It's not the PC's job to deal with another disruptive PC. That's a job squarely for the GM.

This doesn't need to be antagonistic or dramatic. It just needs to be the original OP sitting the problem child down and laying it out with the fact the details of the campaign were laid out, if that doesn't suit the PC that's fine he doesn't have to play if he's bored. The OP I'm sure doesn't want him to be bored, but at the end of the day the GM is allowed to run the campaign they want to run, it might not suit everyone's tastes, no hard feelings. The OP is trying to avoid the conversation and decision I'm sure is already painfully obvious to them, which is why they likely posted here.

I think it's important to stop this now and not let it continue. It's wasted GM time not focused on the game, there are apparently other PCs content with the direction of the game, and letting conflict or contrasting views simmer and persist typically only ends badly, which could spoil it for the other PCs happy with the game itself. Best to just nip it in the bud, put that foot down, and end it.

14 minutes ago, themensch said:

So you propose solving an OOC problem with IC actions? Or are we off OT and into meta-land now?

We are already one step further ahead and solved all OOC issues already and proposed a solution for the IC issue. Well, or actually the group seems to work on OOC level rather ok, see Ender's clarification statement:

Quote

The death of his character wasn't a shock to him, he pulled me aside and said that if he can't get above 30 morality in the next 3 months he will sacrifice himself...instead I told him that it was probably time to retire the character since he doesn't actively try to redeem him. We made a new character and worked out a decent way to send his old character out in game. In my eyes we are not really dysfunctional so much as we are just don't have similar play styles so it's hard to run a campaign and for him it's harder to play in my games.

Sounds like things work out ooc just fine, they just need ways to integrated different preferences into one game, forming parts of the game style and atmosphere via IC actions is a rather easy way to do this and it allows as well to have on principle vastly different approaches and mix them up a little. You for sure can solve this via OOC talk too. You can even solve this by just dissolving the group. Plenty of options, if simple IC actions are already enough to find a common ground for playstyle, I would always go with that. If not, more OOC talk is needed.

edit: Take not here as well that the "problem child's" goal was to redeem his character, which is something which can be hard when outside ic impulses are lacking and everyone just goes along with him being dark, edge and effective. And at this point I wonder if the other characters in the group gathered accordingly conflict themselves based on their allies actions.

4 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Sounds like things work out ooc just fine

Interesting read on it, I came away with a different impression from the rest of the context.

3 minutes ago, themensch said:

Interesting read on it, I came away with a different impression from the rest of the context.

Me too at first, thus my first answer was quite different.

2 hours ago, 2P51 said:

It's not the PC's job to deal with another disruptive PC. That's a job squarely for the GM.

And why is that? What is wrong with their dealing with him in a narratively consistent way in game and telling the PC (not necessarily, but possibly the player himself, mind) to get lost?

Why do you all insist on the GM playing the grinch?

50 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

And why is that? What is wrong with their dealing with him in a narratively consistent way in game and telling the PC (not necessarily, but possibly the player himself, mind) to get lost?

Why do you all insist on the GM playing the grinch?

I'm not getting into tangential discussions over my opinions.

14 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

olöihwrfahiqawfehiaWFHÖNJHÖASYFOBASFOUHAwfhiojhifa
päiojfjhawsfhüpihiohüpiwfhawgejhjhpiafgefjhpiagdjhpi

So, after I got that out of my system. I think that is the most absurd thing I ever heard from you. It is about as legit as claiming that a game is GM vs Players when the GM introduces adversaries for the players, less so even as at least with adversaries combat is encouraged with some, while here combat is not only discouraged, but actually not helpful for the conflict resolution . There is a difference between gunning someone down to stop him from rain on your parade, instead of using other means. The base assumption of an RPG group IC and OOC should be that the characters have something which relates them, goals, motivations, whatever and another base assumption is that people try to keep it fun. Arbitrary fighting is indeed pretty much the definition of unfun.

But things are quite different about playing out conflict of interests in a group. Roleplaying differences in interest and finding resolutions, driving some of the differences in agenda as well is one of the more interesting things about roleplaying games. It is one the the things which not only makes the game feel more alive, but is as well one of the better ways of character development. Furthermore it is far more interesting to play the protagonist reflecting against each other, instead against the more static antagonists, because protagonists, the player character usually change during play and they have the easiest time to change each other, which makes character exploration much more fun and interesting.

