Quote from: jgants;271859So, you think the best way to handle a guy who specifically made a character who is an obsessed werewolf hunter is to fuck over his concept by never having any werewolves?

I've been a player in that situation before, and seen it happen to others.  One of two things will likely happen - the player will lose interest in the game and drop out, or the player will get increasingly annoyed/bored and become more disruptive (I have a tendency to get disruptive, myself).

If the guy made a character that was a werewolf hunter, that's a big flag to the GM that he expects some werewolf action.  

A good GM should always take a look at the kind of PC his players are creating and try to customize the campaign to them, or help them modify the concept a bit to something that will work.  

You don't let a player create a swashbuckler then never give him any swordfights, or a thief then never have any traps, or an arcanist and never have any occult tomes or spellbooks, etc.

I know exactly what you mean. The worst was when I made a grappling monk in second edition, and the gm sprang Ravenloft on us where everything has a 24 strength and energy drain. The gm thought it was funny (:

Much irony can be found in comparing the last two posts.

Quote from: jgants;271859So, you think the best way to handle a guy who specifically made a character who is an obsessed werewolf hunter is to fuck over his concept by never having any werewolves?

No, hold on there. Is it okay for a single player to railroad the rest of the group just because he picks a potentially group-upsetting obsession? I don't think so.

A "cool character concept" shouldn't be a reason to be an arsehole. I certainly got the impression from the OP that the player was disrupting and being unhelpful in the actual game plots due to this obsession.

QuoteI've been a player in that situation before, and seen it happen to others.  One of two things will likely happen - the player will lose interest in the game and drop out, or the player will get increasingly annoyed/bored and become more disruptive (I have a tendency to get disruptive, myself).

If he's already disrupting the game - which he is - it's meant to be investigations and he's chasing furballs which aren't even there, then maybe him getting bored and leaving is a good thing.

QuoteIf the guy made a character that was a werewolf hunter, that's a big flag to the GM that he expects some werewolf action.  

That's fine. But it shouldn't guarantee it. And if there's evidence of werewolves, then that's fine. The group should lean on him. But if there's no evidence and he's out inspecting dog poo when he should be helping the others chase down an energy based ley line horror, then he needs to be reigned in.

QuoteA good GM should always take a look at the kind of PC his players are creating and try to customize the campaign to them, or help them modify the concept a bit to something that will work.  

You don't let a player create a swashbuckler then never give him any swordfights, or a thief then never have any traps, or an arcanist and never have any occult tomes or spellbooks, etc.

A good GM should consider the enjoyment of the group and have a quiet word with the one disruptive player before it gets out of hand.

At the same time, if I pick a Chaotic Evil cleric to go along with the Lawful Good party, it's the GM's fault when I get stomped in the first town I go to?

Pick a character concept that is compatible with the game. On the face of it a Werewolf Hunter sounds like a great concept for BTS - but if he's spoiling the game for the players AND the GM, then it's something that needs dealt with.

Quote from: Pelorus;271891No, hold on there. Is it okay for a single player to railroad the rest of the group just because he picks a potentially group-upsetting obsession? I don't think so.

This is why the GM must, you know, talk to the player, compromise and think and use their judgment and shit like that. And you're assuming that one player's happiness must be at the expense of other players' happiness. Which is bollocks, and not how game sessions go.

A good GM will give each of their PCs a chance to shine. This will make all of the group happy, even when they're not the ones shining.

In any group, the several players will have several different things they want to do. It's not usually impossible to make them all happy. A player creates a fighter because they want to fight, a thief to thieve, a wizard to cast spells, and a cleric to heal and stomp undead. If the GM has created a fighting campaign and everyone made thieves and wizards, either the players or the GM, probably both, just aren't listening to each-other.

If you create a campaign based on something called Beyond the Supernatural, and a player creates a character who hunts werewolves, we have three basic possibilities: the setting has no werewolves, it does have werewolves, or it has them but they're stonking great beasts no-one can defeat.

