TheRPGSite

There is this player in the group. He has a character with an exotic background. One that seems to justify extensive knowledge of the world setting. One who tries to push the group rapidly toward the eventual epic goals of the party.

This is a fantasy campaign with some scifi elements.

The problem I am facing is: The presence of that player and his character are disruptive of the idea: That the characters are new. Just starting. And have a pretty limited knowledge of the setting. And this player and his character always seems to have a way to shortcut the group's way around things because of that extensive setting knowledge.

I've had occasions where: The player would scoff and generally blow off any plans that the other characters would make to handle more immediate concerns. Always pushing the importance of the epic goal above all else. But never paying attention to the details of how the group actually gets there.

I don't want to place the importance of my experience on beating the campaign. I want to enjoy the ride along the way as I play. I just want to play my character, by its point of view. And if we make it to the epic finale along the way. Well that's just fine by me.

But I don't want to cheat my way to that eventual conclusion. I want to earn that conclusion through my characters own actions and decisions. Come what may.

If it sounds like I am frustrated. Well I am.

Sounds like the ref made a big mistake in allowing that PC to have that background. Sounds like you need to put thr genie back in the bottle.  

Have his PC get conked on the head and wake up an amnesiac with no setting knowledge...:p

The character itself is overpowered. Has access to powerful things that generally blow the capabilities of the other characters away.

It makes the rest of the characters seem to be the sidekicks or just minions of that one. And that just adds to the frustration of the situation. The characters definitely do not feel like genuine peers of each other.

I find myself in the campaign at times asking myself: Does my character really have a role here?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;999294The character itself is overpowered. Has access to powerful things that generally blow the capabilities of the other characters away.

It makes the rest of the characters seem to be the sidekicks or just minions of that one. And that just adds to the frustration of the situation. The characters definitely do not feel like genuine peers of each other.

I find myself in the campaign at times asking myself: Does my character really have a role here?

Is his boyfriend the GM or something? How did this even happen?

Quote from: Dumarest;999296Is his boyfriend the GM or something? How did this even happen?

Long time player with years of history. Playing an immediate child of past characters. Which he seems to use as justifacation for all of that extra knowledge and access to stuff.

Are you they player or DM?  

If you are a player you can advocate short term goals in character.  Basicly like Mal or Han Solo.  "Wars long done, we're just hear to do a job."

As a DM.  Either in character or out of charcter tell him he needs to focus on the hear and now, and remind him that the other players have other goals.  

Actully this is a perfect place for Yoda.  "Always to the future he looks, never his mind on, where he was, what he was doing."

Quote from: Headless;999298Are you they player or DM?  

If you are a player you can advocate short term goals in character.  Basicly like Mal or Han Solo.  "Wars long done, we're just hear to do a job."

As a DM.  Either in character or out of charcter tell him he needs to focus on the hear and now, and remind him that the other players have other goals.  

Actully this is a perfect place for Yoda.  "Always to the future he looks, never his mind on, where he was, what he was doing."

I'm a player. I entered the campaign just to be a player.

That problem player is a friend of the GM. But not the GM themselves.

Yes, I have been the most vocal advocate for short-term goals. In fact. My character is always the one character who sticks to the plans that the group makes. Without deviation. And is seen as the most reliable character in the group.

Hmmm, hmmmmm,

Have you spoken out of charcters to the player?  "Look man I know we're destined to save the universe but my charcter doesn't and I enjoy role playing that he doesn't know and doesn't care about this unvierse saving buisness.  Please quit being so pushy."

If that doesn't work.  You may have to adjust your expectations. Possibly even accept your role as second fiddle.  How long a game is this?  For a month or too you could just say "ok this is Luke's show, I'll be C3P0 for a while." But more than a coupple months that won't fly.  

I mention this not because I think you are the problem (but honestly you could be) but becuase you have some control of how you play your character, and none over anything else.

Quote from: Headless;999300Hmmm, hmmmmm,

Have you spoken out of charcters to the player?  "Look man I know we're destined to save the universe but my charcter doesn't and I enjoy role playing that he doesn't know and doesn't care about this unvierse saving buisness.  Please quit being so pushy."

If that doesn't work.  You may have to adjust your expectations. Possibly even accept your role as second fiddle.  How long a game is this?  For a month or too you could just say "ok this is Luke's show, I'll be C3P0 for a while." But more than a coupple months that won't fly.  

I mention this not because I think you are the problem (but honestly you could be) but becuase you have some control of how you play your character, and none over anything else.

The campaign started a few months ago. It's ongoing. The GM didn't give us any indication that he had a set time or date when it would end. He indicated this would be a long term kind of thing. As the characters would have to build up in power to even be able to handle the badguys at the end of the campaign.

But that in the meantime. Anytime one of those badguys entered into the picture, we are supposed to cut and run as fast as we can. So the group can live long enough to become strong enough for that eventual final showdown. A good part of that campaign is dedicated to running away. Which I have no issues with.

Quote from: Headless;999300Hmmm, hmmmmm,

Have you spoken out of charcters to the player?  "Look man I know we're destined to save the universe but my charcter doesn't and I enjoy role playing that he doesn't know and doesn't care about this unvierse saving buisness.  Please quit being so pushy.".

I have to agree, I probably would be a little more diplomatic, but the general idea is to talk to the guy and ask him to chill a little, let the smaller missions germinate and blossom a bit.  Let him know you're down with the epic quest, but just want the journey to add to it. Then he has a choice-- consider your feelings and adjust his behavior or he can refuse. Then you have the choice, stick around as the second banana or bail.  Two legs and a free will . . . .

Could you convince Luke that he's ready for a show down with Vader next time he shows up?  :o

Take a page from DW's move list: turn the player's expertise against them. Maybe the character knows too much about the wrong thing.

I can certainly see how that might not be fun for you Darrin. It's possible that the other player is unaware of the effect he is having on your fun. It's quite possible that the GM is unaware how much this bugs you.

Are there other players who are also annoyed by this? Or is it fine with everyone except you?

To talk about it, you say what you said here:

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;999294The character ... [h]as access to powerful things that generally blow the capabilities of the other characters away. It makes the rest of the characters seem to be the sidekicks or just minions...I find myself in the campaign at times asking myself: Does my character really have a role here?

Then add on the obvious "And this isn't fun for me." Then you put forth some suggestions on what you'd like the other player to do (and maybe what the GM should do) to make this be a more enjoyable gaming experience for you too. Then they either make some accommodations or you decide that no gaming is better than bad gaming.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;999285There is this player in the group. He has a character with an exotic background. One that seems to justify extensive knowledge of the world setting. One who tries to push the group rapidly toward the eventual epic goals of the party.

This is a fantasy campaign with some scifi elements.

The problem I am facing is: The presence of that player and his character are disruptive of the idea: That the characters are new. Just starting. And have a pretty limited knowledge of the setting. And this player and his character always seems to have a way to shortcut the group's way around things because of that extensive setting knowledge.

