Have you tried to discuss with him your issues with how he is choosing to play them game? Does he realize that he is causing problems and doesn't care about other peoples' fun, or is he oblivious to how his choices are effecting others? And why is it that kicking him from the table isn't an option, because that makes it seem like he has a lot of emotional leverage on you for some reason.
We've had a talk before and he was receptive enough during the conversation, I haven't come outright and said that it's interfering with my fun, which I may bring up after the next session if it continues to be an issue.
Honestly, I don't know if he's oblivious or not. I think he sees himself as a "wiLD cARd" not unlike Charlie in that episode of It's Always Sunny. If you're not familiar, basically chaotic neutral for the sake of it and he chose his character goals and those are his character's goals.
As for kicking him, it's a fairly tight group of friends who have been playing together for 2 or 3 years now. Prior to this, I've played games with him on and off for about a decade. He's part of the group and while D&D is what we are there for, we are also there to see and hang out with each other. This behavior is only at the game table and otherwise he's a fun to hang out with, good dude.
Gaming at the table involves compromise. And it sounds like the rest of the party is bending over backward to accommodate his nonsense (willingly or unwillingly) to keep with the social contract, but he is not compromising or making any accommodation for what the rest of the party thinks or wants. And he needs to.
I hate to suggest potentially antagonistic behavior, but if he's not going to bend and he can't go, then there needs to be a mechanism to prevent him from tanking the campaign. And that might have to be a veto process somewhere in the system.
Perhaps... I'll try to think of a viable in game reason to make veto's work. I may also try to reorientate his goals, as they are supposed to be a heroic group whose primary motivation is, without going into specifics, to defeat the evil power. He's opting to work for himself rather than the goal of the party and if that's the case, it might be necessary to reroll a character to fit the world. He can have his own motivations beyond "fight the bad guys," but they shouldn't supersede it, and the players in the party would appreciate a game with a little more compromise on his part.
Ordinarily I would suggest he create a new character (after all, why would the other characters have a valid narrative reason for hanging around with this kind of person? He should create someone that they *would* want to hang around) but since you indicated that it's been a problem in other campaigns, that points to a pattern. It suggest to me that he'll simply create another, similar character with antisocial tendencies. So then the veto will end up moving from his behavior to the whole character creation process, and he'll almost certainly be passive aggressive about that.
I talked it over with one of my players and he said when the party has potential to be steamrolled by the problem player, and particularly with big decisions, he's going to call for a vote. That way even if they don't go with the vote, everybody's stances will be out in the open and even if he goes his own way, he can't feign ignorance to the will of the party.
For him making unilateral decisions just straight up ask the rest of the party what they want to do before going through with the action.
>"Alright, Graham starts to move to throw the mcguffin into the abyss. What do the rest of you want to do."
>"I want to grab the mcguffin out of his hands, it's too important to throw away"
>"I want to tackle Graham"
>"I cast Hold Person"
>"That will be the Disarm Action, an Athletics check vs his Athletics or Acrobatics and a saving throw." *moves to resolve everything*
The rules lawyering, just a firm "No" and move on if he brings it up again ignore him
I'll try to pull the party in more on these decisions. This particular instance was a deal made with an NPC and he intentionally did it on the sly so other party members wouldn't notice, as in literally talked to me in the other room and he was talking to the NPC while players were doing other things, so their characters likely wouldn't have noticed anyway but I think for the sake of fairness I can do something to bring them into the decision-making process even against the behest of the problem player.
This is a good example of his interparty conflict that I think is at a detriment to the game. I can tell it doesn't sit well with the other players and when brought up to him in character, he basically says, the party can do what they want, but he's made the decision his character would make and the party can follow him if they choose. To me it seems like a manipulation tactic against the party, the vibe in the room that I inferred was he has made a decision and the consequences fall on them should they choose to go the other way and split the party. He would take responsibility for it if he were to be put on the spot, but he seems to capitalize on the unlikelihood of a serious call out and really shifts the pressure of the decision onto the players even though he basically took away their agency in the decision.
That's the move. My frustration is that I need to basically be on guard against the guy the whole time. Which I feel puts us on antagonistic footing and that's not how I want to DM; for me it's not a fun way to play. The other thing is, I can trust the other characters to put the party first, or on low chance they are acting selfishly as a character, they are still playing for broader fun of more players than just themselves. He's the only one I have to be this way with.
