Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seriously, try having a discussion with your whole group about this:

 Manchu wrote:
"The reward for gaming is the time spent developing my character in the larger story."

"The reward for gaming is leveling up and getting better gear."

Maybe put those two statements in front of your group and see who gravitates towards what or whether they come up with some other ways of finishing the sentence. It's a good idea for gamers in a group to be on the same page as to what the goals of the group actually are.

The most obvious answer is simply talking to him but that may well not work. The other option is to punish him in game.

By the sound of things he is a poor role player and there are a vast number of ways to get yourself killed in the Imperium simply by saying or doing something stupid. The next time he does this just let it play out to its logical conclusion and save him at the last minute, The second time he does it let him see how much he likes the Penal legion or being a servitor. Harsh, and highly likely to provoke a temper tantrum, but he may learn.

I wouldn't punish him: that creates some adversarial atmosphere.

I prefer to reward players for good playing, and just explain my reasoning- sometimes if someone does enough interesting/creative use of skills, I might give them a rank in an appropriate skill or a new spell; creative response to environment might get them some new gear or a disposable item, or I might just give them extra XP for something impressive, etc.

 Palindrome wrote:
By the sound of things he is a poor role player and there are a vast number of ways to get yourself killed in the Imperium simply by saying or doing something stupid.

Thats another reason why I've been having problems with him. He always does really, really stupid stuff and then gets mad when I send something nasty after him for it. Last session, he decided to corner a bounty hunter, by himself, and kill him. He made no effort to ensure he had back up in case things went south, has no knowledge (and didn't ask or attempt an awareness test) of how skilled said bounty hunter is, how the bounty hunter is armed, armored, etc...I ended the session then because I was rather irritated with the fellow and we had been playing for about four hours. Starting off next session, we're obviously going to resolve this encounter, and I'd like to write up stats for the bounty hunter to be significantly dangerous and have it be a fair, close fight. However, I suspect if his character even comes close to death he will whine and attempt to justify why he believed it would be safe to attack this bounty hunter or why the bounty hunter should have been weaker. I plan on writing it up that way anyways and just turning a deaf ear towards him.

As a DM, you don't actually need to make it a fair fight.

Have the bounty hunter give some menacing talk about it being a bad idea, make a passer-by alarmed by the bounty hunter's presence, or do some other combination of warning the player. If he doesn't take no for an answer, it's completely within your right to make the fight as deadly as you want.

I've had some awkward/inexperienced role-players. My best experience with them has been giving them extra cues for what they could or shouldn't do.

As my GM pointed out to me in my very first 3E D&D game, there are 19 levels between my 1st level character and 20th level. If you unsure about what you're fighting, don't poke the bear!

Let the dice fall where they may. One way to prove your point, especially during epic encounters, is to roll EVERYTHING in the open. It builds tension, and it shows this guy that everything is on the up and up. If he gets his butt kicked or dies, it's his fault.

Best of luck, man. Vent here if you need to. Manchu's advice is very sound. Before any dice hit the table next session, ask the group:

Manchu's Wisdom

"The reward for gaming is the time spent developing my character in the larger story."

"The reward for gaming is leveling up and getting better gear."

Maybe put those two statements in front of your group and see who gravitates towards what or whether they come up with some other ways of finishing the sentence. It's a good idea for gamers in a group to be on the same page as to what the goals of the group actually are.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
As a DM, you don't actually need to make it a fair fight.

Depending on how much information was given at your last session I would strongly consider making that 'bounty hunter' an Inquisitor who will then demand single combat, but not to the death, and will take his best piece of equipment as a trophy. At least next time your munchkin may actually look before he leaps.

 Palindrome wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
As a DM, you don't actually need to make it a fair fight.

Depending on how much information was given at your last session I would strongly consider making that 'bounty hunter' an Inquisitor who will then demand single combat, but not to the death, and will take his best piece of equipment as a trophy. At least next time your munchkin may actually look before he leaps.

