If he's a good enough friend, you might just tell him point blank: "You always play a chaotic evil character that backstabs his friends. It's no fun for anybody else because they always have to worry about what you're going to do to them, and it distracts from the larger story which should be about the team solving problems, not fighting against each other."

Hard to say things like that in person, but maybe he simply hasn't thought through how much impact his style of play has on everybody else. Maybe he'll clue in. But if it turns out he simply doesn't care, then...so long and don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

In our specific game of Edge, we were getting to a point where my other players were planning contingency plans to contain his character with anti-droid weaponry , "just in case". I feel like the problem was that he made, like usual, a character that was opposed to the rest of the group, and then got mad because things didn't go his way.

Why does it not surprise me that he chose a Droid...

I wouldn't be too worried that he's chosen to leave the group for this game, they'll be other chances to play together. A great friend of mine GM'd for years game after game and I kept playing because he was my friend but he ran games in a way that just drove me up the wall. I eventually stopped, took a break, and now we get together and play boardgames. Much better.

I hope it works out for you.

Yeah that is definitely an OOC conversation to have, and if he's comfortable in D&D terms it's fine to say "I will not accept you playing anyone on the truly evil spectrum, or so neutral that they will abandon their crew when the going gets tough. That's not the kind of game I'm interested in running, period. Here are the themes I want to emphasize: ___________. If you don't think you can make a character you want to play that fits with those themes and morals, then you shouldn't play in this game."

Someone needs to put on their big boy pants. If you skipped out on half the EXPERIENCE of the game, you get no POINTS. Seems pretty simple and clear-cut.

I think the only thing I might have done in this situation would be to go "You are free to leave the planet and proceed to System X, but I'm going to deal with the other players and the rest of the game first. You can leave if you want to, but you'll be bored just sitting there for the next 3 hours."

And then give him a mulligan to do it over if he wishes.

Yes, one might consider that railroading - I don't, at least not exactly. The players and the GM have a covenant The GM will bring a big pile of notes in some kind of story and the players will go chase down that story. Now how they do that, that's all up to the fog of war. But when the GM says "A bearded man comes up to you and says 'Go recover the Lost MacGuffin of Zulu'" and the players get halfway into it, that you don't just up and fly away.

Everyone is there to tell a good story. Abandoning the story half way through (when the rest of the table is interesting in following the plot) is against that covenant.

This player is a good friend, but he's horrible at roleplaying games: he always makes the same character, the roguelike chaotic neutral/evil kind of character that never cares for the others, not even the rest of the party, always bails to go steal something, etc. In our specific game of Edge, we were getting to a point where my other players were planning contingency plans to contain his character with anti-droid weaponry, "just in case". I feel like the problem was that he made, like usual, a character that was opposed to the rest of the group, and then got mad because things didn't go his way. As much as I felt bad and depressed at first, I think his rage quit was for the best: the games will run a lot smoother now, and I'll keep that in mind when I'll choose players for my next campaign. He's a good friend and I'll still play boardgames and the like with him, but I think I'm done playing rpgs with him.

Yeah, you are far better off with him not playing roleplaying games in your group.

I think the only thing I might have done in this situation would be to go "You are free to leave the planet and proceed to System X, but I'm going to deal with the other players and the rest of the game first. You can leave if you want to, but you'll be bored just sitting there for the next 3 hours."

And then give him a mulligan to do it over if he wishes.

Yes, one might consider that railroading - I don't, at least not exactly. The players and the GM have a covenant The GM will bring a big pile of notes in some kind of story and the players will go chase down that story. Now how they do that, that's all up to the fog of war. But when the GM says "A bearded man comes up to you and says 'Go recover the Lost MacGuffin of Zulu'" and the players get halfway into it, that you don't just up and fly away.

Everyone is there to tell a good story. Abandoning the story half way through (when the rest of the table is interesting in following the plot) is against that covenant.

To me, if the GM offers the players an option that they are able to take and might reasonably take, he should be prepared to play out that option for those who pick it. If you give the option and behind the door is a **** sandwich, you just laid a meta-trap, and that sucks. It sucks if it was an accident and it's just total BS if it's intentional.

If you don't plan a story option for players who choose to cut and run, then don't give that option .

Someone needs to put on their big boy pants. If you skipped out on half the EXPERIENCE of the game, you get no POINTS. Seems pretty simple and clear-cut.

I think the only thing I might have done in this situation would be to go "You are free to leave the planet and proceed to System X, but I'm going to deal with the other players and the rest of the game first. You can leave if you want to, but you'll be bored just sitting there for the next 3 hours."