I've had occasions where: The player would scoff and generally blow off any plans that the other characters would make to handle more immediate concerns. Always pushing the importance of the epic goal above all else. But never paying attention to the details of how the group actually gets there.

I don't want to place the importance of my experience on beating the campaign. I want to enjoy the ride along the way as I play. I just want to play my character, by its point of view. And if we make it to the epic finale along the way. Well that's just fine by me.

But I don't want to cheat my way to that eventual conclusion. I want to earn that conclusion through my characters own actions and decisions. Come what may.

If it sounds like I am frustrated. Well I am.

As a DM I can tell you what my players would do. They would ensure that the offending player understood that his current goals and those of the rest of the party do not mesh. They want to discover things on their own and don't want any shortcuts. He should stop with the inside knowledge stuff, and what not.  If he then persists with his foolishnesses his character would meet an untimely death.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;999312He should stop with the inside knowledge stuff, and what not.  If he then persists with his foolishnesses his character would meet an untimely death.

In this case, wouldn't that be a timely death? :D

Sounds like you have already worked your way well down the list of actions you can take.  All thats left is to tell him how his fun is spoiling your fun.  Thats not a fun conversation.  But you should probably have it.  

I wouldn't go to the DM about it.  He's got enough to do already.  The DMG isn't actully a 4 year degree in counselling (or early childhood education for Gormon's table, Ohhh sich burn bro!)

Try talking to The other players.  But be careful not to advocate your position.  You don't want to raise a posse, just find out if they are feeling the same frustration.  

Then about a couple weeks after you have a direct conversation you need to decide how bad 'bad gaming' has gotten.  Csn you live with it? Is it still fun?

Yeah, sounds like it's time for that most dreaded moment, "Having an adult conversation."

You can try having that conversation, I doubt it will do anything.

I've seen this setup a dozen times, the GM's best friend knows everything about the setting, he knows the best ways to tweak the system, he knows exactly what the GM allows and doesn't so his characters are always min-maxed to perfection outstripping the other players, etc.  That player has been playing with the GM for so long the GM doesn't even see it, really.

Talking to the GM alone ain't gonna do anything.  Get every other player except The Chosen One to talk to the GM - maybe you'll get somewhere.  You absolutely do want to raise a posse.  One person's opinion isn't going to do anything to budge the GM, The Golden Child in his mind is his Most Valuable Player.

Trying isn't going to hurt anything, but if you want to save time, just vote with your feet, and get some other players to walk with you, you're not the only one who's feeling that way, I assure you.

yeah... I'm at a loss myself. I tend to GM more than I play, and I'm pretty zen about what the other players do when I AM a player, but as a GM I've occasionally caught myself letting a friend take advantage of our friendship like this, usually well after the fact. Its never wrecked a group for me, but I'm sure its cost me players from time to time.  

Luckily in my last group my best (most reliable, bestest buddy.. whatever) players were also completely hapless and unlucky, so even if they'd taken advantage of our friendship it wouldn't have amounted to much simply because these players could kill their characters with a bad fumble reading a book... death by paper cut.  

But that doesn't leave me any advice from teh player side.  Maybe just a well timed 'What the Hell, man?!' outburst right after a stupid PC trick might help call attention to the issue... though Adult Conversation might be more mature.

Quote from: CRKrueger;999381......

Talking to the GM alone ain't gonna do anything.  Get every other player except The Chosen One to talk to the GM - maybe you'll get somewhere.  You absolutely do want to raise a posse.  One person's opinion isn't going to do anything to budge the GM, The Golden Child in his mind is his Most Valuable Player.

Trying isn't going to hurt anything, but if you want to save time, just vote with your feet, and get some other players to walk with you, you're not the only one who's feeling that way, I assure you.

I don't want to have that kind of power struggle over pretending to be an elf.  And I think raising a posse to lobby the DM about his best buds behavior is going to blow up the game and make a lot of people have a bad time.  I could be wrong.  Have you ever seen it work?  

As for walking?  Remember its an option.  But keep playing it you want to.  I find any time I'm in a bad stituation, no matter what it is, reminding my self that its my choice to be there really helps me deal with being there.  Just reminding myself that I could leave reduces stress enough that I don't have to.

As for trying, it might hurt something.  Lets be honest.  Depends on how adult everyone is able to stay during the Adult Conversation (tm).  But I still think its you next, best option.  

Are these good friends of yours?  Whats the down side of bailing?

Quote from: Headless;999393Have you ever seen it work?

I have, which is why I'm saying take everybody.

Look at it from the GM's side and give him the benefit of the doubt.
On one side, you have a good friend, a (in your mind) good player, who knows your game and campaign inside and out, is heavily into it, and loves it.
On the other side, you have some other guy bitching about this guy having knowledge he's obviously earned.

That's a really easy decision, isn't it?

When the rest of the table comes to you and says something like..."Hey man, we know Fred is a long-time player, and this seems like a really cool campaign, but as a player he has so much knowledge and experience, and this character he's currently playing has so much knowledge, it's really interfering with our enjoyment of the campaign.  We'd like to learn all the stuff he's always talking about, the same way he did...in play, from you...not from another character's exposition."...you listen, unless you're an asshole and not worth talking to to begin with.

Quote from: Headless;999393Are these good friends of yours?  Whats the down side of bailing?

They are reasonably good friends of mine. And my goal in playing this was to get out of the apartment and be social. And it's worked for the most part.

I do have fun at these games. But there have been a couple of speed bumps. This included.

Jesus, I said "have an adult conversation," not "form a fucking lynch mob."

"He knows so much about everything that we feel useless and it's not really fun for us" is neither rude nor angry, but a statement of perceptions.  If a bunch of people older than 16 can't work that out, fuck 'em all.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999415Jesus, I said "have an adult conversation," not "form a fucking lynch mob."

"He knows so much about everything that we feel useless and it's not really fun for us" is neither rude nor angry, but a statement of perceptions.  If a bunch of people older than 16 can't work that out, fuck 'em all.

I try to confine the posses and lynch mobs to Boot Hill , personally.

It's only a game.

Maybe you can start another campaign with the other disaffected players if  the ref doesn't hear what you're saying after the adult conversation.

Quote from: Bren;999313In this case, wouldn't that be a timely death? :D

Touché. :p:p

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;999397They are reasonably good friends of mine. And my goal in playing this was to get out of the apartment and be social. And it's worked for the most part.

I do have fun at these games. But there have been a couple of speed bumps. This included.

In that case its time to have a direct conversation about what you are looking for in the game.  Either with the player or the DM or both.  I am still leary about Crugrer's plan to get the other playets on side first but he says he's seen it work so....

After the conversation just decide weather the fun is worth the agrivation.  

