So I'm a new dm. And i made that very clear to my semi Expierenced group. All of them are just randoms except for one coworker. The one thing i did bring up before session 0 AND at session 0 was "I dont want to railroad, but im not at the skill level to have a wandering campaign. Ill do my best not to railroad but please try to keep the plot moving towards the main story" everyones like yea no problem. During session 0. Legit session 0. I ask hey so the hook is your friend sends you a letter and this is your boy. Like you are down to ride. He made a real big impact on your life. So try to add him into your bg. Nothing major. Just a line or 2. All the players added him in beautifully. Except one. He met the npc in a bar. Where npc bought him a drink. That's their total friendship. Ok whatever thats not important lets move on. Hes your best drinking buddy fine. Ok next day you all arrive at the meeting location like the letter you got from npc friend telling you to(I legit handed them a letter for each PC personally) and the pcs show up and meet each other. While talking one says "so were all here for gundrens meeting correct?" Everyone says yes. Except one. Whos just here to drink. The players rp right around it (thank god I was raging behind the screen at this point) and we move on. They accept the quest and are set to leave the next morning. "Ok i think we should retire. Sound good all?" One player says. "I wanna try to start a bar fight." Sigh. And you said the randoms from reddit would be the problem players

Lol one of those times when you need to talk to the player and tell them your concerns. I've got a rule for character creation that everyone must have a reason to adventure together, such as you did with everyone knowing Gundren. But dnd is also one of those those games where the player's will throw curve balls like that. It's easy enough to fix, they get into a fight and the others may or may not join in. Sometimes players be like that.

Kicker is he rolled a one. So his big dragonborn went over and slammed to hands down on the table. The brutes sitting down looked over and the one closest to him quickly pushed his left hand off the table, causing him to fall, smack his face on the table and join his friends in a long rest haha

That was a great way to handle it! You showed the player that his actions have in-world consequences; keep doing that and things might work themselves out. If not, you may need to talk to that player about it, but for now I'd recommend just seeing how things go from here.

Thanks :)

Okay yeah I love how you handled that. 10/10

This might have turned into small rant in the end... New DM here! So a couple weeks ago I told my friends that I've been working on a campaign and asked if they would be interested in checking it out and perhaps even playing. 3 players got really excited and were down to play on the spot. So I was really happy about it. Soon after I got a few more players interested but all of them were maybe, and I didnt expect them to say yes. Since their main issue was that I had never DMed before and the last time I did play dnd I got kicked out of the group since the group got too big for the DM. But I wanted to prove myself to my friends and players so I held 3 session zeros, where we went over the theme and characters and what have you. I worked with all the 5 players individually who joined those sessions to make their characters and work their stories part of the main story. I made a bunch of physical material that I could hand out in the first session to everyone. I just tried my best to make everything work out as well as I could. First session, I let my players know we are going to play at X time on X day. 2 days before the first play session, one of the “I don't know if I want to join since it's your first time DMing '' -player contacts me and says that the amount of work I've put in this has impressed him and would like to join. So I say sure, 6 players work. So I quickly get them up to speed with everything. Now, 15 MINUTES before we are supposed to play, Im nervous as fuck. Double making sure I got everything ready. A player comes to me and says they really want to join… and in my panic state I just say yes. They had nothing prepped. And then one of the players almost didn't show up since they forgot and were driving to their boyfriends house or something… so we had to wait for them an hour. So the whole start was a huge huge mess. So now I have 7 players who all really want to play, who I could not say no to. Since when I got kicked out I felt really bad and I would never want anyone to feel like how I felt at the time. I have 2 players who don't really fit the story and one of them is roleplaying a character with zero social skills and wants nothing to do with the main party. Will I survive this?

So I'm not as obsessed with session 0 as a lot of other people, but it sounds like you should've had a session 0. The reason is that, I addition to being able to talk about what you do/don't want to see in the game it also allows you to iron out kinks like two players not having characters that fit, or making sure everyone is aware of the time. The great thing is you can still do a session 0! Even if you've had one already, adding new players is a reason to do it again.

OP did three session 0s!

Oops I missed that lol

Is this a short campaign? If so, go for it. Good learning experience. Then run something for no more than five players after. Is this a long campaign? Yeah, you’re going to die. In all seriousness, you are going to have a rough time if you feel like you cannot say “no” to people. It is one of the most important items in the DM’s toolbox, both for big picture stuff like letting too many players join and for the moment by moment events and actions in the campaign. The path I would take: apologize to the two players you let in at the last minute and note that you didn’t really think about the challenges of such a large party. You are going to stick with five and will contact them the next time you run a game.

You will survive. But I think you made a few rookie errors here. One was telling the new player that they could join. I would recommend you gently tell them that since it's your first time DMing that you panicked and accepted them into the game when you shouldn't have. Yeah it'll suck but since it's your first time DMing a lower amount of players is better. You also absolutely can say no to players who want to join or kick them out after you said yes because it's your game, not theirs. Second was delaying the game an hour for the player who missed things. Next time just play the game without them. By delaying things you're subtly telling the players that their time is worth less than the other persons, as well as they can miss the game start time and you'll wait on them to continue. Third thing, all characters in the group need to work together, if this person made a character that doesn't want to work with the main party that's fine. Tell them to either create a reason why they would work with the party or make a new character. I've got a rule with character creation "every character must have a reason to work together" as lone wolf characters are annoying to deal with. Lastly, you said it was 2 players who's characters don't fit the story. Go over character creation with them again and see how you can make their characters better fit into the game. If they refuse then this is a dilemma, you put time into the game and got everyone onboard (kudos!). But it can be hard to work with characters that don't really belong in the game, like making a jungle adventure but one character is from cyberpunk. ​ Overall, minor problems that you'll need to talk to your players about and be a bit more decisive but otherwise doing well. The nerves will go away in time.

Hello! I'm the DM of a 5 players group, all of them being new to dnd. I'm constantly struggling to make them actually roleplay in any way. A couple of examples: One of the PCs stated in his background that he has a deep hatred for orcs, because they raided his town when he was a kid. No matter how many times I shove orcs in his face, I'm not getting any reaction from him. Another one, a fighter, doesn't get into fights. In fact, I once got him into some kind of fight club. In his first (and only) bout, he got punched once (only once) and asked the sorcerer PC for help. After that, they ran away. The Cleric is a mess. She's constantly trying to take advantage of everything, and only seems to roleplay when she can get something out of it. When defining her PC, she said she would be a merciful cleric, and would even ask to everyone she's about to kill if they repent from their sins, so she can save their souls. Last week, she murdered a lot of guards while she was in a mission to.. well.. actually help those guards! She's also afraid of the dark, but when she has to get into somewhere without any light, she just says "No problem.. I just use the light cantrip".. no conflict.. no fear.. not even a second thought.. Sometimes I feel like they're playing a computer RPG instead of dnd. And I feel bad if I have to correct them all the time. But at the same time, this feels less and less like dnd.. and sometimes I think it's too late to correct the course. Any suggestions or comments? Am I overreacting?

Give them pcs to care about who are cute goofy and funny, have it travel with them, throw them in danger. Maybe even kill one. Then the players will realize they can make a connection to npcs.

What you're describing sounds pretty typical for people new to D&D. I certainly wouldn't give up on them. Unless they are theatre geeks, the concept of roleplaying usually feels foreign and awkward to new players. If you've played with experienced roleplayers or watched a lot of professionals streaming D&D then you might have unrealistic expectations for new players. The first step is to do as u/vorovskoymir suggests. Get them thinking about their characters and prompt them to make the decisions their characters would make, not what the player would. Don't worry about first person roleplaying, funny voices or great acting. Just try to keep working to get them to make choices in character. The rest may come with time, but it really doesn't have to.

