How do you handle problem players?

Hello, I am a long time MSH player but just found this forum. I have not played or run a group in about seven years or so.

Friends of mine talked me into digging my books out and running a campaign for them, which leads to my problem. 3 of my 4 players want to play fairly standard mutant types. The other one, who admits to liking to mess with people's campaigns, wants to play a Roman gladiator who has survived into modern times. I have gotten him to agree to playing a dimensionally lost gladiator from a parallel world where the empire never fell, but I would rather tell him to forget it and come up with a better fitting idea.

To be honest, I would rather not run a game if he is going to constantly try and just disrupt the game. Then the problem is I have to hear about how I always say I should run a game but never do.

Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Beating them with folding chairs seems to work for me....

Here's a solution to your Rome obsessed player.

Have the player's character be a runaway gladiator who escaped from the arena of Nova Roma through the efforts of Magma and Roberto DeCosta. The gladiator can be either a Normal Human or a mutant.

Appreciate the suggestion, but I tried the Nova Roma idea on him before I came up with the dimensionally lost idea. He just seemed confused by the idea, and still wanted his character to be older (like Wolverine).

Thanks,
Risk2099

How about this:
The gladiator insulted a witch and had a curse placed on him for not helpin her in her time of need. The curse is the magical equivalent of the Troubleseeker power. The curse has left its runes on his armor, weapons, and body. The curse took effect over 1,000 years after the gladiator died. His grave was disturbed during the bombing raids of WWII on Sicily. His body slowly regenerated until he fully revived. He later finds that every time he is killed or dies of natural causes, the curse revives him to the state he was in when the curse was invoked. He also finds that he cannot remove his armor or the runes on his body. If he loses his sword, it teleports back to his hand within a 1-10 turns---depending on how far away it is.

Risk2099 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Friends of mine talked me into digging my books
> out and running a campaign for them, which leads
> to my problem. 3 of my 4 players want to play
> fairly standard mutant types. The other one, who
> admits to liking to mess with people's campaigns,
> wants to play a Roman gladiator who has survived
> into modern times.

I don't know what you mean by 'mess with people's campaigns', but a Roman gladiator who has survived into modern times sounds like an interesting and original character idea.

Personally, I'd much rather have a player with imagination than three "standard mutant types".

What exactly is wrong with your friend's idea?

> I have gotten him to agree to
> playing a dimensionally lost gladiator from a
> parallel world where the empire never fell, but I
> would rather tell him to forget it and come up
> with a better fitting idea.

Well, you certainly have the right to do that as a GM. But the Roman gladiator certainly seems like a pretty standard comic book idea.

Why doesn't it 'fit'?

> To be honest, I would rather not run a game if he
> is going to constantly try and just disrupt the
> game.

Well, the best way to keep players from disrupting the game is to be a good GM. Good GM's don't get disrupted for a couple of reasons.

First, they're flexible. They know their world well enough so that players rarely throw them curves. This isn't easy, but it's just a matter of keeping calm and thinking on your feet. If the nature of the disruption is character based, simply let the Campaign World react to it normally. This will usually be no big deal and take the air out of any "messing" a character tries to do. After all, PC's can earn enough negative Popularity to make them a villain - and therefore an NPC.

If it's a player disruption, then again, no problem. Take your friend aside and tell him how you feel. Or have a talk with all the players together and ask them to cut you some slack because it's been so long since you've run.

Second, they're unflappable. If you're there to have a good time and all of your players are having a good time - even if the campaign isn't going exactly the way you want it to, you're campaign have a place for even the oddest characters if the GM makes room for them. After all, if the Marvel Universe can handle both Howard the Duck and the Impossible Man, what's one rowdy time-lost character?

Once your friend finds out that they *can't* disrupt you, they are very likely to mellow out. The rest of the players can usually serve as good examples for even the most twisted players.

>Then the problem is I have to hear about how
> I always say I should run a game but never do.

I have to go with you're friends on this. No offense intended, but if you say you want to run a game, and then balk at a very slightly unconventional character idea, then you really seem a little inflexible as a GM.

After all, the game is for your players as well as you.

Did you want to run a standard "X-Men" style campaign?

If you did, then *change your campaign*, so your player's idea fits in better.

> Any suggestions or advice would be appreciated.
> Thanks.

My advice? Go for it. Run the game the best you can, even including your friends ideas you don't like.

Let the player create a character EXACTLY the way HE wants to if it is at all possible in your campaign.

What's the worst that can happen? You'll have to run a game for your friends that isn't quite what you wanted.