Good luck.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999415Jesus, I said "have an adult conversation," not "form a fucking lynch mob."

And this is the problem with crusty old guys. They never let anyone younger than them have any fun. I bet you formed plenty of lynch mobs in your game groups when you were young, but when WE want to do it?  Wha wah... its BAAAADDDDD...

It's curious, but I've far more often had situations where I had players wanting to play characters totally irrelevant to the campaign than ones where they want to play characters absolutely central to it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999939It's curious, but I've far more often had situations where I had players wanting to play characters totally irrelevant to the campaign than ones where they want to play characters absolutely central to it.

Really?  Maybe I'm a weirdo, but the few times I've roleplayed, I made sure my character fit in with what the GM wanted as far as campaign world / playstyle. Of course, it was usually the GM who didn't have either figured out, so...
I also like to give a reasonably short backstory that would have story hooks for the GM.  Especially if it's superheroes.  I don't care if the GM screws with my character as long as it's central to the story and in reasonably good taste.

What do you suppose is the way to fix this?  Maybe pre-gens- a set of basic skills / abilities, and a quick personality sketch to let the player build on it?  Don't let guys like this play?  Just play Toon??

Quote from: Spike;999492And this is the problem with crusty old guys. They never let anyone younger than them have any fun. I bet you formed plenty of lynch mobs in your game groups when you were young, but when WE want to do it?  Wha wah... its BAAAADDDDD...

Gronan is cantankerous, he's always been this way.  Tongue his pee-hole, that calms him down a bit*.













* So I've heard...

Quote from: Redforce;1000366What do you suppose is the way to fix this?  Maybe pre-gens- a set of basic skills / abilities, and a quick personality sketch to let the player build on it?  Don't let guys like this play?  Just play Toon??

Everyone generates characters together, in the same room, where this sort of bullshit can be challenged upfront.

Quote from: Kiero;1000371Everyone generates characters together, in the same room, where this sort of bullshit can be challenged upfront.

Of course.  Still might have trouble with Contrary Guy, though.

Quote from: Redforce;1000373Of course.  Still might have trouble with Contrary Guy, though.

Except he looks like an idiot in front of the whole group, at the same time. Instead of being able to have private conversations with the GM where he can wheedle his way into getting a better character than everyone else, and the first the group knows is when they turn up to play the first session.

Quote from: Kiero;1000387Except he looks like an idiot in front of the whole group, at the same time. Instead of being able to have private conversations with the GM where he can wheedle his way into getting a better character than everyone else, and the first the group knows is when they turn up to play the first session.

I don't think that would help much if he / she is the GM's buddy / boy-girlfriend, and the GM's going to use favoritism.
Still, it is what I would do if I were running a game.

Quote from: Redforce;1000373Of course.  Still might have trouble with Contrary Guy, though.

Yeah, but the 'everyone generate characters together' solution is a solution to the generalization of the problem, not the OP's specific situation, anyways. OP doesn't have the authority to make people roll up new characters.

Honestly, cantankerous or otherwise, Gronan's (and Ted's and Headless's) advice is still the right course. Talk to people. Say roughly, "____'s character, by nature of being a child of a past character, and by being played by the player most well versed in the universe, is dominant and making me and my character feel like a sidekick. What can we do about this?"

Even if they don't agree to change anything in specific, voicing (maturely) that you're finding the experience dissatisfying might help people err on the side of making a place for your character (however that manifests).

I built my character based on what the group needed. I asked specifically so I could do my best to fit in and not be a disruption.

I constantly ask the GM and other players for suggestions and ideas that would make my character more fun to interact with. I'm on top of that because I don't want to be seen as a selfish player. I want everybody to have fun. And if there is an issue with my character: I would rather know of it up front. So I can do something about it.

So far. My character is a well liked member of the party. Regardless of having a Lawful Evil alignment. And I'm playing that to the hilt.

The biggest thing asked for by the players and GM in a new character was: That it be a Necromancer. Even in preference to a Cleric.

In the homebrew game system we are using for this game. Necromancers and Clerics share a great number of common abilities. In general: A Necromancer is considered to be able to do nearly everything a Cleric can. Except for the divine interaction parts. They can even reverse their spells that do harm into healing spells. Makes them very versatile and very valuable.

My character is a half demon. But she is honorable. Her word is her bond. And she let the group know that: Her goals align with the group. And if that should ever change. She would simply leave. She's not there to make any more enemies than everyone already has.

She needs to help save the world so that her own ambitions can bear fruit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;999939It's curious, but I've far more often had situations where I had players wanting to play characters totally irrelevant to the campaign than ones where they want to play characters absolutely central to it.

I say, this has been my experience as well, in fact sometimes I have to try to explain to a player why her PC won't have much to do if she continues the row she's hoeing and try to get her to create a PC concept that will suit the game.

Quote from: Redforce;1000364Really?  Maybe I'm a weirdo, but the few times I've roleplayed, I made sure my character fit in with what the GM wanted as far as campaign world / playstyle. Of course, it was usually the GM who didn't have either figured out, so...
I also like to give a reasonably short backstory that would have story hooks for the GM.  Especially if it's superheroes.  I don't care if the GM screws with my character as long as it's central to the story and in reasonably good taste.

Can I get you to join my next campaign?

Quote from: Redforce;1000366What do you suppose is the way to fix this?  Maybe pre-gens- a set of basic skills / abilities, and a quick personality sketch to let the player build on it?  Don't let guys like this play?  Just play Toon??

I'm trying to get a Toon game going, actually...although I'd like to play Ghostbusters as well, since Halloween is just a couple of weeks away.

Quote from: Dumarest;1000560Can I get you to join my next campaign?

If it's play by post, I'll consider it.

Quote from: Redforce;1000569If it's play by post, I'll consider it.

Maybe! Mexican Ghostbusters versus the Aztec Mummy?

Quote from: Dumarest;1000576Maybe! Mexican Ghostbusters versus the Aztec Mummy?

Can I be a Luchador Ghostbuster?

Quote from: Redforce;1000577Can I be a Luchador Ghostbuster?

Well, crap.  That was stupid considering the thread this is in...

Quote from: Redforce;1000577Can I be a Luchador Ghostbuster?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1772[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1773[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Dumarest;1000579[ATTACH=CONFIG]1772[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1773[/ATTACH]

Do Ghost Traps work on mummies??

Quote from: Redforce;1000581Do Ghost Traps work on mummies??

There is but one way to find out unless you do your research first.

I'm digging this up again because of a new development in the campaign.

The Golden Child player? He quit because his character was no longer the center of attention. No longer the star of the show.

Nobody lynched him. Nobody did anything to prompt this. It just happened. The GM was stunned by it. I was stunned by it. It came out of nowhere.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1068003I'm digging this up again because of a new development in the campaign.

The Golden Child player? He quit because his character was no longer the center of attention. No longer the star of the show.

