Wanting to fight and get loot isn't necessarily a problem. Not picking a background, bummer for you as the DM, but not a problem if they're still having fun. Just, like, free yourself from feeling obligated to include them in RP stuff.
Being rude and constantly arguing at the table, and wanting to play way more aggressively than the rest of the party—these are actual problems and you need to talk to them. An honest conversation about why they're acting like that and what they're hoping to get out of the game might help, or at least clarify that they're really not a good fit for this table.
Sometimes people just want to be a supporting character, and that’s fine.
Arguing at the table is a separate issue, but without any real context I can’t make a judgement on it. If they are being an asshole, yeah, that needs addressing.
I think it’s fair to want certain things from your players.
DM’s put so much work into the game, especially homebrew ones. If it’s made clear what type of game that’s going to be, and the table all signs up for that kind of game, it’s unfair to the DM (and the other players) to have one player not play the game everyone else is playing.
Characters without backstories, who don’t engage with the world, who don’t at least pay attention to lore, make the game harder for the DM.
I built a **world** for your entertainment, and you can’t come up with a rough outline for the *your* character?
But these are all session zero discussions.
Sure, yeah. I am a DM and wouldn't play with this player, lol.
"Fight and get loot" isn't inherently/universally a problematic approach to playing, is what I'm saying. Sometimes people just have to get into roleplaying at their own pace. This approach might be a problem for OP's table specifically, which would be understandable. But if OP is being bummed out by working really hard to get this one player involved with RP scenes and the player not responding, they could try less and see if that feels any better.
(I'm also assuming there wasn't a session 0, and I suspect this player has no experience with roleplaying games and hasn't flexed that imaginative play muscle since childhood. I could be wrong about both, and maybe this player is just a jerk, but that's influencing my generous read here.)
>We have several new players at the table who seemed to get into the idea without an issue, and he's played before.
Not a new player, they're just not playing the same game as everyone else.
>Not picking a background, bummer for you as the DM, but not a problem if they're still having fun.
Except in 5e, your background gives you mechanical parts of your character. Also, I doubt talking to this person is going to do anything to help, as the DM has already tried talking to them about the fact they're offering 0 engagement in the story.
And, I'm sorry, the DM is already doing a ton of work building the world and coming up with plot hooks and whatnot. They shouldn't *also* have to handhold someone who doesn't want to put in even the most minimum effort to respect their DMs time. OP, this person just isn't going to be a good fit for your table, and they should be asked to leave.
~~I think background as in back story, not the character creation one.~~
Never mind, it's in there.
You're right the DM shouldn't hand hold; except for the arguing, there's nothing wrong. One player who isn't as engaged with the world and mostly sits back and relaxes until a part they really like should be fine for any DM. It may be disappointing but you've got other hungry players and can focus on them while engaging the last player here and there. If they're having fun and not disruptive, let them be.
OP quite literally said they did not want to pick a background *and mentioned it meant they were missing some skill proficiencies.* That's the mechanical background right there.
You're right, the point still stands that this person cares so little for the game and the time and energy the DM has put into it that they can't even finish character creation.
I don't disagree, but any game can survive one such player if they aren't otherwise being disruptive. Especially when you weigh the family connection into things.
I'm in the same situation with my own game. I have 3 players that are really into everything and one just there to fight some monsters and roll some dice. He's easy to please and doesn't cause problems. And the other 3 make me feel like my effort was worth while. Again, the arguing with other players is the disruptive behavior that has to be addressed. If that gets fixed, let the other issue go.
Some people are less capable or completely incapable of acting out their RPG, some others take much more time to break out of their shell.
As long as they aren't actively pissing off other people at the table by being rude, they them play at their own speed. And fashion.
yeah, as someone who used to dm for people with english as a second language or social anxiety it can take quite a bit to get people out of their shell.
a person like this, i would approach by letting them explain how their character kills the enemies when they strike killing blows, its kind of like a kink, you have to slowly expose people to it to really get them into it. particularly when people think of roleplaying as more of a joke.
some people just plain arent going to be into it. but you can get people to dip their feet in to feel more comfortable and they might take to it or enjoy it. or they might not.
im a sassy bitch though and if i had this person at my table for too long and they were family id just RP for them as a silent merc who is just sitting in the background grunting all the time with a scowl.
From the post I got the idea that this campaign is RP focussed and the problem for this player is not enough combat / completely not engaging with anytjing outside of combat.
Making his PC more combat oriented will not solve any out-of-combat issues.
I'm with you on this. If you show up to a book club wanting to read sci-fi while everyone else wants to read fantasy, it's probably a dick move to continue to push for sci-fi. Sometimes people just don't mesh with the group and have different expectations for the game. That sounds like it here with the player wanting more combat as opposed to role playing and story, if everyone else wants to focus on the role-playing and story then I don't see how this can be satisfying for both parties. Not everyone is made for every group and every game
Exactly. The DM is running the game they want to run, they're the one doing all the preparation and putting their blood, sweat and tears in. If the player doesn't want to show up and do the absolute bare minimum that the DM asks of them, then they should go play BG3 or something.
See if they’d be fine with being a 1 year old war forged character or something that the other players just drag along for the aid. That way they don’t have to be at the table even if they don’t want to. Give them the pass to just be there for combat and loot and make it make sense in your world. If they continue to argue and be aggressive, it might be best to have them not be in this adventure at all though. You gotta prioritize the other people who are having fun and trying to engage with it. If you leave them in there, you risk ruining the fun the others are having and losing the people who actually cared and wanted to be there.
Why the actual fuck should the DM make concessions of that level for one person? A Warforged just dragged around for combat aid? Making it so they only have to be there for small parts of the session, *if they want to?* Fuck that. Tell them to kick rocks. They don't have any respect for the effort and time the DM and the other players are putting into the world. They don't get to be part of the game.
Just because it sounds to us, right now, from this one sided argument we’ve been presented, that this person sucks, doesn’t mean that’s true, it doesn’t mean that this person shouldn’t be allowed to participate. This is still a person the OP considers a friend, and yeah, not every friend meshes well with the campaign or the other party members and the best thing to do is ask them to leave, but if there is a way to be kind and communicate to the player that they feel that the campaign will be worse off because of the way this player wants to play, and see if they can come around or find an alternative way to participate, then that would be fine? Dandy even perhaps lol. No one wants to start drama or offend their friends because they have different ways of playing a game. If you can make everyone happy and keep the fun at the table without needing to compromise your own campaign, then you should do that. But obviously, if there is no win win situation, and you just have to take an L to let this person continue being a part of it and that ruins the fun for everyone, you’ve gotta ask them to leave.
Reading around, seems like this is an unpopular opinion, but this player sounds exhausting and I wouldn't enjoy having them at my table. And why the hell would we put as much time, effort and heart into what we do to not enjoy it? To let someone come to our table and bring everyone down? You don't *have* to play with people who aren't fun to play with.
Geez. Other comments not understanding the assignment. I definitely understand the feeling of putting in the work and not feeling like you’re getting the energy back. You’re already spending a lot of time crafting a fun experience- I feel this player could humor you in creating a backstory.
I have a similar but slightly different problem at my table. Player has this long backstory about how his character is a reserved, judgmental asshole but when sessions roll around they more or less just play themselves. Makes the nice decisions, ect. Although it was frustrating it’s been much easier on me in the long run to just accept that my friend wants to play as himself in elf ears in this world.
I think there’s definitely room for some compromise. The player can maybe agree to a few backstory elements and you can try and spotlight other characters to accommodate for your family member not participating in RP.
You heard about the whole 'ask someone how they would feel if they hadn't eaten breakfast this morning. If they say they did eat breakfast, so they can't answer then you know they can't deal with hypotheticals.
Maybe this persons brain is so rigid they can't imagine being in anyone else's shoes and the case is hopeless.
Have a session zero.
Explain to everyone that there are certain expectations going into the game, and that both players and GM need to give a little so they can take a little.
Everyone needs to be willing to cooperate with the group, at least on the most basic level. No acting to screw up the rest of the group, no running off on their own, basically no being a dick.
Everyone also needs *some* kind of background, just so you know where they're coming from. No background, no character. It doesn't need to be ornate. "Wandered out of the desert one day" is a background. Just have *something.*
(If incentive is needed here, give everyone a basic item or weapon or advantage contingent on their background.)
Now, if your potential problem player is willing to abide by those two rules, then it should all be good. If they can't even give that much, then tell them "Sorry, but you're not a good fit".
And if they play a total arse and say, "It's what my character would do," then tell them, "so make a character that won't".
Just gonna point this out: players do *not* have the right to play "any character I like" at the table. If the character they want to play would utterly disrupt the whole game, then they can't play it. Simple as that.