My only worry is that no player likes losing their gear or being undergeared. The worst thing is when you get a nice shiny new sword or axe, and then the DM steals it from you... In that way, no one likes losing a character (for the most part), but death would be an easier thing since it's more final.

Granted he could want to chase down the Inquisitor and get his gear back.

Put him/them against something that they cannot remotely defeat so have to eat humble pie and run.

Put them in a situation where they're talking with some high up noble type who is a douche. If the player pisses them off he can unleash his private army on them.

 Alfndrate wrote:
[
My only worry is that no player likes losing their gear or being undergeared. The worst thing is when you get a nice shiny new sword or axe, and then the DM steals it from you... In that way, no one likes losing a character (for the most part), but death would be an easier thing since it's more final.

RT isn't a gear dependent game though (for the most part) as it is fairly easy to pick up good quality equipment and it won't take long to replace what ever is taken (assume that your profit factor is semi decent and its not something like archeotech power armour). I think taking a powerful item away from a player who is obsessed with gear due to his poor role playing would be a powerful lesson but one which will have little or no long term consequnces for the actual character.

 Palindrome wrote:
RT isn't a gear dependent game though.

Right, and I wish I could just take their gear away and things without this munchkin throwing a fit. Any of the other players might grumble slightly, but would roll with it.

I'll probably warn him like spiraling suggested, and if he proceeds, then either risk killing his character, bring him close to death or steal some equipment. Let's hope he realizes this is because he's being reckless and not because I'm trying to punish him for playing competitively.

Thanks for all the responses guys, it's really nice to have a place to go where I can vent slightly about this to people who know what I'm talking about. Also, advice/wisdom from experienced RPers and GM's is invaluable, so thanks for that too.

This is something I wrote in my ongoing article about WHFB 3E. Maybe this perspective could help?

In table top wargaming, there is a great temptation to prioritize "crunch," or competitiveness, over "fluff," or how a given build fits the setting. Doing so may make some sense in wargaming but it makes very little sense in roleplaying games. The closest anyone can come to "winning" a RPG is having fun and encouraging the other players (including the GM) to have fun, too. A simple principle to keep in mind is that WFRP 3E is a cooperative rather than competitive game. That said, there is nothing wrong with wanting your character to be effective. Just remember that even PCs with high Characteristic stores can fail miserably and often--which is fine, considering that failure is often as interesting or more interesting than success. Perhaps the biggest mistake a player can make is confusing the PC s/he is playing with her/himself. As mentioned above, the PC may be scared, starving, or in terrible pain but none of this should get in the way of the player having a good time.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Simple: give him a super powered item with a consequence.

A bolter that is highly powerful but could harm him if over used. Armor that is high in protection, but could turn him to chaos. A Maul that has a chance to kill him immediately, but will smite any foe he encounters.

Show him the double edged sword of raw power.

Definitely this. Also I would reward the party members that do roleplay bonus xp specifically for RP contributions. It might make him at least put some more effort in on that front.

Personally I would be dropping something crazy tough and demonic on his hubris ass if it was that guy in my group though .

 kronk wrote:
Before any dice hit the table next session, ask the group:

Manchu's Wisdom

"The reward for gaming is the time spent developing my character in the larger story."

"The reward for gaming is leveling up and getting better gear."

Maybe put those two statements in front of your group and see who gravitates towards what or whether they come up with some other ways of finishing the sentence. It's a good idea for gamers in a group to be on the same page as to what the goals of the group actually are.

Now, where exactly would you suggest I take the conversation from there?

Let the conversation flow a bit, man. See if you get several answers. See how many are similar to #1 and how many is similar to #2.

If 5 say #1 and 1 says #2, then that 1 person has a problem.

Explain to that 1 person that you and the other 5 people want to play the game a certain way. He needs to stop complaining about gear and enjoy the game for what it is, or find another group to play in.