And then give him a mulligan to do it over if he wishes.

Yes, one might consider that railroading - I don't, at least not exactly. The players and the GM have a covenant The GM will bring a big pile of notes in some kind of story and the players will go chase down that story. Now how they do that, that's all up to the fog of war. But when the GM says "A bearded man comes up to you and says 'Go recover the Lost MacGuffin of Zulu'" and the players get halfway into it, that you don't just up and fly away.

Everyone is there to tell a good story. Abandoning the story half way through (when the rest of the table is interesting in following the plot) is against that covenant.

Indeed, in my group, spilting up the party across great distances was always something we did, however that was often for good reason (the gand was being called away from planet by a finds man due to obligation, so he and another member left to deal with that directly, the other member largely because he was fully aware that the Gand would fail his trail and face a death sentence if found guilty.)

The most recent time is that my character left solo, but even then that was justified for three reasons.

1) I discussed it before hand. That always makes planning easier.

2) I had reason. Lando has hired the party to run opera for empire day, my chacater helped deal with much of the underworld that threatened the event, just being both a suspected Jedi/convicted terrorist, the stakes were too high to be around for the event.(out of a 5 man party, he personally has 15 obligation)

3)I was prepared not to have anything to do with him for a long time. We were starting to introduce alt characters, thus I was able to play a tough talking trandosian and continue to contribute directly as a strong social character.

Thus my character had snuck off world with a prisoner in an unmarked ship, killed him and set a course to nar sheeddar to eventually hunt down his revenge obligation. Naturally I understood that I was going off the tangent, but I was fine with that since the action wouldn't cut back to character until much, much, later.

Yes, one might consider that railroading - I don't, at least not exactly. The players and the GM have a covenant The GM will bring a big pile of notes in some kind of story and the players will go chase down that story. Now how they do that, that's all up to the fog of war. But when the GM says "A bearded man comes up to you and says 'Go recover the Lost MacGuffin of Zulu'" and the players get halfway into it, that you don't just up and fly away.

Everyone is there to tell a good story. Abandoning the story half way through (when the rest of the table is interesting in following the plot) is against that covenant.

I'm with you on that one. I don't like railroading, and I give my players as much liberty as I possibly can. But I still arrive at the table with an adventure in mind, that I worked really hard to prepare in my very limited free time. Players have all the liberty they could want in the context of the adventure, but you don't have the liberty of ditching the adventure completely, even if only out of respect for the GM's work. Especially when half the group is still determined to finish it: it's disrespectful for my work, but also to the other players who wanna enjoy the story we create together.

After a week or two to let things simmer, you could always talk to him and the group and see if he'd be interested in coming back with a character that is a party member, not a solo act. If he gets that it's a story about the group, things could run a lot more smoothly.

You're probably right, although I don't think I'm gonna actively seek out that solution. I liked having him as a player for sure and I would like it if he would come back, but he got out voluntarily, and I feel he must come back the same way, if he ever does.

To me, if the GM offers the players an option that they are able to take and might reasonably take, he should be prepared to play out that option for those who pick it. If you give the option and behind the door is a **** sandwich, you just laid a meta-trap, and that sucks. It sucks if it was an accident and it's just total BS if it's intentional.

If you don't plan a story option for players who choose to cut and run, then don't give that option .

are you saying I was supposed to Deus Ex Machina their spaceship so they wouldn't be able to bail on the adventure?

Edit: sorry, inadvertently double posted!

To me, if the GM offers the players an option that they are able to take and might reasonably take, he should be prepared to play out that option for those who pick it. If you give the option and behind the door is a **** sandwich, you just laid a meta-trap, and that sucks. It sucks if it was an accident and it's just total BS if it's intentional.

If you don't plan a story option for players who choose to cut and run, then don't give that option .

are you saying I was supposed to Deus Ex Machina their spaceship so they wouldn't be able to bail on the adventure?

Edit: sorry, inadvertently double posted!

That's what I suggested above. Since there already were bad storms going on, it's not that far of a stretch for something to happen to the spaceship. Now, if it was a clear sun shiny day, then yeah it would feel like a railroad. As it was, the scene was already set for the players to need to hunker down and solve the issues while waiting for the worst of the storm to blow over.

That's what I suggested above. Since there already were bad storms going on, it's not that far of a stretch for something to happen to the spaceship. Now, if it was a clear sun shiny day, then yeah it would feel like a railroad. As it was, the scene was already set for the players to need to hunker down and solve the issues while waiting for the worst of the storm to blow over.