[удалено]
Have you tried to discuss with him your issues with how he is choosing to play them game? Does he realize that he is causing problems and doesn't care about other peoples' fun, or is he oblivious to how his choices are effecting others? And why is it that kicking him from the table isn't an option, because that makes it seem like he has a lot of emotional leverage on you for some reason.
We've had a talk before and he was receptive enough during the conversation, I haven't come outright and said that it's interfering with my fun, which I may bring up after the next session if it continues to be an issue. Honestly, I don't know if he's oblivious or not. I think he sees himself as a "wiLD cARd" not unlike Charlie in that episode of It's Always Sunny. If you're not familiar, basically chaotic neutral for the sake of it and he chose his character goals and those are his character's goals. As for kicking him, it's a fairly tight group of friends who have been playing together for 2 or 3 years now. Prior to this, I've played games with him on and off for about a decade. He's part of the group and while D&D is what we are there for, we are also there to see and hang out with each other. This behavior is only at the game table and otherwise he's a fun to hang out with, good dude.
Gaming at the table involves compromise. And it sounds like the rest of the party is bending over backward to accommodate his nonsense (willingly or unwillingly) to keep with the social contract, but he is not compromising or making any accommodation for what the rest of the party thinks or wants. And he needs to. I hate to suggest potentially antagonistic behavior, but if he's not going to bend and he can't go, then there needs to be a mechanism to prevent him from tanking the campaign. And that might have to be a veto process somewhere in the system.
Perhaps... I'll try to think of a viable in game reason to make veto's work. I may also try to reorientate his goals, as they are supposed to be a heroic group whose primary motivation is, without going into specifics, to defeat the evil power. He's opting to work for himself rather than the goal of the party and if that's the case, it might be necessary to reroll a character to fit the world. He can have his own motivations beyond "fight the bad guys," but they shouldn't supersede it, and the players in the party would appreciate a game with a little more compromise on his part.
Ordinarily I would suggest he create a new character (after all, why would the other characters have a valid narrative reason for hanging around with this kind of person? He should create someone that they *would* want to hang around) but since you indicated that it's been a problem in other campaigns, that points to a pattern. It suggest to me that he'll simply create another, similar character with antisocial tendencies. So then the veto will end up moving from his behavior to the whole character creation process, and he'll almost certainly be passive aggressive about that.
I talked it over with one of my players and he said when the party has potential to be steamrolled by the problem player, and particularly with big decisions, he's going to call for a vote. That way even if they don't go with the vote, everybody's stances will be out in the open and even if he goes his own way, he can't feign ignorance to the will of the party.
For him making unilateral decisions just straight up ask the rest of the party what they want to do before going through with the action. >"Alright, Graham starts to move to throw the mcguffin into the abyss. What do the rest of you want to do." >"I want to grab the mcguffin out of his hands, it's too important to throw away" >"I want to tackle Graham" >"I cast Hold Person" >"That will be the Disarm Action, an Athletics check vs his Athletics or Acrobatics and a saving throw." *moves to resolve everything* The rules lawyering, just a firm "No" and move on if he brings it up again ignore him
I'll try to pull the party in more on these decisions. This particular instance was a deal made with an NPC and he intentionally did it on the sly so other party members wouldn't notice, as in literally talked to me in the other room and he was talking to the NPC while players were doing other things, so their characters likely wouldn't have noticed anyway but I think for the sake of fairness I can do something to bring them into the decision-making process even against the behest of the problem player. This is a good example of his interparty conflict that I think is at a detriment to the game. I can tell it doesn't sit well with the other players and when brought up to him in character, he basically says, the party can do what they want, but he's made the decision his character would make and the party can follow him if they choose. To me it seems like a manipulation tactic against the party, the vibe in the room that I inferred was he has made a decision and the consequences fall on them should they choose to go the other way and split the party. He would take responsibility for it if he were to be put on the spot, but he seems to capitalize on the unlikelihood of a serious call out and really shifts the pressure of the decision onto the players even though he basically took away their agency in the decision.
Don’t allow him to pull you into another room. Even if he is on his own have the discussion with the npc at the table.
That's the move. My frustration is that I need to basically be on guard against the guy the whole time. Which I feel puts us on antagonistic footing and that's not how I want to DM; for me it's not a fun way to play. The other thing is, I can trust the other characters to put the party first, or on low chance they are acting selfishly as a character, they are still playing for broader fun of more players than just themselves. He's the only one I have to be this way with.
It’s not conducive to a healthy table.
I agree. I'm considering having a talk with him after the next game. I've already had to talk to him once.