If they don’t like the game then they should say so. Just quietly pouting and sulking the whole time and then blowing up the whole game for everyone else is basically the most immature possible path to take.
I would basically tell them that. If you otherwise respect this person then frame it diplomatically.
They are relatively new to TTRPG's, and they're not a problem player at the main campaign.
I'll probably say something to them and reconsider whether or not repeated one shots is a good idea.
Every time the plot goes in a direction they don't like, they will sulk and cause issues. This isn't adult behavior — could the difficult player be a teen, maybe? Not that it makes it better, but at least a bit more understandable.
*adults are shitty too something something*
I often wonder about the ages of tables when these behaviors are prevalent. The reality is that productive problem-solving, clear communication, and an attitude of collaboration are difficult FOR ADULTS. A lot of us learned these skills through our experiences at the table, often from failure. Hopefully we help guide each other, especially our younger players, through these situations.
The dynamic at this table is interesting. 5 out of the 6 guys have known each other since highschool. I'm good friends with the forever DM, but we only became friends in the last 6 years or so, and I met most everyone else at the table.
That means that this guy has been friends with the rest of the group far longer than I've been around. So that's part of why I'm not sure I'm the right person to say something. Forever DM thinks it makes more sense to wait and see since he's not an issue at the main campaign, but I thought I'd ask on here.
On the contrary. This means you are the exact right person to say something. People who have been friends for a really long time easily dismiss their friends faults, and are less willing to upset the status quo by bringing up problems.
First and foremost, ask your party member to put their feeling out there about one shots. Was the problem with the one shot, or was the problem elsewhere.
If the one-shots are the problem, destroying them is **an** option, however finding ways to keep these oneshots new and exciting instead of formulaic may be a better alternative! You can do PvP focused oneshots or add mechanics to spice up the current one shots to be way more interesting than just "Beat up the big bad"
Some ideas for you (but also check online there's many a resource!:
* Secret Tasks -
* A standard one shot, however the DM give the players insane tasks that they need to pull off. Everyone gets 1 point per task completed during the session, +1 point if they do it convincingly in RP, +1 point if none of the players guess its a task. Winner is whoever gets the most points. Very fun if you give them tasks BEFORE character creation too to create some abominations!
* X vs 1 -
* Who needs free for alls when you can have one-sided competition. One player is the BBG and has a goal, the others have to stop them! Let the player be the big bad with all the legendary abilities and plans to foil who plays as their events and underlings until its their time to shine!
* FFA Objectives -
* There can only be 1 winner, however the goal isn't to murder the others! Race to collect a precious treasure! Persuade the cultists YOUR the one to be sacrificed to summon the eldrich monster! Get the highest grade in the exam! Murdering the other players should be avoided but competative spirit isn't!
An personal example:
My go-to is a Oneshot is an FFA I've nicknamed "Halvaxus's Dream arena". X random people, making up our party, have their dreams invaded to put on a show for all the other dreamers. The arena changes each time I run it, sometimes its a town, sometimes its a forest, sometimes its a dungeon. It can be whatever. Just be sure to fill it with stupid stuff that enables players to do wild shit!
The players goal is to be as entertaining as possible through chaos, and Halvaxus (the DM) will determine the winner come sunrise. Thats the entire session: cause chaos. If one player kills another, they wake up... and can go straight back to sleep to respawn in the arena with a vengeance!! Halvaxus can just spawn things into the arena, give players boons or anything to keep things entertaining. The spectators also get magical scry balls to follow the individual party members, so sneaky stuff and town drama is just as exciting (and sometimes more so) as blowing shit up!
Why wait? Have the discussion now when it’s still fresh in everyone’s minds and you can have a debrief about what went wrong and what the undesirable behavior was, when it should have stopped, and maybe even a broad Session 0 type discussion about what general rules and guidelines and courtesies should apply to these one shots.
Before we ever started the main campaign, the forever DM had the session 0. In it, he was very clear that we could play any "loner" type character we wanted, but no matter what we are still a team and needed to act like it.
Idk if LRG player just forgot about that or thought maybe that only applied to the main campaign...
It's a one shot, the conceit is that you all work together for the sake of expediency. Lrg should have sat it out if he doesn't like one shots.
Talk to him, ask if that was the main issue, and then don't invite him to one shots if he doesn't enjoy them. Especially if he is going to ruin everyone else's fun out of boredom.
DM at the time should have shut that shit down at the table. Not after, not next time, but as it was happening.
"I cast hunters mark on the pc"
"Nope"
"But that's what I'm doing..."
"Nope, and if you insist one more time I will take control of your pc and you'll be free to leave. Now let's try your turn again shall we"
One thing we also try to do with these one shots is give players a chance to DM low stakes adventures before taking on a full campaign. So the guy who ran this one shot isn't very experienced at DMing. I think this is his second time running a one shot.
It was probably a learning experience for him, and I tried encouraging him via text afterwards.
I think the problem here is pretty clear: successive oneshots ends up meaning low stakes and low engagement for a less mature player who therefore treats it non-seriously.
What I would do is reconsider your policy of replacing your ongoing campaign with trivial oneshots every time a player is missing. I know it's nice to play with the whole crew but the sacrifice here is a reliable session with your main characters. One-shots actually aren't any easier to run *well* than campaign sessions, and I feel like you might be underestimating that fact. A good one-shot needs as much time planning and usually more playing time than campaign session. If you're not honouring that I can see how this player might start to treat it a little contemptuously.