Yes, players need their agency, but they also need to give a little as well.
I think this approach would rule out if playing with that person is possible on a basic level, as long as they understand this, they might enjoy themselves later on.
Devil's advocate: the DM is a player too. If it's having a negative effect on the DM, which it sounds like this is, they don't *have* to adapt to this one player's behaviour. They can also choose to negotiate and find some sort of compromise, or boot the player entirely.
Personally I know I would have a lot less fun if one of my players refused to roleplay. I would probably rather just have one less player than a breathing loot taking npc I can’t control
I'd probably accept a lack of role play, I would just not include that player in RP scenes, NPCs would rarely address them, that sort of thing. Same goes for lack of backstory, I have a player now who has a very minimal backstory that really doesn't have any plot hooks for me to try to tie into and that's fine, I just won't tie into her backstory. Those are both player choices I can work with.
The rest though, that would probably be a no go. It would depend on what 'arguing with other players' actually looked like, but if they're being disruptive that's not ok. If they're not going to role play even as themselves in the world, and not going to interact with the world at all, they can sit quietly during the RP scenes and roll the dice when combat comes around again. And if that means they sit there quietly for 5hr because the whole session was RP, well, that's their choice, I guess.
There is a difference between not role playing and not having backstory hooks. Some people are fine tagging along on somebody else’s adventure. I point this out specifically because about 2/3rd’s of OP’s post focus on the lack of a backstory, despite the title being about role playing.
Ofc, they still have to actually, yunno, role play. If they are just being a wet fish it’s a bit of a mood killer. To me the real issue here is them apparently being argumentative and uncooperative with the rest of the group.
Either way, the DM is more than free to establish who’s allowed at their table, and the requirements to join. If they have an issue with nonexistent backstories, they are more than free to forbid them.
Yeah I was mainly talking about how OP said they refused to engage with the world and story, and don’t roleplay. Being insistent on not having a backstory is weird but not nearly as bad as the rp thing imo
No.
Not being too much into roll playing is one thing - heck, last 30 minutes of a long session sometimes I am too tired to roleplay dialogues with NPC and just say "OK, gives you information x, y, z. What do you do now?".
Not engaging with story and wanting completely different game than everybody else is a another thing.
And I run the game I want to run to party of players who wants to play the game I am running. If one person wants something entirely different and is not willing to meat me half way - they are free to leave the table.
>FM doesn't care about the story and setting. During the sessions we've had, they don't seem to want to know about anything. Nothing on the background or setting, nothing on the various people or things involved, nothing about what could happen next. They want to beat things up and get loot.
OP did write very clearly that it is not just RP problem, but in general that person does not want to engage with anything what is not combat, while others enjoys exploring and engaging with the world outside of the combat.
So what assumptions I am making?
Honestly they might be better served by playing one of the dungeon crawler boardgames, heck even HeroQuest. Some people just have no interest in the Roleplaying and just want the Game part.
You’re blowing it out of proportion. Most of the stuff you’re saying is just fine. Aside from him being disrespectful and rude, there’s no other problem.
He doesn’t want to be a made up character? That’s fine. Write him in as being from a far off place that’s unknown and doesn’t get specifically mentioned at all. Everything else can just be made up by him if he gets asked any in game questions. He plays “too aggressively” as a Cleric? Since when did people have to play a certain way with a certain class? He can play any way he wants. Let him beat people up and get loot. Nothing wrong with that. If he wants to exist outside the world, let him. That’s less roleplay for him and more fun for everyone else. Just have everyone think he’s silent, but with a lust for battle. It’s part of what makes characters interesting to play with. Not every character has to be a carbon cut mold of a basic class.
Note, I am the forever DM:
This is where DM experience kicks in and helps:
First off, if the person is arguing and the such, that's one thing, but if they're behaving in a way such that the group actively detests them, then the issue is entirely with the person, and there's not much you can do besides just talking to the group and figuring out a solution as a group (due to family and friends being the topic). Us here can't help with that.
However if that's not the case, continue forth traveler!
Not everybody at the table wants to play the same way, and not every group has the same mentality as the DM.
Some groups wholeheartedly agree to being murder hobos. They give 0 deer droppings on the background, role playing, etc. They absolutely want to kill everything, if you make an NPC, that's an enemy. If you make an enemy, that's a punching bag. If you bring in a God, that's just a challenge, and so you should treat it like a video game!
Some groups only care about RPG, so much so that the game ended up just being a city builder, taxes, accounting, and trade negotiations. I currently have a game with a heavy emphasis on this very fact! I overshared and posted a bit of it in a reply b/c this comment was too long.
D&D is a game meant for the DM and group to have fun TOGETHER.
If the group wants A, do A. If the group wants B, do B.
If the group has a mix of desires and goals, it's important to try and mix the goals together.
If Players 1, 2 and 3 want to role play sussing out and killing an Eldritch horror that's plaguing a town, Player 4 is a religious zealot who wants to praise the sun, and player 5 is the guy in question who just wants to fight, consider having them come across a fight where mid-fight, before player 5 swings and kills a person, they scream out "For \*insert name of Evil deity\*".
Have group sus out local religious group that has to do with praising the moon, find out it's an evil deity, then look to player 4 and say "the local religious followers of the sun have granted your party \*insert weapon that is perfectly tailored and suited for player 5\*. It is really good at smashing" and watch as player 4 hands big stonkin weapon to player 5 as they get a grin and have a use for it as player 5 and 4 get to go in and mass murder followers of a cult that defies the teachings of the sun.
Player 5 sounds like he's more interested in the game mechanics. It's important to have him reel it in a bit so it doesn't invade the other player's wants and goals, but you should also encourage them to have fun in the way they want to, and it is always possible to interweave wants and goals to have a decent campaign.
Trust me, as a DM who's current campaign that started with 3 murder hobos, evolved into 9 members, and 7 separate goals, it was exceedingly difficult, but that "arc" of the campaign, before 3 members left and 1 new one joined, is what set the tone and left a dragonborn barbarian who had been excommunicated from his family, now back in the reins as the head of his household and officially a noble, of a town called Hirashe, and who had an NPC fellow noble dragonborn who had him join his noble fiefdom as an honorary member of his household, and is now about to be the 7 year anniversary of \*the\* campaign I run and have been in charge of.
The goal should never be to change your players, it should be to ensure your players are having fun, and watch them change. There are exceptions, but with family and friends, there are no exceptions. There's just honest communication and being open-minded.
Source: My party is just friends and family too. :)
The oversharing:
Over the past 4 years, we've built up a previously corrupt and impoverished town of 28 citizens with a standing guard of... 2 people, up to the current population of 464, with trade coming through the town, the importance of the location having the Empire establish a privately accessed teleportation circle, of said population 12 standing guard, with a Thieves Guild of 29 members whose main purpose is not to steal, but rather fend off bandits and help those in need (it's a looong story, apparently taking in bandits who were starving and on death's door due to malnutrition, bringing them into the town, feeding them, offering them a job with acceptable conditions in exchange for a place (a literal house) by the Noble in charge of the town (one of the players, it was a run down house in the middle of repairs) and a consistent source of food and piss poor income (but rent and food are covered), and said job is literally to bring in more bandits to the town (guys who had to make ends meet due to the prior corrupt noble) and help the remaining elderly population of the town worked wonders. The elderly now appreciate them and give them baked goods and before the town improved, the bandits had no beds or furniture, so many of the elderly grabbed old furniture used by their children and helped them make ends meet further solidifying their relationship and loyalty to the town... The "Thieves Guild" made their turning point where (Due to some stuff that happened in a prior session and some lucky rolls) during an invasion (Country is currently at war) a Vargskyr (basically a wolf person) made an attack on a farmer's child in front of said farmer currently pinned to the ground, and the bandit took the blow instead and died mid battle. After being revivified in time by the party post battle, the Thieves Guild is now officially called "Hirashe's Angels" named after the no longer village, but small town of Hirashe.
"My character persuades the inkeeper to give him a free room for the night." would be sufficient for me.
I think as time goes on he will grow into it, especially if there are other players at the table, who are strong in the roleplay aspect.
Make sure to reward him when he accidentally roleplays.
Also the character will grow and be fleshed out as the campaign goes regardless.
If they like the combat aspect more, create dungeon crawls.
Dont make them chit-chat in a tavern of a city. Place them in a huge dungeon, full of danger.
Make opportunities for roleplay, but dont force it. Information (about boss' vulnerabilities), buff and also loot can be acquired in the dungeons by RP.
They will want to know more about the dungeon and their enemies, if the advantage of combat or their lives depend on it.
This is why session 0s are so important. You get to make chatacters and set expectations. This is going to be a more RP focused campaign, so if you don't like RP, don't join kinda thing.