Lastly, I hope I understand why you made this statement, so let me clarify something: When I say players stopping him, I mean by IC actions, not OOC. And I don't mean by combat either. The rules are kind of clear in this regard as well, as inaction can award conflict too and if the players want to keep their characters in the light, they have to step in anyway, but most certainly not via a combat check (or any dice roll at all for that matter).

I think you're misunderstanding me here, so let me clarify for you:

The GM and the players should ALL be happy.

However, the GM is the one who is putting in the lions share of the effort into the game. If one player isn't happy but the GM and the rest of the players are, it's up to that player to either work something out, or leave the group. If the GM isn't happy but all the players are...they need to figure out how to MAKE the GM happy, because if the GM leaves the game just falls apart. Maybe one time out of ten, another player steps up to GM a new game, but obviously it's still a large disruption that nobody wants.

The reality is, if the GM says "I don't want to GM a Dark Side campaign"....then that is how it will be. The players can either say "Yeah, that sounds good to me" or "Nah, I want a Dark Side campaign, or at least the possibility of one." At which point, players and GM can look for new group or come to a compromise. If this is agreed to beforehand, and then one player starts going darkside...that's an OOC problem, not an IC one. You don't handle it IC, because it's violating the OOC agreement made before the game even began. There's no "GM vs. Players" here, it's purely "Stick to the OOC agreements you've made," with a side of "If the GM is unhappy with the game, that's a bigger problem than if a single player is."

Or, in other words:

4 hours ago, 2P51 said:

It's not the PC's job to deal with another disruptive PC. That's a job squarely for the GM

1 hour ago, Grimmerling said:

And why is that? What is wrong with their dealing with him in a narratively consistent way in game and telling the PC (not necessarily, but possibly the player himself, mind) to get lost?

Why do you all insist on the GM playing the grinch?

The pirate might not want to weigh in here, but I will. Dealing with poor behavior from a player by imposing consequences to said player's character is often construed as unfair and passive aggressive. One could peruse decades of GM theory discussion to weigh it for one's own use, but the consensus has been that this is generally Not The Way To Do It™. In my experience, having tried both ways, I have found that direct communication is the easiest solution to maintain relationships and not end up with hurt feelings.

While it is everyone's responsibility at the table to create and sustain the enjoyment, it falls to the GM as the final arbiter in cases where all else fails, since the GM is the orchestrator of the entire shebang. In a perfect world the entire table might come together to try to steer a Bad Player™ back towards the theme. However, I haven't often seen that happen, if at all.

1 hour ago, Grimmerling said:

And why is that?

Because the GM is running the game? They organize and set the stage for the players story. If one player is figuratively throwing rotten fruit at the others saying "Booo! Booooooooo!" it's up to the GM to say "You are not longer in the game that I am running. Goodbye."

7 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Because the GM is running the game? They organize and set the stage for the players story. If one player is figuratively throwing rotten fruit at the others saying "Booo! Booooooooo!" it's up to the GM to say "You are not longer in the game that I am running. Goodbye."

That might hold true for a kindergarten playground; but, is it really necessary at a table of reasonable (hopefully) adults for one to act the educator?

14 minutes ago, themensch said:

The pirate might not want to weigh in here, but I will. Dealing with poor behavior from a player by imposing consequences to said player's character is often construed as unfair and passive aggressive. One could peruse decades of GM theory discussion to weigh it for one's own use, but the consensus has been that this is generally Not The Way To Do It™. In my experience, having tried both ways, I have found that direct communication is the easiest solution to maintain relationships and not end up with hurt feelings.

While it is everyone's responsibility at the table to create and sustain the enjoyment, it falls to the GM as the final arbiter in cases where all else fails, since the GM is the orchestrator of the entire shebang. In a perfect world the entire table might come together to try to steer a Bad Player™ back towards the theme. However, I haven't often seen that happen, if at all.

My fault, I haven't been aware of any consensus on that matter, until now. My experience has been the diametrical opposite, so far. When things are getting ugly in my rpg circles, we halt the game, everybody voices their opinion, and we try and find a solution that is at least tolerable for as many of us as possible.