Nobody lynched him. Nobody did anything to prompt this. It just happened. The GM was stunned by it. I was stunned by it. It came out of nowhere.

I empathize, but I am honestly not surprised. :) Often "derived from past PC heroes" PCs tend to draw from attention-whore players. Throw in scheduled world-saving end-game carrot GM-tease and I am stunned it only took a year for his inner diva to come out. I would have expected a long running act at Vegas by at least the second month, which sounds like it was close to truth for this topic's genesis. He was promised his glorioso closing act, he will expect his glorioso closing act. ;)

Never bait and switch your players. "Same page" them ASAP, emphasis on underpromise and overdeliver. Anything else will lead to tears. Follow this way and you might lead to no tears, but there are no promises... tears are common in RPGs lately. :D

Darrin I'm not surprised I played with someone who acted similar. I refused to allow him in my campaigns as I found him too disruptive and not worth the headache. Another DM who was willing to put up with him loved putting him in his place when he wanted to be the center of attention.

We were playing Torg in the Orrosh setting. Investigating a grave yard for clues on how to defeat a creature. When the player announces he is bored and starts turning over headstones. Myself and the other players looked at each shocked and we had our characters leave like bats out of hell. The player stopped when the DM pointed out "I just wanted to tell you again your in a graveyard...an Orroohan graveyard" suffice to say he put a good fight. Yet was ripped apart by the angry denizens of the graveyard.

No great loss. If he cannot play be the centre of attention and still be part of a gaming group the group as a whole is better for it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1068030I empathize, but I am honestly not surprised. :) Often "derived from past PC heroes" PCs tend to draw from attention-whore players. Throw in scheduled world-saving end-game carrot GM-tease and I am stunned it only took a year for his inner diva to come out. I would have expected a long running act at Vegas by at least the second month, which sounds like it was close to truth for this topic's genesis. He was promised his glorioso closing act, he will expect his glorioso closing act. ;)

But that's the thing. We haven't gotten to the closing act yet. We have gotten to the point where the characters are no longer the pursued. Where the characters scored their first most significant victory against the badguys. The campaign is still going to continue.

It seems like he just ran out of patience. While trying to rush everybody to the endgame.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1068051It seems like he just ran out of patience. While trying to rush everybody to the endgame.

I've seen this happen more than once to GMs trying to run a Pathfinder AP.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1068052I've seen this happen more than once to GMs trying to run a Pathfinder AP.

But in my case. it was a player exerting the pressure. Not the GM.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1068053But in my case. it was a player exerting the pressure. Not the GM.

Not everyone wants the same pacing. If he'd stayed, he might not have had fun. Does his departure prevent the others from having fun?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1068062Not everyone wants the same pacing. If he'd stayed, he might not have had fun. Does his departure prevent the others from having fun?

No. His character is being NPC'd. Since many of the group's assets are dependant on it.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1068051But that's the thing. We haven't gotten to the closing act yet. We have gotten to the point where the characters are no longer the pursued. Where the characters scored their first most significant victory against the badguys. The campaign is still going to continue.

It seems like he just ran out of patience. While trying to rush everybody to the endgame.

Yeah, of course he ran out of patience. It was not ALL about him, emphasis on "all." :D Any mise en scene chase is wasting his glory time because it is a shared experience. He needs to show you his pokemanz, er, power fantasy first and last and always.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1068063No. His character is being NPC'd. Since many of the group's assets are dependant on it.

Hah! :p And he was set up as a foundational group patron? Mercy me, I am surprised your PCs were not tied down as a captive audience to his Mary Sue/Marty Stu 'Pageant of Success'! :) Yeah, glaring warning signs; your table is all the better for this loss.

That said, I expect a rematch in a year or so when you guys get closer to his "ending cut scene." :D (Psst, never get there! Fail hard if you have to, suffer death or "level drain" if you must. :) It avoids the drama entirely. The GM is good buddies with him, I presume, so this will return.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1068109Yeah, of course he ran out of patience. It was not ALL about him, emphasis on "all." :D Any mise en scene chase is wasting his glory time because it is a shared experience. He needs to show you his pokemanz, er, power fantasy first and last and always.

Yes. And I got tired of that early on. So much that I was seriously thinking of hanging it up completely. When it comes to face to face game groups.

QuoteHah! :p And he was set up as a foundational group patron? Mercy me, I am surprised your PCs were not tied down as a captive audience to his Mary Sue/Marty Stu 'Pageant of Success'! :) Yeah, glaring warning signs; your table is all the better for this loss.

Oh it was a lot worse than that. The other characters have been played as puppets by that character since the campaign started. Lied to and manipulated into this quest. A quest that was entirely based on the infighting of two factions of that character's family. Who happened to be a past PC group.

QuoteThat said, I expect a rematch in a year or so when you guys get closer to his "ending cut scene." :D (Psst, never get there! Fail hard if you have to, suffer death or "level drain" if you must. :) It avoids the drama entirely. The GM is good buddies with him, I presume, so this will return.)

One of the things that I'm afraid of? That the player will come back, swoop in, and try to steal the victory/glory from the rest of the group after we do all of the actual work getting there. That would suck unbelievably.

Even worse patronage, you say? Machiavellian puppeteering of PCs to NPCs,  you say? :D Yeah, go so far tangential and actively do nothing towards his "win condition" that he has no reason to return. Fail a few quests and run away as necessary.

I sense the GM is so thoroughly cowed that he/she may have conceded more behind the scenes instead of run the campaign as a neutral arbitrating adult. Yeah it's me metagaming personalities, but I don't think an adult table talk will accomplish anything here if it started this egregious. Have fun, pick a few of the better players for a future home game, and use this freetime to have a fun interview process.

This will come up again and it will all be "plans within plans" illusionism that got the Marty Stu his glory anyway. Have a fun side-game experience in the meanwhile. :)

well it's almost a year later. And two of the players gave the group the brush off. The special snowflake player who made the game all about him. And his ride. Who is actually having real family medical issues preventing his attendance.

The GM got sick of the waiting and the excuses. And invited me and another player to continue the campaign. We are the second session in. Of game that was delayed almost 3/4the of a year. Waiting on that one player.

And since he was the ride of Mr. Special Snowflake. Well they are both gone.

The players with the group are getting along. Teamwork is pretty much absolute. Since the characters are very well established as a team. And the game is going well. We have a new session next week. That's going to be three weeks in a row of really good solid gaming. The group is absolutely jamming along. With no troubles in sight.

I think the GM has finally had it with Mr. Special Snowflake. Nobody wants him invited back. And it's good riddence in my opinion.

At this point, we are set to make up the missing months worth of sessions before Halloween. We are playing every week. Instead of merely, maybe, once a month. And the GM is focused on making up for lost time. So we are good.

