Didn't get a chance to speak to the player alone, and didn't want to bring it up in front of everyone. The person in question wasn't a problem today so I didn't feel as if dredging up old issues would be a good idea. Everyone is now convinced I am out to get them as the GM though, so there is always that my players don't like losing gear or being reprimanded.

Didn't get a chance to speak to the player alone, and didn't want to bring it up in front of everyone. The person in question wasn't a problem today so I didn't feel as if dredging up old issues would be a good idea. Everyone is now convinced I am out to get them as the GM though, so there is always that my players don't like losing gear or being reprimanded.

Didn't get a chance to speak to the player alone, and didn't want to bring it up in front of everyone. The person in question wasn't a problem today so I didn't feel as if dredging up old issues would be a good idea. Everyone is now convinced I am out to get them as the GM though, so there is always that my players don't like losing gear or being reprimanded.

You, and everyone else in this thread, should read this: http://plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html . Let us know how many of these apply to your situation.

Also your job as the GM is to play the bad guys. Make sure your players get that into their heads. If you're being unreasonable or unfair or not playing RAW they are allowed to take issue but stymieing their efforts within the lore of your game is your job.

So to alleviate some of the hostility at the table, I asked every player individually what they like/don't like in the campaign, and what they want to see out of the game. I always like hearing feedback regardless of whether or not it is bad, so I was curious to see the players' side of the campaign and get some ideas on how to make the game less hostile.

What I got was a healthy mix of good and bad - two of the players (I will call them A and B) told me they liked the campaign and the way things have been going, though they are less invested in the game for plot reasons and would enjoy more combat. B mentioned also that players C and D (D being the "stealth" player I've talked about) should take the rules-lawyering and meta-gaming down a notch as the constant arguing was detrimental to the fun.

C said that while some of the things in the campaign were frustrating, he understood the choices I made and didn't think they were bad overall. He wanted more player choice in the game, as he felt some elements would be better if there was more player choice in the matter. I agreed and promised to make those changes to avoid railroading the party. I mentioned that I had received a comment about the rules-lawyering and the meta-gaming; he felt bad that it was ruining people's fun and promised to avoid it in the future.

D called me. I heard how I'm doing everything wrong, and that I was just trying to kill them off or prevent them from using their characters the way they want. The player told me off for half an hour, arguing against anything I said. I tried to tell the player that skills aren't going to work in every situation, that playing purely from a mechanical standpoint isn't going to work in a game that isn't mechanically strong, that a GM decision in a point where the rules are weak should be followed, that the difficulty is hard to balance, so on and so forth.

They told me that I was trying to force the Grimdark on them, that using creatures that had Fear or abilities that Stun are unfair, that damaging gear or causing gear loss is essentially ruining their character, that I should've just killed off two PCs because their new cybernetics "made them useless" and that I should make the game more dangerous and more Grimdark. While parts of this are contradictory, that is what I was told.

At this point I told them that there had been complaints about their attitude and behavior at the table, and that it had to stop. Unsurprisingly, the player tried to make it sound like it was my fault they acted in the way they did and refused to accept that people had found a problem with them.

So that's where I am at now. The players (including D) made many valid points that I think have been fair criticisms and I am aiming to change. That I have no issue with. Where the problem comes in is that everyone seems to take things less seriously than player D, who obviously feels personally attacked by me and is extremely defensive. I would rather not kick the player but if it comes to that I will. I am not a new GM, but I don't have as much experience as many of the people on this board so I guess I need some direction.

I read that link, cps - and I can see a few of those points among my own group of friends. Outside of this incident, I have had 0 issues with D, which is why it is such a shock to have to deal with it now - almost two years after we both started playing roleplaying games together.

So to alleviate some of the hostility at the table, I asked every player individually what they like/don't like in the campaign, and what they want to see out of the game. I always like hearing feedback regardless of whether or not it is bad, so I was curious to see the players' side of the campaign and get some ideas on how to make the game less hostile.