3 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

That might hold true for a kindergarten playground; but, is it really necessary at a table of reasonable (hopefully) adults for one to act the educator?

My fault, I haven't been aware of any consensus on that matter, until now. My experience has been the diametrical opposite, so far. When things are getting ugly in my rpg circles, we halt the game, everybody voices their opinion, and we try and find a solution that is at least tolerable for as many of us as possible.

Regarding the playground: yeah buddy, I wish! The times I've seen this happen with adults, be it at my table or just reading about it, is astounding. One needn't look too far to see what passion hath wrought where sensible adults previously tread.

As for the consensus, I would add that it's never a 100% solution for all tables. I think you have a good solution for your table and that's what counts. I wish it were the preferred option but I think only tables full of seasoned gamers that have a cohesive group will really be able to pull that off. I suspect that a large portion of the gamer community does not have what you or I have in a group.

22 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

That might hold true for a kindergarten playground; but, is it really necessary at a table of reasonable (hopefully) adults for one to act the educator?

In my experience? Sadly yes. I mean, it's not like people are always 100% reasonable 100% of the time. And sometimes, you run into a person that honestly has no consideration for others. You need someone acting as arbiter for the group to resolve disputes who can levy a final judgement of "You need to go." It's almost always the GM since they're already arbitrating everything else related to the game anyways.

Quote

When things are getting ugly in my rpg circles, we halt the game, everybody voices their opinion, and we try and find a solution that is at least tolerable for as many of us as possible.

That is...literally what people have been saying. You discuss the matter, OOC (Seapoc was talking about using IC actions, which is what prompted this whole tangent). In a dispute between two players that everyone else is either ambivalent or abstaining on, however, you need someone to be able to say "Ok, this is what is going to happen."

Maybe we're just lucky at our table. It could be helping that most of us have children of our own; therefore we feel no need to act like ones.

51 minutes ago, Grimmerling said:

Maybe we're just lucky at our table. It could be helping that most of us have children of our own; therefore we feel no need to act like ones.

If having children was a cure all for people not acting like them, the world would be a much calmer place. Good to hear you have a group without these problems, though. Took me a few tries before we got all the right people into our game (and all the wrong people out).

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎25 at 11:11 PM, Benjan Meruna said:

From the sound of it, Bill doesn't JUST like combat, he also likes being evil. Specifically, Ender mentions that he asked Bill to please stop murdering and torturing, things that have nothing to do with combat. Whether or not Ender needs to add in more combat to satisfy a combat-type character, that won't solve the base problem he's facing from Bill. Mainly because the base problem is that Bill is an a-hole.

I agree in part, it could be that Bill won't change and keep ruining the game for everyone.

But I've been in similar situations where players steal the spotlight by doing a-hole type of things during encounters. Like killing other PCs, murdering, beeing all out evil in a good campaign. Often I've found that it's because they feel that they do not get enough time to shine in their role, so they keep stealing the spotlight. Obviously one solution is kicking him out of the game, but it seems like Ender does not want to do that (yet?).

So I thought it might be a solution to try to give Bill more spotlight in by adding combat to encounters or simply add more combats. That way he'd have fun fighting and killing and might let the other players have their fun solving puzzles, talking to NPCs and investigating the clues wihout interfering. Especially if you have an OOC talk about it. It might work better than forcing him into a role he doesn't like.

9 hours ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The reality is, if the GM says "I don't want to GM a Dark Side campaign"....then that is how it will be. The players can either say "Yeah, that sounds good to me" or "Nah, I want a Dark Side campaign, or at least the possibility of one." At which point, players and GM can look for new group or come to a compromise. If this is agreed to beforehand, and then one player starts going darkside...that's an OOC problem, not an IC one. You don't handle it IC, because it's violating the OOC agreement made before the game even began. There's no "GM vs. Players" here, it's purely "Stick to the OOC agreements you've made," with a side of "If the GM is unhappy with the game, that's a bigger problem than if a single player is."

How formulate it best. I am in absolute agreement on principle to what you have said.