Between the last two sessions. We have been working on utterly shedding ourselves the resources Mr. Special Snowflake manipulated us into being dependant on. Our characters are finding their own way and creating their own resources to fall back on.

So when Mr. Special Snowflake eventually tries to come back. The rest of us will tell him to piss off.

So I guess this is a happy ending to this story.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;999294The character itself is overpowered. Has access to powerful things that generally blow the capabilities of the other characters away.

It makes the rest of the characters seem to be the sidekicks or just minions of that one. And that just adds to the frustration of the situation. The characters definitely do not feel like genuine peers of each other.

I find myself in the campaign at times asking myself: Does my character really have a role here?

Ok. Totally agree. That is a problem.

Question then. Why is the character like that? How did they start off with so much? What system? Sounds like something youd see in Gurps with a player gaming the system?

Sounds like the player is grandstanding and the DM is allowing it?

One of the reasons I tend to play wizards and other smart types is I tend to DM alot and thus know a little about various monsters. But not all of them and I never look it up in the MM when playing. If the player is reffing the rulebooks or MM to game the system then one thing to do is disallow it.

Problem I see is if the DM is allowing something to get out of hand then it can sometimes be hard to get them to curb a player.

Best you can do is talk it out and failing that. Walk or tough it out. I have walked out on grandstanding before after trying to talk it out and failing. Annoying but such is how the dice fall sometimes.

The player who is the ride for Mr. Special Snowflake has a combination of legitimate and shady reasons for not being at the game. The legit reason? His mom has been hospitalized. And he is the sole care for her most of the time. That's legit and understandable. I went through a similar patch with my mom this year. So I more than understand that dimension of it.

However. About half the time he would blow off the group for LARP games. Which he puts at a higher priority. And which made his commitment to the game group shakey at the best of times. Which would often result in an outright cancellation of the game. Due to not having enough players.

But his latest excuse? He won't come to the game at all without Mr. Special Snowflake.

It was a hard decision. But the group has gone on without him.

Before all this happened. The GM had me and another player create extra characters. To fit roles in the party that frankly weren't being served. I ultimately agreed and made a second character.

My second character ended up having an interesting background. She ended up being the half-sister to one of the campaign's villains. Which opened up a whole lot of new vistas for the campaign.

The second session after the new characters were established. Mr. Special Snowflake showed back up in the group. Focused purely on nullifying the social position and role my new character had in the group. It was petty. It was shitty. And it definitely shredded much of the direction that the GM planned with that new character. But because I am stubborn. And because the group really needs that new character. I played on. Got the character established. And she has become a vital member of the PC group now. Because she can simply do things none of the other characters in the group can.

I'm saying all of this with the purpose of full disclosure. To show my personal biases with the situation.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1099110I'm saying all of this with the purpose of full disclosure. To show my personal biases with the situation.

I was gonna say man... There's a fine line between venting and obsessing. :)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1099113I was gonna say man... There's a fine line between venting and obsessing. :)

Needed to get all of this off my chest.

Oy vey. Yet again, the maxim is proven. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

I'm sympathetic Darrin because crapass gaming is substantially why I almost always GM and if necessary, I will control the table behavior. I've had great games with only 2 players so I'm happy to burn a table of 6 down to 2-3 if that's what maximizes our enjoyment.

I find it odd to be waiting for one player, especially for so long. We don't do that. The only time a session is missed is if the DM is absent... and even then often a player will offer a one-off.

The game must go on.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1099156I find it odd to be waiting for one player, especially for so long. We don't do that. The only time a session is missed is if the DM is absent... and even then often a player will offer a one-off.

The game must go on.

That's certainly my attitude - if I have 3+ players I will GM. I may GM for 2 players depending on the circumstances in-game and out. Tend to avoid solo games these days as they are less fun unless the player is great, I am totally comfy with them, and it's a high-roleplay campaign.

As well, because there's less discussion, shit-talking and dithering, 2 players tend to get more things done than 4-5 players, even if the absent players' characters are made into useless gimps in their absence. So then the 2 players report back to the absent ones on all the adventure, loot and XP had in that session, and the absent ones become more keen to show up next time.

Seems it is classic "dominant player" problem. That player is handling all of the adventure, you can just "roll" along (when needed). You can as well be NPC-s of the party.

I have experienced that and I didn't like it. I also couldn't handle it well. I made destructive decisions against this player's plans, then I got killed in the game since he chose to flee the battle. Proper dick move. I chose to quit after that.

I choose not to play RPGs with dominant players. (I would call this a GM fault, he should have given spotlight to other players more -- but it was very convenient for him to ignore that because the game was running so well between these two)

If the special snowflake insists on coming back, the GM should tell him his old character passed away, "But here's a pregen I prepared for you: Hodo the furry-footed burrower."

I am glad things are resolving for the best, Darrin! :) Go ahead and purge; best to cleanse the soul so you can enjoy the new growth with a lighter heart.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1099220I am glad things are resolving for the best, Darrin! :) Go ahead and purge; best to cleanse the soul so you can enjoy the new growth with a lighter heart.

The game has a real shot at being really good now. The characters are all working together. The players and GM get along well. It's all going good. And I'm looking forward to the next game session.

Prior to this. It was the good alignment characters who were involved in all of the backstabbing and betrayal.

I would personally enjoy a long Alignment conversation with this GM on how they define 'Good' for their setting. :) I love Alignment.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1099262I would personally enjoy a long Alignment conversation with this GM on how they define 'Good' for their setting. :) I love Alignment.

The GM is a science fantasy author. His view of Good characters is: That they tend to be very rigid and dogmatic. Even the Chaotic Good and Neutral Good characters. They are unwilling to compromise. Even when the situation is one that needs it.

He explained. That he needed at least one evil character. Because evil characters are willing to go to some really dark places when the situation is one that demands it.

He introduced a new monster called Shadow Knights. And there were very few things the characters had. And later it turned out that they were shadows stolen from their victims. And were still connected to their victims. And that the one discovered way of stopping them was: To kill the original owner of the shadow. Something that would be utterly repellant to a good aligned character.

So my main character found a clutch of prisoners who were the owners of the shadows. Several hundred of them. And even though she is lawful evil, she felt terrible about what she had to do. So she used one of her Necromancer spells to kill them all painlessly.

The Shadow Knights can't be attacked directly with necromancy. The true way to stop them without killing their originals was to use a very specific Enchanter spell to sever the connection between the original and the Shadow Knight. Something the group did finally discover and bind into a specific weapon. They could now eliminate the Shadow Knights without killing their originals.

The Shadow Knights are scarey. If one is made, they attack other shadows and create more of themselves. They are a fast moving plague.

We've had the adult conversations many times. With the GM and Mr. Special Snowflake. The GM listens and acts on how things are requested by the other players.

Mr. Special Snowflake doesn't. It always has to be all about him. And he even dominates the table talk with same stories over and over again about how great his characters were in past campaigns.