If you want to continue receiving feedback, Ironclaw has a rule that you might want to adapt to Dark Heresy. In Ironclaw, a third of the experience from each session comes from the player giving the GM feedback on how they feel about the session/campaign at the end of each session, while it's fresh in everyone's memory. Most of the feedback was everyone saying that they liked the session*. But when one player spoke up about an issue, someone else would also speak up and the discussion was always useful in helping me improve things for the next session. The key thing for you to remember if you try this is that everyone who speaks up when you ask for feedback is to get the same amount of XP, no matter the quantity or quality of their feedback.

*Which is useful as it means you're on the right track. If you think that the session went badly, but all you're players liked it, then that's a helpful ego boost.

C said that while some of the things in the campaign were frustrating, he understood the choices I made and didn't think they were bad overall. He wanted more player choice in the game, as he felt some elements would be better if there was more player choice in the matter. I agreed and promised to make those changes to avoid railroading the party.

A big reason why a lot of GMs railroad is that they prepare a lot of content and don't want to throw out all that work even after players do something that would make it all irrelevant. To get myself into the habit of throwing out prep work I regularly offer my players significant choice. By that I mean a choice where:

- There are at least two options that will be obvious to them.

- I've done equal planning for what happens for each option taken to make sure that each option takes players down a very different route.

- I do not know which option my players will pick.

The middle part is what makes the choice matter, and what makes it hurt less when your players pick an option that you didn't consider.

Holy crud, dude! Hats off to you for having the patience to put up with this munchkin for as long as you have. That girl wouldn't have lasted one session in my group.

You said earlier that she was someone's sister. Is her sibling A, B, or C?

You, and everyone else in this thread, should read this: http://plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html .

I have; and I frequently paraphrase it for my girlfriend's little sister whose other group has a cancerous element whom nobody is willing to kick to the curb as he desperately deserves.

Her sibling is player E, who didn't respond to the text which was expected. At the end of the day this is the first time it has come up, and comes down to the fact she is someone who likes to min/max and build a character versus me, who is way more invested into the story and the characters.

So you're saying that she somehow thinks Player vs GM is a fight that the player can win ?

Player D sounds insane and on the warpath for no reason at all. I'd completely discount her opinions as that of a madman. I'm unsure how to advise vs. railroading because I don't know how you run/structure your sessions.

So the two things she may actually have a valid point on are 1) Railroading and 2) gear damage.

For railroading, another player in your group made the same point, which tells me that in your game the players feel like they don't have enough control over the story. They'll try to do something you didn't plan for and it won't work. The only way to progress is to do things by the book, which they can't read since it's your GM notes. This is something you need to work on. Improv more. If they want to do something you have absolutely nothing planned for just roll with it.

Stun is a bad mechanic. Stop using it. Nothing is worse as a player than being told, "Sorry, you don't get to play for the next d5 rounds. Go check your email or something." Try to make fear more interesting than this.

For gear damage, it is exceptionally sh*tty to give the players fun toys, only to break them by GM fiat. If you give them gear, just let them keep it unless they decide to throw it into lava. Taking gear from players feels like you are attacking them and serves no purpose other than to cause tension. Stop doing this.

One thing I don't think you can do anything about is that she clearly wants to interact with the rules as written and is apparently good enough at that to break things. The only fix here is to play a different game, because this is clearly how she wants to play.

Or, have her run the game. If she doesn't like your GMing she can do it instead.

Well, you've managed to run into a problem that IS partly the responsibility of the system. Dark Heresy touts itself as a grimdark game of investigation and declining sanity and purity. What you get is a game with around a third or more of the page count dedicated to combat, featuring dozens upon dozens of options for customizing your character's combat performance. If a player doesn't really read the book at all/is only ever engaged at the table itself, you won't run into this problem. However, if a player starts looking at the book, they'll see all these options and OF COURSE want to use them to build a character. Obviously, this playstyle is in direct contrast with the theme of the book. Also, because it's a choice to engage in that kind of character-building, players who don't engage in it will have their characters overshadowed.