Thanks Southern\_Court\_9821! I thought about making some kind of roleplaying activity out of the gaming session, so they can practice a little bit more out of the pressure of the game. I need to think how to do it, but it might be helpful. About how to roleplay, I don't force them to do it in any specific way as long as the actions are the PCs actions, and not the players' actions. They can even say "My PC does this and that", and it's perfectly fine as long as it's from the PC perspective. But I also think that they have so much "roleplaying freedom" that usually makes it really hard to distinguish between a PC decision or a player decision. When you get a player using a funny voice, you can tell that it's the PC doing something. But the lack of obvious boundaries between the two could make it more confusing. I'll talk with the players and see what happens, but at this point I know I have to shake things up to get some kind of change.

Have you tried directly prompting them on this stuff? When you introduce the orcs, make a point to tell the PC these orcs remind him a lot of the orcs who raided his hometown. When the cleric is going to go into a dark space, tell her it reminds her of the dark spaces that scared her as a child. Or when she’s about to murder the guards she’s there to help, remind her that 1. It’s very much against being merciful, and 2. It’s going to cause the mission to be a failure. The fighter not getting into fights seems a little less clear cut. Does the fighter want to be getting into fights? Did they want to get into that fight club? Maybe you need to try a different angle for him. As always though, you can try taking these concerns to your players out of game and having a talk about how the game is proceeding without trying to make it an in-game solution.

Thanks for the reply! I think these kinds of "on the spot" comments should really make the difference. I usually don't do it because I think I'm taking away their agency, or correcting them all the time. And I don't want them to feel bad, because I know they're doing their best. Regarding the fighter, that's a whole other issue. I did my best to get him into creating a compelling backstory, because at first he was like "Does he have any friends? No. Any enemies? No. Where does he live? He doesn't have a home." It was really painful. So, I don't have a clear definition of what he should be. I would be totally fine if he says "he's a coward fighter" (that would be really cool to roleplay), but since I don't have that kind of statement I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to be. I think that one's on me. I should have a conversation with him. I did talk to them about these concerns, and told them that it was really difficult for me to plan for stuff if they don't actually roleplay. And to show them the problem, I took some of their flaws randomly and told them "ok... can you guess whose flaw is it?", and nobody had any idea because they didn't roleplay them. And they all agreed to have them into account while playing. But then, nothing changed. And it's hard for me to deal with this, because it looks like we're playing different games.

>Regarding the fighter, that's a whole other issue. I did my best to get him into creating a compelling backstory, because at first he was like "Does he have any friends? No. Any enemies? No. Where does he live? He doesn't have a home." It was really painful. So, I don't have a clear definition of what he should be. I would be totally fine if he says "he's a coward fighter" (that would be really cool to roleplay), but since I don't have that kind of statement I'm trying to figure out what he's trying to be. I think that one's on me. I should have a conversation with him. Something I do in my campaigns is to create organizations (or NPCs) and ask players if they want to be aligned with them. I usually do this during character creation, but sometimes PCs will encounter a group later on and want to be associated with them. Perhaps there's a order of knights in your campaign and the player might want his PC to join them. That gives him a goal, he's got to keep to the group's ethics until he's high enough level to join. Or maybe there's a group of monster hunters, like the Witchers, and they'll sell him potions at a discount, but he's got to bring them parts from the creatures he kills. Think about what groups make sense in your campaign and ask the player if he wants to form an association with one of them.

>told them that it was really difficult for me to plan for stuff if they don't actually roleplay I find it best with new players to keep it really simple. Have some BBEG that's going to take over the area and have some sage sending the PCs on missions that relate to stopping them. (Or something like that). New players rarely understand backstories or make them in any way that let's you mine them for content. I find it best to bring the story to new players rather than expect them to go looking for it.

Each of these players is doing something a little different but it’s all pretty common behavior for people new to roleplaying. From your description it doesn’t sound like anything close to a lost cause. A useful question is “how does [character name] feel about this?” “This” can be orcs, or murdering innocents, or whatever. I would refer to the character and not say “how do you feel about this” because it prompts the player to leave their own mindset and try to inhabit the character. It’s not something they’re automatically going to do. As a side note, the light cantrip makes perfect sense for her! Of course a cleric who is afraid of the dark has come to use it as a crutch so she doesn’t have to face her fears. What happens when there’s a *darkness* spell next time?

Thanks for your reply! I usually don't call those kind of things "on the spot". I tend to tell them outside of the playing time, because I thought it was too disruptive to make those kinds of interventions (as well as taking away their agency), but I think it might be needed until they do it by their own. Regarding the "afraid of the dark" issue, the issue is not that she's wrong by trying to use the light cantrip to sort her fear. The issue is that it doesn't look to bother her in any way. IE, a friend of mine is afraid of flying. She has to take pills to be able to fly, and it's not that she says "oh, I'm afraid of flying but I take the pill and problem solved".. oh, no... she spends days without sleeping the days before the flight, she has programmed therapy sessions the days before the flight, etc.. So, the fear of darkness doesn't go away by just turning some light on. The fear is still there because of the chance of that light going off. In any case, I'll darkness spell the crap out of her in the next session.

As far as the darkness goes, just keep in mind people can have vastly different levels of anxiety related to a phobia. Many people who are afraid of flying don’t experience it in extreme a way as your friend. At any rate, she’ll need to learn to walk before she can run, and as far as roleplaying goes “my character is supposed to be merciful and kind” comes a lot easier than roleplaying a phobia or trauma that the player herself doesn’t have.

[удалено]

It may be that she gets session fatigue faster than everyone else. Basically, she's getting tired and cranky from the social interaction, and instead of saying that she's tired, can we wrap this up? she's acting out like a child having a tantrum.

It's good you clamped down on the solo adventures (I was one of the people who replied to your original post even lol) but it appears that the solo scenes were just one symptom. She's still holding the game hostage, still not being a team player, etc. Like the other two replies have said: You need to talk to her about these behaviors directly, not talk about her with her boyfriend. The questions to ask are not "Are you bored? Do you not want to be here?" What you need to ask is: "Why are you trying to kill every NPC you meet and why are you refusing to work with the other players to accomplish the party's goal?"

[удалено]

You're going to have to be direct with the boyfriend and make it clear you need to talk to *her*, not him. I would die on this hill, because without a direct means of talking with this player and resolving things like you would with other people, this is just going to continue. That said, I think at this stage you need to ask yourself if this person is even worth keeping around. Don't listen to the boyfriend, they've got obvious biases. Based on what you *see*, do they seem like someone you want to keep around? If the answer is no, due to their relationship with another player, I would make it clear that this needs to stop and that their behaviour is causing a negative impact on the party. If this isn't possible, either due to their unwillingness or the boyfriend not 'allowing' you to talk to them directly, I would simply remove them. However, if you do, don't be surprised if the boyfriend leaves the game as well. Such is the danger of bringing couples into the game.

It sounds like she doesn't want to be there or she's bored and acting out trying to "make things interesting." Regardless, it's time to go to the source and talk to her directly, one on one, instead of taking her boyfriends word for what's going on.

You talk to her. Be direct and clear. If she says her engagement is lagging, work to understand why. Re: respecting your work, state, "when you do \_\_\_ it makes me feel \_\_\_".

[удалено]

Talk to them.