I'm not the only person to have complained. Pretty much every other player has too. They want to get on with having fun in the game. Creating our own fun and memories. Instead of being drug around by Mr. Special Snowflake's star of the show.

Goood, purge the venomous frustration latent within you! :D It's ipecac for the soul.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999415Jesus, I said "have an adult conversation," not "form a fucking lynch mob."

"He knows so much about everything that we feel useless and it's not really fun for us" is neither rude nor angry, but a statement of perceptions.  If a bunch of people older than 16 can't work that out, fuck 'em all.

There you go, talking all sensible again. It'll have to stop, you know!

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1099565Mr. Special Snowflake doesn't. It always has to be all about him. And he even dominates the table talk with same stories over and over again about how great his characters were in past campaigns.

"That's great, we've heard it, is it relevant to the current game? No? Shut up then!". Repeat ad nauseum.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1099565We've had the adult conversations many times. With the GM and Mr. Special Snowflake. The GM listens and acts on how things are requested by the other players.

Mr. Special Snowflake doesn't. It always has to be all about him. And he even dominates the table talk with same stories over and over again about how great his characters were in past campaigns.

I'm not the only person to have complained. Pretty much every other player has too. They want to get on with having fun in the game. Creating our own fun and memories. Instead of being drug around by Mr. Special Snowflake's star of the show.

If there are no consequences, it will continue.

I suggest you tell the DM that you haven't been enjoying the game lately because of the antics of this particular player.  Tell the DM that you'd like to take a break from the game.  Since Mr. Snowflake walked away for months, there shouldn't be any problem with you also doing so.  During your break, look around for another table or two.  Mr. Snowflake needs an audience, and if you (and other players) don't provide it to him, he'll be gone again and the GM will be asking you back.  OR seeing that there are limits to what you'll accept, the GM will opt to tell Mr. Snowflake that he is no longer welcome and invite you back.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1099655If there are no consequences, it will continue.

I suggest you tell the DM that you haven't been enjoying the game lately because of the antics of this particular player.  Tell the DM that you'd like to take a break from the game.  Since Mr. Snowflake walked away for months, there shouldn't be any problem with you also doing so.  During your break, look around for another table or two.  Mr. Snowflake needs an audience, and if you (and other players) don't provide it to him, he'll be gone again and the GM will be asking you back.  OR seeing that there are limits to what you'll accept, the GM will opt to tell Mr. Snowflake that he is no longer welcome and invite you back.

Actually. The GM complained last session about Mr. Special Snowflake doing that exact same thing. So the message has definitely gotten through.

I don't feel I have to drop the hammer of god on the GM. He gets it. And he is just as fed up as the rest of us are.

He commented that the last sessions have been nothing but fun with just two players.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1099674He commented that the last sessions have been nothing but fun with just two players.

If only there were some way, something he could do so that he had only 2 players. :p

I feel that loudly speaking over people, mockery and derision are under-used at most game tables.

That's how I keep the game session moving along. As player as well as DM. We are there to kill things and take their stuff. We are not there to discuss at length how best to kill things and take their stuff, or listen to your boring stories of this other time you killed things and took their stuff. We are there to kill things and take their stuff.

I'll bet that fucker doesn't even bring snacks.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1099947I'll bet that fucker doesn't even bring snacks.

Only for himself. When he shows up. But he won't hesitate to take from others when it is offered. And he works a job that pulls in far more money than pretty much everybody else that goes to the games.

Well there you go.

A while back a coach was asked how you could tell a good gym. "Do they have or allow chalk?" he said, "If they don't have or allow chalk, they're not a good gym."

Same with gamers. If they don't bring and share snacks, they're not a good gamer. It sounds flippant, but it's true. The best gamers do things which contribute to the fun and success of the group as a whole. Bringing and sharing snacks shows you're thinking of the happiness of others. Not bringing and sharing them shows you're oblivious to others, and thinking just of yourself.

Aw, I didn't know some gyms catered to people taking art breaks. How thoughtful! :o Do they provide slateboards or sidewalks? :) And would it be rude if I brough my own bucket of colored sidewalk chalk?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1100167Well there you go.

A while back a coach was asked how you could tell a good gym. "Do they have or allow chalk?" he said, "If they don't have or allow chalk, they're not a good gym."

Same with gamers. If they don't bring and share snacks, they're not a good gamer. It sounds flippant, but it's true. The best gamers do things which contribute to the fun and success of the group as a whole. Bringing and sharing snacks shows you're thinking of the happiness of others. Not bringing and sharing them shows you're oblivious to others, and thinking just of yourself.

I'm broke most of the time. And I still bring money for snacks.

I only had $11 on me on saturday. And I still bought a bag of pretzels at the 7-Eleven for the GM.

And when I go to the local burger place, I offer the GM and the rest of the table some of the fries or onion rings I buy. (That burger place is legendary for the massive portions of fries and onion rings they sell.)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1100167Same with gamers. If they don't bring and share snacks, they're not a good gamer. It sounds flippant, but it's true. The best gamers do things which contribute to the fun and success of the group as a whole. Bringing and sharing snacks shows you're thinking of the happiness of others. Not bringing and sharing them shows you're oblivious to others, and thinking just of yourself.

That does fit my experience pretty well - the best in-game player is likely also the player bringing fresh baked cookies and the player painting the GM's minis for an upcoming game...

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1100130Only for himself. When he shows up. But he won't hesitate to take from others when it is offered. And he works a job that pulls in far more money than pretty much everybody else that goes to the games.

Oh, you should have led with that.

Ban him and put the word around so he never plays RPGs again.

Of course, if he started to bring snacks, then welcome him back into the RPG fold with open arms.

I wanted to post an update on the campaign while I am fresh from it.

We won! We defeated the bad guys and cut the final cords that linked us to Mr. Special Snowflake's character tonight! We are free! And our characters are in charge of their own destinies. We got the victory condition on the campaign's biggest story. And the characters are now up for bold new adventures.

So the game continues. But in a new direction. And everybody is happy.

Yes but will the fucker bring snacks, now?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1113453Yes but will the fucker bring snacks, now?

He's gone from the group. And his character is in the soup if he should ever return. Completely excised from the party. And still hunted by the bad guys.

But the bad guys are also not long for the world. We gave the information on how to get them to the right people. They are headed for extinction.

It just goes to show that a RPG Group can accept a lot of things, but not someone who never brings snacks.

Quote from: soltakss;1113479It just goes to show that a RPG Group can accept a lot of things, but not someone who never brings snacks.

Our game is a social creative hobby. The person must have some level of skill in at least one of the two. Social skills are more widespread in society, since they are useful just about everywhere, and in some respects the social part is more important, since often players will be coming to your home.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1113449I wanted to post an update on the campaign while I am fresh from it.