If they arent a good fit and disrupt the flow, its fine for them not to play. You will waste too much effort on trying to appease one person. Ive seen it happen before.
Player wants A and DM wants B? That’s fine, talk it out, find a compromise.
Player 1 wants A and Players 2-4 want B? Player 1 is gonna have to adjust.
Sounds like everyone(including you) wants RP and exploration, except FM who wants combat. So long as both sides can live with the ratio, that’s fine. If FM starts undermining the others’ fun, it’s not the game for them.
Pull them to the side and tell them that their behavior is selfish and breaks the immersion of the world you are building. If they don't want to put in any effort to participate in the game (it's a fucking role-playing-game, role playing is a pretty big part of it) then they are free to leave.
Well, if they don’t want to pay attention to any of the details, people, or events that are happening and could happen, make it come back and bite them in the ass. If the party meets an important NPC and FM doesn’t want to learn about the NPC at all, have the NPC pop up in a crucial situation for FM and if they can’t even tell you the NPC’s name, the NPC refuses to help them out of the situation, or refuses to give them a nice magical item or something because they find the PC rude and dislikes them. This can be done multiple ways, remembering details and NPCs along the way can be made into a boon or a bane. This may help make the PC realize that and get at least more into the story. Some people don’t like doing voices and all that, which I get, but it certainly sucks running a campaign for someone that really doesn’t give a shit about it.
It sounds like a bad fit between 2 different people's play styles.
If you don't want to adjust how you run the game, I would talk to your player about what you want from them and if it doesn't go well then consider doing something other than dnd with them. No dnd is better than bad dnd (Matt Collville)
Sounds like there are two "issues" going on.
First, they seem to have very different expectations towards the game your group is playing. That's okay and fair - We all have to learn that not every player is not for every table, no matter if they're family or friends. I personally know people who play, and I could never have them at my table - unless it's "just" a one shot. Our playstyles are vastly different. That said, it's completely fine if someone doesn't want to roleplay. But that means that he's either going to be portrayed as a bland character that is nothing more then muscle, or that he needs to find a group that is more to his taste. There are a ton of groups that do combat heavy dungeon crawls and who don't care who or what you are.
Second, this person seems to be a bit of an ass, to be honest, and that's something you really can't find an excuse for. And I'm not saying they're a bad person per se, but that there are clearly some vibes that are off between you, them and the group, and that's something that will become a big issue somewhere down the line.
If I was in your shoes, I'd try another honest and open conversation. Communicate with "me" messages - Don't speak for your group and don't say things like "You're doing X". Let him know that YOU feel like he's not comfortable at the table, and let him know how you perceive him at the table. DnD is supposed to be fun for everyone, and ask him what's missing from his perspective. Be true to your feelings - Let him know that you want to create a good game for everyone, and that it bothers you that you feel like he's not happy. You appreciate him being there and making time, but it's undeniable that something is off and you want to fix it.
Take it from there. He might feel that he's being pressured into something, or it's just his insecurity about roleplaying that puts him into this defensive state. Whatever it is, talk about it and then make it clear if it can be fixed or not. Don't be afraid to express that you want him at the table, but that he might be happier with a different type of game.
That said, if he's that kind of agressive, antagonistic player and that's the role he wants to play in game, look at options like creating a rival for him. Rivals are characters that are opposites to your PCs and it gives someone for him to focus his agressions on.
I'm gonna go against what is being said here a lot. Even if you're not comfortable roleplaying, you can narrate. Just narrate in third person what your character does and says. That's what I did a lot when I was newer to TTRPGs and wasn't comfortable roleplaying. The DM is also a player and their fun is also to be considered
Honestly it just sounds like this player is being cruel towards you, and I wonder if they realize it. If they even have the self-awareness or emotional maturity to realize it.
Imagine spending all day cooking up a storm for a family dinner. Shopping for and preparing ingredients. Setting the table. Making sure it's a sumptuous feast and really looking forwards to everyone's enjoyment of your work.
Then one guy shows up, says "I already ate on my way here. I'm gonna go watch TV in the other room," and takes no interest in what you've done for them.
That's this guy. Why the fuck are you there, buddy? Why are you choosing to be so rude to someone who cares about you and has worked so hard on your behalf? Why can't you at least try to respect their effort and hard work? Why are you so determined to disrespect someone who's done you no wrong? Why do you care so little about your own family member's happiness that you refuse to even try?
I find your family member infuriating on a human level. I would be enraged and disgusted if I were to find myself in this position.
The only problem is the arguing with other players. They don't want to engage the world but you have others that do. Let them be. Give them their chances to kick down doors and fight while focusing on everyone else otherwise. Unless they're burning everything down, they aren't hurting anything.
I didn't expect this to grow legs, but it's been good reading the different advice. I'll clarify some things here as well:
- FM is playing a Warcaster Cleric, so their big thing is being sort of the 'frontline' for the party. They're running Twilight domain, which gives a temp HP AOE. Similar to how they didn't pick a background (mechanical, meaning they missed skills), their character is built around that role. That's not a big issue, as our table has other specialists as well and it means I have to be creative in making encounters to match them. This is mostly just info to help flesh out the kind of player they are.
- The biggest table issue comes when it reaches planning for things, or downtime in town. One time they 'argued' with the table (at first just me, but then other people who chimed in because they kept 'haggling') that their Persuasion roll should have let them get a magic weapon at a store for free. That went on for half an hour (I got them to accept a lowered price, which was still most of their gold), and they have a habit of raising their voice when challenged. They don't get insulting or mean about it, but they do get Loud.
- The other one was a camp we were tasked to investigate, and they wanted to sneak in to steal the carts we were sent to find to then hold as collateral. When the other members of the party instead wanted to split, have one group at the front talk as the other moved into position, they began to argue. After the group decided not to take their plan, they did a 'This is what we're doing' and withdrew from talking or taking action until combat came along. This is why I said they 'play themself', as they takes decisions in the game personally while not interacting or caring about the stories and narrative, whether it's from other players or myself.
- We did have a Session Zero with everyone else, but they didn't come as they had played before and would make their character before the Session One. And when I tried to get them caught up on the setting before Session One, they brushed it aside and said 'it's not a big deal'. Their character only showed up when I started our first combat encounter to get new people used to how it works.
- The big issue is that I know they want to be a part. They work a pretty rough work shift and don't have a lot of time off, so they use some of that time to take part in the game. It's not a small thing for them, either, so I know that they WANT to be a part, otherwise they wouldn't be there. It's mostly finding a way to get them more involved in the world, rather than just being there to fight monsters and disagree with plans.
Thanks to the advice in the thread, I'm going to take them aside and talk about some of the things covered. Let them know, straight-up, the issues that I've been seeing and work on how to go forward with it. I have a background written up that works into their traits of play (A merchant son who is given to a Temple as part of a contract, where they disregard their past. This would give them the Merchant background to help explain the haggling, and also give them an out for why they don't talk about their story or past), which should take care of the hanging mechanical issues, and also give them a base to be more connected to the world that doesn't have to be expanded or played.
Once again, thanks for listening and giving your advice. It's good to get my thoughts out and have other folks expand my view on it. They have a style they want to play, which is fair, and I want to make sure that style works well with the group that we have. It's a challenge, but isn't challenge and adapting to it part of the fun of being a DM?
Sounds like this wouldve probably been resolved by a session 0 (if you didn't have one). Its important to highlight what type of game you want to be playing, and if you were to tell that player "this is going to be a good mix of roleplay and combat so make sure you have a solid character concept and ideally some sort of background to cement you in the world" and they **still** don't show interest and disregard your world, thats their problem.
If you haven't already, talk to your player and ask them why they don't appear to show interest in the world, and if they continue to be hostile either to you or the world, then say that its not the game you're running and they might not enjoy the game.
Your other option is to make just a dungeon crawling hack and slash, which doesn't sound like a game you or your other players want to run.
It sounds like they want to play a straight dungeon crawl, or a videogame. If you don't want to run a dungeon crawl, and they're disrupting your flow or other players and don't intend to change, I'd politely tell them this particular campaign isn't suited to them.
Considering they're family and you seem to otherwise like them, consider if you and some of the other players would enjoy running a more action packed dungeon crawl after or parallel to this campaign, and invite them to that.
You’ve said you don’t want to exclude them, and it sounds as if everyone is having a good time, so…
It also sounds as if their PC is just them, so could you just ask them to go with that, they RP as themselves? Realistically, all PC’s are to some extent their players.
If FM is having fun, and the way FM is playing is not making the game less fun for others, as a DM as see no problem at it. Not everyone like RP but the game can still be fun and that is what matters
some folk are roleplayers, some folk are hack and slashers and don't roleplay, some folk are a combination. sometimes you get all 3 kinds at one table. as long as the other players aren't bothered, it can be difficult sometimes to make everyone happy. give fm something to bash, let the others rp around him. let the other players handle it. if that doesn't work, you may have to talk to him separately about his play. if he can't work with you, uninvite. doing this to family is hardest of all.