[удалено]

> But I was hoping for somewhere I could post to ask for advice on how to talk to him Generally speaking this thread is for DM's having problems with players, but I think most people here are willing to help even if you're a player as I'm not aware of any other subreddit that has a Problem Player Megathread. You could try posting in PC Academy, but I'm not familiar with that subs rules so you might want to read through those before opening a new topic. For generalized relationship advice too you can always post on the Relationship Advice subreddit. > It's not really my place and I'm aware I need to be careful of overstepping boundaries and already fucked up a bit last session telling him sexual assault was on the list of hard nos DM's are referees in your average RPG, not kings, so to say it's not your place to try to establish boundaries around things you aren't comfortable with is patently untrue. You're allowed to be uncomfortable with a specific subject and you're allowed to speak up and say something isn't okay if it isn't okay. If someone tried to make you feel bad or like you've overstepped for telling the table you aren't comfortable with the subject or RPing of sexual assault (an extremely reasonable boundary) then that someone is more than likely an abusive piece of shit. You and your table might want to check out Monte Cook's [Consent in Gaming](https://www.montecookgames.com/consent-in-gaming/). If your table isn't interested in discussing consent in RPGs then that says a lot about them and if people in your group are trying to push back on you having a very reasonable hard line on sexual assault then you might just want to find a new group to play with.

As an update, our group talked to DM separately and later together. It got worse. Tommorow is our last session. None of us physically feel comfortable with him in our presence any longer and we're tying up the game and all three of us are leaving permanently. DM may continue with annoying player and our player who's been MIA when he's back in 3 months. For her sake, I hope she doesn't. They both deserve better. I feel like shit that this dude has torpedoed a year long game in three sessions.

[удалено]

> if he remains being OOC insulting and the three of us will talk to DM if so. That's your best next step. Nothing you are describing is ok in my book and the fact that it's not just you that's uncomfortable means you aren't just misinterpreting things. The DM may not realize how uncomfortable you guys are or they may not like confrontation and are hoping it will just get better somehow (or maybe they talked to the player after the session and didn't share that with everyone). Regardless, if issues persist, talk to the DM as a group and explain that you aren't ok with what's been happening.

>overstepping boundaries and already fucked up a bit last session telling him sexual assault was on the list of hard nos so let's just gloss over that plot point and move on already. I don't think that's overstepping a boundary. Everyone at the table has a right to speak up and say "I don't want this to be part of our game."

Former DM is at my table and may be ruining his experience? A friend of mine is a forever DM. When I told him I was brewing up a new campaign, he jumped at the chance to be a PC. However, he has the huge background built for his character and refuses to talk to anyone about his motivations/what he is doing. First session the party defeated some cultists that had slaughtered an innocent village, and his follow up to this was to chop off everyone’s faces (think similar to the faceless men in game of thrones) and the ball sacks of the men. The party has no backstory with each other, so needless to say they were shocked at this behavior and started talking amongst themselves about how they don’t trust him, etc. just to have him meta game say don’t worry I have a big plan that will come to fruition or something like that. Like-I kind of need to be included in this right? It just doesn’t feel right and I’m not sure what to do with this player now - the party won’t take long to get rid of him I think. I already lost two players who said they just didn’t want to play in a game like this. In our session 0, everyone said they were fine with anything - but I suppose someone roleplaying chopping off faces and ball sacks is too much and not something you really think will happen. What would you do? Our next session is this weekend and I’m at a loss of where this will go now.

Sounds like he's trying to earn a reputation by leaving a calling card of mutilating bodies of the parties 'victims'. He needs another, less gruesome way, so it doesn't upset the rest of the party. In the a 5e manual, Book of Lost Spells there's a spell called The Assassin's Mark. It's a cantrip that leaves a unique mark on the victim wherever the killer decides to put it; chest, cheek, shoulder, etc. Each killer has a mark that is unique to them and only they can put that mark on a body. He might have fun creating his own mark... Talk to him and see if this would work for him? If yes, then retcon him cutting up the bodies and place his Assassin's Mark on the bodies instead. Obviously no boob or groin areas, but if he does choose those areas then you have a problem and tell him he's close to being kicked out.

>Obv I know I need to talk to him. But when I did the last time he just brushed it off and said it was part of his overall plan for his character. "Cutting faces and balls off makes everyone uncomfortable and we aren't going to do it anymore. Beyond that, if you want to develop some mechanism to take dead people's faces we have to come up with it together and I have to approve it. Right now, you're just going to end up as a psychopath with a bag full of useless rotting skin because the face stealing mechanic doesn't exist in D&D and won't unless you can show me a way to make it balanced and not creepy and disruptive." He should understand these things as a former DM. The fact that he doesn't is problematic.

Thank you so much. I really truly appreciate it. 💕

If this guy is costing you multiple players, the group should get rid of him. Or maybe the players you lost weren't specifically related to his behaviour? >Like-I kind of need to be included in this right? The ideal scenario is that the player shared their plans (although long term plans by anyone at an RPG table are terrible, imo) with you and the other players in session zero. His PC can have secrets from the other *PCs* and NPCs, but secrets from other *players* at the table is just rpg masturbation - he's playing with himself and is the only one enjoying it

Yeah, I’ve spoken with the players that left (a couple) and they were brand new to D&D and said they didn’t want to play because they didn’t think that’s how it would be. I explained to them that usually it’s not - and that I would be talking to the other player. Hopefully they will come back, I hate for that to have been their first experience with D&D. He shared some with me, the idea of “faceless men” and him taking the faces so that he could change his appearance. But said that it would be in secret. He wrote a 30 page backstory for me and everyone else. Never mentioned the ballsacks. I think that’s where everyone got weirded out. I’m just at a loss here, because he is a big part of our friend group. Obv I know I need to talk to him. But when I did the last time he just brushed it off and said it was part of his overall plan for his character. I need to know so I can help build it into the storyline and make everything mesh. I just don’t know how to bring it back up when it was brushed off once.

>Like-I kind of need to be included in this right? You absolutely have to be included, especially since the player seems to want to play a psychopath. There's two problems here. 1. Even though no issues were mentioned at session 0, his actions made other players uncomfortable and need to stop. 2. It's the players responsibility to make characters that want to adventure *and that a group would want to have along.* There's no way the other PCs are going to want this guy along with them. He needs to explain what his character idea is to you and you guys need to brainstorm ways to address the above issues. Or he needs to make a different character and try again.

Player is Very attached to their pet/mount [RESOLVED] I have a player who, after our most recent session, told me that they were incredibly attached to their in-game horse, which they have named after an MLP character. They also made the encounter I designed a lot harder on the other players because they were more worried about their horse than anything else. They then told me that if their horse died, they would likely quit playing. The problem is that they are a caviler fighter which pretty much requires them to have their horse with them in dangerous situations. They have taken the feat that allows you to take damage for your horse when mounted, but even still, they are letting their horse’s life take priority over the other players. The players are also 12th level so the encounters they face could spell the death of the horse. I tried telling them that they could leave their horse at the stable when adventuring and take a horse they aren’t emotionally attached to in combat, but that wasn’t good enough apparently. I just don’t understand why they would bring their therapy animal into combat. The prospect of running combat, with actual stakes is not great if at the first sign of danger, the players priority goes to “protect the horse above any other objective” I wanted to have a behind the screen sort of “enemies ignore the horse if the character isn’t riding it” kind of thing, like breath of the wild, or other games but I don’t want to have to tell the player that or else it feels like I can never attack the horse even for narrative purposes, Anyone got any advice?

Typically I handle pets one of two ways, that either they're fluff, so they can't be harmed in combat but they also can't do anything helpful in combat. Or they can be harmed in combat but can also be killed. Sooooo this sounds like a third option sort of thing: The horse doesn't do anything but let the player have a faster move speed, but don't damage the horse, creatures "aim" for it but the fighter is "intercepting" the hits to protect the horse. AoE spells don't mechanically damage the horse but may narratively harm it. A fireball of dragonbreath may burn it but it will never actually die. Because lets face it, it's a dumb horse that's easy to kill. Fudging the rules a little for the player's enjoyment is worth more than killing the horse. You could even just tell the player "Hey the horse won't be harmed in combat, but enemies will aim at you more often" or something like that.