We won! We defeated the bad guys and cut the final cords that linked us to Mr. Special Snowflake's character tonight! We are free! And our characters are in charge of their own destinies. We got the victory condition on the campaign's biggest story. And the characters are now up for bold new adventures.

So the game continues. But in a new direction. And everybody is happy.

Well, I'm glad it all worked out for you.

This is an epilogue to the issues this campaign faced with that one player.

The GM went through his notes and realized that Mr. Special Snowflake's character was not built on the same standards as the other members of the party were. His character was built based on a method that the GM had not OK'd. And as a result, his character was not only massively powered way out of proportion with the other characters. But he used an optional disadvantages system that resulted in all of the other PCs having to deal with his overpowered character's problems. The GM did not approve that the optional disadvantages system being used at all.

When we started the campaign. We were given a sheet with all of what the GM wanted us to do and the rules we were to use. He kept it simple because he wanted to be friendly to new players. And honestly? I had not played in one of that GM's games in nearly a decade. So I was basically starting over from zero.

This isn't the first time Mr. Special Snowflake did this to a campaign. He's done it many times in the past. And has a long history of outright cheating in a variety of ways. Including leaving the state for a couple of years, and then suddenly come back and have his character's power level starkly increased from what it was while he was gone. With the excuse that he was playing private games while he was gone to account for those power increases.

Uh, no! I wouldn't accept that as a GM. And in doing that, he was taking advantage of his friendship with the GM in an extreme way. And the GM finally has had enough of these shennanigans. And Mr. Special Snowflake seems to be on one of his out of state sabbaticals again.

So this campaign has been through a lot. Survived a cheating player intent on making the campaign all about him. Bounced back and has a player group that is absolutely happy now.

So yes. This is an example of where just one cheating player can upend and dominate an entire campaign. But it also shows that player failed to ruin it due to the grit of the GM and players who just wanted a fun game. The fact it survived is entirely due to the other members of the group refusing to submit to that bad player's wishes.

I have put a lot into that campaign. Which has stretched into being many years in length now. I even designed miniatures for my characters on Heroforge and had them printed in solid Bronze. Cost me about $300 plus tax and shipping. But they make me happy. And showed the GM how seriously I am committed to the campaign. That I wanted permanent momentos of something I truly enjoy.

I don't count this story as a failure. But one of successfully surviving the devastation one bad player can bring to a game group. One where the GM and the honest players turned the tables and made success out of what started as a bad situation. And I believe that's a happy ending worth celebrating.

Sounds like a lot of good faith poured into a labor of love! :) How lovely. I would love to have players so involved to go to such extra lengths.

A pity the GM forgot the due diligence to be even-handed, such as doing a chargen audit, or forbidding untraceable PC table-hopping. It only takes one exploiter to ruin an environment of earnest good nature. Oh well, lesson learned. :) That's why GM best practices are there: to protect all parties by showing an active fair neutrality, because a transparent restraint for all invites respect & trust.

:) May you all go forward in harmonious fun!

So much trouble is solved by "roll 3d6 down the line while we all watch you roll, choose MU, cleric, fighter or thief, and start at 1st level." Yes, even if the rest of the party is 5th level - they'll gear the character up a bit and they can hang around the back cautiously and will quickly level up.

Snowflakes quickly melt under the heat of any kind of strict scrutiny. But I note too - the guy never brought snacks and shared them. That indicates a mindset which is not oriented to the happiness of the group as a whole.

In order: people, snacks, setting, system.

I was discussing this with Bill earlier, and he talked about how Dancey and Mearls polled people on their ideal session length, ideal time to get from 1st to 5th level, and so on - averaged out all the answers and designed 3e accordingly. This is like polling people on their ideal time of having sex, how many positions they want to be in, and what sex acts they want to engage in, and then putting them together with a random person and expecting great sex as a result.

It's not about all that, it's about the people you're with, and how willing they are to do things which will help others have fun.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1135390I was discussing this with Bill earlier, and he talked about how Dancey and Mearls polled people on their ideal session length, ideal time to get from 1st to 5th level, and so on - averaged out all the answers and designed 3e accordingly. This is like polling people on their ideal time of having sex, how many positions they want to be in, and what sex acts they want to engage in, and then putting them together with a random person and expecting great sex as a result.

Dancey and Mearls designed 3e?

Quote from: Shasarak;1135393Dancey and Mearls designed 3e?

Mearls didn't even work for WotC at the time!

3e was mostly Tweet Cook and I think Heinsoo?

Quote from: Shasarak;1135393Dancey and Mearls designed 3e?

Dancey 3rd, Mearls later.

Dancey was responsible for the surveys giving us the idea of the averages, and Mearls for the "20 minutes of fun packed into four hours" observation. Those two observations, along with a desire to imitate computer and card games, are responsible for much of the design of 3e-5e. Those two are the source of much of the rot.

Quote from: S'mon;1135398Mearls didn't even work for WotC at the time!

3e was mostly Tweet Cook and I think Heinsoo?

I would put my blame on Heinsoo.  Talk about the poster child for "You just had one job"

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1135390So much trouble is solved by "roll 3d6 down the line while we all watch you roll, choose MU, cleric, fighter or thief, and start at 1st level." Yes, even if the rest of the party is 5th level - they'll gear the character up a bit and they can hang around the back cautiously and will quickly level up.

I found that transparent but strict and vigilant guidelines for new or invited players to be far more helpful than any sort of lasseiz-faire policy and while I understand the idea of not limiting people's fun, it leads to all sorts of trouble in practice.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135371This isn't the first time Mr. Special Snowflake did this to a campaign. He's done it many times in the past. And has a long history of outright cheating in a variety of ways. Including leaving the state for a couple of years, and then suddenly come back and have his character's power level starkly increased from what it was while he was gone. With the excuse that he was playing private games while he was gone to account for those power increases.

GMing 101... if it doesn't happen at my table, it doesn't happen.

Among other things, I insist that all rolls are made on the table, where everyone can see them.  It's not purely a matter of trust, it's a matter of fun... everyone should share in the highs and lows of a campaign.  If players are allowed to take characters off to another campaign, their experiences aren't really contributing THIS campaign.

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;1135487GMing 101... if it doesn't happen at my table, it doesn't happen.

Among other things, I insist that all rolls are made on the table, where everyone can see them.  It's not purely a matter of trust, it's a matter of fun... everyone should share in the highs and lows of a campaign.  If players are allowed to take characters off to another campaign, their experiences aren't really contributing THIS campaign.

I would go so far as to suggest the GM collect hard copies of all of the character sheets after the session. So the GM has records to dissuade monkey-business.

In the current campaign, the GM trusts the players to handle their sheets. But honestly? I don't feel comfortable doing updating and paperwork out of the sight of the GM.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135371I don't count this story as a failure. But one of successfully surviving the devastation one bad player can bring to a game group. One where the GM and the honest players turned the tables and made success out of what started as a bad situation. And I believe that's a happy ending worth celebrating.