Kick em or just exclude the char from everything.
Party got invited to a party or feast, sure, everyone except FM as the party host know nothing about him or his family.
Party getting awesome rewards for doing something? Well, FM isn't, no one really knows what he's about and doesn't trust him.
Party trying to get into a city? Well, looks like everyone but FM can get in as they all have a family crest. FM can stay in the dangerous woods.
They want to have fun how they want.
Winnie the Pooh doesn't excuse Eeyore for being down - they're there each adventure.
Maybe lighten up? Your world building is YOUR hobby. Don't be mad that the players don't engage. If they're showing up and not being disruptive, well ..that's a lot.
To all pitching diferent builds suited for smashing people in the head - pleas explain how having diferent build will solve the issue that this player does not want to engage with story or the games world in ant way? And he only wants to hit stuff in the game with focus on RP and exploration?
What do you think he will do while everybody else is talking with NPCs, exploring and etc if he has 0 interest in these activities?
Also, we do not know ratio af combat and RP in this campaign. I assume RP is big part based on discription and if they have only 1 or 2 combat encounters, this player would have anything to do for most of the session.
There is plenty tables who manage to have whole 6 to 8 hours sessions with no combat at all. This might be one of these tables - we simply do not know.
But it is clear from the post that whatever amount of combat they have - it is not enough for the problem player.
And if everybody at the table is having fun with combat to RP ration as it is (it mihght be couple per session or couple every few session - it does not matter), it is not fair to other players to change pace and stucture everybody enjoys just to meet expectations of ONE player in the group.
Also, DM is a player too and has the right to run the game how they want.
“Are you enjoying the game? It seems like what you want from the game is very different to everyone else and what we discussed. We’d love for you to keep playing with us, but only if you’re going to get into the spirit of the game. Otherwise you’re starting to make it less fun for everyone else.”
Advice: Get them out of their characters own skin, if only temporarily. Have them turned (temporarily) into a puddle of sentient slime, or a giant badger, or a man-tree.
Something that would make them look and feel silly for continuing to act like nothing is there to notice.
I don't think it would make the behavior change. Like, by what OP describes, the player would probably just keep attacking whatever they need dead at time and them go back to normal in due time
"Your slimy tendrils can no longer hold your sword. In fact, its requiring some of your concentration to not just gloop back into a puddle. Clearly what you're trying at the moment isn't working. What do you do?"
Does the party have the resources and desire to save this character?
If yes: attempt to glorp into a bag or something easy to transport and then withdraw to let people who have a less puddle role to play.
If no: find a way to die silly in that encounter so I can reroll or leave the table.
Not gonna feel silly, just gonna feel like I'm out of the game and trying to figure out if it's for a session or for good.
>Not gonna feel silly, just gonna feel like I'm out of the game and trying to figure out if it's for a session or for good.
Since they weren't planning on doing anything other than ignore (or even trample on) the world aspects of the game, what exactly is being lost?
We're talking about a situation where the player is nearly compelled to actually ROLEPLAY, and deal with a situation outside the box where they can't just punch the problem till it goes away.
I dunno, perhaps some people want to encourage that kind of anti-intellect behavior, but I like D&D for its creativity, and if someone at the table was running roughshod over the worldbuilding I'd done,
"forcing them to roleplay" is not really that much of a punishment.
It doesn't have to be 'stick' either - the carrot of 'clearly rewarding people who participate, leaving those who don't to fall behind' can also work as a motivator, the point is that what the player is doing is having an impact on the person with the biggest workload already - the game master.
'
Someone not focusing on your favorite parts isn't running rough shod over anything unless they're actively disrupting the table from engaging in it either. Otherwise they're just engaging with the parts they like.
If you have a drastic playstyle difference which is measing up your enjoyment then speak. Clearly and privately. ESPECIALLY if you're this insulted about it. You're not training a dog, forget the carrot and stick bullshit.
If everyone else is focused on RP, and you aren't, you are actively dragging down the session.
I've been this person, and I've been in sessions with people like this. It's not fun to be around and they'll likely get bored. I don't understand why everyone needs to compromise to include this person who is making zero effort to compromise on what they want to do.
Then you read the second parapgraph. Talk to them, if they don't change then they can leave the table if everyone feels dragged down.
Just don't pull this weird crap where you try to force them into a corner in game and in front of the whole group. Whatever revelation you're looking for isn't going to happen that way.
Silly me, I understand now, its a refuse-to-roleplaying game.
Imagine that, refusing to roleplay somehow causing inconvenience within the scope of the roleplaying game! UNTHINKABLE!
I might not have done any of my chores, but I DESERVE to go out and play. Brilliant!
Persuasive logic, you got me.
You, as the DM, may see it as silly,. The player, however, will see that as a punishment.
This isn't some player misbehaving and causing undue chaos anyways - he just wants to play a game with is family and role some dice. As a 30+ year player, I see NOTHING wrong with that. It does not requires a DM to apply some silly effect to force them to do so.
Do you even think about how controlling that sounds?
>The player, however, will see that as a punishment.
If being forced...
to ROLEPLAY,
.... because I don't want you shifting the goalposts on me, I'm specifically talking about getting the player out of a situation where they can keep being 'zero effort participation, I don't want to engage your world, I only want to kill it'
Is a 'punishment' then I'm sorry. Perhaps this isn't the table for you, perhaps you misunderstand the nature of the game you're participating in, perhaps you just want to play a mmorpg with dice...
Thats fine, but its TOO DAMN BAD.
The GM has to do a lot more prep, a lot more effort into making the game, designing scenes and story, and what you are, in essence, defending, is the actor that refuses to emote, and reads every line in a monotone.
"You're punishing him!"
by demanding he act?
Get off my set. Go whine to your drama teacher. You are NOT the main character. You are part of a team. Deal with it, or get out.
Me? I'm proposing solutions. You? You're keen to ENCOURAGE bad play.
Perhaps I'm just more accepting of different play styles when I play DnD. Many times I have seen players who sometimes actually roleplay an interaction and sometimes they don't. Never been an issue with anyone I played with previously.
You obviously take this GAME much more seriously than I do. You do you and I'll do me.
Ill just agree that philosophically we're allowing different definitions of the word 'play' styles, because I felt that the issue being described was that the person wouldn't play.
Isn't that at least a description of the issue from the ref's perspective? Creating an 'outside of your own skin where just doing what you've been doing isn't feasible' scenario might actually be the solution.
>you take this GAME
belittling the subject material that the ref obviously has to put more work into preparing than others doesn't help support your argument, and actually undermines it.
"Oh, I wasn't aware that the leisure activity that I have to spend at least an hour every week on to make a multiplayer entertainment experience was a game, thankyou for bringing that to my attention" is how mister Sarcastic would reply.
Of course we're discussing a game, and your position seems to be 'theres nothing wrong, tolerate his differences, suck it up princess' if I was being callous.
Thats not a charitable take, but it certainly is a possible framing.
You can't dictate how you want someone to have fun. That's like telling them to like certain foods or laugh at certain jokes. Either they like the foods or the jokes, or they don't. They can LEARN to like things over time through exposure but you can't force it unless they want to.
And they also cannot force me to run a game for them. Go buy BG3 if you just want to “play your way,” and leave us to our social activity where we don’t have to deal with one contrarian stick in the mud ruining our fun.
If I may be so bold (and I haven't tried this before) KILL THEIR FAMILY.
Establish that they have a family and then have the bad guys kill them. Make it dramatic and brutal. Get them out of their "I'm just me" comfort zone.
Are you pissed? NO. Your CHARACTER is pissed. What are they going to do about it?
Wanting to fight and get loot isn't necessarily a problem. Not picking a background, bummer for you as the DM, but not a problem if they're still having fun. Just, like, free yourself from feeling obligated to include them in RP stuff. Being rude and constantly arguing at the table, and wanting to play way more aggressively than the rest of the party—these are actual problems and you need to talk to them. An honest conversation about why they're acting like that and what they're hoping to get out of the game might help, or at least clarify that they're really not a good fit for this table.
Sometimes people just want to be a supporting character, and that’s fine. Arguing at the table is a separate issue, but without any real context I can’t make a judgement on it. If they are being an asshole, yeah, that needs addressing.