If you get sick of doing it after a while, stop. But you're friends will know you gave it a good try and won't be able to tell you that you're all talk.

michael



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2005 01:05PM by michael.

I have to go with you're friends on this. No offense intended, but if you say you want to run a game, and then balk at a very slightly unconventional character idea, then you really seem a little inflexible as a GM.-Michael

I disagree with most of you post but just chose this sentence as the point to argue against in general.

The GM does NOT work for the players. The idea is for everyone to have fun, GM included. If a player comes right out and says "I like to mess with peoples games" its not simply a player chosing something cause he likes it, it sounds more like a case of "I gotta be the center of attention" syndrome. Flexible only goes so far as everyone is still having fun, GM included. It is EVERYONES job to work together to make the game enjoyable, if one player says I want this type of character and will not work with the GM to make it happen, he is just as bad as a GM who says you have to play an armored tank type or nothing else.

What it sounded like to me from his post was the choice of character was simply an oppisite reaction to the type of game the GM was setting up to run. "What you wanna run this type of game? Well then I will choose a character that intentionally doesn't fit and make you change your world to fit my whim". The type of player who wants to carry flamethrowers and hand grenades while playing D&D not because he wants to have an advantage but simply so he can be the oppisite of what everyone else is just for the sake of being oppisite.

Had a player in one of my games once wanna be the incarnation of the Coutal Myan god that was in snake form and 30-40 tall when we were trying to form an Avengers hero of the people type grp/game. The same person once wanted to make a character with all the Body Shifting/Transmutation/Morphing powers in the book so "I can change your staff (at that time the early version of Warlock had most his powers come from a magic staff) into an ice cream cone and there is nothing you can do about it." The player turned out to be a very good player in the long run, she just needed to find a way to stand out and fit into the team at the same time rather than stand out and go against the grain of the team simply for the sake of doing so.


My advice to you Risk (belated as it is, I just noticed the date of the original post) begins with the same list of choices all GMs with problem players face.

1) Deal with it. Simply just put up with the BS and learn to live with it. I know, it sucks, I have never been a big fan of this option.

2) Work it out. Try and work with him and come to a situation you both can live with. This choice will also tell you what type of player you are dealing with. If he is willing to work with you then chances are he sin't that bad a player he just had bad instincts as to what type of character he should play. If he isn't willing to take this step then you either go back to 1 or move on to 3.

3) Boot him/her from the game. I know this is drastic and depending on make up of the grp can kill the game, but sometimes it is the only option. Every now and then you get a player that truly has no desire to work with anyone and nothing anyone can do will change this. Rather than let a player have free range rights to your campaign you must sometimes give him the boot. It is drastic and shouldn't be used often, but IMO I'd gladly burn down the village to save it.

My advice is 2 and then if that fails 3. Try and find out if he will work with you to make the character fit into he style of campaign you are trying to run. More often than not this will work and the game will go on with but a minor hiccup. If not then 3 his @#$%&. I'd rather not play in a game than play in one I am not happy in.

DG X(

Marvel > DC

Warlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to go with you're friends on this. No
> offense intended, but if you say you want to run a
> game, and then balk at a very slightly
> unconventional character idea, then you really
> seem a little inflexible as a GM.-Michael
>
> I disagree with most of you post but just chose
> this sentence as the point to argue against in
> general.
>

Fair enough.

> The GM does NOT work for the players.

I never said that the GM worked for the players.

>The idea is
> for everyone to have fun, GM included.

Which is exactly the same thing that I said.

>If a player
> comes right out and says "I like to mess with
> peoples games" its not simply a player choosing
> something cause he likes it, it sounds more like a
> case of "I gotta be the center of attention"
> syndrome.

Well, first, I hope that we both know that we are only being given only limited information about both the player and the GM. So right from the start any judgment calls about the personalities involved would be pretty foolish.

The author gave only the vaguest terms to describe the PC: "problem player" and "admits liking to mess with people's campaigns".

Remember that the statement that he is going to "constantly try and just disrupt the game." is just an assumption on the GM's part. The GM hasn't really told us what exactly that means.

Now, look at what the GM has told us about himself. He hasn't played or GM'd in years. He considers "mutant" characters as "standard". His first action was to try to change the PC's character. A Beginning GM. And a Beginning GM's Respnose. "It's my Campaign - Not the Players!".

Why is that? What is a better "fit" about a "Gladiator from a Parallel World" than a "Roman Gladiator From The Past"?

How could a GM make one character fit and not the other? I don't see any reason at all. And the GM has given us no description of his world that would make us believe that a Roman Gladiator From The Past would not be a good "fit".