So how can you fix a problem like this? Well, your choices aren't great. You could tell the optimizers that they are forbidden to read the book outside of a game session, but this is unenforceable. A more creative solution may be to have the optimizers design and level up the characters of the other players while the other players design the characters for the optimizers. Not everyone may be willing to do that though. Honestly, you're kind of screwed because you have a combination of a difficult personality with a game that inadvertently encourages it. My advice, if you want to keep playing dark heresy, is that 1) you start over, 2) you randomly roll character creation or just give a choice of pre-gens, 3) you ban looking at the book outside the game, and 4) you rotate characters around the group for who chooses how to spend XP for them. Basically, do everything you can to enforce a choice/information blackout on the players.

Or you adjust the enemy stats/tactics/environment so that the things the minmaxers do are pretty much required for players to win the fight. If they can easily handle 4 thugs, give them 6 to fight. Give the thugs higher stats and/or skills/talents/gear that aren't listed in their statblock to make them a bit tougher. If a player complains that the 'thug' profile in the rulebook doesn't match what they fought, just say that these enemies aren't thugs. They are {gang} thugs.

That example I previously gave about setting up a sniper perch that will reward a player who sneaks up there won't work too well if the PC is using a shotgun. So give the PC a sniper rifle. Finding it on a dead enemy is one way. The result of a failed acquisition roll is another (someone screwed up the shipment), a gift from an NPC is another.

When they come into the room, give an observation roll with a decent bonus (or maybe skip the roll). When passed, tell the character the following "You see a ledge up the wall. You think that if someone with a sniper rifle was up there while the rest of the party attacked through {likely entrance} then almost everyone on both sides would be exposed (remember that cover is directional). Maybe put an enemy with a sniper rifle up there.

If someone sneaks up there, they get to cause a lot of damage. Maybe even a free kill on the sniper. If nobody goes up there, the enemy with the sniper rifle causes the players a lot of problems.

2) you randomly roll character creation or just give a choice of pre-gens, 3) you ban looking at the book outside the game, and 4) you rotate characters around the group for who chooses how to spend XP for them

That's a very terrible idea.

You've already said that 3 is unenforceable. As for 2 and 4, I've found that I can't roleplay randomly generated characters with certain stat combinations. So the character becomes nothing more than a statblock to me. Which encourages minmaxing over taking advances for flavour reasons.

As for 4, that sounds like it would ruin the roleplay even worse. Leading to more minmaxing. At which point the minmaxers suggestions about character advances are likely to be taken.

Player D sounds insane and on the warpath for no reason at all. I'd completely discount her opinions as that of a madman. I'm unsure how to advise vs. railroading because I don't know how you run/structure your sessions.

Oh god, I'm agreeing with DBG. My world is upside down.

So the two things she may actually have a valid point on are 1) Railroading and 2) gear damage.

For railroading, another player in your group made the same point, which tells me that in your game the players feel like they don't have enough control over the story. They'll try to do something you didn't plan for and it won't work. The only way to progress is to do things by the book, which they can't read since it's your GM notes. This is something you need to work on. Improv more. If they want to do something you have absolutely nothing planned for just roll with it.

Stun is a bad mechanic. Stop using it. Nothing is worse as a player than being told, "Sorry, you don't get to play for the next d5 rounds. Go check your email or something." Try to make fear more interesting than this.

For gear damage, it is exceptionally sh*tty to give the players fun toys, only to break them by GM fiat. If you give them gear, just let them keep it unless they decide to throw it into lava. Taking gear from players feels like you are attacking them and serves no purpose other than to cause tension. Stop doing this.

One thing I don't think you can do anything about is that she clearly wants to interact with the rules as written and is apparently good enough at that to break things. The only fix here is to play a different game, because this is clearly how she wants to play.

Or, have her run the game. If she doesn't like your GMing she can do it instead.