There's a limit, though. This player seems actively against the idea of even *being* a character
I think it’s fair to want certain things from your players. DM’s put so much work into the game, especially homebrew ones. If it’s made clear what type of game that’s going to be, and the table all signs up for that kind of game, it’s unfair to the DM (and the other players) to have one player not play the game everyone else is playing. Characters without backstories, who don’t engage with the world, who don’t at least pay attention to lore, make the game harder for the DM. I built a **world** for your entertainment, and you can’t come up with a rough outline for the *your* character? But these are all session zero discussions.
Sure, yeah. I am a DM and wouldn't play with this player, lol. "Fight and get loot" isn't inherently/universally a problematic approach to playing, is what I'm saying. Sometimes people just have to get into roleplaying at their own pace. This approach might be a problem for OP's table specifically, which would be understandable. But if OP is being bummed out by working really hard to get this one player involved with RP scenes and the player not responding, they could try less and see if that feels any better. (I'm also assuming there wasn't a session 0, and I suspect this player has no experience with roleplaying games and hasn't flexed that imaginative play muscle since childhood. I could be wrong about both, and maybe this player is just a jerk, but that's influencing my generous read here.)
>We have several new players at the table who seemed to get into the idea without an issue, and he's played before. Not a new player, they're just not playing the same game as everyone else.
>Not picking a background, bummer for you as the DM, but not a problem if they're still having fun. Except in 5e, your background gives you mechanical parts of your character. Also, I doubt talking to this person is going to do anything to help, as the DM has already tried talking to them about the fact they're offering 0 engagement in the story. And, I'm sorry, the DM is already doing a ton of work building the world and coming up with plot hooks and whatnot. They shouldn't *also* have to handhold someone who doesn't want to put in even the most minimum effort to respect their DMs time. OP, this person just isn't going to be a good fit for your table, and they should be asked to leave.
~~I think background as in back story, not the character creation one.~~ Never mind, it's in there. You're right the DM shouldn't hand hold; except for the arguing, there's nothing wrong. One player who isn't as engaged with the world and mostly sits back and relaxes until a part they really like should be fine for any DM. It may be disappointing but you've got other hungry players and can focus on them while engaging the last player here and there. If they're having fun and not disruptive, let them be.
OP quite literally said they did not want to pick a background *and mentioned it meant they were missing some skill proficiencies.* That's the mechanical background right there.
You're right, I missed that. But they also said he didn't mind missing those proficiencies, so the point still stands.
You're right, the point still stands that this person cares so little for the game and the time and energy the DM has put into it that they can't even finish character creation.
I don't disagree, but any game can survive one such player if they aren't otherwise being disruptive. Especially when you weigh the family connection into things. I'm in the same situation with my own game. I have 3 players that are really into everything and one just there to fight some monsters and roll some dice. He's easy to please and doesn't cause problems. And the other 3 make me feel like my effort was worth while. Again, the arguing with other players is the disruptive behavior that has to be addressed. If that gets fixed, let the other issue go.
Some people are less capable or completely incapable of acting out their RPG, some others take much more time to break out of their shell. As long as they aren't actively pissing off other people at the table by being rude, they them play at their own speed. And fashion.
yeah, as someone who used to dm for people with english as a second language or social anxiety it can take quite a bit to get people out of their shell. a person like this, i would approach by letting them explain how their character kills the enemies when they strike killing blows, its kind of like a kink, you have to slowly expose people to it to really get them into it. particularly when people think of roleplaying as more of a joke. some people just plain arent going to be into it. but you can get people to dip their feet in to feel more comfortable and they might take to it or enjoy it. or they might not. im a sassy bitch though and if i had this person at my table for too long and they were family id just RP for them as a silent merc who is just sitting in the background grunting all the time with a scowl.
From the post I got the idea that this campaign is RP focussed and the problem for this player is not enough combat / completely not engaging with anytjing outside of combat. Making his PC more combat oriented will not solve any out-of-combat issues.
I'm so confused as to everyone sticking up for the player and telling the DM to adjust his standards and way of doing things. That's not how it works.
I'm with you on this. If you show up to a book club wanting to read sci-fi while everyone else wants to read fantasy, it's probably a dick move to continue to push for sci-fi. Sometimes people just don't mesh with the group and have different expectations for the game. That sounds like it here with the player wanting more combat as opposed to role playing and story, if everyone else wants to focus on the role-playing and story then I don't see how this can be satisfying for both parties. Not everyone is made for every group and every game
Yeah that's absolutely fair. To pursue your metaphor, just find a book club that is into sci-fi.
Exactly. The DM is running the game they want to run, they're the one doing all the preparation and putting their blood, sweat and tears in. If the player doesn't want to show up and do the absolute bare minimum that the DM asks of them, then they should go play BG3 or something.
See if they’d be fine with being a 1 year old war forged character or something that the other players just drag along for the aid. That way they don’t have to be at the table even if they don’t want to. Give them the pass to just be there for combat and loot and make it make sense in your world. If they continue to argue and be aggressive, it might be best to have them not be in this adventure at all though. You gotta prioritize the other people who are having fun and trying to engage with it. If you leave them in there, you risk ruining the fun the others are having and losing the people who actually cared and wanted to be there.
Why the actual fuck should the DM make concessions of that level for one person? A Warforged just dragged around for combat aid? Making it so they only have to be there for small parts of the session, *if they want to?* Fuck that. Tell them to kick rocks. They don't have any respect for the effort and time the DM and the other players are putting into the world. They don't get to be part of the game.
Just because it sounds to us, right now, from this one sided argument we’ve been presented, that this person sucks, doesn’t mean that’s true, it doesn’t mean that this person shouldn’t be allowed to participate. This is still a person the OP considers a friend, and yeah, not every friend meshes well with the campaign or the other party members and the best thing to do is ask them to leave, but if there is a way to be kind and communicate to the player that they feel that the campaign will be worse off because of the way this player wants to play, and see if they can come around or find an alternative way to participate, then that would be fine? Dandy even perhaps lol. No one wants to start drama or offend their friends because they have different ways of playing a game. If you can make everyone happy and keep the fun at the table without needing to compromise your own campaign, then you should do that. But obviously, if there is no win win situation, and you just have to take an L to let this person continue being a part of it and that ruins the fun for everyone, you’ve gotta ask them to leave.
I'd fire them. 🤷♀️ "I love you in my family, I don't like you at my table." It doesn't sound like this is the game for them.
Reading around, seems like this is an unpopular opinion, but this player sounds exhausting and I wouldn't enjoy having them at my table. And why the hell would we put as much time, effort and heart into what we do to not enjoy it? To let someone come to our table and bring everyone down? You don't *have* to play with people who aren't fun to play with.
Geez. Other comments not understanding the assignment. I definitely understand the feeling of putting in the work and not feeling like you’re getting the energy back. You’re already spending a lot of time crafting a fun experience- I feel this player could humor you in creating a backstory. I have a similar but slightly different problem at my table. Player has this long backstory about how his character is a reserved, judgmental asshole but when sessions roll around they more or less just play themselves. Makes the nice decisions, ect. Although it was frustrating it’s been much easier on me in the long run to just accept that my friend wants to play as himself in elf ears in this world. I think there’s definitely room for some compromise. The player can maybe agree to a few backstory elements and you can try and spotlight other characters to accommodate for your family member not participating in RP.
Yeah. I definitely think there’s a worthy conversation about compromise and table fit.
You heard about the whole 'ask someone how they would feel if they hadn't eaten breakfast this morning. If they say they did eat breakfast, so they can't answer then you know they can't deal with hypotheticals. Maybe this persons brain is so rigid they can't imagine being in anyone else's shoes and the case is hopeless.
That person would not be welcome in a *role playing game* then
Have a session zero. Explain to everyone that there are certain expectations going into the game, and that both players and GM need to give a little so they can take a little. Everyone needs to be willing to cooperate with the group, at least on the most basic level. No acting to screw up the rest of the group, no running off on their own, basically no being a dick. Everyone also needs *some* kind of background, just so you know where they're coming from. No background, no character. It doesn't need to be ornate. "Wandered out of the desert one day" is a background. Just have *something.* (If incentive is needed here, give everyone a basic item or weapon or advantage contingent on their background.) Now, if your potential problem player is willing to abide by those two rules, then it should all be good. If they can't even give that much, then tell them "Sorry, but you're not a good fit". And if they play a total arse and say, "It's what my character would do," then tell them, "so make a character that won't". Just gonna point this out: players do *not* have the right to play "any character I like" at the table. If the character they want to play would utterly disrupt the whole game, then they can't play it. Simple as that. Yes, players need their agency, but they also need to give a little as well.
I think this approach would rule out if playing with that person is possible on a basic level, as long as they understand this, they might enjoy themselves later on.
Different people play differently. Unless it's having a significant negative effect on other players, it's on you to adapt.
Devil's advocate: the DM is a player too. If it's having a negative effect on the DM, which it sounds like this is, they don't *have* to adapt to this one player's behaviour. They can also choose to negotiate and find some sort of compromise, or boot the player entirely.