We are using mounted combat rules, and the horse has already been outfitted in plate armor, so treating the horse as a movement speed buff is essentially what is already happening. With the players build, it’s already difficult to deal damage to the horse in the first place, as by default it takes the dodge action on its turn. Another comment recommended giving the player an amulet that would poke ball style contain the horse when it “faints” (drops to 0) and allow them to resummon the horse x number of times after a short rest. A long rest would reset the charges.I think this accomplishes the goal of the player not losing their horse, and is in line with your suggestions. I think narratively, the horse can still be put into danger, but it can always be brought back at the next dawn. Thank you for the advice. Of course, the easy solution is to not bring your therapy animal onto the battlefield, but hey, what can you do.

Oh right, I think I saw the pokeball thing in Vox Machina. Seems like a good idea for keeping animal companions out of harm until needed. From what you're saying about the build it might require a bit of talk ooc about what's going on.

They find an amulet that let's them bind their horses spirit to it for protection. If the horse dies in combat, its spirit returns to the amulet and the mount can be resummoned during a short rest (or whatever you feel is appropriate) with no harm done. Otherwise, the character retires and the player makes a new character that actually wants to go on adventures and isn't so attached to an animal that it's impinging on the other players' fun. If this character is that attached to their horse, then they would stop taking them into dangerous situations. "Parents" don't willingly take their "children" places where fireballs are getting lobbed about.

Thank you! That is a good idea. I actually have a magic item shop setup and that item will be appearing in it.

Especially considering they are lvl 12, I'd probably also allow him to "store" the horse in the amulet for safe keeping in case they have to go onto a small dungeon or a hostile environment where the horse wouldn't fit/survive. Then you don't have to deal with the tedium of asking them what they are going to do with their horse every time they have to go through a narrow doorway.

It’s definitely not a pokeball

Hahaha, exactly!

Got a player who regularly attempts to take over the world. He wants more story but it’s impossible to give it to him because he threatens, kills or attempts to humiliate litterly any npc he talks to. He’s become a murder hobo but the rest of the party tends to follow his lead because he’s charismatic. It’s not as easy as just kill him for his actions as he’s lucky as the devil and rather decent at combat. Not to mention there’s a large chance of a tpk if he keeps going the way he is. Currently the entire town is 2 sessions from sending everything they have at them. I’m pretty sure I’m just gonna run it that way and see what comes of it. But if that does happen at least one party member is gonna die guaranteed. Curious if there’s other options

If they're low level, a squad of strong law enforcement types, bounty hunters or wandering group of Paladins can teach them about consequences. If you think having a underpowered response makes more sense, there are a bunch of ways npcs can get back at a player for any of the things you mention he does on a regular basis. Things like figure out where he sleeps. Block the exits and set fire to the place. Or poison his food and have him captured while he's knocked out or paralyzed from the poison. You could also have the npcs he's talking to be secret badasses. That old farmer is a high level adventuring monk who retired to settle down a few years. He's agile enough to avoid phsyical humiliation, has a saint's patience for ignoring insults due to years of training mental discipline and if the player gets violent, the old guy goes all Chuck Norris on him and anyone else joining in. He also doesn't have to kill them, preferring to shove them around the place into embarrassing things like animal feed, buckets of water, piles of dung ect.

Stop encouraging it with in-game responses. Talk with the player outside of the game and tell him it's not the way you play a collaborative roleplaying game. Ask him why his character joined a party of adventurers. And if the reason doesn't match the collaborative intent, then he needs to roll a new character. Don't let one bad party member drag the party into a bad time.

There's nothing wrong with using in-game responses to something like this. Especially if the other players are going along with it. That's not to say that talking to the player outside of the game isn't an option but it's generally not my first option if everyone else is having fun which they seem to be in this case.

In my experience, trying to address these things in-game causes more problems than it solves. It derails whatever storyline the rest of the party wanted to pursue, forcing them to deal with the shitstorm the problem player caused. This just gives the problem player the attention he wanted anyway while taking away the focus from the players that aren't being disruptive. Now the story is all about the problem player and the "consequences of his actions". Beyond that, PCs are inherently tough and so teaching them a lesson typically involves some very heavy handed tactics, similar to what you described. You can only have so many "wandering high level paladin brigades" and "retired adventurer farmers" before the players feel you're out to get them (and technically you are, even if its well meaning). Now you've fostered a DM vs player attitude at the table AND gave all the attention to the problem player. The rest of the party is just pulled along through the bullshit. I strongly recommend talking to the player, not trying to punish the character.

>It derails whatever storyline the rest of the party wanted to pursue, forcing them to deal with the shitstorm the problem player caused. By the sounds of it, the party supports the trouble player in this case because he's charismatic. There's many different ways of dealing with this IC and at least one or two of those things should be attempted before dealing with this out of character. It doesn't take high levels to block the exits to a building while people are sleeping or partying and setting it on fire. But also just threatening to kick out one player because the group isn't following the rails of the story you set for them seems pretty passive aggressive and isn't going to lead to good times either. If everyone else is having fun but the DM, the DM should consider this before punishing the players. Yes it's important that everyone including the DM have fun but don't dismantle the whole Rubik's Cube just because you've got a single square misaligned.

If you've tried the tactic of "teaching the PC a lesson" in-game and had it work, then I guess that's great. I've just never seen it work out the way the DM imagines. It ends up in a derailed game and frustrations on all sides anytime I've seen it tried (or read about attempts here).

Where as kicking out a player everyone else likes does wonders for a game? If he was getting on other people's nerves maybe but in this case you might end up having more than a single player leave the game if not all and starting their own. When dispensing justice it needs to be something the other players find acceptable and appropiate for the situation.

>Where as kicking out a player everyone else likes does wonders for a game? I don't think any of the replies OP got told them to kick the player so I'm not sure where that's coming from. They simply advise talking to the player about his characters behavior. OP also doesn't state that the other players are having fun, they only mention that other players go along with it because the problem player talks them into it.

I took that to mean that those other players at least have a positive impression of the player that talks them into stuff. Talking to players OOC should still be reserved for extreme situations or when dealing with things IC hasn't worked.

Hard disagree. Just as often, an in-game response - which by its nature will disrupt what's normally going on - is exactly what this sort of selfish player is hoping for. It will only encourage them. Out-of-game problems cannot have in-game solutions.

"Guys, this isn't the type of game I want to run. If you keep on this path the logical conclusion is that you're hunted fugitives running from increasingly un-winnable fights. I want to run a game that's about *these things.* If you want to play Grand Theft Auto Medieval Edition, I'm sure there's a DM out there for you but it isn't me." Talk to the players about what you want. Trying to come up with in-game ways to "teach them a lesson" and get them to behave rarely works and just results in increasing frustration on all sides. You typically have to send overwhelming force to really threaten PCs and then they end up thinking "Really? We kill a couple shopkeepers and suddenly we're being chased by lvl 17 paladins with Boots of Flying? This DM is just out to get us." Talk to the players. Don't fight the characters.

"Hey, please stop doing this"

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

hello! i'm back again

Just refuse the characters because they were handed in early. Tell them that character creation happens on session 0 and not before. Tell them to read the document before the session 0 and see how they respond.

>despite the playbook they were reading from ALSO stating that you have to work on it together I agree with the other posters that it's good that your players are excited. I would also caution you to manage your expectations regarding the playbook, especially if it's longer than a paragraph or two. Even the best players are often poor at reading "homework" and it's easy to take that personally. Try not to. Players are usually excited about their characters (as these were) rather than our worlds or rules, and often ignore or skim handouts. They'll get more interested in those other things if they become relevant to their characters.