I'd agree, so long as that situation is clear from the outset. If as the GM you forget to mention it, then the player by all rights should be able to use the ship.

Okay, Necrovoker, there is a lot going on here. I think a large part of it is your friend, but honestly I don't think I can blame him that much. Who among us hasn't created one or two PCs who we don't really want to acknowledge anymore? I know I've got at least one D&D Ranger who was, shall we say, somewhat influenced by Vampire Hunter D...

However, I'm not sure that holding out on XP was the best way to go here. Let's face it--XP is the lifeblood of a character. Players can live with inequality in their equipment, and they can even live with one player getting the spotlight in a session more than the rest. Cut them out of XP, though, and you have a fight on your hands.

Let me first echo what other people have said--your friend really needs to learn to communicate better. So he walks out and, honestly, was a bit passive-agressive in how he handles it. That's on him.

On the other hand, here's the thing--players circumvent the will of the GM all the time. The old saying, "No adventure survives contact with the players" is out there for a reason. Your player had the right to fly off if he wanted to, and he had the right to get XP for being there and playing his character. You talked of railroading the players when Jamwes said to break their ship. How much more are you railroading players if you give XP only when they do what you want them to? If you say it's frustrating, I agree. However, improvisation is an integral part of every GM's toolkit. If the players go completely off the rails and the best you can do is dock them XP then you may want to reconsider being a GM.

That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to their actions. Edge of the Empire allows for PCs being self-serving and backstabbing, but there are consequences to their actions. If your problem player was the only one that bailed, then fine--he gets to try to sell the cargo. This could work out well for him, but perhaps the Hutt who wanted the PCs to check on the mine is a little upset that he bailed--add some Obligation in the form of either debt or a favor. What about the buyers? People who buy stolen cargo are not usually the greatest people. What if they double-cross the PC? There could be a huge adventure that spins out of that.

The bottom line is this--you need to let the players do what they want to do. If them doing something would wreck the adventure you have planned out, you may want to deus ex machina something to force them back on the path, like countless horror movies have done with wrecked bridges, paths that lead nowhere and isolated cabins in the woods. If you're worried about that, don't be--most of the time, players can't tell if you're deus ex machina-ing them. If they can, they're at least willing to play along.

To me, if the GM offers the players an option that they are able to take and might reasonably take, he should be prepared to play out that option for those who pick it. If you give the option and behind the door is a **** sandwich, you just laid a meta-trap, and that sucks. It sucks if it was an accident and it's just total BS if it's intentional.

If you don't plan a story option for players who choose to cut and run, then don't give that option .

are you saying I was supposed to Deus Ex Machina their spaceship so they wouldn't be able to bail on the adventure?

Yup. This exactly. If you don't want them to leave because you either don't have content planned if they give that option (or don't want to wing it), or simply don't want them to have that option, you just should not give them that option.

You're the GM. You have absolute deus ex power. As was mentioned above, the storm was easy narrative cover for you. You seem kind of incredulous that I suggest this. Do you think it's railroading? Because as was mentioned before...you already railroaded them. So it comes off like you're mad that players would ever grab their money and run instead of helping people. Sure, Han did that at Yavin. But that was largely because of his relationship with Luke that had developed over the course of the Death Star infiltration and escape. It's a very different situation than if some randos had put up a distress call and going there to save them would likely have gotten him killed. I wouldn't penalize players just because they're picking the very logical choice of saving their necks instead of risking them.

Basically you set up a trap option, and then got mad at your players for falling into the trap because they didn't play the game the way you wanted or intended. I'm not saying you trapped them on purpose (and I really don't think you did), but that's the practical result . Giving them the option to leave implies that if they take it, their story for the night continues along a different vector. But it didn't. So I could see being annoyed by that and if it was me who had done that I'd probably have brought it up (though privately and in less of an inherently hostile manner than your guy did).

While I think your player had a really immature moment, it also sounds like most of your other players are on the same page with "group morality" and the one guy is not. Now, this is partially that guy's fault for always being Chaotic Evil in a party of Goods and Neutrals, and when someone consistently does this it definitely comes across like they're just trying to be difficult. But you have to own your part in not curbing this behavior, or not making your party moral expectations known (if you didn't have a Session Zero where all of this was laid out, for example). You approved the character coming into the game...if I had wanted to emphasize Han Solo/Firefly "rogues with a heart of gold" versus much more gray "Shadowrun in Space" or the like, I probably would have asked the player to make some personality tweaks with the rationale that, well, I didn't want to run Shadowrun in Space!

