10 hours ago, ASCI Blue said:

I'm still trying to figure out where this obsession/addiction comes from. Dude's wife is very attractive and seems to be enthusiastic to be taken care of and take care of things. Still no update from the player in question, working on recruiting.

Wait wait wait, the problem player in question is old enough to be married? I find that alarming.

Regardless of how the behavior is defined, it seems to make a lot of people in your gaming community uncomfortable. I wouldn't allow it at my table, and I know that none of the gamers in my small cadre would find that at all acceptable or funny. It sounds a lot more serious than I first envisioned given the age of the individual.

This is a train wreck.

Can I just point one thing out?

PC = Player Character, not player. So now I ask: which is the problem, PC or player? If it's the PC, ditch it. If it's the player, ditch him. If it's both, ditch them.

Quit. GMs who bring sexy-sexy-sex stuff into Star Wars games are creeps and passive-aggressive behavior is for teenagers.

I don't think Marcy is a creep at all.

23 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Sounds reasonable to me. It's not your job to fix other people and you've got other players at your table to consider.

This. All of the this.

It cannot be overstated how much you need to ditch this player. You are there to have a good time, not play awkward live-action phone-sex roleplay. If he wants that, he can go pay $9.95/minute like all the other schlubs.

As a female with a significant other, I cannot express how creeped out I would be if another player (seriously) tried to convince me my character should have sex with his. I don't care about PC versus player, I don't care about 'being true to RP'. It would make me intensely uncomfortable and even more intensely uncomfortable if my significant other was part of the game and friends with the guy doing the pushing. If you didn't immediately and loudly shut it down, I may also be hesitant to raise more objections, depending on how old the relationship is. Nevermind the RP group, I'd be worried about your relationship .

Laying ground rules at a campaign's start is good, ie good words. bad words, etc, when you've got a mixed group. This sort of thing or variation of it has come up before on the forums and it's just such a red flag to me because aside from teenage boys it just isn't something that should have to be addressed in mixed companies. Now two old buddies just talking poopy to one another and being silly is one thing, but in a mixed group setting, that's a slice of weird pie.

16 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Laying ground rules at a campaign's start is good, ie good words. bad words, etc, when you've got a mixed group. This sort of thing or variation of it has come up before on the forums and it's just such a red flag to me because aside from teenage boys it just isn't something that should not have to be addressed in mixed companies. Now two old buddies just talking poopy to one another and being silly is one thing, but in a mixed group setting, that's a slice of weird pie.

Topped with "I'm not comfortable being whipped" cream?

1 hour ago, Dunefarble said:

As a female with a significant other, I cannot express how creeped out I would be if another player (seriously) tried to convince me my character should have sex with his. I don't care about PC versus player, I don't care about 'being true to RP'. It would make me intensely uncomfortable and even more intensely uncomfortable if my significant other was part of the game and friends with the guy doing the pushing. If you didn't immediately and loudly shut it down, I may also be hesitant to raise more objections, depending on how old the relationship is. Nevermind the RP group, I'd be worried about your relationship .

Like the pirate said, this is definitely something to bring up at Session Zero well before any roles are played. It used to be this sort of thing went unspoken but nowadays....

I've often noted that the "screen wipe to Kirk pulling on his boots" is a very good way to handle the situations wherein it makes sense to include this in a game - e.g. someone is playing a Charmer and uses seduction to get their way.

17 minutes ago, themensch said:

I've often noted that the "screen wipe to Kirk pulling on his boots" is a very good way to handle the situations wherein it makes sense to include this in a game - e.g. someone is playing a Charmer and uses seduction to get their way.

Just to be clear -

Would I ever have a PC in a romance? Hells ya, makes thinks interesting when they have 'soft spots'.

Would I have a PC in a romance with a PC that isn't my SO? Sure, probably. But only if it was discussed beforehand. Preferably OOC and with reassurances from my SO. And I would probably want to make it an aspect of humor in the campaign, not drama.

