DMs) remind him of these things...and I've spoken to him several times about these issues.
He's pretty socially close to two of us in the group. If he can't adapt for the sake of everyone's fun, I'd rather just have him cast out to save us the future trouble, but that could really impact social circles too.
LOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG post. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Mar 26, 2017 3:33:25 GMT
It is tough to be too committed to an answer as someone on the outside looking in, but the fact that it is at two different tables, and people from both sides of the screen are bringing it up to the problem player with no lasting results isn't good. If you do choose to remove this person from the group I would just double check with the rest of the group that they would support that decision. Having left over resentment from a player that wasn't talked to, who happened to feel it was the wrong decision wouldn't be good, nor would you want the problem player removed only to have the group dissolve.
I do not envy you, but from what I can see you have approached the situation well, and given ample opportunity for them to change their play. The interest of the group is always going to trump the interests of a single person.
|
|
|
Post by dmgenisisect on Mar 26, 2017 12:51:09 GMT
It really does seem like letting him go is your best option. I would word it as something along the lines of "your play style doesn't match up well with this group, try finding a new one with a similar style to yours."
Then again I'm famously cold in interactions with people, so maybe I shouldn't be giving out advice...
|
|
dmcabbage
Commoner
Posts: 7
Favorite D&D Class: Monk
Favorite D&D Race: Goliath
|
Post by dmcabbage on Mar 26, 2017 22:25:29 GMT
The other DM and I are having a sit-down discussion, so to speak, about the issues. He seems very contrite and frankly embarrassed that it's so bad as to cause both of us to talk to him formally. It's starting out very promising. But you both still may be right. Considering the short history, it might not be a change. So at the close of this conversation I might put in the possibility that if things don't improve that it's just an issue between different playing styles, and another group would make a better fit. The challenge is making it as amicable as possible.
|
|