I read most of the first page of posts... I go by the 5 xp per hour at the table so if the players of the characters who bailed left the table then they don't have a right to gripe but if they stayed then they should get their 5 xp per hour just for enduring the rest of the session when their characters had nothing to do. But you don't have to give them any of the 5 or so bonus xp for great role playing that the PCs who stuck around got.

But again Monday morning quarterbacking... the moment they took off I would have said that their ship's sensors detected the ship of the Droid who took out the first generator/weather control thingy and say it was heading from the malfunctioning one to another one. That would have tipped them off that this was the reason it went down, then they could have shot him down and rejoined the party (without fearing that anymore weather control thingies would fail)

While I think your player had a really immature moment, it also sounds like most of your other players are on the same page with "group morality" and the one guy is not. Now, this is partially that guy's fault for always being Chaotic Evil in a party of Goods and Neutrals, and when someone consistently does this it definitely comes across like they're just trying to be difficult. But you have to own your part in not curbing this behavior, or not making your party moral expectations known (if you didn't have a Session Zero where all of this was laid out, for example). You approved the character coming into the game...if I had wanted to emphasize Han Solo/Firefly "rogues with a heart of gold" versus much more gray "Shadowrun in Space" or the like, I probably would have asked the player to make some personality tweaks with the rationale that, well, I didn't want to run Shadowrun in Space!

The morality of the character was not, I feel, the real issue here. I expect them to be shady: we're playing Edge. The issue for me is that he bailed on his fellow players while they were trying to complete the job. And if I need to close him in a video game arena to avoid that, I'm only postponing the issue, not solving it. He's still gonna be the self-centered, selfish character that would backstab his "friends" on the first occasion. Not caring about other people is fine, because again, we're playing Edge, but you need to care for your crew, or else it stops being fun for them. I can't accept that.

While I think your player had a really immature moment, it also sounds like most of your other players are on the same page with "group morality" and the one guy is not. Now, this is partially that guy's fault for always being Chaotic Evil in a party of Goods and Neutrals, and when someone consistently does this it definitely comes across like they're just trying to be difficult. But you have to own your part in not curbing this behavior, or not making your party moral expectations known (if you didn't have a Session Zero where all of this was laid out, for example). You approved the character coming into the game...if I had wanted to emphasize Han Solo/Firefly "rogues with a heart of gold" versus much more gray "Shadowrun in Space" or the like, I probably would have asked the player to make some personality tweaks with the rationale that, well, I didn't want to run Shadowrun in Space!

Speaking of Firefly, even Mal had to lock Jayne in the airlock and threaten to kill him if he continued not being a team player. That scene could be perceived as the OOC conversation of the GM asking/telling the player to stop being a jerk to his fellow players.

The morality of the character was not, I feel, the real issue here. I expect them to be shady: we're playing Edge.

This is the point. One of the most basic rules of RPing is that your character need s to have a reason to stick with the rest of your party through thick and thin. Having tension within the party is fine as long as it's well managed by all involved. In my current campaign we've had a lot of ups and downs. A Droid that's on the run in the same party as a Rodian Bounty Hunter who's trying to pay off his father's debt to the Hutt's was a particular highlight. Other times one of the party really hasn't wanted to do a particular job and has made it clear to the rest of the team but has been 'persuaded' to go along with it anyway (making sure to complain about it during the mission in character).

Character background is fine as long as you find a way to make it work. A good example of this was an old Star Wars campaign I was in a while back. We were supposed to be playing 'shady' characters (smugglers, thieves, bounty hunters) a la Edge of the Empire. We had one guy who was playing an ex cop who had fallen on hard times. This was fine apart from the fact that he made it clear that his character hated smugglers, thieves and bounty hunters and was going to leave/back stab the rest team at the first opportunity. On top of this his character seemed to have a rather shaky grasp of the law/Geneva convention as he seemed dead set on executing anybody who surrendered to us. The idea of the 'noble' character is fine but you have to make it work. If it were me I would have the character come to the realisation that not all criminals are the same and that good people can be driven to do things they might not want to do just to get by.

As it was the player didn't last very long as he figured out that his character was just going to leave and would have no motivation to come back (plus the rest of the party now concidered his character to be a psychopathic murderer).