It just does not look to me like this is a case of this. You can have a lightside campaign with a character leaning to the darkside just fine. TCW is one of the best examples how darkside characters work just fine within a lightside campaign. As long as there is an IC carrot to motivate the PCs to work together and an OOC agreement to try to make it work, I don't see the type of the campaign changed, merely the style. And it certainly makes an more interesting game with a little more nuances too. And if the idea, the character concept does not work out in actual play, this shows normally when players come to the realisation that their characters would actually part ways. In my groups we reached sometimes those points too, usually the player with the character who does not fit into the group realizes this first, builds a new character and talks to the GM about phasing out his old character. Something which actually did happen in this case too, with the player suggesting to sacrifice his character for the group if it does not work out.

And I don't think that the actual problem is an OOC group interaction one, but rather something about how the in-game world resonantes with that one player. He seems to see combat as conflict resolution, which rarely is how it plays out in the real world, but all too often how it actually plays out on RPG tables. I could now suggest to play adventure or two which literally introduce combat as fail condition, that is easy to build, usually interesting too, but it might change the plans for the campaign going on already and is imho a little problematic in SWRPG as the system is not very suited mechanically for doing this. Remote diagnostics are always hard, especially when you don't know much about the table culture either. So all I can do is make suggestions and the OP needs to decide if they really fit his issues.

Lastly something a little Offtopic and more directed at Benjan: "If the GM is unhappy with the game, that's a bigger problem than if a single player is", maybe it just me, but my tables usually leave the guy who wants to GM most in that position, simply because that person will have the most extra fun out of it, but replacing the GM would not be an issue. Playing with a rotating GM position is a rather normal thing, at least to my experience and helping the GM with creating NPCs, writing background, campaign logs, etc all can reduce preparation for adventures greatly too, especially in a GM which allows players to influence the narrative in more direct ways as well. So to my experience replaying a GM is about as problematic as replacing a player, with the natural exception of doing it mid-campaign, his indeed can be indeed troublesome … well unless it was a paid adventure or the GM wanted to publish his campaign afterwards and wrote it up already. Are GMs seriously a care commonly where you play? Even our new newbie prefers to play as GM.

8 hours ago, k7e9 said:

I agree in part, it could be that Bill won't change and keep ruining the game for everyone.

But I've been in similar situations where players steal the spotlight by doing a-hole type of things during encounters. Like killing other PCs, murdering, beeing all out evil in a good campaign. Often I've found that it's because they feel that they do not get enough time to shine in their role, so they keep stealing the spotlight. Obviously one solution is kicking him out of the game, but it seems like Ender does not want to do that (yet?).

So I thought it might be a solution to try to give Bill more spotlight in by adding combat to encounters or simply add more combats. That way he'd have fun fighting and killing and might let the other players have their fun solving puzzles, talking to NPCs and investigating the clues wihout interfering. Especially if you have an OOC talk about it. It might work better than forcing him into a role he doesn't like.

Again, this was agreed on before the game even began, though. If I join a game that the GM describes as "Combat light politics heavy campaign set on Coruscant," I wouldn't expect much in the way of combat, nor would I roll a purely combat character. If I was the kind of person who can ONLY do combat or only finds combat fun, I wouldn't play in that game. It seems like the GM and the rest of the players are content with the amount of combat in the game, and adding more combat might slow the game down, and not be so appreciated. It's also not a guarantee for good behavior, since the kind of person who "acts out" this way is usually not the kind of person who will be happy until the spotlight is on them the majority of the time.

7 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

You can have a lightside campaign with a character leaning to the darkside just fine.

Absolutely! And the GM and said player in question worked this out OOCly ahead of time as well: the character was going to fall to the Dark Side, then redeem themselves. The problem began after months of Dark Side with not even an attempt to start the road to redemption. Aka, he violated the OOC agreement he made with the GM. That's why an IC solution isn't appropriate: it's not an IC problem. This is a problem with the player not the character, and trying to punish the player through their character is passive-aggressive GM vs. Player at its worst.

7 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Lastly something a little Offtopic and more directed at Benjan: "If the GM is unhappy with the game, that's a bigger problem than if a single player is", maybe it just me, but my tables usually leave the guy who wants to GM most in that position, simply because that person will have the most extra fun out of it, but replacing the GM would not be an issue

Most groups that I've been in have a ForeverGM and maybe one or two part-time GMs who do the occasional campaign to give the 'usual' GM a break. The thing is, even in a group with everyone willing to GM, once a GM quits a game that game is done. Any behind-the-scene's happenings is lost, any upcoming plothooks go into the bin, and all of the careful mapping between which faction is doing what is gone. I have never seen a campaign survive the replacement of its GM without the GM essentially 'briefing' his replacement, and I wouldn't expect that from any GM essentially being told "We don't care if you're having fun" by his players.