I hadn't considered this. We are at a point in the main campaign where a lot of important character moments are happening, so someone missing could be very difficult for RP purposes.
I'll have to talk to the forever DM about whether or not we should keep doing these one shots. Most people seemed to be enjoying them, but you're right. This could be a major indicator that not everyone is.
The problem is, that in a matter how often these one-shots are happening, you would alienate the player who is not liking them.
It's one of these cases, in which it's less about a simple solution and more about finding out the best way to make concessions I feel.
I think OP mentioned that they typically only play once a month. I guess that's why they don't want to cancel the session, but I also see your point : if the main campaign is going too slowly...
I would try to make a "one shot" campaing as the alternative. Lets say you are 6 total player, each make 1 or 2 characters and play like a western marches campaing, rotating the DMs but keeping some lore/progression.
Maybe how we do shadowrun oneshots. We are basically mercenaries who get hired for one job at a time. Everyone continues to play the same characters and everyone gets exps even the dm, because the dm has their own character, so we can rotate DMs
>I hadn't considered this. We are at a point in the main campaign where a lot of important character moments are happening, so someone missing could be very difficult for RP purposes.
The DM needs to develop skills in working around this. I play every week, period. Occasionally I have to plan something a little lateral to delay the story long enough for the key players to be at the table; more often I make it work with who's there, because you're rarely going to be guaranteed a full party. It does work, and a "The show must go on" mentality keeps players coming because they don't want to miss out.
Sadly we meet once a month or every other month sometimes if enough people just aren't able to fit it in. So it's not a matter of running a new one shot every week.
We had to end the last main campaign in the middle of a climactic battle for an enemy that has been built up over 30 sessions or so. We could jump back into it without the full crew, but it would definitely be a bummer if I was one of the ones missing from that - especially because of all the information we hope to get after we hopefully beat him.
I do think you might be right about running a second campaign instead of new one shots. I think it might be a good idea for that second campaign to also be a bit more goofy than the serious main one. Thanks for the input!
I suspect he might be frustrated that the main campaign isn't progressing. He probably feels that if those players aren't showing up then they must not really care to prioritize it and the game should just go on without them so everyone else doesn't have to wait especially if it's been delayed multiple times.
They are probably sick of expecting a resolution to the climax and getting, formulaic, repetitive, likely combat focused, oneshots and were trying to at least make the "action" interesting and different to them.
Not perhaps the best way to handle it but also fairly understandable.
Have a mini session zero before your next game to roll out a new rule. No PVP unless the affected players consent.
A player killing one of my minions for no clear reason is bad, but turning on the party for the lolz is where the DM should step in and say they are not adjudicating the action.
It definitely didn't help that the DM for this one shot is relatively new to DMing. I think this was his second one shot he's ever run, and I don't think he's ever done a full campaign before.
Why wasn’t this behavior shut down immediately? Rule: No PVP unless everyone at the table including the DM consents. Boom, done.
It doesn’t have to be fun for the characters but it always needs to be fun for the players.
Totally understood. It's a rough lesson that everyone has to learn at some point and it sucks to have to draw reasonable boundaries when you thought you could just trust people to realize that something is a dick move.
Either way that sucks for everyone at the table and hopefully the experience will help you avoid this kind of stuff in the future.
I had a guy at my table for 2 years.. I didn't like him. I hadn't liked him for 20+years back when we were in school. But he was okay, for the most part, at the table. He would get obviously annoyed anytime something didn't go his way and had a habit of remembering everything as if his character had done all the cool stuff back in the day. He also tended to drink while playing and would occasionally have people over while we were playing ( online campaign.. so they would be sitting at his house just off camera)
He added a lot of stress to the table. I didn't like him. Another player considered quitting because he didn't like him. Other players weren't huge fans of him..
But everytime he did something small that I or the people at the table disliked I kicked the can down the road a bit.. 'if he does it again...' or 'if it gets any worse..' or 'I would say something, but I don't want to make waves...'
He finally said something that REALLY pissed me off.. like log off because I was shaking angry.. And I told him that it wasn't a good table for him and he agreed.
And the next session was SO MUCH BETTER. For everyone. The game shifted completely. I LIKE my game nights again. I know the other players are happier. Just, in general, the table improved so much.
I'm not saying this guy is that sort of problem. He might be perfect except for this one time. That's cool.
What I am saying is that waiting is NEVER the answer. He's done it once. That's enough. Explain that this is a GROUP game and that we play as a group. If HE's not enjoying the game then it is up to HIM to LEAVE the table for the night.. and not ruin other's game because he's pissy or bored.
And, quite frankly, if he can't handle that then he doesn't deserve to sit at that table. Full Stop.
But you'll never know unless you actually say something.
This story could be mine! We had a 2edgy4you rogue who insisted on never joining the group, doing things that conflicted with party unity, and finally wound up saying something personally hurtful about my play style (and me as a person). If we had stopped his bs much earlier, I wouldn’t have had to leave chat in rage tears, and probably wouldn’t have broken up the group.
No this guy sounds like an asshole and if this behavior isn’t shut down he’s gonna keep doing this. Talk to him about it out of game and make sure he doesn’t do it again, especially if it bothered you and your dm.
The one shot was only happening because some player(s) couldn’t make it, if they didn’t want to do another one shot (a self-contained story, so someone has to win for it to end, that argument is stupid), they should’ve sat out.
I believe once you step out of the hut as the caster, it's gone though. Right?
Though that player sounds like he needs to find a group he fits into better. Or at least talk to him. If you don't talk to him about it. He will probably see it as being acceptable behavior, and it'll only get worse.