The setting has werewolves. In which case, put them in!
Result: player happy.

The setting has werewolves, but they are too powerful for starting characters. Let the player know, and the player can either make a different character, or else create a werewolf-hunting character knowing he's doomed.
Result: player happy.

The setting has no werewolves. Let the player know. Either compromise and put some werewolves in, or else the player makes a different character.
Result: player happy.

Or perhaps the player makes a character who is convinced there are werewolves even though there aren't, and plays out the futile hunting, the mistaking crazed killers and large dogs for werewolves, etc.
Result: player happy.

If these decisions and discussions didn't happen before the campaign started, that makes things harder. But you can still adjust as you go.

The player isn't railroading the group. The GM and the players should before the campaign starts and characters are made be having a back-and-forth about what the campaign will have in it and what the characters will be like. Often, each must compromise a bit.

This is well said in a recent GnomeStew article, player buy-in trumps GM interest.    whether or not you're [the GM] personally interested in a game matters a lot less than whether or not all of your players are interested in it. If they're interested, they'll be motivated to create awesome characters, and will work together to make the game more fun for everyone at the table — yourself included. And you'll find that you feed off of their interest, and get excited about the game as a result.The thing is that in a game session, the enthusiasm of the other people involved is contagious. So even if the player wants something the GM thinks is a bit stupid, the GM should give it to them - so long as it's not "no fucking way!" stupid - because the player will be so happy it'll spread round the table and then everyone will be happy, even if they also think it's stupid.

If he wants werewolves, give him werewolves.

I think Kyle basically responded with every point I would have made.  It's all about the GM and player working together to come up with a solution that works for everyone.

haha oh well, it doesn't matter now.

The thing about his obsession with werewolves is that it really took me off guard. He was talking about playing a Casey Jones type character from the start. The wolf thing just kinda, started with no reason that I can remember.

As I suspected, he was probably really bored because he made some excuse about not being able to play this week.

Thanks for all the advice. It is still good advice for next time it happens.

Narf the Mouse says, "Much irony can be found in comparing the last two posts."

That is... pretty funny.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;271898This is why the GM must, you know, talk to the player, compromise and think and use their judgment and shit like that. And you're assuming that one player's happiness must be at the expense of other players' happiness. Which is bollocks, and not how game sessions go.

A good GM will give each of their PCs a chance to shine. This will make all of the group happy, even when they're not the ones shining.

I did say "A good GM should consider the enjoyment of the group and have a quiet word with the one disruptive player before it gets out of hand."

QuoteThis is well said in a recent GnomeStew article, player buy-in trumps GM interest.    whether or not you're [the GM] personally interested in a game matters a lot less than whether or not all of your players are interested in it.

This depends entirely on whether you're content with 'gaming' as opposed to 'enjoying gaming'. If the GM has no interest, they're unlikely to keep running - result? End of game.

Yes, it's a case of give and take. Obviously.

but this thread is about "goofy players" - going on to describe an incident where one player is endangering the enjoyment of the group and not just the GM so in this case we can safely assume that

'bulk of player enjoyment + GM interest' > one player goofing off

This incident (like most) sound like the GM and players did not discuss the tone and focus and expectations of the campaign before chargen.   Having a discussion about what the campaign IS and what the campaing IS NOT goes a long way.  

However, if you have players who do not respect what the GM brings to the table enough to respond with good characters, teamwork and a desire to add to the group fun, then it's time to get new players.

There are far more potential players than there are good GMs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;272170This incident (like most) sound like the GM and players did not discuss the tone and focus and expectations of the campaign before chargen.   Having a discussion about what the campaign IS and what the campaing IS NOT goes a long way.  

However, if you have players who do not respect what the GM brings to the table enough to respond with good characters, teamwork and a desire to add to the group fun, then it's time to get new players.

There are far more potential players than there are good GMs.

That's probably true. I ass-u-med that the tone of the game was obvious, but all that joking around about Casey Jones we made when making his character might have had something to do with it... though Casey is still a more serious character (;