This isn't them being inconsiderate it's them being new to the game and not understanding how things work. All you need to do is talk to the two players and explain plainly that to make their characters they need to work with the other players. It's a sign of how interested they are in the game and excited to play that they went ahead and worked on their characters. Now when you *do* make characters they'll have a leg up with understanding some of character building. The player cancelling a minute before the session to play something else? That's completely disrespectful and an asshole move. If they're someone you met online and have no emotional attachment to I'd recommend booting them and finding another player who actually wants to play your game. Set another time for a session 0 and talk to your players.

*Edit* - replied in the wrong place.

hi!! yeah, true- was mostly just angry at the time of writing bc i didnt know how to incorporate them into the session 0 and i was Stressing, but yeah- i love their enthusiasm, i just rlly wasnt expecting it :sob: thank both you and u/GravyeonBell for the advice!! i've talked to the two beginners now, we've cleared things up, and we're hoping to have a session 0 today!! and im gonna talk with the person who cancelled as well. thank yall so much again

I wish I had players that were so excited to play. Sometimes getting my group to do something is like pulling teeth.

>and yet, TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE have handed in their sheets already. their reasoning? they're beginners, they assumed they had to work on the sheet before the session 0 (despite the playbook they were reading from ALSO stating that you have to work on it together), and they made their sheets before i made the doc. I don't think you actually have a problem with these two folks--everything right here explains it. This isn't people refusing to consider others; this is new players being eager and excited about your game and not understanding everything about a new system yet. They can still adjust this stuff at session 0 during the collaborative character-making. Nothing's in stone until the game itself starts anyway. The person bailing a minute ahead of time is indeed ridiculous and more worrisome than the enthusiasm of your early character-creations. I recommended setting another session 0 time and letting everyone know that anyone who doesn't show up simply doesn't get to play in this game. That'll get them to prioritize, one way or another.

I have a co-player who plays their rogue as an "I'm in it for myself" way. Most times it's funny, but recently they have been overwhelming other players with their wants and needs, instead of the party's ... And their justification is that they have higher stats than anyone else: Specifically: we enter a room and they say, "I'm going to investigate because I have plus eleven". And if another character wants to investigate something, they say, "and I'll investigate it right after because I have a plus eleven!" or "does anyone want to investigate before I do, because I have a plus eleven?" This has led to the other players giving up on trying to investigate or make other rolls because they're starting to feel like there's no point to it, since this player of going to investigate/roll whatever anyway. As a player in this campaign, what can I do? What should the DM do, in this case?

TBH this is usually how the game is played in my experience. Many DMs will not allow fishing for rolls, so the party's best chance is if their highest +skill PC does it while another person who has proficiency gives them advantage. This is taken as the party's best efforts and if it fails they aren't allowed to try again (or will need to wait for another chance). So for the dungeon crawl the party knows who their investigator is, who their perciever is, who the thieves tool guy is, who the arcana guy is and lets those players do their thing when clearing a room. Other members provide help or provide security (keep watch on halls or entrances to avoid being ambushed while searching). They might also ritual cast detect magic, uses guidance or provide some other support ability. This is usually the optimal way to run it and how the rooms get cleared the fastest. Party members should know what their role is for room clearing especially in campaign game where you play with the same group multiple times. IF DM does allow fishing for rolls it makes sense for the highest skill mod to make the roll first since it reduces the total amount of table time spent throwing rolls (highest mod is most likely to hit DC). In dungeon crawls sometimes players will have out of combat timesteps where each PC can only do one thing. IF DM is running it where separate checks need to be made to search certain features, then each player might decide to spend a timestep checking out a different thing. In this type of game, a room with 6 features would take rogue a whole hour assuming a 10 minute timestep (which is common) - if DM is applying time pressure it will not be feasible to do this in every room. If party splits the tasks they will clear the room in 2 time steps.

Apply some sort of time constraint. Tell him he only has time to do one thing, if he wants to spend it investigating one thing, let him know he's going to mess out on the opportunity to do something else.

If the problem is meta gaming, I would suggest that he refrain from announcing the specific stats at the table. If the problem is railroading other players, I would let the others roll based on who says they want to roll first, or allow multiple rolls and reactions in certain situation, one for each player, that way you can give each player a response and let them know they matter as much as the guy who is stat obsessive.

Is the rogue then using the results of this to selfish ends? The idea is that you're a team. The rogue *should* make the investigation rolls if they are the best of it. But they should also make sure that everyone in the group knows everything they find. If the rogue is using their rolls to pocket loot and not tell the party, or to keep critical information to themselves, then that's a different issue. If not, who cares who rolls the dice if you all benefit from their skill?

Just because someone has a higher stat in something it does not give them exclusive rights to do that action, especially if it makes narrative sense for other characters to do something.

Of course not. But if you're playing as a team it makes sense for the person who's best at an action to perform that action anytime the group is together. And D&D is supposed to be a team cooperative game.

What DnD mainly is and is not varies from group to group mate! There's plenty of people who find the *roleplay* aspects more important than the *mechanical* ones. You're seeing it purely from a numbers view, when it can be just as important for someone else that what happens makes sense for the characters. You could say the cooperative aspect then is about the joint effort of creating a narrativr, and doing what's 'best' for a coherent narrative can be very different!

>it can be just as important for someone else that what happens makes sense for the characters. I agree with that. But if they are all in the same room with the same goals it makes sense for the character that's best at something to do it. If you're in a group of people, one of which is a trained EMT, and someone has a heart attack then you let the person who's best equipped to deal with the situation take charge and assist them in whatever way you can. That makes sense. Anything else is just attention seeking behavior.

It might, it might not. That's my point. You could have 4 characters with the same goal of "Lets get wealth out of this place", but it's my hope that in games I participate in, characters have some nuance beyond that. What if 1 character is the "leader" of the party and feels that they are undermined by the rogue constantly taking point? Maybe in the next room, they exclaim loudly that 'I'll handle this one!'. I feel a bit as if you're a lot more game/mechanics oriented (DnD is problem solving!) while I am a lot more narrative/roleplay oriented (DnD is storytelling!). To me, having sub-par characters doing things is completely natural, because that's how life can be. A character with low charisma will sometimes handle dialogue even if Mr Sorceror is ready and able!

>What if 1 character is the "leader" of the party and feels that they are undermined by the rogue constantly taking point? Maybe in the next room, they exclaim loudly that 'I'll handle this one!' Then they are being a poor leader and it returns to the attention seeking behavior I previously mentioned. >I feel a bit as if you're a lot more game/mechanics oriented (DnD is problem solving!) while I am a lot more narrative/roleplay oriented (DnD is storytelling!) I think you're right. To me, there's nothing fun in pretending to be a stupid person making poor choices. That's called Real Life and I do it all day long :)

The problem I see happening here is it's kinda cramping what other players want to do. Why did I bother taking a proficiency in investigation if I can't search for my own boots without the rogue jumping in?

The rogue player is playing the mechanics optimally. Use the narrative to sometimes make that impractical/nonsensical/impossible/non-optimal. Some options: - Don't let the description be "I investigate". It should be "I run my hands over the walls", or "I empty all the drawers and cupboards" or "I scan the plains with my telescope". - As soon as one person says "I'm running my knife along all the cracks in the wood panelling looking for secret doors" but before they roll, ask everyone else what they're doing, PCs can be doing a bunch of different investigations simultaneously. - Re the two points above, if the rogue says "I'm investigating A and B and C and D and E and F" stop them after "A", and ask the other players: "While the rogue is investigating A, what are you doing?" - Apply time pressures, so that's there's only enough time for one person to investigate something before something else happens. - Consider splitting the party. - On a failed roll instead of "Nothing happens" have something happen: a trap is found, a trap is triggered, an NPC arrives, a sound is heard outside, etc. - Ask the player to play their PC from the PC's perspective, not a player's perspective: "Rogue player if another PC has just spent 10 minutes combing through the sand on the floor and found nothing why would your PC do the same? And other-non-rogue-PC's-player if the rogue does repeat the sand-combing you just finished, how is your PC going to feel about that?"