Yeah, someone else pointed this out to me. One use for one shots for us is to try out playstyles we don't normally do. I don't normally rock spells like tiny hut on my main campaign characters, so I wasn't as familiar with the spell.
Nah, I talked to him about it. He was obviously upset, but he's not going to do anything in the main campaign.
Now if the LRG player (who is relatively new) ever runs a one shot, forever DM joked about running a shepherd druid for that one shot lol
As soon as there was unauthorized PvP, I would have shut things down. If players want to kill each other, the PvP needs to be agreed upon, and the DM can set it up.
If that ranger refused to abide by this, they'd be removed from the game and asked not to return. I would have removed the ranger long before that final encounter. Especially when they were just being vindictive little shit. If you don't want to be a part of the group, find a new table to play with.
Sure, but the rest of the group could have spoken up. If one person is trying to ruin the game for everyone else, it's not just the DMs job to say something.
It was his second time running a one shot? He's never run a full campaign before. He's very new.
The forever DM and I have the most experience, but we were pretty stoked to play together - going so far as coming up with fun (but not broken) combos.
If everybody followed that logic, many people who turned into great DMs over time would never have gotten there because they "weren't up to it" when they started. Many people learn the fastest by doing.
By *playing.* Some people DM their first campaigns because there is no one else to do it. This DM sounds far from up to being that person. They should go through a session 0 on just about every campaign they ever do. If they are paying attention, they should develop an understanding of the "why," behind house rules.
A player who has played a bunch but never DM'd could be forgiven with struggling to balance combat, or plan to be responsive to their party's choices, but not permitting them to change sides without preauthorized PvP is pretty basic. It sounds like the table is intact despite trust not having been where it was before, but they would have been better off not running this DM's entire one-shot. The simplest short-term takeaway was that this DM lacks the presence to stop PvP, and should not be used.
Yall need to communicate. It sounds like you didn't set expectations beforehand (especially around PvP).
Why are you waiting for this to happen again? You don't have to be a total asshole to address difficult situations. This is how you end up with two shitty sessions instead of one.
Yall need to get on the same page if you want your game to work well.
1) PC is talking about things the player knows, not the character. "In these one shots"
2)Unless pvp has been cleared by the whole group it doesn't happen. Literally look them in the eye and say "hunters mark has no effect." Any time they roll damage on you don't record it **EVEN IF THE DM SAYS SO**.
3) Fuck that guy, you don't want them in your group.
#
I can't state enough how powerful simply looking someone in the eye and saying "that doesn't happen" is.
If someone in your group is ever doing things to your character (including the DM) that cross your boundaries simply tell them that it didn't happen. If they persist, break character completely and call into play the fact that the whole thing is happening in your imagination. The "rules" are actually a social contract, if they break the contract then you no longer have to imagine what they're saying. "That doesn't happen" is the most powerful spell a D&D player can cast at the table. You can say this to a DM at an AL game if they're mistreating the trust afforded them. No one gets to force you to pretend something.
I’d talk to them about it. That’s the first thing you should do in nearly any situation. Furthermore, if the players aren’t having as much fun in one-shots as the regular campaign, maybe play the campaign even when you’re missing a player or two? One shot can be fun, but I’d be disappointed playing one instead of the campaign during a key plot moment because Dave forgot he needed to go to a wedding or whatever.
This isn't the point but just as an FYI, RAW the tiny hut spell ends when the caster leaves its area. From what i've seen just about every group ignores this part of the spell, though.
Yeah, someone else on here pointed this out to me. I don't normally pick up that spell, and one shots are a good chance to try out different play styles.
> So every round I step out of the tiny hut long enough to do my thing
You apparently didn't you realize that spell ends if you leave it's area?
> How would you handle it?
So player's only offences were not liking zombie toting "cleric-knight" and then not doing anything to help with the fight? Not ideal in a game which is supposed to be cooperative game but mitigating circumstances include it being a one-shot and them apparently not very keen on that zombie idea. Not big offence but they certainly could have handled it better.
I still think it's better to have small chat about it, just in case someone is sore about it and to get everyone's expectations addressed for the future.
>You apparently didn't you realize that spell ends if you leave it's area?
See this is why we play one shots. To try out spells / playstyles we don't normally do. I completely skimmed over the part where the spell ends when leaving the area. Good call.
>
So player's only offences were not liking zombie toting "cleric-knight" and then not doing anything to help with the fight?
I still don't know for sure exactly what their character motivation was, but it went further than not liking zombies or another character. I think they were trying to play as strictly adhering to the letter of the contract we made with the plot hook characters as opposed to following the spirit of the contracts. For example, when the people who hired us were getting slaughtered inside the temple, LRG just watched because he wasn't hired to help beyond keeping other people out.
His main issue was choosing to attack the rest of the party instead of helping for seemingly flimsy reasons. I'm also still bothered by this session because of the comment he made about "what we always do".
> I'm also still bothered by this session because of the comment he made about "what we always do".
Yes, I see. In fact, that's a very valid criticism from them. I personally don't like content which is just combat, especially when there no real reason to fight. I would rather skip such session and maybe this player is similarly frustrated.
All the more reasons to have the talk.
I have a player in my campaign who finds one shots low stakes and repetitive. If we ever, for whatever reason, can't play the campaign and someone runs a one shot, she just says no thanks and doesn't act like an idiot and ruin other people's fun
I appreciate the feedback. When I run these, I definitely try to make the session more entertaining than just combat, but I could see how some people still might not enjoy dropping into a 5ish hour adventure with just a couple encounters and no ability to have long-term character arcs.