So please don't take it wrong, I'm not necessarily anti-in game sexytimes (pref. fade to black for me) , but there's a right way and a wrong way and this checks off ALL my wrong boxes. At worst, the guy is a grade a creep. At best, he's involving the rest of the group in his and his wife's roleplay, which... ew.

This guy sounds like he is a supporter of Senator Krump and his salacious ways.

6 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Just to be clear -

Would I ever have a PC in a romance? Hells ya, makes thinks interesting when they have 'soft spots'.

Would I have a PC in a romance with a PC that isn't my SO? Sure, probably. But only if it was discussed beforehand. Preferably OOC and with reassurances from my SO. And I would probably want to make it an aspect of humor in the campaign, not drama.

So please don't take it wrong, I'm not necessarily anti-in game sexytimes (pref. fade to black for me) , but there's a right way and a wrong way and this checks off ALL my wrong boxes. At worst, the guy is a grade a creep. At best, he's involving the rest of the group in his and his wife's roleplay, which... ew.

Naw, I think I caught your drift, I 100% agree that everyone has to be okay with it for it to come up at the table, hopefully with some boundaries like you suggest thrown in there to codify it. Romance is a hallmark of the stories in this setting, but yeah, there's a line that's different at every table and yeah, what was described was downright creepy.

Re: NPC harem

We actually have a set of house rules for PC 'minions' since we have complicated campaigns and a small group. NPC 'PC's' gain half XP and they're GM controlled (up to how they can spend XP on occasion), with the awareness that they do have minds of their own and they will react to PC actions. It makes things kind of fun, imo, and it's not as complicated as I expected, even as a GM. It's one thing telling a PC that the sister on their character sheet has been kidnapped, it's another thing to have it be an NPC that's been with the party all along, helping. It can add an extra layer of character development and give the PC's goals aside from don't die.

*we also impose companion limits, for the sake of speed. No, the squadron leader can't smuggle all eleven of his pilots on the mission. The one with the mafia boss uncle though? Sure.

Look, the last campaign arc I ran the PCs did some work ferrying scientists to a research facility on an inhospitable moon and spent several days helping them set up and get settled before a silicone-based life form tried to turn everyone to brittle stalks of not-asparagus. The lady botanist (GMd by me) made a brief comment to the PC pilot about how lonely field research can be, let it hang, then walked into her bunk. Yeah, they got it on, but it was "Her bunk is cramped, and you hear giggling from the other bunks." And when they evacuated the place, she clung to the pilot for dear life. They went on dates, she talked about getting a place together, he made time to take her to dinner, they got married, and had kids, and the pilot's player is playing a great grandson in the current arc, and all that stuff they did comprised one or two sentences throughout ten or more sessions. So, yeah, it can be done, but YOUR guy is flat out freaking inappropriate.

One thing I believe hasn't been said: don't underestimate a smaller group, especially when a disruptive perv is finally out of the picture. For all you know, "semi-interested" means "deeply uncomfortable with behavior that's been exhibited since the start." Plus, depending on how the other two players are related to the problem player, you may find them contacting you separately after the dust has settled.

Enough has been said in the same vein, I know, but just to add my 2 cents:

Sex is not the problem here. As worrisome as his sexual degradation of others (it seems everybody else is supposed to be his sex toy) is the general attitude of "You all serve me". He tries to set up a second group of his NPCs in the player group and then expects (or even demands) that other PCs train them? From my kitchen-psychology experience, I would guess he really is a narcissist and a bad one at that. Dump him. The rest of the party is still big enough by far, will get more attention (and that means space to live their characters) and everybody has more fun. He can either look for a new group, or a shrink. I would seriously advise the second option.

On 2/9/2017 at 2:34 PM, themensch said:

I've often noted that the "screen wipe to Kirk pulling on his boots" is a very good way to handle the situations wherein it makes sense to include this in a game - e.g. someone is playing a Charmer and uses seduction to get their way.

In college I played in a game (different system, but same problem) where I thought the GM dealt with it perfectly. As far as most of the table was concerned, there was a "screen wipe". But then the 2 players involved went and dealt with the details in the corner by themselves. I never did hear all the details, but they kept hinting at what had happened with inside jokes. Knowing the people involved, I did not want to know the details either.