Cps makes two excellent points here. If there are multi people concerned about RRing, tone it down. Sounds like you're already willing to adapt, which is great.

As for gear destruction... this is a super delicate subject. Influence is nice (imo) in that it's largely a permanent resource. This means, once you've got the ability to acquire an item, you can probably get it again. Grabbing a smattering of mission specific items is actually practical and you don't need to lug around everything to every mission. Anyway, that's off topic.

If you break someone's gun with an awesome backstory, without a good solid reason, that's bad. Especially with DM fiat. If you break someone's sword because of bad rolls awesome drama plot times, but it's not their favorite sword in the whole universe, that's probably cool.

Player D sounds insane and on the warpath for no reason at all. I'd completely discount her opinions as that of a madman. I'm unsure how to advise vs. railroading because I don't know how you run/structure your sessions.

I don't know about insane but certainly childish! Player D' is trying to be the 'star' of the show. That's fine unless she's trying to do it through rules lawyering rather than roleplaying. (Which she apparently is!) I have found that bad guys with good tactics can challenge most any group regardless of their gear. This is also true in reverse! Your little munchkin needs to realize that Agility and Perception are two separate stats! Being agile is useless if you are the one being ambushed! In fact, If your highly agile little character did not perceive an ambush she (Or anyone else for that matter!) gets no evasion roles for the first round!

Most one trick ponies are like this. It is your job as the Gm to challenge ALL of your players! If you know that you are being fair in your heart and your munchkin accuses you of trying to "ruin her character"; hand her a tissue and move on! If your Assassin cannot "sneak" her way into an area, this allows your guardsman to blast their way in or maybe your outcaste can "finesse" it! My point is that no one should have all the answers! Each should have their chance to shine and times where they need to drop back. If players are wise enough to develop multiple skill sets, such as Stealth AND Awareness in addition to combat skills, they will be less min-maxed but more effective overall!

BTW: A shotgun is most definitely NOT appropriate to a stealth based character so I'm not sure how that hurt her build in any way! It sounds like she is (once again) trying to emotionally manipulate you or the group when she doesn't get her way through rules lawyering!

Well the nice thing about dark heresy, is that excessive use of out-of-game knowledge can be handled in game and not break immersion. example

GM: before you stands a red, bipedal creature with black horns, an elongated head, and wielding a black sword

P1: crap, a bloodletter, we are going to need something sanctified and avoid loosing blood around it.

GM: huh, well yes. But as you do not have forbidden lore the warp, your inquisitor would like to have words with you about how you know that.

Well the nice thing about dark heresy, is that excessive use of out-of-game knowledge can be handled in game and not break immersion. example

GM: before you stands a red, bipedal creature with black horns, an elongated head, and wielding a black sword

P1: crap, a bloodletter, we are going to need something sanctified and avoid loosing blood around it.

GM: huh, well yes. But as you do not have forbidden lore the warp, your inquisitor would like to have words with you about how you know that.

Aaannd the Sororita next to you feels the urge to turn her flamer loose on you!

I think you just killed my brain, bud. A stealth focused person using a shotgun (good luck silencing that without stummers...) is kind of...silly. If you're going for loud, you may as well sneak around with a proper rocket or grenade launcher. The latter is an excellent choice as is, because arguably it doesn't make more than a quiet "thunk" when firing as is and has no muzzle flash. Shotgun is just dumb, though. Not only does it not do enough damage, it reveals her position to anyone in shooting range.

I actually dont find it silly, these days silencer for shotgun actually exist, of course they are not that great but wait for 40000 years and im sure there will be some good ones xDDDD.

And for dealing with problematic players... well i have an experience about this, once my group was making an investigation but they were making HUGE mistakes without even care of the consequenses of their actions, usually one of my players was always cleaning the mess, so he manage to send a report to the inquisitor. After some time they recieved a reply, a warning that they didnt event listened. And thats how the party died, two vindicare assassins killed the party leaving alive only the ones that were actually doing their job. After that, everything went better xDDDD.