The morality of the character was not, I feel, the real issue here. I expect them to be shady: we're playing Edge. The issue for me is that he bailed on his fellow players while they were trying to complete the job. And if I need to close him in a video game arena to avoid that, I'm only postponing the issue, not solving it. He's still gonna be the self-centered, selfish character that would backstab his "friends" on the first occasion. Not caring about other people is fine, because again, we're playing Edge, but you need to care for your crew, or else it stops being fun for them. I can't accept that.

Although I understand that a lot of people see Edge as a super shady kind of game I think thats really missing the point. The Star Wars setting is heroic not criminal and even though the PCs are dealing with a criminal world in Edge they themselves are still heroes, or anti-heroes. This doesn't mean they have to be Superman or pure of heart or anything but it does mean that they shouldn't be petty. Little crimes or "first to post" kind of BS is beneath a hero, or anti-hero, screwing over other PCs is as well.

There's a reason we don't see every smuggling run Han and Chewie made or every bounty Boba Fete collared/killed, it's f'n boring and petty. So it's the GMs responsibility to make every adventure screen worthy and every Player's to play to the big screen, leave all the boring stuff off camera. Go big or go home.

Not everything is a coin that has two sides and each must be rewarded. Sometimes something happens that lets one player role-play in a cool way and sometimes something happens that allows a different player to role-play in a cool way.

There's nothing particularly XP-worthy about how the players that ran away played their characters. There was no risk to it and nothing particularly special about it. There was something XP-worthy about how the players that stayed played their characters - they put role-playing ahead of self-interest and also what they did was interesting from a character point of view.

The flaw is that your player is seeing this as some fork in the road where one path leads to XP and the other doesn't, and they're forced to take the one that doesn't. This isn't an accurate way to view things. It's more like finding opportunities along the side of the road as you all drive. Some PCs sit on the left of the car, some PCs sit on the right of the car. Different opportunities will come up at different times for different players.

If the player knew that there was something valuable or beneficial to them in rescuing someone but fled because their character is unheroic, then maybe they can be rewarded for putting role-playing ahead of self-interest or generating interesting character tension.

@ Kshatriya - I think that a GM cannot be expected to provide a story for every possible scenario that a player may get into their heads to do. I am a big believer in improvisation and sand box games if the players are up to the task. Most players I find work best with a mix of the two concepts; a loose story or adventure with plenty of hooks, plots, and shiny things for them to enjoy.

That doesn't mean that a single player should get to derail the rest of the group and their plans by taking up valuable playing time to avoid the plot chosen by the rest of the group. That is just rude from an inter-personal level unless everyone gets equal individual time in the spot light. It is forced in games like cyberpunk and shadowrun with their Hacking systems and was often tedious for the other players. Splitting the party is sometimes needed, but lone wolves acting alone... well, it works as long as the others get their own time too.

If the players were warned beforehand that XP would be a mix of participation and story goals then the player is flat out wrong. If the GM didn't explain this and get agreement from the players BEFOREHAND then the GM is flat out wrong. Communication BEFORE an altercation is paramount to gaming and life.

Everybody has a bad day. Everybody gets angry about something stupid. I would suggest good and clear communication at the table to help avoid these problems. If they keep recurring with the same player then you may have an issue.

That said, CN character types just get under my skin. Roleplaying is a group activity and unless everyone is playing something similarly crazy then the group usually defaults to an "us against them" mentality that can cause issues if some players feel they can't remove the troubling character.

(Edit) tl;dr version - Make sure communication happens before any changes. Solo play sucks time from a group activity. CN characters suck for most groups.

FangGrip--just curious, what does "CN characters" mean? (I get it from context, just curious about the acronym) Thanks!

FangGrip--just curious, what does "CN characters" mean? (I get it from context, just curious about the acronym) Thanks!

It is short for Chaotic Neutral - a personality alignment from D&D. They used to use the acronyms to save space on monster stat blocks, character sheets, stuff like that

That said, CN character types just get under my skin...

Actually, it's the CN *players* that get under my skin...because CN or even CE characters can have loyalties

That said, CN character types just get under my skin...

Actually, it's the CN *players* that get under my skin...because CN or even CE characters can have loyalties

That is a debate that should be on another thread on a different forum... but I take your meaning. The players who act that way are annoying as hell too.

FangGrip--just curious, what does "CN characters" mean? (I get it from context, just curious about the acronym) Thanks!

It is short for Chaotic Neutral - a personality alignment from D&D. They used to use the acronyms to save space on monster stat blocks, character sheets, stuff like that

Oh yeah, those are the worst. "I don't care about anyone, I don't have any attachments, and might betray the group because I'm so independent and broody."