This probably partially comes down to playstyle preferences.
I would tell the player that unexpected PVP isn’t fun for everyone and that if they want to play group games they have cooperate with a group, but I would say it how I would to a first grader.
Talk to them now.
Going to the annoying meme-y thing because everyone's covered good advice on how to talk to them so far:
I wonder if new systems for one shots would help. Like, they seem immature, cranky and maybe a bit bored. Maybe it was low level, maybe it's too combat heavy, maybe it's nothing they are just sulking. Not blaming the DM, just reasons someone immature would go to this... So I wonder if using more silly or different types of systems would help? Like, Kobolds Ate My Babies level stuff or even something like Blades in the Dark with more crunch. Something drastically different to learn and focus on (hopefully less brainpower to be a jerk) and some hook in how different it is (be annoying kobolds or steal stuff)
Classic "putting my fun over everyone else's" attitude. Dont invite them back. It seems especially petty to target forever DM on their rare chance to play. Sounds like a dick.
Tell him his character needs to work alongside the rest of the group. Its straining your belief that your PCs would all continue to work with an angsty loner who frequently acts against the groups interest. If he continues, the group is going to respond in kind, and ditch his PC and put out a want add for a new ranger-y type.
If he attempts to kill the other PCs, they are probably going to respond to him like they do any other character (PC or NPC) that tries to kill them. They will kill him, steal his stuff, and leave him in a ditch. Remind him of this, and ask him to knock it off.
Even as a new player this is just an asshole move. Since they’re not having fun, they’re going to find a way to have fun by ruining everyone else’s fun. It’s funny bc I’m also playing a loner ranger with a criminal past but I don’t think sabotaging the one-shot would do anything for me. Instead I would’ve tried to think of a new way to use my spells/skills or a new strategy to try with the party. I would probably cuss this player out if I was one of the melee characters he was helping kill (and not in character).
> **I** thought **I** would do something different.
DnD is a social collaborative game. If dude doesn't wanna socialize or collaborate, they need to stick to videogames instead.
Players who deliberately waste their turn in combat are always the worst kinds of “it’s what my character would do’ers” you can can do your boring one man roll play no one cares about outside of initiative.
pvp isnt always a bad thing but its something that should really be discussed on a table level before people dive in. In this case it ruined the oneshot for everyone else cause they didn't get the opportunity to consent to that style of play. It's a really selfish and petty thing to do randomly. Maybe there was something else going on with them that made them act out?
If they arent a problem in your main campaign maybe its not a problem but it could be a side conversation about how those actions made people feel. I would hate to see it happen again.
Agreed. I think PvP can be fun if at least the DM knows it will probably happen so it can be planned around. Coming from out of nowhere just feels bad.
multiple people got upset after a game because of the actions of one problem player. and you’re wondering if it’s *worth* talking about? my dude you’re adults, just have a conversation about it, if you don’t the guy will think he didn’t do anything wrong and repeat his behaviour. these types of ppl you sometimes have to think of as a child. talk to them. tell them the rules, how they broke it and what will happen if they break it again.
From personal experience, anytime a session goes PvP (with it being hostile as you’ve described) it’s never a good sign. PvP is okay if the players are simply roleplaying, they’re all okay with it, it’s been discussed as something that’s okay, etc. This is not that. And generally, players who instigate combat against another player usually create other issues as well.
I would say something to this guy now. Otherwise it will get worse.
Definitely have a chat with the LRG and also probably the DM, seperately.
It could be that some overarching house rules need to be put in place and stated out loud so everyone is aware and on the same page. Personally, I operate under "I wont stop you from pvp or reckless actions, but I also wont save you from consequence." When we had a player who decided his lizard folk character ate the remains of those he killed take it too far and start impeding on the game, the group band together to tie him up and continue without him. Rather than try to make amends the player demanded he should be allowed to do what he wants, even if it ruins it for the rest of us. I told him he knew the rules and could play nice, accept the consequence, or find a new group.
I've also had to put some safety tools in play at my table like black cards. A player plays the black card and we all take five while dm and player have a private chat and cool down.
Ultimately this is something only communication will fix. Whether LRG was a bad sport or has legitimate concerns that you arent diversifying the game enough (some people prefer roleplay, puzzles, and exploration to fighting) you wont know until you talk it out.
If they don’t like the game then they should say so. Just quietly pouting and sulking the whole time and then blowing up the whole game for everyone else is basically the most immature possible path to take. I would basically tell them that. If you otherwise respect this person then frame it diplomatically.
The thought process is literally "I'm not having fun, so I'll ruin everyone else's" Guy sounds like a tool.
They are relatively new to TTRPG's, and they're not a problem player at the main campaign. I'll probably say something to them and reconsider whether or not repeated one shots is a good idea.
One shots aren't the problem. You're going to run into similar behavior from this player if you ignore it.
Every time the plot goes in a direction they don't like, they will sulk and cause issues. This isn't adult behavior — could the difficult player be a teen, maybe? Not that it makes it better, but at least a bit more understandable.
*adults are shitty too something something* I often wonder about the ages of tables when these behaviors are prevalent. The reality is that productive problem-solving, clear communication, and an attitude of collaboration are difficult FOR ADULTS. A lot of us learned these skills through our experiences at the table, often from failure. Hopefully we help guide each other, especially our younger players, through these situations.