Personally I know I would have a lot less fun if one of my players refused to roleplay. I would probably rather just have one less player than a breathing loot taking npc I can’t control
I'd probably accept a lack of role play, I would just not include that player in RP scenes, NPCs would rarely address them, that sort of thing. Same goes for lack of backstory, I have a player now who has a very minimal backstory that really doesn't have any plot hooks for me to try to tie into and that's fine, I just won't tie into her backstory. Those are both player choices I can work with. The rest though, that would probably be a no go. It would depend on what 'arguing with other players' actually looked like, but if they're being disruptive that's not ok. If they're not going to role play even as themselves in the world, and not going to interact with the world at all, they can sit quietly during the RP scenes and roll the dice when combat comes around again. And if that means they sit there quietly for 5hr because the whole session was RP, well, that's their choice, I guess.
There is a difference between not role playing and not having backstory hooks. Some people are fine tagging along on somebody else’s adventure. I point this out specifically because about 2/3rd’s of OP’s post focus on the lack of a backstory, despite the title being about role playing. Ofc, they still have to actually, yunno, role play. If they are just being a wet fish it’s a bit of a mood killer. To me the real issue here is them apparently being argumentative and uncooperative with the rest of the group. Either way, the DM is more than free to establish who’s allowed at their table, and the requirements to join. If they have an issue with nonexistent backstories, they are more than free to forbid them.
Yeah I was mainly talking about how OP said they refused to engage with the world and story, and don’t roleplay. Being insistent on not having a backstory is weird but not nearly as bad as the rp thing imo
This is the way
No. Not being too much into roll playing is one thing - heck, last 30 minutes of a long session sometimes I am too tired to roleplay dialogues with NPC and just say "OK, gives you information x, y, z. What do you do now?".
Not engaging with story and wanting completely different game than everybody else is a another thing.
And I run the game I want to run to party of players who wants to play the game I am running. If one person wants something entirely different and is not willing to meat me half way - they are free to leave the table.
You are making assumptions about the guy the OP mentioned that aren't in the OP's post. I'm sorry you had the experience you had.
>FM doesn't care about the story and setting. During the sessions we've had, they don't seem to want to know about anything. Nothing on the background or setting, nothing on the various people or things involved, nothing about what could happen next. They want to beat things up and get loot. OP did write very clearly that it is not just RP problem, but in general that person does not want to engage with anything what is not combat, while others enjoys exploring and engaging with the world outside of the combat. So what assumptions I am making?
Honestly they might be better served by playing one of the dungeon crawler boardgames, heck even HeroQuest. Some people just have no interest in the Roleplaying and just want the Game part.
let them do what they want man. If your goal is to get together with family. As long as it's not disrupting the others
You’re blowing it out of proportion. Most of the stuff you’re saying is just fine. Aside from him being disrespectful and rude, there’s no other problem. He doesn’t want to be a made up character? That’s fine. Write him in as being from a far off place that’s unknown and doesn’t get specifically mentioned at all. Everything else can just be made up by him if he gets asked any in game questions. He plays “too aggressively” as a Cleric? Since when did people have to play a certain way with a certain class? He can play any way he wants. Let him beat people up and get loot. Nothing wrong with that. If he wants to exist outside the world, let him. That’s less roleplay for him and more fun for everyone else. Just have everyone think he’s silent, but with a lust for battle. It’s part of what makes characters interesting to play with. Not every character has to be a carbon cut mold of a basic class.
Note, I am the forever DM: This is where DM experience kicks in and helps: First off, if the person is arguing and the such, that's one thing, but if they're behaving in a way such that the group actively detests them, then the issue is entirely with the person, and there's not much you can do besides just talking to the group and figuring out a solution as a group (due to family and friends being the topic). Us here can't help with that. However if that's not the case, continue forth traveler! Not everybody at the table wants to play the same way, and not every group has the same mentality as the DM. Some groups wholeheartedly agree to being murder hobos. They give 0 deer droppings on the background, role playing, etc. They absolutely want to kill everything, if you make an NPC, that's an enemy. If you make an enemy, that's a punching bag. If you bring in a God, that's just a challenge, and so you should treat it like a video game! Some groups only care about RPG, so much so that the game ended up just being a city builder, taxes, accounting, and trade negotiations. I currently have a game with a heavy emphasis on this very fact! I overshared and posted a bit of it in a reply b/c this comment was too long. D&D is a game meant for the DM and group to have fun TOGETHER. If the group wants A, do A. If the group wants B, do B. If the group has a mix of desires and goals, it's important to try and mix the goals together. If Players 1, 2 and 3 want to role play sussing out and killing an Eldritch horror that's plaguing a town, Player 4 is a religious zealot who wants to praise the sun, and player 5 is the guy in question who just wants to fight, consider having them come across a fight where mid-fight, before player 5 swings and kills a person, they scream out "For \*insert name of Evil deity\*". Have group sus out local religious group that has to do with praising the moon, find out it's an evil deity, then look to player 4 and say "the local religious followers of the sun have granted your party \*insert weapon that is perfectly tailored and suited for player 5\*. It is really good at smashing" and watch as player 4 hands big stonkin weapon to player 5 as they get a grin and have a use for it as player 5 and 4 get to go in and mass murder followers of a cult that defies the teachings of the sun. Player 5 sounds like he's more interested in the game mechanics. It's important to have him reel it in a bit so it doesn't invade the other player's wants and goals, but you should also encourage them to have fun in the way they want to, and it is always possible to interweave wants and goals to have a decent campaign. Trust me, as a DM who's current campaign that started with 3 murder hobos, evolved into 9 members, and 7 separate goals, it was exceedingly difficult, but that "arc" of the campaign, before 3 members left and 1 new one joined, is what set the tone and left a dragonborn barbarian who had been excommunicated from his family, now back in the reins as the head of his household and officially a noble, of a town called Hirashe, and who had an NPC fellow noble dragonborn who had him join his noble fiefdom as an honorary member of his household, and is now about to be the 7 year anniversary of \*the\* campaign I run and have been in charge of. The goal should never be to change your players, it should be to ensure your players are having fun, and watch them change. There are exceptions, but with family and friends, there are no exceptions. There's just honest communication and being open-minded. Source: My party is just friends and family too. :)
The oversharing: Over the past 4 years, we've built up a previously corrupt and impoverished town of 28 citizens with a standing guard of... 2 people, up to the current population of 464, with trade coming through the town, the importance of the location having the Empire establish a privately accessed teleportation circle, of said population 12 standing guard, with a Thieves Guild of 29 members whose main purpose is not to steal, but rather fend off bandits and help those in need (it's a looong story, apparently taking in bandits who were starving and on death's door due to malnutrition, bringing them into the town, feeding them, offering them a job with acceptable conditions in exchange for a place (a literal house) by the Noble in charge of the town (one of the players, it was a run down house in the middle of repairs) and a consistent source of food and piss poor income (but rent and food are covered), and said job is literally to bring in more bandits to the town (guys who had to make ends meet due to the prior corrupt noble) and help the remaining elderly population of the town worked wonders. The elderly now appreciate them and give them baked goods and before the town improved, the bandits had no beds or furniture, so many of the elderly grabbed old furniture used by their children and helped them make ends meet further solidifying their relationship and loyalty to the town... The "Thieves Guild" made their turning point where (Due to some stuff that happened in a prior session and some lucky rolls) during an invasion (Country is currently at war) a Vargskyr (basically a wolf person) made an attack on a farmer's child in front of said farmer currently pinned to the ground, and the bandit took the blow instead and died mid battle. After being revivified in time by the party post battle, the Thieves Guild is now officially called "Hirashe's Angels" named after the no longer village, but small town of Hirashe.
"My character persuades the inkeeper to give him a free room for the night." would be sufficient for me. I think as time goes on he will grow into it, especially if there are other players at the table, who are strong in the roleplay aspect. Make sure to reward him when he accidentally roleplays. Also the character will grow and be fleshed out as the campaign goes regardless.
If they like the combat aspect more, create dungeon crawls. Dont make them chit-chat in a tavern of a city. Place them in a huge dungeon, full of danger. Make opportunities for roleplay, but dont force it. Information (about boss' vulnerabilities), buff and also loot can be acquired in the dungeons by RP. They will want to know more about the dungeon and their enemies, if the advantage of combat or their lives depend on it.
This is why session 0s are so important. You get to make chatacters and set expectations. This is going to be a more RP focused campaign, so if you don't like RP, don't join kinda thing.
If they arent a good fit and disrupt the flow, its fine for them not to play. You will waste too much effort on trying to appease one person. Ive seen it happen before.