7 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Playing with a rotating GM position is a rather normal thing, at least to my experience and helping the GM with creating NPCs, writing background, campaign logs, etc all can reduce preparation for adventures greatly too, especially in a GM which allows players to influence the narrative in more direct ways as well. So to my experience replaying a GM is about as problematic as replacing a player, with the natural exception of doing it mid-campaign, his indeed can be indeed troublesome … well unless it was a paid adventure or the GM wanted to publish his campaign afterwards and wrote it up already. Are GMs seriously a care commonly where you play? Even our new newbie prefers to play as GM.

I honestly haven't done a 'round robin' sort of campaign since college, with Shadowrun. It worked decently well in that system since it's fairly episodic in nature (1 run = 1 episode) and so you could switch off GMs for every run and just have the current GM's character not go on that mission for some reason. However, since then I've discovered that most people I've played (across 3 different states) prefer to play rather than GM. Oftentimes they can be encouraged to step up, but there's also that minority of people who enjoy GMing, and thus they become the ForeverGM.

And yeah, I was assuming mid-campaign, since we're talking about broken OOC promises. So, while you may be able to get someone else to step up, you're not going to be playing the same campaign or characters (or you'll be restarting those characters). I haven't had many GMs use premade modules or try to package their own campaigns for later, so I can't really speak to that.

Unrelated sidenote: I've come to prefer campaigns run by one single person. They are better able to tie all of the things that happen in the game into a coherent narrative, whereas the round robin GMing is nice for not putting too much workload on any one person but tends to struggle with cohesion. I'd say it was just a symptom of college GMs, but then there was a DnD campaign going on run by a single person that didn't suffer that sort of problem.

I haven't been able to find the answer to this already. Have you spoken to the other players in the game about Bill's actions? This is critical, because the answers shape your possible successful solutions. If the players are fine with what Bill is doing, and you're the only one who isn't, then a change in style by you to match what Bill wants and the other players are fine with, is a viable solution. If you and Bill are both unwilling to change and embrace the other's preferred style, then one of you has to go - and that's a decision that needs to be made by the other players if you want friendships to have a chance of surviving.

It sounds like Bill's had plenty of other games where he's been allowed to play "his way". If the players say they want to do something different this time (your way), then Bill needs to leave (since he's already had two chances to adopt the campaign's theme, I don't see any positive results from granting another). I would definitely not kill off his character. Let them leave (or be driven out) narratively, and remain within the universe as a potential future adversary (Perhaps Bill could return to reprise his role, but as a direct opponent for the party).

If the players decide they like what Bill brings to the overall story but you are unwilling to allow it, then it is time for you to step down, and take the role of player instead of GM. I would absolutely work with the new GM to ensure that the transition is as seamless as possible - provide all of your notes, and create new ones for the ideas not yet documented, answer questions, spend some time on collaborative planning sessions. . . and then accept the fact that some details will change from what you envisioned. The more effort you put into making the change work, the greater the chance of the game continuing for everyone, and the better the chance of the players allowing you a future chance at running your game.

Sorry I haven't been available to respond in the past few days...be prepared for a Wall Of Text!

On 3/24/2017 at 6:01 PM, arrivan said:

It seems you have a somewhat open dialogue with this player in the way you state he offered to sacrifice himself if he didn't redeem. Being as you are all friends outside of your gaming group I think your right in that if you ask him not to play it will have ramifications on your other friendships. Maybe you should consider that despite Bill's best effort to conform to what he has agreed that perhaps he isn't intentionally murder-hoboing just to be a problem for you. Bill may just enjoy the thrill of combat and sees that as being more heroic and fun that puzzles and social encounters. Have you tried altering your villain selection to be heavier on Droids where he could cut loose and get the boost he is looking for without all your light side characters losing morality? I would also try to encourage Bill and his character to the light by "challenging" him. To kill is easy. Try fighting that pack of thugs to disarm and stun. Also what motivations does Bill have to be good? I've played in a "lightside" game where it was basically EOTE with nerf guns. It lacked the big morale choices that made me feel good about being good. I was expecting rescuing children and slaves, delivering food supplies and medicine, and things of that nature. What I got was basically the same story arcs and missions the edge games had with forced paragon choices. Instead of rescuing children the good aspect meant putting up with frustrating npcs and turning down dirty credits. At the end of the day it felt noble, but stupid.