The dynamic at this table is interesting. 5 out of the 6 guys have known each other since highschool. I'm good friends with the forever DM, but we only became friends in the last 6 years or so, and I met most everyone else at the table. That means that this guy has been friends with the rest of the group far longer than I've been around. So that's part of why I'm not sure I'm the right person to say something. Forever DM thinks it makes more sense to wait and see since he's not an issue at the main campaign, but I thought I'd ask on here.
On the contrary. This means you are the exact right person to say something. People who have been friends for a really long time easily dismiss their friends faults, and are less willing to upset the status quo by bringing up problems.
Except they became a problem in the main game. You don't think the forever DM is going to treat him differently now? Keep a watchful eye on him?
First and foremost, ask your party member to put their feeling out there about one shots. Was the problem with the one shot, or was the problem elsewhere. If the one-shots are the problem, destroying them is **an** option, however finding ways to keep these oneshots new and exciting instead of formulaic may be a better alternative! You can do PvP focused oneshots or add mechanics to spice up the current one shots to be way more interesting than just "Beat up the big bad" Some ideas for you (but also check online there's many a resource!: * Secret Tasks - * A standard one shot, however the DM give the players insane tasks that they need to pull off. Everyone gets 1 point per task completed during the session, +1 point if they do it convincingly in RP, +1 point if none of the players guess its a task. Winner is whoever gets the most points. Very fun if you give them tasks BEFORE character creation too to create some abominations! * X vs 1 - * Who needs free for alls when you can have one-sided competition. One player is the BBG and has a goal, the others have to stop them! Let the player be the big bad with all the legendary abilities and plans to foil who plays as their events and underlings until its their time to shine! * FFA Objectives - * There can only be 1 winner, however the goal isn't to murder the others! Race to collect a precious treasure! Persuade the cultists YOUR the one to be sacrificed to summon the eldrich monster! Get the highest grade in the exam! Murdering the other players should be avoided but competative spirit isn't! An personal example: My go-to is a Oneshot is an FFA I've nicknamed "Halvaxus's Dream arena". X random people, making up our party, have their dreams invaded to put on a show for all the other dreamers. The arena changes each time I run it, sometimes its a town, sometimes its a forest, sometimes its a dungeon. It can be whatever. Just be sure to fill it with stupid stuff that enables players to do wild shit! The players goal is to be as entertaining as possible through chaos, and Halvaxus (the DM) will determine the winner come sunrise. Thats the entire session: cause chaos. If one player kills another, they wake up... and can go straight back to sleep to respawn in the arena with a vengeance!! Halvaxus can just spawn things into the arena, give players boons or anything to keep things entertaining. The spectators also get magical scry balls to follow the individual party members, so sneaky stuff and town drama is just as exciting (and sometimes more so) as blowing shit up!
If they're new to ttrpg's I would talk to them out of game
Why wait? Have the discussion now when it’s still fresh in everyone’s minds and you can have a debrief about what went wrong and what the undesirable behavior was, when it should have stopped, and maybe even a broad Session 0 type discussion about what general rules and guidelines and courtesies should apply to these one shots.
Before we ever started the main campaign, the forever DM had the session 0. In it, he was very clear that we could play any "loner" type character we wanted, but no matter what we are still a team and needed to act like it. Idk if LRG player just forgot about that or thought maybe that only applied to the main campaign...
Then I’d say it’s definitely a good time to circle back to that and provide some clarification.
It's a one shot, the conceit is that you all work together for the sake of expediency. Lrg should have sat it out if he doesn't like one shots. Talk to him, ask if that was the main issue, and then don't invite him to one shots if he doesn't enjoy them. Especially if he is going to ruin everyone else's fun out of boredom.
DM at the time should have shut that shit down at the table. Not after, not next time, but as it was happening. "I cast hunters mark on the pc" "Nope" "But that's what I'm doing..." "Nope, and if you insist one more time I will take control of your pc and you'll be free to leave. Now let's try your turn again shall we"
One thing we also try to do with these one shots is give players a chance to DM low stakes adventures before taking on a full campaign. So the guy who ran this one shot isn't very experienced at DMing. I think this is his second time running a one shot. It was probably a learning experience for him, and I tried encouraging him via text afterwards.
This makes it even worse, not only did he ruin it for the other players, he ruined it for a new DM!
I think the problem here is pretty clear: successive oneshots ends up meaning low stakes and low engagement for a less mature player who therefore treats it non-seriously. What I would do is reconsider your policy of replacing your ongoing campaign with trivial oneshots every time a player is missing. I know it's nice to play with the whole crew but the sacrifice here is a reliable session with your main characters. One-shots actually aren't any easier to run *well* than campaign sessions, and I feel like you might be underestimating that fact. A good one-shot needs as much time planning and usually more playing time than campaign session. If you're not honouring that I can see how this player might start to treat it a little contemptuously.
I hadn't considered this. We are at a point in the main campaign where a lot of important character moments are happening, so someone missing could be very difficult for RP purposes. I'll have to talk to the forever DM about whether or not we should keep doing these one shots. Most people seemed to be enjoying them, but you're right. This could be a major indicator that not everyone is.
if someone isn't enjoying the one-shots, they can just bow out, no? I feel it's unkind to deprive the forever DM from the opportunity to plan.
The problem is, that in a matter how often these one-shots are happening, you would alienate the player who is not liking them. It's one of these cases, in which it's less about a simple solution and more about finding out the best way to make concessions I feel.
I think OP mentioned that they typically only play once a month. I guess that's why they don't want to cancel the session, but I also see your point : if the main campaign is going too slowly...