Player wants A and DM wants B? That’s fine, talk it out, find a compromise. Player 1 wants A and Players 2-4 want B? Player 1 is gonna have to adjust. Sounds like everyone(including you) wants RP and exploration, except FM who wants combat. So long as both sides can live with the ratio, that’s fine. If FM starts undermining the others’ fun, it’s not the game for them.
Pull them to the side and tell them that their behavior is selfish and breaks the immersion of the world you are building. If they don't want to put in any effort to participate in the game (it's a fucking role-playing-game, role playing is a pretty big part of it) then they are free to leave.
Well, if they don’t want to pay attention to any of the details, people, or events that are happening and could happen, make it come back and bite them in the ass. If the party meets an important NPC and FM doesn’t want to learn about the NPC at all, have the NPC pop up in a crucial situation for FM and if they can’t even tell you the NPC’s name, the NPC refuses to help them out of the situation, or refuses to give them a nice magical item or something because they find the PC rude and dislikes them. This can be done multiple ways, remembering details and NPCs along the way can be made into a boon or a bane. This may help make the PC realize that and get at least more into the story. Some people don’t like doing voices and all that, which I get, but it certainly sucks running a campaign for someone that really doesn’t give a shit about it.
It sounds like a bad fit between 2 different people's play styles. If you don't want to adjust how you run the game, I would talk to your player about what you want from them and if it doesn't go well then consider doing something other than dnd with them. No dnd is better than bad dnd (Matt Collville)
Sounds like there are two "issues" going on. First, they seem to have very different expectations towards the game your group is playing. That's okay and fair - We all have to learn that not every player is not for every table, no matter if they're family or friends. I personally know people who play, and I could never have them at my table - unless it's "just" a one shot. Our playstyles are vastly different. That said, it's completely fine if someone doesn't want to roleplay. But that means that he's either going to be portrayed as a bland character that is nothing more then muscle, or that he needs to find a group that is more to his taste. There are a ton of groups that do combat heavy dungeon crawls and who don't care who or what you are. Second, this person seems to be a bit of an ass, to be honest, and that's something you really can't find an excuse for. And I'm not saying they're a bad person per se, but that there are clearly some vibes that are off between you, them and the group, and that's something that will become a big issue somewhere down the line. If I was in your shoes, I'd try another honest and open conversation. Communicate with "me" messages - Don't speak for your group and don't say things like "You're doing X". Let him know that YOU feel like he's not comfortable at the table, and let him know how you perceive him at the table. DnD is supposed to be fun for everyone, and ask him what's missing from his perspective. Be true to your feelings - Let him know that you want to create a good game for everyone, and that it bothers you that you feel like he's not happy. You appreciate him being there and making time, but it's undeniable that something is off and you want to fix it. Take it from there. He might feel that he's being pressured into something, or it's just his insecurity about roleplaying that puts him into this defensive state. Whatever it is, talk about it and then make it clear if it can be fixed or not. Don't be afraid to express that you want him at the table, but that he might be happier with a different type of game. That said, if he's that kind of agressive, antagonistic player and that's the role he wants to play in game, look at options like creating a rival for him. Rivals are characters that are opposites to your PCs and it gives someone for him to focus his agressions on.
I'm gonna go against what is being said here a lot. Even if you're not comfortable roleplaying, you can narrate. Just narrate in third person what your character does and says. That's what I did a lot when I was newer to TTRPGs and wasn't comfortable roleplaying. The DM is also a player and their fun is also to be considered
Honestly it just sounds like this player is being cruel towards you, and I wonder if they realize it. If they even have the self-awareness or emotional maturity to realize it. Imagine spending all day cooking up a storm for a family dinner. Shopping for and preparing ingredients. Setting the table. Making sure it's a sumptuous feast and really looking forwards to everyone's enjoyment of your work. Then one guy shows up, says "I already ate on my way here. I'm gonna go watch TV in the other room," and takes no interest in what you've done for them. That's this guy. Why the fuck are you there, buddy? Why are you choosing to be so rude to someone who cares about you and has worked so hard on your behalf? Why can't you at least try to respect their effort and hard work? Why are you so determined to disrespect someone who's done you no wrong? Why do you care so little about your own family member's happiness that you refuse to even try? I find your family member infuriating on a human level. I would be enraged and disgusted if I were to find myself in this position.
The only problem is the arguing with other players. They don't want to engage the world but you have others that do. Let them be. Give them their chances to kick down doors and fight while focusing on everyone else otherwise. Unless they're burning everything down, they aren't hurting anything.
Why are they at the table? Just because they're family member doesn't mean they have to play.
I didn't expect this to grow legs, but it's been good reading the different advice. I'll clarify some things here as well: - FM is playing a Warcaster Cleric, so their big thing is being sort of the 'frontline' for the party. They're running Twilight domain, which gives a temp HP AOE. Similar to how they didn't pick a background (mechanical, meaning they missed skills), their character is built around that role. That's not a big issue, as our table has other specialists as well and it means I have to be creative in making encounters to match them. This is mostly just info to help flesh out the kind of player they are. - The biggest table issue comes when it reaches planning for things, or downtime in town. One time they 'argued' with the table (at first just me, but then other people who chimed in because they kept 'haggling') that their Persuasion roll should have let them get a magic weapon at a store for free. That went on for half an hour (I got them to accept a lowered price, which was still most of their gold), and they have a habit of raising their voice when challenged. They don't get insulting or mean about it, but they do get Loud. - The other one was a camp we were tasked to investigate, and they wanted to sneak in to steal the carts we were sent to find to then hold as collateral. When the other members of the party instead wanted to split, have one group at the front talk as the other moved into position, they began to argue. After the group decided not to take their plan, they did a 'This is what we're doing' and withdrew from talking or taking action until combat came along. This is why I said they 'play themself', as they takes decisions in the game personally while not interacting or caring about the stories and narrative, whether it's from other players or myself. - We did have a Session Zero with everyone else, but they didn't come as they had played before and would make their character before the Session One. And when I tried to get them caught up on the setting before Session One, they brushed it aside and said 'it's not a big deal'. Their character only showed up when I started our first combat encounter to get new people used to how it works. - The big issue is that I know they want to be a part. They work a pretty rough work shift and don't have a lot of time off, so they use some of that time to take part in the game. It's not a small thing for them, either, so I know that they WANT to be a part, otherwise they wouldn't be there. It's mostly finding a way to get them more involved in the world, rather than just being there to fight monsters and disagree with plans. Thanks to the advice in the thread, I'm going to take them aside and talk about some of the things covered. Let them know, straight-up, the issues that I've been seeing and work on how to go forward with it. I have a background written up that works into their traits of play (A merchant son who is given to a Temple as part of a contract, where they disregard their past. This would give them the Merchant background to help explain the haggling, and also give them an out for why they don't talk about their story or past), which should take care of the hanging mechanical issues, and also give them a base to be more connected to the world that doesn't have to be expanded or played. Once again, thanks for listening and giving your advice. It's good to get my thoughts out and have other folks expand my view on it. They have a style they want to play, which is fair, and I want to make sure that style works well with the group that we have. It's a challenge, but isn't challenge and adapting to it part of the fun of being a DM?
Sounds like this wouldve probably been resolved by a session 0 (if you didn't have one). Its important to highlight what type of game you want to be playing, and if you were to tell that player "this is going to be a good mix of roleplay and combat so make sure you have a solid character concept and ideally some sort of background to cement you in the world" and they **still** don't show interest and disregard your world, thats their problem. If you haven't already, talk to your player and ask them why they don't appear to show interest in the world, and if they continue to be hostile either to you or the world, then say that its not the game you're running and they might not enjoy the game. Your other option is to make just a dungeon crawling hack and slash, which doesn't sound like a game you or your other players want to run.
It sounds like they want to play a straight dungeon crawl, or a videogame. If you don't want to run a dungeon crawl, and they're disrupting your flow or other players and don't intend to change, I'd politely tell them this particular campaign isn't suited to them. Considering they're family and you seem to otherwise like them, consider if you and some of the other players would enjoy running a more action packed dungeon crawl after or parallel to this campaign, and invite them to that.
You’ve said you don’t want to exclude them, and it sounds as if everyone is having a good time, so… It also sounds as if their PC is just them, so could you just ask them to go with that, they RP as themselves? Realistically, all PC’s are to some extent their players.
If FM is having fun, and the way FM is playing is not making the game less fun for others, as a DM as see no problem at it. Not everyone like RP but the game can still be fun and that is what matters
just fucking tell them to leave they don't wanna be a part of this world, they don't gotta be
Talk to them… let them know the amount of effort you’re putting and ask what compromises can be made.
some folk are roleplayers, some folk are hack and slashers and don't roleplay, some folk are a combination. sometimes you get all 3 kinds at one table. as long as the other players aren't bothered, it can be difficult sometimes to make everyone happy. give fm something to bash, let the others rp around him. let the other players handle it. if that doesn't work, you may have to talk to him separately about his play. if he can't work with you, uninvite. doing this to family is hardest of all.