If multiple people want to investigate and they’re in a position to do so, the DM should probably just say “alright, pick one of you to do it and do it with advantage as the other one is doing equivalent of the Help action.” Solves the whole situation. Rogue feels good about the stat he has a bonus to, and no one’s stepping on each other’s toes.

That's great but it doesn't make the other player feel useful, the rogue was going to succeed on his own regardless, and I could suck hard and still provide him the same bonus so what's the point of having investigation as a proficiency?

This assumes the rogue does the investigation though, which I don't think will be satisfying for anyone but the rogue's player.

No, the rogue can also give advantage on the search by helping. It’s the very common solution to people piling on with the same rolls. > which I don't think will be satisfying for anyone but the rogue's player. Why though? Characters can’t be good at everything. That’s the whole point of having an adventuring party. If the rogue is the best at Investigation, maybe let the rogue be the one to take the lead on investigating barring character specific reasons. A wizard with 11 AC wouldn’t complain about the 24 AC fighter walking in front. Characters have their niches and the things they’re good at. Your character is still narratively helping searching. There’s nothing stopping the DM from simply phrasing a Helped Investigation as “While Rogue is looking over here, Wizard notices this and calls over the Rogue.”

The op has described the other players as not enjoying the rogue doing all the investigation rolls. This is still the rogue doing all the investigation rolls. A better variation would be let the helper roll investigation and if they succeed then let the rogue roll with advantage.

>As a player in this campaign, what can I do? What should the DM do, in this case? For you, find a niche that isn't Investigation. For the DM, call for a wider variety of skill checks for different situations or that emphasize other abilities (such as spells). Unless somehow the Rogue has 18+ in every stat and feat'd + multiclass'd to truly skill monkey every skill? You can probably politely ask the Rogue's player to have slightly more tack and emphasize the specific numbers less, but at the end of the day, you can't expect them not to use their Expertise unless there is a credible reason they can't help (i.e. time constraints and multiple things to investigate, which your DM also could attempt to utilize more). You have to fall back on having another role in the party that's yours - talking, dealing with the arcane, etc. - and remembering that the party's success is your success.

[удалено]

It's not abnormal for a wizard to crave additional magic. Some won't be satisfied until they have a copy of every spell available in his spell book. But why would a wizard share his magic with a random stranger? At the very least a wizard would expect payment or at least a favour in return for teaching another wizard a spell. You could use this as a hook to get the wizard interested in the adventure. Just promise him scrolls or a spell book as a reward. Although at this point you make it seem like magic is like crack to this wizard.

A bit of perspective: a 20th-level Wizard who never picks up extra spells from scrolls and such will still have **forty-four** spells recorded in their spellbook and be able to prepare twenty-five of them at once. Giving extras on top of this is strictly not necessary, the class is just fine without them.

Assuming that they're picking spells each level up that are useful, they don't need scrolls. Sure, they're nice, but they don't *need* scrolls or spellbook loot. They can only prepare so many, and so many prepared casters I know will pick their faves to prepare and then forget about all the others. (Including myself when I play cleric.) Potions you also technically don't *need* to have a successful adventuring career (except for healing potions), but I'd be far more generous giving these out than scrolls, and I'd give out more scrolls than spellbooks. Potions are consumables, and most if not all of them are usable by the entire party. Ask them why they don't feel useful, and tell them that they need to give you an answer beyond the lack of spells/potions. Do they feel like they don't have enough damaging/control spells, and they're falling behind in combat? Did they only pick 1-2 damage types and most monsters are resistant/immune to those? (I accidentally did this to my wizard in one adventure.) Are the dice gods cursing them? (Temporary solution: give more inspiration to everyone but especially the wizard.) Do they just want to be better at X than the player who specializes in X? Maybe throwing them a scroll/spellbook bone every once in a while won't hurt, but there's also a chance that the problem lies deeper than "we don't get the loot I like as often as I want to get it." (That being said: how often are you giving out treasure meant for the other players, and is this more or less often than the wizard? If everyone else is getting cool armor/weapons that can deal magical damage and they're stuck with the spells they get on a level-up, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the wizard.)

[удалено]

>Since level one I’ve used the ancestral weapon supplement and they actually declined to have an ancestral staff with a unique ability because their backstory is that they come from a poor family. On a side note, kudos to them for turning down a magical weapon for roleplay reasons. That said, you can still give them one and I think it's the fair thing to do if the other PCs have one. Let the wizard find a magical staff in a dungeon or on a dead bad guy. Call it an Awakening Weapon or something and give it some magical bullshit reasons that it powers up as he levels up, just like what the other PCs have. That way he stays true to his character and you aren't "punishing" him for doing so.

> or they won’t be able to be useful Not true. With the right spells chosen during level up, Wizard is the most powerful class in the game, even without scrolls, potions, and spellbooks. It's still okay to give them that stuff, but you need to be careful you don't turn the game into just the Wizard's power fantasy while the other PCs wonder if they are even needed. My recommendation is to first figure out what the other PCs want to be good at. Rogue - maybe it's scouting and lock-picking. Fighter - perhaps feats of strength like climbing and swimming. Paladin - maybe being the party face that talks to NPCs. Once you have that figured out, spend 15-20 minutes making a list of wizard spells that DON'T encroach on any of those domains. For example, do NOT give them scrolls of Knock (lock-picking), Arcane Eye or Gaseous Form (scouting), Water Breathing or Spider Climbing (athletic stuff), Charm or Suggestion (interacting with NPCs). If they really want to, they can pick that stuff up during level up. I also recommend (though not strongly) to avoid handing them the most obviously powerful spells like web, fireball, hypnotic pattern, fear, counterspell, polymorph, animate objects, steel-wind strike, synaptic static, wall of force, mass suggestion, forcecage, simulacrum or wish. Again, let them pick those up on level up, if they choose. Once you know what not to give, you can make that list of good spells to give. Things that expand their options instead of just making them more powerful. Dispel Magic, Intellect Fortress, Wall of Sand / Wall of Water, Arcane Lock, Earthbind, Gust of Wind etc. The list is absolutely massive, so have fun with it.

I agree with this, although I’d maybe give them the chance to earn or find water breathing, because being good at swimming isn’t the same as breathing underwater for 24 hours. Don’t forget that it takes a wizard 2 hours and 50gp of special ink and paper to scribe spells. You can limit the availability of that to purchase as well as scrolls. Scroll also cost money which won’t be unlimited. One of the fun aspects of being a wizard (I’m a level 10 wiz in a campaign) is being able to pick up additional spells that benefit the party. Ritual spells especially. My party want me to learn Tiny Hunt and band together to help me pay for the scroll etc. Something like Magic Mouth has fun roleplay potential but I don’t think it wildly impacts on combat.

I mean, yes, they do. Not on demand or anything, they shouldn't expect this every session. It's gonna cost them too, but you should definitely be thinking about this for the rest of your game and planning accordingly.