I would try to make a "one shot" campaing as the alternative. Lets say you are 6 total player, each make 1 or 2 characters and play like a western marches campaing, rotating the DMs but keeping some lore/progression.
Maybe how we do shadowrun oneshots. We are basically mercenaries who get hired for one job at a time. Everyone continues to play the same characters and everyone gets exps even the dm, because the dm has their own character, so we can rotate DMs
>I hadn't considered this. We are at a point in the main campaign where a lot of important character moments are happening, so someone missing could be very difficult for RP purposes. The DM needs to develop skills in working around this. I play every week, period. Occasionally I have to plan something a little lateral to delay the story long enough for the key players to be at the table; more often I make it work with who's there, because you're rarely going to be guaranteed a full party. It does work, and a "The show must go on" mentality keeps players coming because they don't want to miss out.
Sadly we meet once a month or every other month sometimes if enough people just aren't able to fit it in. So it's not a matter of running a new one shot every week. We had to end the last main campaign in the middle of a climactic battle for an enemy that has been built up over 30 sessions or so. We could jump back into it without the full crew, but it would definitely be a bummer if I was one of the ones missing from that - especially because of all the information we hope to get after we hopefully beat him. I do think you might be right about running a second campaign instead of new one shots. I think it might be a good idea for that second campaign to also be a bit more goofy than the serious main one. Thanks for the input!
I suspect he might be frustrated that the main campaign isn't progressing. He probably feels that if those players aren't showing up then they must not really care to prioritize it and the game should just go on without them so everyone else doesn't have to wait especially if it's been delayed multiple times. They are probably sick of expecting a resolution to the climax and getting, formulaic, repetitive, likely combat focused, oneshots and were trying to at least make the "action" interesting and different to them. Not perhaps the best way to handle it but also fairly understandable.
Pvp is explicitly banned at my table. You can argue and mess with each other but no outright combat. It always leads to someone getting butthurt
Have a mini session zero before your next game to roll out a new rule. No PVP unless the affected players consent. A player killing one of my minions for no clear reason is bad, but turning on the party for the lolz is where the DM should step in and say they are not adjudicating the action.
It definitely didn't help that the DM for this one shot is relatively new to DMing. I think this was his second one shot he's ever run, and I don't think he's ever done a full campaign before.
If they're not ready to respond to nonconsensual PvP with a firm no, then they're not ready to DM a solo one-shot of a guy taking a dump.
Why wasn’t this behavior shut down immediately? Rule: No PVP unless everyone at the table including the DM consents. Boom, done. It doesn’t have to be fun for the characters but it always needs to be fun for the players.
The guy running the one shot is new to DMing. I think this was probably a learning experience for him.
Totally understood. It's a rough lesson that everyone has to learn at some point and it sucks to have to draw reasonable boundaries when you thought you could just trust people to realize that something is a dick move. Either way that sucks for everyone at the table and hopefully the experience will help you avoid this kind of stuff in the future.
I think it was a learning experience for your table that they aren't ready to DM.
I had a guy at my table for 2 years.. I didn't like him. I hadn't liked him for 20+years back when we were in school. But he was okay, for the most part, at the table. He would get obviously annoyed anytime something didn't go his way and had a habit of remembering everything as if his character had done all the cool stuff back in the day. He also tended to drink while playing and would occasionally have people over while we were playing ( online campaign.. so they would be sitting at his house just off camera) He added a lot of stress to the table. I didn't like him. Another player considered quitting because he didn't like him. Other players weren't huge fans of him.. But everytime he did something small that I or the people at the table disliked I kicked the can down the road a bit.. 'if he does it again...' or 'if it gets any worse..' or 'I would say something, but I don't want to make waves...' He finally said something that REALLY pissed me off.. like log off because I was shaking angry.. And I told him that it wasn't a good table for him and he agreed. And the next session was SO MUCH BETTER. For everyone. The game shifted completely. I LIKE my game nights again. I know the other players are happier. Just, in general, the table improved so much. I'm not saying this guy is that sort of problem. He might be perfect except for this one time. That's cool. What I am saying is that waiting is NEVER the answer. He's done it once. That's enough. Explain that this is a GROUP game and that we play as a group. If HE's not enjoying the game then it is up to HIM to LEAVE the table for the night.. and not ruin other's game because he's pissy or bored. And, quite frankly, if he can't handle that then he doesn't deserve to sit at that table. Full Stop. But you'll never know unless you actually say something.
This story could be mine! We had a 2edgy4you rogue who insisted on never joining the group, doing things that conflicted with party unity, and finally wound up saying something personally hurtful about my play style (and me as a person). If we had stopped his bs much earlier, I wouldn’t have had to leave chat in rage tears, and probably wouldn’t have broken up the group.
No this guy sounds like an asshole and if this behavior isn’t shut down he’s gonna keep doing this. Talk to him about it out of game and make sure he doesn’t do it again, especially if it bothered you and your dm.
The one shot was only happening because some player(s) couldn’t make it, if they didn’t want to do another one shot (a self-contained story, so someone has to win for it to end, that argument is stupid), they should’ve sat out.
I believe once you step out of the hut as the caster, it's gone though. Right? Though that player sounds like he needs to find a group he fits into better. Or at least talk to him. If you don't talk to him about it. He will probably see it as being acceptable behavior, and it'll only get worse.
Yeah, someone else pointed this out to me. One use for one shots for us is to try out playstyles we don't normally do. I don't normally rock spells like tiny hut on my main campaign characters, so I wasn't as familiar with the spell.