5 minutes ago, Edgookin said:

In college I played in a game (different system, but same problem) where I thought the GM dealt with it perfectly. As far as most of the table was concerned, there was a "screen wipe". But then the 2 players involved went and dealt with the details in the corner by themselves. I never did hear all the details, but they kept hinting at what had happened with inside jokes. Knowing the people involved, I did not want to know the details either.

Sounds like an approach that can work...provided both (all? ) parties are agreeable. Based on what we've been given, that's not the case in the OP's situation.

On 2/9/2017 at 1:38 PM, Dunefarble said:

As a female with a significant other, I cannot express how creeped out I would be if another player (seriously) tried to convince me my character should have sex with his. I don't care about PC versus player, I don't care about 'being true to RP'. It would make me intensely uncomfortable and even more intensely uncomfortable if my significant other was part of the game and friends with the guy doing the pushing. If you didn't immediately and loudly shut it down, I may also be hesitant to raise more objections, depending on how old the relationship is. Nevermind the RP group, I'd be worried about your relationship .

This. So much.

A friend of yours is insisting that your girlfriend's character have sex with his character? And keeps insisting after she said no? And your girlfriend complained to you about it. That's rapey. I would immediately tell him to never speak to my girlfriend that way again. Except I would probably use much less polite language and say it 3 inches from his face. Not trying to be an internet tough guy here, but that is completely unacceptable and I would make sure that he understands that in no uncertain terms. If he doesn't, he's lost my friendship, not just his place at the table.

also to quell the NPC group, have them insist on being paid a equal share. So when a job pays, say 12k and you have 4 PCs, who would each be getting 3k normally you now have that same 12k divided by 8.

when the other PCs rightfully complain and insist that the Pouty PC, should pay them the differance or get rid of the hielings rhings may change.

2 hours ago, JalekZem said:

also to quell the NPC group, have them insist on being paid a equal share. So when a job pays, say 12k and you have 4 PCs, who would each be getting 3k normally you now have that same 12k divided by 8.

when the other PCs rightfully complain and insist that the Pouty PC, should pay them the differance or get rid of the hielings rhings may change.

Ooh, that seems trés risky to me. Sounds like a good way to give the problem child a bunch of extra money or for the others to now be against the GM. Or start going, 'My pc's four cousins, twice removed want to follow me now! I get mine because he got his, right?' It might be better to do the opposite. Make him pay for their lodging/food/gear etc. out of his own pocket.

Just make 'em like the pathfinder animal companions. So and so was left behind on this mission? She got peckish and now you have to go rescue her from washing dishes at the nearest restaurant because she knocked over a bunch of plates and didn't want to pay for them. Or she did pay for them and you're a hundred credits poorer.

Such and such was left behind instead? Oh, she got bored and went for a walk. You're not even sure where she is. Better start looking.

2 hours ago, Dunefarble said:

'My pc's four cousins, twice removed want to follow me now! I get mine because he got his, right?' It might be better to do the opposite. Make him pay for their lodging/food/gear etc. out of his own pocket.

That sounds like Obligation to me.

That is all stuff that should be negotiated by the players without the GM interference.

Should be and are; are 2 different things. If the player is being a bit of a tyrant, then the GM nees to step in.

And they are NPCs. they get paid and then lose it all gablling, carousing, sending it home to their littlw old mom, or simply investing it.

The NON- Player needs to be strictly enforced. Also, when the rest of the party was expecting 3k each suddenlt only get 1.2k, than they may fix the issue

On 2/8/2017 at 2:16 AM, Flintlock Jazz said:

What is this? I don't even know where what how? I'm very confused by this whole thing and am not sure what is going on.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. It sounds like Player A (and some NPC minions of his - although why he has final say on the NPCs and not the GM baffles me) is trying to bone Player B? This thread really needs some proper nouns.

So, based on what I can interpret, I would say straight up talk to the GM. Make your concerns known, and do it away from the table.