So from the evidence I see, it's more of a case of the GM not liking the character, than the character not working for his campaign.

> Well then I will choose a character that
> intentionally doesn't fit and make you change your
> world to fit my whim".

Well, like I said, knowing that have an incomplete (or rather one-sided) view of the situation, you can certainly choose to interpret this player's personality as you wish.

But I personally saw more wrong with the GM's approach than with the players.

And look at the responses that he got. One was "Beat the Player Into Submission" and the other two were "Force This Player To Change His Character To Your Way!".

These types of heavy handed GMing approaches are far more disruptive methods for handling a player who (from the limited information the GM has given us) only wants to play something different than the "standard mutant".

And who can blame him!? As a GM I'd be more than happy to never have to see a "standard mutant" PC again! Hmmm....should I take Optic Blasts or Claws this time.... 8-)

Personally, I've seen this issue come up again and again in FTF games. I assume that it occasionally happens, but I haven't seen a single case where it wasn't simply a case of the GM being too inflexible because it was HIS campaign and he couldn't stand to have an original idea in it that wasn't his!

But if you talk to the players, they're usually there to have fun just like everyone else is. They are just bored to death with playing the "standards" that is usually the only thing the GM can handle and makes it known with the power of his might ego.

A good GM can handle a wide variety of character types and for me, this sounded like the GM was not ready to listen more closely to his players. Always a bad sign.

I could certainly be wrong, but that's okay, cause I'm not here to be right. He asked for suggestions. I gave them. Work with the player instead of against him.

If the GM truly feels he can't handle anything but "standard mutants" then he should say so (as I said). But that's not what Good GM's do. It's what insecure GM's do.

There are cases where a player's ideas don't fit the campaign type. But this didn't sound like one of them.





michael



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2005 06:34PM by michael.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go over your post point by point so here is just some things that umped out at me and my response to them.

The author gave only the vaguest terms to describe the PC: "problem player" and "admits liking to mess with people's campaigns".

Well difference of opinion I guess, I don't see a player admiting to screwing with a GMs campaign as vague at all. We need examples of him being a problem player to realize he is, when the player has supposedly admitted to being such? I mean just coming oput and saying you like to do it proves you just don't give a @#$%& and to hell with what people think of it.

Yeah, we need more clues to solve this case Holmes. 8-)


And look at the responses that he got. One was "Beat the Player Into Submission" and the other two were "Force This Player To Change His Character To Your Way!".

PUH-LEASE! The first was a joke and you know it, and the second wasn't saying forcing anybody to do anything. It was a suggestion (and a good one IMHO) for a way the player could keep his gladiator and have the GM still have the player at least somewhat fit into the game he was trying to develop. To portray these posts as anything but what they were obviously intended as is not only insulting to the orignal posters, but is also quite foolish as it is a completely transparent attempt to justify your "the GM was wrong" response when it really didn't need one. It's your opinon, you are entitled to it and you don't need to intentionally mis-represent the content of others posts to justify it.


A good GM can handle a wide variety of character types and for me, this sounded like the GM was not ready to listen more closely to his players. Always a bad sign.

So let me guess this straight. First you start out by saying I am making assumptions without basis in fact and then you end it with "this sounded to me like"? Of course you are making assumptions, nothing short of a minute by minute account for all their times gaming together will ever give you a "true" picture of how it really stands. Just if you are gonna go making assumptions don't fault others for doing the same just because you don't agree with them.


And who can blame him!? As a GM I'd be more than happy to never have to see a "standard mutant" PC again! Hmmm....should I take Optic Blasts or Claws this time....

Well I see this as elitest BS. There are no bad toons, just bad players. Optic blasts and/or claws aren't the problem, it's the players who can't see past the powers and fail to develop a real character to wield them.


If the GM truly feels he can't handle anything but "standard mutants" then he should say so (as I said). But that's not what Good GM's do. It's what insecure GM's do.

And to top ot all off you not only get on your high horse about "standard" mutants again, but you insult him based on that incomplete information you fault others for relying on. Good job!


Have you ever GM'ed much? Your responses sound very much like some of the players I have played with that have never or very seldom were the GM, very player-centric.

DG X(

Marvel > DC

Well time to come to my own defense. The other 3 players wanted to play mutants (more specifically relatively young and untrained) and this "problem player" came up with this ancient roman warrior idea. Now think for yourself, if you read New Mutants, how could a writer shoehorn in "Ancient Gladiator Man" and still have the plots make any sense whatsoever? I like my teams to have some degree of internal consistency. I expect it of the comics I read and the games I run this does not make me a bad GM.