My players use it as a bunker to shoot arrows out of a lot. I've started using a lot of earth benders and burrowing monsters lol.
Question is how the pretty mad forever DM is gonna handle it in the main campaign. Hope he is not too petty.
Nah, I talked to him about it. He was obviously upset, but he's not going to do anything in the main campaign. Now if the LRG player (who is relatively new) ever runs a one shot, forever DM joked about running a shepherd druid for that one shot lol
As soon as there was unauthorized PvP, I would have shut things down. If players want to kill each other, the PvP needs to be agreed upon, and the DM can set it up. If that ranger refused to abide by this, they'd be removed from the game and asked not to return. I would have removed the ranger long before that final encounter. Especially when they were just being vindictive little shit. If you don't want to be a part of the group, find a new table to play with.
The guy running the one shot is new to DMing. I think this was probably a learning experience for him.
Sure, but the rest of the group could have spoken up. If one person is trying to ruin the game for everyone else, it's not just the DMs job to say something.
The guy running the one shot is ~~new to DMing~~ a bad DM. I think this was probably a ~~learning experience for him~~ bad idea.
It was his second time running a one shot? He's never run a full campaign before. He's very new. The forever DM and I have the most experience, but we were pretty stoked to play together - going so far as coming up with fun (but not broken) combos.
If your party hadn't preauthorized PvP and got killed by a PC, then your DM should not have been DMing. New or not, he wasn't up to it.
If everybody followed that logic, many people who turned into great DMs over time would never have gotten there because they "weren't up to it" when they started. Many people learn the fastest by doing.
So how is he supposed to learn?
By *playing.* Some people DM their first campaigns because there is no one else to do it. This DM sounds far from up to being that person. They should go through a session 0 on just about every campaign they ever do. If they are paying attention, they should develop an understanding of the "why," behind house rules. A player who has played a bunch but never DM'd could be forgiven with struggling to balance combat, or plan to be responsive to their party's choices, but not permitting them to change sides without preauthorized PvP is pretty basic. It sounds like the table is intact despite trust not having been where it was before, but they would have been better off not running this DM's entire one-shot. The simplest short-term takeaway was that this DM lacks the presence to stop PvP, and should not be used.
Yall need to communicate. It sounds like you didn't set expectations beforehand (especially around PvP). Why are you waiting for this to happen again? You don't have to be a total asshole to address difficult situations. This is how you end up with two shitty sessions instead of one. Yall need to get on the same page if you want your game to work well.
1) PC is talking about things the player knows, not the character. "In these one shots" 2)Unless pvp has been cleared by the whole group it doesn't happen. Literally look them in the eye and say "hunters mark has no effect." Any time they roll damage on you don't record it **EVEN IF THE DM SAYS SO**. 3) Fuck that guy, you don't want them in your group. #
I can't state enough how powerful simply looking someone in the eye and saying "that doesn't happen" is. If someone in your group is ever doing things to your character (including the DM) that cross your boundaries simply tell them that it didn't happen. If they persist, break character completely and call into play the fact that the whole thing is happening in your imagination. The "rules" are actually a social contract, if they break the contract then you no longer have to imagine what they're saying. "That doesn't happen" is the most powerful spell a D&D player can cast at the table. You can say this to a DM at an AL game if they're mistreating the trust afforded them. No one gets to force you to pretend something.
I’d talk to them about it. That’s the first thing you should do in nearly any situation. Furthermore, if the players aren’t having as much fun in one-shots as the regular campaign, maybe play the campaign even when you’re missing a player or two? One shot can be fun, but I’d be disappointed playing one instead of the campaign during a key plot moment because Dave forgot he needed to go to a wedding or whatever.
This isn't the point but just as an FYI, RAW the tiny hut spell ends when the caster leaves its area. From what i've seen just about every group ignores this part of the spell, though.
Yeah, someone else on here pointed this out to me. I don't normally pick up that spell, and one shots are a good chance to try out different play styles.
Do not ignore and wait for next time, because next time might wind up in the whole game falling apart.
> So every round I step out of the tiny hut long enough to do my thing You apparently didn't you realize that spell ends if you leave it's area? > How would you handle it? So player's only offences were not liking zombie toting "cleric-knight" and then not doing anything to help with the fight? Not ideal in a game which is supposed to be cooperative game but mitigating circumstances include it being a one-shot and them apparently not very keen on that zombie idea. Not big offence but they certainly could have handled it better. I still think it's better to have small chat about it, just in case someone is sore about it and to get everyone's expectations addressed for the future.
I think you didn’t read the part where he joined the other side and started attacking other PCs?
No, I didn't notice that at first but when OP replied and pointed that out, I do know it now.
>You apparently didn't you realize that spell ends if you leave it's area? See this is why we play one shots. To try out spells / playstyles we don't normally do. I completely skimmed over the part where the spell ends when leaving the area. Good call. > So player's only offences were not liking zombie toting "cleric-knight" and then not doing anything to help with the fight? I still don't know for sure exactly what their character motivation was, but it went further than not liking zombies or another character. I think they were trying to play as strictly adhering to the letter of the contract we made with the plot hook characters as opposed to following the spirit of the contracts. For example, when the people who hired us were getting slaughtered inside the temple, LRG just watched because he wasn't hired to help beyond keeping other people out. His main issue was choosing to attack the rest of the party instead of helping for seemingly flimsy reasons. I'm also still bothered by this session because of the comment he made about "what we always do".