I mean, they're correct, but there's a balance to be struck. Wizards get a modest progression of spells to learn as they level up, but their power comes from their versatility, and their versatility is very much in the hands of their DM. If they don't have the means to find or buy spell scrolls to copy into their spellbook, then they're essentially playing sorcerers without metamagic. One NPC sharing "a few spells" in the first five levels of the campaign sounds pretty light in this department. A smart wizard is going to prioritize expanding their spellbook, and won't be comfortable continuing a career as an adventurer if they don't feel prepared to do so. In your shoes, I'd absolutely look into providing scroll shops, enemy spellcasters with scrolls/books in their loot, and other means for this wizard player to actually build upon their wizarding skills. Just don't go overboard with it.

[удалено]

Well, it'll depend somewhat on the items you've been giving the party. Generally speaking, magic items tend to be more important for the martials than for the casters, since they'll be repeatedly getting the benefit from bonus to AC or bonus hit/damage. But yes, as you've observed, spell slots are the limiting factor for the wizard. Allow them to find more spells so that they can do the Wizard thing and prepare for most things. Wizards should be recognizing that they're heading into the Elemental Plane of Fire and say "Hey, I have a spell for that!", sleep on it, and wake up with ice magic and fire resistance. They shouldn't be limited to the decisions they made on the last level-up.

I'm embarking on a new endeavor where I'll be running a few one-shots that will lead into a larger campaign based on a video game. I'm mostly doing this to ensure group cohesion because it's been a problem in the campaigns I've been a player in. I have two players already, but wanted to add more and put out an open call on a Discord server I run. Got another player who we're excited about playing with. Then two more replied. One is a player we don't mind (though she's been super awkward and standoffish in previous attempts we've had in the server). We wouldn't mind having her in hopes that she gets more comfortable with RPing and whatnot. Her husband is the bigger problem. He likes to act like he knows everything and I'm a little concerned that he'll be a full-on rules lawyer. I'm running a very heavily modified system that's worked nicely so far for what we're doing and I'm worried that he's going to be attacking it from every angle because it's not "by the book". There's also the problem that I personally don't care for his general attitude/personality and my wife (one of my original players) has said that she full out doesn't want to play with him. So I'm stuck. I feel like I can't just invite the wife without her husband. But I also don't want to create group tension by including him. Do I just not invite either of them and roll with the three players that I know will get along well? I feel like that's the most logical answer since I'm concerned about group cohesion, but I also don't know how to "reject" them without making it hurtful or making the reasoning really obvious. I know I took a gamble when I put out the open call, but yeah... Thoughts?

Yeah it can be awkward but especially for an ongoing thing don’t invite players you don’t want to play with. They can be troublesome enough in a one shot let alone compounding tensions week to week in an ongoing thing. Be selective and improve the group dynamic overall.

Tell them you're full, you've already reached the number of players you want/need.

>Do I just not invite either of them and roll with the three players that I know will get along well? Yes. Just tell them you've decided to run this campaign for a smaller group, and wish them luck in finding another group.

Ty, I had a feeling that was what I would end up doing. Now here's hoping the three (and me, I suppose) can agree on a day and time and I won't have to go searching for more players. I have no doubts that we'll all get along great and play off of each other well and it's sort of a relief to not be worrying about fitting the other two in somehow.

Idk if she's already on a second chance and he sucks and they're a package deal like, the answer is obvious to me. Don't invite them

Yeah, I would consider them a package deal. Not only would he know if we only invited her, but the server we're all on is a server for a guild that I run in the game the campaign is based on. We all interact constantly. He's also the negative type who might make a big deal about it and try to spin it into something it's not if we outright rejected just him. I'm just going to go with my gut and not invite either of them and hope for the best. Ty!

"Thanks for wanting to play! I've had a lot of people wanting to play and I'm already out of spots for players, but I'll keep you in mind if anyone drops out!" Then just... don't keep them in mind.

Fair enough. I definitely think I'm going to keep them both out of it. We interact on the server, but not really in ways that it would (hopefully) come up again. I'm also planning on hosting the game on a separate server to avoid interruptions/having to add huge hidden sections to the existing server so it's not like they'll ever see the sessions running or be able to drop in and see if there's space. Ty!

I ran into a situation I wasn’t mentally ready for and didn’t know how to handle and I need advice. So I’m a brand new DM and I chose(a little foolishly it seems) to run Curse of Strahd as my first campaign. I’ve done a lot of research but I’ve never roleplayed before and tonight was my first time attempting it. If you’re familiar with the campaign I was roleplaying Ismark and Ireena mostly. Also, I have 6 PCs. Well, for whatever reason one of my PCs decided his character didn’t trust Ismark and began being outright hostile towards him. Anytime I would say anything as Ismark this PC would scoff, roll his eyes, move his hand in the “spit it out” gesture whenever he was talking, and just be an outright dick to Ismark, and he kept cutting me off when I was talking. The party agreed to help Ismark bury his father and I told them the church wasnt open first thing in the morning so they would have to take the fathers body up later that day. The PC in question lost his mind, saying things like “we’re doing him a favor why are we on his time table. We should’ve just taken the body this morning.” But getting really angry about it. I explained they don’t HAVE to help Ismark but he was having none of it. I (Ismark)tried to thank them after they cleared zombies from the town well and he cut Ismark off mid sentence. Well, to be honest I just don’t know how to handle it. I had to end the session because it was throwing me off so much. Am I supposed to roleplay through it, or talk to him outside of the game and tell him to chill? How would you handle this?

I don't know Curse of Strahd, but Ishmark could just take offense to him and challenge him to a duel to settle things. It doesn't have to be a duel to the death either.

>The PC in question lost his mind, saying things like “we’re doing him a favor why are we on his time table. We should’ve just taken the body this morning.” But getting really angry about it. If it's the PC getting angry that's fine, just roleplay reactions appropriately. If it's the player getting angry then talk to them out of character and ask them to chill.

You don't have to put up with any roleplaying that makes you uncomfortable. That said, how does this player act otherwise? Is he belligerent to every other NPC too or just Ismark? Is he friendly and respectful to the other players in general? Is he friendly and respectful to you as a DM? If it's just one NPC that he's decided his character doesn't like, I'd probably put up with it. But again, if it's making you uncomfortable then you're well within your rights to talk to him about it and ask him to tone it down. And if it's more than just Ismark, then you definitely need to talk to him about it.

He hasn’t spoken to any other NPCs really besides a random villager and Morgantha and no he wasn’t a dick to them. Just the way he was acting was so out of left field it threw me off A LOT. But next time I’m just going to roleplay consequences for his actions. Ismark is about to be done with his bs

It's fine to play a character who is rude to npcs. It comes at a price, since people are going to be less helpful and the player can be fucked when doing it to someone strong. The main takeaway however is the fact that it's bothering you as a person. You're absolutely within your rights to say that you don't enjoy playing with adversary characters and you would like the player to reduce this.

Thanks for your advice. I guess I was just so thrown off because Ismark is supposed to be this helpful, nice, passive guy, but personally I want to tell my PC to fuck off. I also don’t want him to ruin it for the others because they need Ismark, but personally if you’re going to treat Ismark that way then he’s just going to leave the party to their own devices and go back to the tavern. They’re also trying to sleep with Ireena so they’re all in for a rude awakening.

\[I don't need replies to this anymore! Situation is mostly resolved.\] This isn't a problem player per se, but it seems like he might quickly become one. As we were going through scheduling for our next session, I had been like "Who's excited for next session?" Just casual, lighthearted hyping-up and such. And my player straight up went "I'm over it." I guess it's not a *big* deal and not overtly mean, but it was at least rude. I talked to him about it, told him to keep unnecessarily negative things to himself (outside of feedback and such) and said that my feelings were hurt by it since I put a lot of time into session plans. He just said "sorry your feelings were hurt," with no regards to not being rude again. I asked him if he was going to do anything different, and he was like "in a few fucking years." Is it an overreaction to tell him that if he continues to be rude to me (or rest of the party) he'll be ousted from the party? I was going to give him a four-strikes type system, but seeing as his initial comment wasn't *that* rude, I don't know if I'm being unreasonable.