This way, it comes from everyone and isn't just the GM/DM/ST picking on him.

 imark789 wrote:

I'll probably warn him like spiraling suggested, and if he proceeds, then either risk killing his character, bring him close to death or steal some equipment. Let's hope he realizes this is because he's being reckless and not because I'm trying to punish him for playing competitively.

The big issue with this approach is it can come of as 'abusive' easily. making it impact the entire group is better, but that has it's own concerns: if the munchkin thinks he's being impacted worse than everyone else (I lose my guns, which are my 'thing' but the RT doesn't lose 'his' ship/the psychic doesn't lose his abilities/etc.) then it can get ugly.

Another good in-game idea is to put a lot of situations in where the big guns aren't useful or even a detriment. A mission where there's a diplomatic route and a combat route, and the combat route is clearly sign-posted as the difficult one. ("OK, you can either talk to the planetary governor to get what you want, or fight the genestealer cult. Your choice...") Encourage characters being multi-dimensional.

To be honest, though, it sounds like he may need to lose a character or two as an educational experience with the bounty hunter experience you mention.

I attempted to have that conversation with the group. Everyone talked about how they play for the fun experience and cool stories/whatnot, but said player just stayed silent. I felt too awkward to single him out given how things still seem a little tense between us, and kind of just dropped the conversation.

I ended up dropping hint after hint after hint until he decided not to attack the bounty hunter, and we managed to play out the session without too much of a threat to his player. Before the game, I was discussing the issue with another player who convinced me that I should coddle him one last time, given the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that the problem player and I had just had the discussion.

I plan on getting back to the game I want to run (dropping far less hints, being a little bit tougher of a GM) from here on out, and he's just going to have to deal with it.

Also, I do like the idea of more social challenges as well as other non-combat oriented challenges. However, I have a hard time making any social challenges last longer than maybe 15 minutes, while combat encounters usually take up at least half an hour. Any ideas, suggestions or advice on how to make these social situations longer, drawn out and more complex?

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for other sorts of challenges that aren't strictly social or combat-oriented? I know I can do exploration challenges and that sort of thing, but what about things that aren't merely rolling several dice and being done with it? In combat/social situations, the players have to strategize and think of ways to win the combat, or charm/intimidate/convince someone. I very much would like to run a well-rounded game with diverse challenges for the players.

Social challenges: make them not single conversations, but stuff that needs to develop over time. I had one campaign where it was going in an interesting direction and I let it: players ended up needing jobs for money, cover stories, and access to specialized equipment they couldn't otherwise buy. One of them took a job that was purely for flavor/seeing where the side story would go, while another one took one that eventually led to developing a bunch of non-combat skills.

Another way to GM/make the non-combat stuff more interesting is to require characters to have a reason to become trained in a skill: if a character doesn't start being able to drive or cast magic or something like that, you can get some really fun results from them needing to think through the problem of why/how they acquire those skills.

It also allows you to work with your players: maybe a player wants to branch into an area that their character no reason to naturally be involved with or learn given their background: you can work narrative elements in that allow them, with some RPing, to access something new, and it builds the world, with either character connections or exploration or w/e.

A less limiting approach is to simply give the players some free skills (sparingly) for good role playing like the above.

Non-action is less exciting, so it might work better to spread out a "side quest" over several sessions, but it's a good way of building a larger world.

 imark789 wrote:


I plan on getting back to the game I want to run (dropping far less hints, being a little bit tougher of a GM) from here on out, and he's just going to have to deal with it.

This is the best plan. You confronted him with it, you got all of the other players to say what that enjoyed. You've done everything you can to open his eyes to how this game will be run.

The ball is in his court. Keep playing. The other players will probably pick up on it now and bring him back into the fold.

What about complaints from the players? I know as a GM it's generally good to hear out any complaints the players may have about rules decisions and whatnot. I try to be fair and if the players think I'm making a bad call or something should be different than my decision, I'll hear out any appeals they have or reasoning as for why it should be handled differently.

However, this guy is still abusing that. He'll stress that he is not complaining, but still will nit pick the judgement calls I make and come up with reasoning for why it should go his way instead.