Congrats! It is worth celebrating! Hopefully, Mr. Special Snowflake's shadow will never cross your table again. It's not a failure if everyone at the table learned their lesson. One asshole can ruin everyone's fun which is why every asshole must be swiftly hurled from the game.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1135490I would go so far as to suggest the GM collect hard copies of all of the character sheets after the session. So the GM has records to dissuade monkey-business.

In the current campaign, the GM trusts the players to handle their sheets. But honestly? I don't feel comfortable doing updating and paperwork out of the sight of the GM.

Good point... I have generally done this too.  Not as a matter of trust (or lack thereof), but to avoid players forgetting to bring their sheets to the game.  IMHO, if your game has paperwork that needs to be done out-of-hours, your doing it wrong.  But I acknowledge that's part of my distaste for crunchy systems...

Quote from: Tyberious Funk;1135566Good point... I have generally done this too.  Not as a matter of trust (or lack thereof), but to avoid players forgetting to bring their sheets to the game.  IMHO, if your game has paperwork that needs to be done out-of-hours, your doing it wrong.  But I acknowledge that's part of my distaste for crunchy systems...

I told the GM last session that I didn't like doing paperwork out of his sight. That I preferred to do it in his presence. And it made him smile. That a player would insist on that level of honesty. It made the other player happy as well. That I would go to such a length.

It really didn't add any more time to the pregame paperwork than normal. But it reinforced the trust at the table, that I did insist on it.

PC falls on his head and loses all memory. Wakes up not knowing who he is or most importantly, who he was...

Problem solved.

Quote from: FelixGamingX1;1137780PC falls on his head and loses all memory. Wakes up not knowing who he is or most importantly, who he was...

Problem solved.

With Mr Special Snowflake's character it would not. The problem was that the character wasn't built on the same standards as the rest of the player characters were. Unless the GM forced Mr. Special Snowflake to rebuild that character from scratch. With no special rules, no prior social attachments, or resources. The character would have to be reset to flat zero to achieve what you suggested.

And at that point? Mr. Special Snowflake would have just walked while having one of his famous tantrums.

Back earlier in the thread. I illustrated the fact Mr. Special Snowflake built his character to be the world the other characters were forced to orbit. Whether they wanted to be in that position or not. It was a clear piece of group sabotage that we luckily survived.

Mr. Special Snowflake is no longer even in the state. He took off to Arizona without notice. Which he has done for a few years at a time. Before he resurfaces locally again.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1137787And at that point? Mr. Special Snowflake would have just walked while having one of his famous tantrums.

Which would have saved both the game group and Snowflake much time and trouble, and was thus the best possible outcome. Which is why the DM must wear the Viking Hat, and work to ensure the group as a whole has fun despite their best attempts to avoid doing so.

I have tried to resist the curmudgeonly urge, and failed, to point out that this thread is rapidly approaching its third birthday.  If your campaign has persisted three motherfucking years, than clearly this one players/character could not have been that drastic of a game destroyer.*   If not, then you, Mr Kelly, have been dragging this dead horse around longer than the fucking problem persisted.  I am reminded, ever so briefly, of a court case from ancient Egypt, where after twenty years of court cases, a man finally agreed to pay his debt over a jar of olive oil.  At some point he spent more time dodging his debt, and his opponent spent more time attempting to collect said debt, than the money could have been worth to either of them.


I will further point out that the problem player and the problem GM do not post here, to anyone's knowledge.  No poster on this forum has the power to fix your group, much less a time machine to undo the bad GMing that prompted this bitch fest that.will.not.fucking.die.  By your own admission... many moons ago I might point out... this problem has already solved itself.  

I admit that, having vented my spleen, I am inclined to do as Abraham Lincoln reportedly did, and trash this post rather than post it. But if I did that, then this fucking thread is likely to limp on, carried like some martyr's burden, until the heat death of the universe.   By all that is good and just in the world, find something NEW to complain about!  Please, PLEASE, regale us... in a new thread... about how your cat horked a fucking hairball onto your brand new shoes. ANYTHING.

* I will point out that my most wildly spectacular campaign itself only lasted two years (the group persisted for at least five, and depending on incarnations as many as ten), and had not one, but two seperate climactic endings, well justifying the time spent.  It did not last as long as this pathetic thread.... though my bragging about it, admittedly has, with change to spare.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1137813Which would have saved both the game group and Snowflake much time and trouble, and was thus the best possible outcome. Which is why the DM must wear the Viking Hat, and work to ensure the group as a whole has fun despite their best attempts to avoid doing so.

I'm sure he would have found another way of stirring shit up. That's just the type of person Mr. Special Snowflake is.

But to be fair. I'm going to illustrate another dimension to the situation. The GM. The GM came off a fairly recent string of family tragedies. And he mentally wasn't at his best when starting the campaign. So he was definitely taken advantage of in the worst way by Mr. Special Snowflake. The campaign was supposed to be an escape for the GM. To get him mentally out of the negative space he had been in. Mr. Special Snowflake knew this. And proceeded with his sabotage anyway.

Yes, the GM slipped up in some important areas. But I don't fault him for that. Considering what he had gone through. Nobody would have been at their best, having come out of a similar situation. Which is why I cut the GM as much slack as I have.

This isn't just a case of a clueless, abusive, and selfish player. It's the case of outright cruel and malicious action. Someone who was deliberately taking advantage of someone who was in vulnerable condition, and preying on it without mercy. It was done deliberately.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1137908I'm sure he would have found another way of stirring shit up. That's just the type of person Mr. Special Snowflake is.

Sure. But if you lay down things right in the first few minutes of play, if you start strict with no bullshit, that tends not to eliminate the bullshit, but strongly cuts down on it. And of course the Snowflakes sense they won't have an easy ride and after some initial drama they move on. Nothing eliminates bullshit and drama from our lives, but some things can minimise it.

QuoteBut to be fair. I'm going to illustrate another dimension to the situation. The GM. The GM came off a fairly recent string of family tragedies. And he mentally wasn't at his best when starting the campaign.

There's a time a person should GM, and a time a person should be a player. Sometimes someone else in the game group needs to step up.

Darrin, that is why Kyle is harping on best practices. :) Best practices are there to fall upon, like a safety net, when we are not at our best and/or facing predatory manipulation. The "Viking Hat" authoritarian neutral arbiter is to police all sides of the aisle (invluding themselves) so trust can be earned and grown.

Anyway, this played out surprisingly better than anticipated and the problem locus rooted out. Celebrate and take the right lessons from the experience. There is a wisdom in ritual; it guards against the vagaries of life's sorrows & predators. And with that, also learn from Spike, do not dwell on the negative for you can become lost in your own pain -- come back to the world and rejoice.

Why don't you start a new topic with pictures of all the neat little extras everyone contributes to the game? :)