I have since talked to this player and he admits to messing with me on purpose. He came up with the first random thought that crossed his mind and admitted he could not fit his character in with the other three players' characters either.

I understand a player has to control his/her own character, but the game should be fun for everyone. An atypical character can become the center of attention far too easily.

Hopefully this helps clarify things.

Risk2099

just a thought but if the player WANTS to play a more experianced character then MAKE him.

as in have him be the "Mentor figure" to the "young and untrained mutants" and MAKE him rp as such. but also enforce his play as a anachronistic character in the game. granted he was training with aliens in a, presumably, hi-tech enviroment. but it wasn't Earth. make him rp out how alien it all seems to him now while he's trying to mentor the young mutants.

not only that but since he is the one who wanted to be playing a more experianced character he should be ready for the pit falls that come with playing one. he's the authority figure, the role model and the pseudo-father figure for the mutants. THAT is a pretty big load for anyone to handle and make sure you drive home the point.

this is comic book land...everything makes sense if you try


an Asgardian god, a guy in a iron suit, a scientist who grows, his wife who shrinks and a green, atomic monster find a super soldier frozen from WWII and form the greatest team in the history of superheros.... yeah that makes as much sense as three mutants and a Roman dude being thrown together to face a common threat and forming a lasting team after beating an immediate enemy.

The only problem player i ever faced was a guy who drank to much beer during gaming sessions, so we instituted a stupid time limit, when you do something really stupid, we call it for the evening

no harm, no foul

I realize the Avengers have different origins, and that is fine for a book like that. I love The Authority but they are from all over the map as far as power levels and origins go. But when everyone else is wanting to be the New Mutants, a non-mutant character makes little sense (Warlock not withstanding - but he was looking to fit in and understand the world as much as any teenager). The bottom line to this entire debate I seemed to have started is that if 3 of 4 players want one type of campaign, majority rules.

My two cents (which I seem to be spending alot today)
Risk2099

hey whats up i never posted in a while.... My 2 cents is that ....

I agree with both sides ....the gm is the GM in my book .... but i let people play what ever charcter they want ...the better powers they have the stronger all the enemies will be...if wants to be a roman guy let him be ( i would try to work in in somehow ) .... my Idea would be let the mutants find him somehow. or have him have the (Does not age) power..A curse was metioned in another post .......there Are so many ideas that can spin off that guy wantein to be a roman warrior in a group of mutants...... but thants my opion.............................P.S I am the worst speller ever!!!!!!

And could You post the other charcters (the muntans) I wouldn't mind knowing it would make the story make a lot more sense ( somehow )

I could see non mutant chars in a X-themed campaign. Xavier wants to keep peace between mutants and humans and what better way to do that then by including non muntants in his hero teams.

Wasn't shatterstar a non mutant? Longshot wasn't a mutant.

Yeah, but Longshot wasn't technically human, either.

And Shatterstar is indeed a mutant.

As for problem players, all the suggestions I thought of have been posted, but I will say this. Ultimately, It's YOUR game. If you and 3/4 of the group are going for a mutant team-themed game, and gladiator guy doesn't want to get with the program, either work it out somehow or just tell him, "man, if you can't be different yet still work with the team idea wise, you're probably not gonna get to play." Period.

Of course, all of this is moot, since you've already stated that the guy was just screwing with you and has conformed.

And I don't know what the hell michael was talking about, but many of us need to just have a coke and a smile.

Skarlett da Carbonated Spyder

________________________________________________________________________________
"All who wander are not lost." J.R.R. Tolkein

"History and experience have taught us that the oldest among our kind invariably prove the most formidable." Sage, X-Treme X-Men #43

"You leap like a hyena in heat!!" Conan to Wolverine, What If...? #16

"Useless, all useless...I was once a MAN!!" Cobra Commander, G.I. Joe the Movie

I know how you could fit a Roman Gladiator into the game easy with New Mutants.

He was a Gladiator that died in the areana. His mutant power kicked in on his death and due to the sound beating that he took by the time that he regenerated enough he was embarmed and entombed. Combine this with a curse for not helping a passing witch or a sooth seer could see that this Fighter is out of time and out of place. To save his mind have him wake up in WW2 or later in the box burried somewhere in the US top security location.

He Escapes comes into contact with the other players. Hey presto. You have a new mutant. No idea where he is. Less idea about history, Needs allies quickly and still finally realises that he has powers but learning how to use them.

Would work for me Fangs! :)

The one and only unstoppable nutcase!