For instance- so far, I've let the PC's generate their characteristics by the alternate method of allocating points. For those of you not familiar with RT or FFG's RPGs, there are two ways to generate your base characteristics. You can roll 2d10 and add this to 25 for each characteristic, allowing the player to reroll one of their choice. Alternatively, you can give each player 25 in each characteristic and let them add 100 points as they see fit across all their characteristics, with a cap of 45 on each characteristic. This alternate method also ends up with slightly higher characteristics.

Given the light of recent power gaming and abuse, I decided to enforce the new rule that all new PC's randomly generate their stats. I also suggested that all players write back up characters so that in the event that their character dies, they can keep playing (I was also hoping this would lead to him being slightly less attached to his character).

Of course, he's been making an appeal for why we should use the old stat generating rules.

How exactly do I tell him to quit whining about rule calls while maintaining the feeling that I will hear out legitimate appeals?

 imark789 wrote:

How exactly do I tell him to quit whining about rule calls while maintaining the feeling that I will hear out legitimate appeals?

Tell him you've heard what he has to day, then give him your reasoning once and tell him it is no longer up for discussion. If he brings it up again, say "Sorry, man. That's been settled. Let's move on."

No need to get upset or anything. It really shouldn't come up too often, honestly. How lethal is that game, anyway?


In general, how have things been going with your group?

 imark789 wrote:
What about complaints from the players? I know as a GM it's generally good to hear out any complaints the players may have about rules decisions and whatnot. I try to be fair and if the players think I'm making a bad call or something should be different than my decision, I'll hear out any appeals they have or reasoning as for why it should be handled differently.

However, this guy is still abusing that. He'll stress that he is not complaining, but still will nit pick the judgement calls I make and come up with reasoning for why it should go his way instead.

Tell him that at the table, your job is to tell a story and provide the background in which their characters exist. Part of your job is to be a rules adjudicator, and that you sometimes need to make rules judgements on the fly based on your experiences. If he feels that it's not the correct way to play, he can talk to you after the session and you two can talk about it like adults. If you feel that his argument isn't strong enough, go with what Kronk said. "Sorry man, but this is how I'm ruling it, and that's the end of it."

For instance- so far, I've let the PC's generate their characteristics by the alternate method of allocating points. For those of you not familiar with RT or FFG's RPGs, there are two ways to generate your base characteristics. You can roll 2d10 and add this to 25 for each characteristic, allowing the player to reroll one of their choice. Alternatively, you can give each player 25 in each characteristic and let them add 100 points as they see fit across all their characteristics, with a cap of 45 on each characteristic. This alternate method also ends up with slightly higher characteristics.

Given the light of recent power gaming and abuse, I decided to enforce the new rule that all new PC's randomly generate their stats. I also suggested that all players write back up characters so that in the event that their character dies, they can keep playing (I was also hoping this would lead to him being slightly less attached to his character).

Of course, he's been making an appeal for why we should use the old stat generating rules.

I'm not sure how other people play this, but I don't change character generation after a game has started. If I say you're doing a 25 point buy for your stats, then I will keep that until the game dies or finishes. Sadly you're trapping yourself in a corner with this by changing, you have to come to grips that you did give your players the option beforehand and now you're taking it away. This isn't always the best way to go about things. Another thing you can do is to simply say you wish to go over the character sheets and "approve" them before you okay them for play, but that's generally for people making their first characters or people that you've known to be cheaters.

Also why does he care if his character is still alive?

How exactly do I tell him to quit whining about rule calls while maintaining the feeling that I will hear out legitimate appeals?

I think it might be time to kick him from the group.

What I'd do is say something along the lines of, "Sorry you see it that way, but I don't agree. I'm trying to think of the long-term health/fun of the campaign/story/game/players, and it's my call to make, with that in mind, not because I'm power tripping but because that's the job of the GM. (Also, changing your mind isn't being capricious if you're basing it on experience: it's learning from mistakes.)"


...or something like that.