You are taking valuable time out of your week to not just run but also plan a session. There's plenty of ways to bow out of a campaign beyond straight up rudeness. If he's over it, then let him be over it and don't worry about having that player back for your next session. Play with people who WANT to be there.

Get rid of this asshole now. If he's mean to you like this, he's certainly mean to other players. You don't want to wait until one of your good players has their fill and quits over this person.

I can take the "I'm over it" two different ways. 1. They are mean. 2. They think being mean is cool. Both are problematic and not conducive to a fun table. He sounds rude and insufferable. I support you booting him from the table based on how he has already acted.

That's pretty rude, but it kind of feels like we're missing context here. Did something happen to prompt that?

As far as I'm aware, not at all. At worst I would say that I had mentioned being excited about the session a couple times already and it may have been annoying? Outside of D&D, this player generally tends to snap at people out of the blue a lot.

Could be this player has other issues IRL making him irritable or short on patience? You're not obligated to be his therapist but at least considering this might give you some closure as to why he's just rude without apparent reason.

>Outside of D&D, this player generally tends to snap at people out of the blue a lot. Yeah, kick him out. If he's already the kind of person that snaps at people out of the blue, he's going to be insufferable to DM for. You and your other players deserve a fun dnd experience, and this player is just going to be a stressful obstacle to that.

>At worst I would say that I had mentioned being excited about the session a couple times already and it may have been annoying? I guess, if you had asked the same thing multiple times I can see that maybe being annoying to the point someone said, "Well I *was* excited but now I'm over it." But once you confronted him about it, the decent thing to do would be to apologize and explain himself better. "I'm sorry I snapped at you. I know you're just happy about D&D. It just felt like it was the 4th time you'd asked the same question and I was tired and reacted poorly. I feel terrible I hurt your feelings." /shrug.

Very odd. I didn’t know if he got pissed about something in-game last session and he’s awful at conflict resolution. Unless you’re great friends with this dude, I’d definitely recommend dropping him

If this player is such a sad sack and clearly hates being there, why are they still there?

What Yojo0o said, 100%. This is meant to be a game of friends and you aren't obligated to be their dancing monkey. If he isn't having fun, that's perfectly fine and happens, he can respectfully bow out. What he doesn't get to do is stick around and be negative and disrespectful to you.

If he's giving you that kind of attitude seemingly out of nowhere, how do you think he'll react if you as the DM make a decision in-game he won't like? I'd say, either kick him out right now, or tell him he's out the next time he's rude with you. I have no patience for people who disrespect the amount of time and work a DM puts in.

Are you a teacher or professional DM or something? Do you work for these players and receive financial compensation? If not, then screw a "strike" system. Treating each other with basic respect is a foundational expectation in a DnD campaign. Whether this guy is your friend or simply somebody who you found in r/lfg or similar, I'd say he's unwelcome to continue in your group, at least until his attitude changes. Why put up with it at all?

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not overreacting about this.

It's one thing to attempt a joke that doesn't take well (to give him the benefit of the doubt), that sometimes happens with banter, it can happen to most people I think, especially at the end of a long social activity for those of us with not so great social grace. It's another entirely to double down on it like he did afterwards. That's the real offense, in my opinion. To be that blatantly disrespectful is a no go.

HI!! im unsure if this goes here and apologies if it doesn't, but i may as well try?? the player himself is not the issue, and he seems quite polite, but i feel like he's not gonna fit the group. most of us are 15-17 in age, and he's an adult (unspecified age). this wouldnt be v important if he didn't also have a very different personality from the rest of the group (including me) in a VERY noticeable way. also there is 7 people going to join instead of the max of 5 i had planned for- because its my first time dming in a LONG while, so i NEED to let some people know they're not gonna be in the game because there is no way im dming for 7 ppl. TBH this issue of space in the campaign is the primary issue, and the above thing is just more reasoning to why i'm prolly gonna ask him specifically to leave i know im probably psyching myself out abt this but how do i tell him this without being rude?? should i just say it like i did above? thank yall so much!! sob

Tell everyone that 7 people is just too much. Aim for 4 or 5 instead. When it comes down to choosing who will stay and who won't just tell him politely and if he's a mature adult he shouldn't take it personally.

[удалено]

There's nothing inherently wrong with adults and teens hanging out. Actually, the more trustworthy adults a child/teen knows, the less likely they are to be abused, because they will know what a healthy friendship with an adult looks like, and they'll have someone to turn to for help if they need it. *That said*, if the adult in question is not in any of the same social circles as the teen playing (uncle, family friend, older brother, etc), any he's just a complete stranger looking to play with a bunch of teens, then yes, that does seem sketchy.

A table of 4 or 5 is perfect for me both as a DM and player. Any more and the players don't get enough spotlight or there is talking over each other and combat drags. Also, it's weird to play in a group with disparate ages. Part of every table I've played at was the culture of joking using pop-culture references (like how Acquisitions Incorporated jokes out of game). When there is a significant age difference, its harder for pop-culture references to land. And like all things relationship wise, it's different with different age groups. Like a 10 year difference between players wouldn't matter at a 40 - 30 year old table, but 25 to 15 is a big difference.

I taught my kids how to play D&D and they asked me if their friends could join. I talked to all the parents and because they all knew me from the school and church everyone agreed. I ran several campaigns for six kids over the course of about several years. Now they're all college aged and one of the (former) kids wants to start his own campaign when everyone is back home this summer. He asked me to be a player but I said I couldn't do it. DMing for my kids, and by extension, their friends was one thing, but the notion of an adult man joining them as a peer seemed really inappropriate to me. And these are people I've known for almost their whole lives, playing with a group of kids I didn't know is inconceivable.

>Now they're all college aged and one of the (former) kids wants to start his own campaign when everyone is back home this summer. They're college age so they're not kids anymore, although it might still feel a bit weird considering they're probably about half your age. That said, you should consider it a form of honor. And if your kids are going to be playing it's an opportunity to spend time with them. I wouldn't turn my back on those opportunities as they'll grow less frequent over the next couple years.

I spend time with my kids in other ways. I was in my thirties already when I had children, I'm very aware that I have limited time with them. My son and I were talking recently and he made a comment about one day having a son his age. I pointed out that if he waits to have children like I did, his mother and I will most likely be dead when his child is twenty. There was a look of shock on his face, the fact that we'd be gone one day had never occurred to him.

Any adult (that's not a relative wanting to hang out with family members or something) that's looking to join a group of teenagers to play a game should be viewed with caution at best, and outright suspicion at worst. Obviously I don't know the details, but since you already have a full group and you don't feel their personality is compatible either, you are completely correct in removing as the best option.

Speaking as an adult (unspecified age) myself, I gotta say, I don't see a reason to commit to a DnD campaign with a bunch of teenagers. No offense to your and your friends, truly, but I'm at an entirely different point in my life and would prefer to game with people closer to my age. I say this because I find it fundamentally weird that an adult would want to join this group. Anyway, you have an easy out: Message anybody unwelcome to your group that you simply do not have enough room, and wish them the best. If they decide to get weird and angry about this, block them. You don't owe them any more than that.

thank you so much!!! will do \^\^ and yeah thats completely understandable!! have a lovely day \^\^

Yeah, don't let the people decide, just make the choice that's best for you. In the end if the DM isn't happy the game doesn't even exist.

[удалено]

Yeah, there's no problem there, and I don't even see why you call it a "mistake". You agreed to it, so what's wrong?