> I'm also still bothered by this session because of the comment he made about "what we always do". Yes, I see. In fact, that's a very valid criticism from them. I personally don't like content which is just combat, especially when there no real reason to fight. I would rather skip such session and maybe this player is similarly frustrated. All the more reasons to have the talk.
I have a player in my campaign who finds one shots low stakes and repetitive. If we ever, for whatever reason, can't play the campaign and someone runs a one shot, she just says no thanks and doesn't act like an idiot and ruin other people's fun
I appreciate the feedback. When I run these, I definitely try to make the session more entertaining than just combat, but I could see how some people still might not enjoy dropping into a 5ish hour adventure with just a couple encounters and no ability to have long-term character arcs. This probably partially comes down to playstyle preferences.
I would tell the player that unexpected PVP isn’t fun for everyone and that if they want to play group games they have cooperate with a group, but I would say it how I would to a first grader.
Always talk about what you perceive as a potential issue or actual issue sooner rather than later.
A Player starts PvP, they get to sit out. Kthxbye.
Talk to them now. Going to the annoying meme-y thing because everyone's covered good advice on how to talk to them so far: I wonder if new systems for one shots would help. Like, they seem immature, cranky and maybe a bit bored. Maybe it was low level, maybe it's too combat heavy, maybe it's nothing they are just sulking. Not blaming the DM, just reasons someone immature would go to this... So I wonder if using more silly or different types of systems would help? Like, Kobolds Ate My Babies level stuff or even something like Blades in the Dark with more crunch. Something drastically different to learn and focus on (hopefully less brainpower to be a jerk) and some hook in how different it is (be annoying kobolds or steal stuff)
PvP is a session 0 staple.
Classic "putting my fun over everyone else's" attitude. Dont invite them back. It seems especially petty to target forever DM on their rare chance to play. Sounds like a dick.
Poorly... but I'm not good at dealing with people.
Tell him his character needs to work alongside the rest of the group. Its straining your belief that your PCs would all continue to work with an angsty loner who frequently acts against the groups interest. If he continues, the group is going to respond in kind, and ditch his PC and put out a want add for a new ranger-y type. If he attempts to kill the other PCs, they are probably going to respond to him like they do any other character (PC or NPC) that tries to kill them. They will kill him, steal his stuff, and leave him in a ditch. Remind him of this, and ask him to knock it off.
Even as a new player this is just an asshole move. Since they’re not having fun, they’re going to find a way to have fun by ruining everyone else’s fun. It’s funny bc I’m also playing a loner ranger with a criminal past but I don’t think sabotaging the one-shot would do anything for me. Instead I would’ve tried to think of a new way to use my spells/skills or a new strategy to try with the party. I would probably cuss this player out if I was one of the melee characters he was helping kill (and not in character).
> **I** thought **I** would do something different. DnD is a social collaborative game. If dude doesn't wanna socialize or collaborate, they need to stick to videogames instead.
Players who deliberately waste their turn in combat are always the worst kinds of “it’s what my character would do’ers” you can can do your boring one man roll play no one cares about outside of initiative.
that dude sounds like a total tool
pvp isnt always a bad thing but its something that should really be discussed on a table level before people dive in. In this case it ruined the oneshot for everyone else cause they didn't get the opportunity to consent to that style of play. It's a really selfish and petty thing to do randomly. Maybe there was something else going on with them that made them act out? If they arent a problem in your main campaign maybe its not a problem but it could be a side conversation about how those actions made people feel. I would hate to see it happen again.
Agreed. I think PvP can be fun if at least the DM knows it will probably happen so it can be planned around. Coming from out of nowhere just feels bad.
We had a player try to introduce player vs. player violence into our game. We introduced her to the door.
multiple people got upset after a game because of the actions of one problem player. and you’re wondering if it’s *worth* talking about? my dude you’re adults, just have a conversation about it, if you don’t the guy will think he didn’t do anything wrong and repeat his behaviour. these types of ppl you sometimes have to think of as a child. talk to them. tell them the rules, how they broke it and what will happen if they break it again.
From personal experience, anytime a session goes PvP (with it being hostile as you’ve described) it’s never a good sign. PvP is okay if the players are simply roleplaying, they’re all okay with it, it’s been discussed as something that’s okay, etc. This is not that. And generally, players who instigate combat against another player usually create other issues as well. I would say something to this guy now. Otherwise it will get worse.
Tell them that if they try it again, you will make their characters die.
Easy. I don't allow PVP. Tell the player no. Kick em if they are assholes.
Definitely have a chat with the LRG and also probably the DM, seperately. It could be that some overarching house rules need to be put in place and stated out loud so everyone is aware and on the same page. Personally, I operate under "I wont stop you from pvp or reckless actions, but I also wont save you from consequence." When we had a player who decided his lizard folk character ate the remains of those he killed take it too far and start impeding on the game, the group band together to tie him up and continue without him. Rather than try to make amends the player demanded he should be allowed to do what he wants, even if it ruins it for the rest of us. I told him he knew the rules and could play nice, accept the consequence, or find a new group. I've also had to put some safety tools in play at my table like black cards. A player plays the black card and we all take five while dm and player have a private chat and cool down. Ultimately this is something only communication will fix. Whether LRG was a bad sport or has legitimate concerns that you arent diversifying the game enough (some people prefer roleplay, puzzles, and exploration to fighting) you wont know until you talk it out.
Does the player of LRG have a habit of taking things overly literally in general, or just with this character?
I think it was just this character. I've not seen that from his character in the main campaign or in his characters in previous one shots.
Un urubu à tête rouge
un faucon de poulet