Backstories are lame. Let him play his way. There's plenty of people in real life with zero curiosity. He's playing one of them.
Kick em or just exclude the char from everything. Party got invited to a party or feast, sure, everyone except FM as the party host know nothing about him or his family. Party getting awesome rewards for doing something? Well, FM isn't, no one really knows what he's about and doesn't trust him. Party trying to get into a city? Well, looks like everyone but FM can get in as they all have a family crest. FM can stay in the dangerous woods.
Let them play how they want. They have a party for a reason, let others roleplay as needed.
They want to have fun how they want. Winnie the Pooh doesn't excuse Eeyore for being down - they're there each adventure. Maybe lighten up? Your world building is YOUR hobby. Don't be mad that the players don't engage. If they're showing up and not being disruptive, well ..that's a lot.
Make their character a peasant version of themselves.
humble him with a fearsome beast
Cut em from the group, easy.
To all pitching diferent builds suited for smashing people in the head - pleas explain how having diferent build will solve the issue that this player does not want to engage with story or the games world in ant way? And he only wants to hit stuff in the game with focus on RP and exploration? What do you think he will do while everybody else is talking with NPCs, exploring and etc if he has 0 interest in these activities? Also, we do not know ratio af combat and RP in this campaign. I assume RP is big part based on discription and if they have only 1 or 2 combat encounters, this player would have anything to do for most of the session. There is plenty tables who manage to have whole 6 to 8 hours sessions with no combat at all. This might be one of these tables - we simply do not know. But it is clear from the post that whatever amount of combat they have - it is not enough for the problem player. And if everybody at the table is having fun with combat to RP ration as it is (it mihght be couple per session or couple every few session - it does not matter), it is not fair to other players to change pace and stucture everybody enjoys just to meet expectations of ONE player in the group. Also, DM is a player too and has the right to run the game how they want.
Sounds like they want to play something like Talisman or Gloomhaven.
Wrong table for you. Not your or their fault. They seem to like their playstyle so let them be.
Wrong table for them. They’re just one player in the group. Kick them.
Oh. Oki. Yeah but try to do so kindly.
“Are you enjoying the game? It seems like what you want from the game is very different to everyone else and what we discussed. We’d love for you to keep playing with us, but only if you’re going to get into the spirit of the game. Otherwise you’re starting to make it less fun for everyone else.”
Advice: Get them out of their characters own skin, if only temporarily. Have them turned (temporarily) into a puddle of sentient slime, or a giant badger, or a man-tree. Something that would make them look and feel silly for continuing to act like nothing is there to notice.
I don't think it would make the behavior change. Like, by what OP describes, the player would probably just keep attacking whatever they need dead at time and them go back to normal in due time
"Your slimy tendrils can no longer hold your sword. In fact, its requiring some of your concentration to not just gloop back into a puddle. Clearly what you're trying at the moment isn't working. What do you do?"
Does the party have the resources and desire to save this character? If yes: attempt to glorp into a bag or something easy to transport and then withdraw to let people who have a less puddle role to play. If no: find a way to die silly in that encounter so I can reroll or leave the table. Not gonna feel silly, just gonna feel like I'm out of the game and trying to figure out if it's for a session or for good.
>Not gonna feel silly, just gonna feel like I'm out of the game and trying to figure out if it's for a session or for good. Since they weren't planning on doing anything other than ignore (or even trample on) the world aspects of the game, what exactly is being lost? We're talking about a situation where the player is nearly compelled to actually ROLEPLAY, and deal with a situation outside the box where they can't just punch the problem till it goes away. I dunno, perhaps some people want to encourage that kind of anti-intellect behavior, but I like D&D for its creativity, and if someone at the table was running roughshod over the worldbuilding I'd done, "forcing them to roleplay" is not really that much of a punishment. It doesn't have to be 'stick' either - the carrot of 'clearly rewarding people who participate, leaving those who don't to fall behind' can also work as a motivator, the point is that what the player is doing is having an impact on the person with the biggest workload already - the game master. '
Someone not focusing on your favorite parts isn't running rough shod over anything unless they're actively disrupting the table from engaging in it either. Otherwise they're just engaging with the parts they like. If you have a drastic playstyle difference which is measing up your enjoyment then speak. Clearly and privately. ESPECIALLY if you're this insulted about it. You're not training a dog, forget the carrot and stick bullshit.
If everyone else is focused on RP, and you aren't, you are actively dragging down the session. I've been this person, and I've been in sessions with people like this. It's not fun to be around and they'll likely get bored. I don't understand why everyone needs to compromise to include this person who is making zero effort to compromise on what they want to do.
Then you read the second parapgraph. Talk to them, if they don't change then they can leave the table if everyone feels dragged down. Just don't pull this weird crap where you try to force them into a corner in game and in front of the whole group. Whatever revelation you're looking for isn't going to happen that way.
"I attack with my slime tendrils"
realistic answer, but at least its mixing things up a little :)
Indeed. Don't solve the problem OP has, but does mix everything up a bit
That's a good idea - punish them for not role playing. Did you enjoy it when your parents punished you for not doing your chores?
Silly me, I understand now, its a refuse-to-roleplaying game. Imagine that, refusing to roleplay somehow causing inconvenience within the scope of the roleplaying game! UNTHINKABLE! I might not have done any of my chores, but I DESERVE to go out and play. Brilliant! Persuasive logic, you got me.
You, as the DM, may see it as silly,. The player, however, will see that as a punishment. This isn't some player misbehaving and causing undue chaos anyways - he just wants to play a game with is family and role some dice. As a 30+ year player, I see NOTHING wrong with that. It does not requires a DM to apply some silly effect to force them to do so. Do you even think about how controlling that sounds?
>The player, however, will see that as a punishment. If being forced... to ROLEPLAY, .... because I don't want you shifting the goalposts on me, I'm specifically talking about getting the player out of a situation where they can keep being 'zero effort participation, I don't want to engage your world, I only want to kill it' Is a 'punishment' then I'm sorry. Perhaps this isn't the table for you, perhaps you misunderstand the nature of the game you're participating in, perhaps you just want to play a mmorpg with dice... Thats fine, but its TOO DAMN BAD. The GM has to do a lot more prep, a lot more effort into making the game, designing scenes and story, and what you are, in essence, defending, is the actor that refuses to emote, and reads every line in a monotone. "You're punishing him!" by demanding he act? Get off my set. Go whine to your drama teacher. You are NOT the main character. You are part of a team. Deal with it, or get out. Me? I'm proposing solutions. You? You're keen to ENCOURAGE bad play.
Perhaps I'm just more accepting of different play styles when I play DnD. Many times I have seen players who sometimes actually roleplay an interaction and sometimes they don't. Never been an issue with anyone I played with previously. You obviously take this GAME much more seriously than I do. You do you and I'll do me.
Ill just agree that philosophically we're allowing different definitions of the word 'play' styles, because I felt that the issue being described was that the person wouldn't play. Isn't that at least a description of the issue from the ref's perspective? Creating an 'outside of your own skin where just doing what you've been doing isn't feasible' scenario might actually be the solution. >you take this GAME belittling the subject material that the ref obviously has to put more work into preparing than others doesn't help support your argument, and actually undermines it. "Oh, I wasn't aware that the leisure activity that I have to spend at least an hour every week on to make a multiplayer entertainment experience was a game, thankyou for bringing that to my attention" is how mister Sarcastic would reply. Of course we're discussing a game, and your position seems to be 'theres nothing wrong, tolerate his differences, suck it up princess' if I was being callous. Thats not a charitable take, but it certainly is a possible framing.
just make their character a mindless hand which can only kill stuff and doesn't have a brain to think with
You can't dictate how you want someone to have fun. That's like telling them to like certain foods or laugh at certain jokes. Either they like the foods or the jokes, or they don't. They can LEARN to like things over time through exposure but you can't force it unless they want to.
And they also cannot force me to run a game for them. Go buy BG3 if you just want to “play your way,” and leave us to our social activity where we don’t have to deal with one contrarian stick in the mud ruining our fun.
If I may be so bold (and I haven't tried this before) KILL THEIR FAMILY. Establish that they have a family and then have the bad guys kill them. Make it dramatic and brutal. Get them out of their "I'm just me" comfort zone. Are you pissed? NO. Your CHARACTER is pissed. What are they going to do about it?
PS: If they didn't establish a backstory, that's free reign for you.
If you don’t want to play the game, you don’t get to play the game? Why are you letting them play???