I do think it is a mistake to take the lightsaber or combat option away. I think in your situation you need to find a workable compromise which includes letting your player enjoy the combat role if he really likes it. I can understand his sentiment about not being allowed to play what he wants as I think your pendulum in trying to prevent him from dictating your game has swung too far in now your dictating a little bit how he plays his character. I mean no slight by that, just that you may have over compensated.

I have a pact with one of my players who loves combat. Every game, no matter what, I will include for him a combat where his character can shine, however when it is time for other characters to shine doing social encounters or hacking he has to allow them to be the star. It has worked out well.

I'm curious how does the rest of the group interact with Bill? What is the rest of the parties strengths that they enjoy? What are the other classes and is the rest of the group tired of Bill's antics? Also, can you give us more examples as to Bill's behavior at the table? Is he attacking NPC's that the group is negotiating with or otherwise interfering with the other players fun?

I think it is going a bit far to ban him from all types of combat for the campaign, my main idea was to limit him initially so he can get used to playing out situations without immediately brandishing his lightsaber as the "resolution." The rest of the group interacts well with Bill since we are all friends outside of the game, but they do get annoyed with his antics and begrudgingly go alone when he goes all "Leeerooy Jenkins" on everyone with his old characters. They all enjoy some combat, but many enjoy puzzles, traps, and social encounters as well...we don't exclude combat at all, we just limit it maybe more than others.

In the past we ended our EotE campaign with the Jewel of Yavin and right when they were stealing the Jewel Elaiza (the Jedi) appeared and used Force Influence on Bill's character to give it to her. Bill's character did not have much discipline so he refused but was compelled by the Influence power. It was at that point that he basically turned into a 5 year old that didn't get his way and sulked, didn't talk IC or OOC, was on his phone, and then left as soon as the game was over without offering to help cleanup. That was very frustrating and I almost kicked him out because he acted in such a childish manner...but I ended up talking to him out of game and explained it to him, he said he felt like I targeted him directly (which I didn't he was just holding the jewel) and we talked for a few hours over dinner to come to a resolution. The other players thought he overreacted and didn't appreciate it either, but that was over a year ago now and he has been better since then.

On 3/24/2017 at 7:57 PM, Richardbuxton said:

I would certainly be asking the other players in private how they feel things are with Bill. I wouldn't kick him out if everyone else is enjoying his contributions to the sessions. Thats probably the key piece of information you need to make your decision, you need the support of everyone else.

I would also encourage your party to split up a bit during gaming sessions, give his character a chance to run off and be evil while keeping face in front of the others.

I think Healer is completely the wrong archetype for this player, i guess he was looking for a support type with less combat focus. I would think Warden would instead be a good place for him to start, it has a focus on less destructive combat but also talents that focus on social encounters. Sentry is another spec that could work well for him, with lots of ways to contribute in meaningful ways outside of combat. Then during combat he gets to throw his saber!

But in the end its the Motivation of the character that needs the most work. The player needs a motivation thats based on a need to be good, but also fit within the story your telling. Revenge is bad, but Protection is good. If his character is responsible for the safety of others it may help, but its probably also important his character is somewhat public. There should be consequences for being violent beyond Morality. This is where your discussion with him comes in, you need to tell him that doing "evil" things in public is going to have extensive consequences for the story.

Perhaps Inquisitors destroy his home town looking for clues, perhaps trusted NPC's go missing, family of the other PC's! Then there is the imperial crackdown, bring the heat to wherever they are, 4 ISD's blockading the planet, thousands of Stormies on the ground, Martial Law, Curfews, bring it all. They have a chance to do something big, taking down a Moff and his core fleet, or they can play cat and mouse leading the fleet away from innocents. The more evil Bills character does the worse things get for the population.

I did ask Bill if he really wanted to play out a Healer class or if he was just doing it so the party would have a dedicated healer...he said he wanted to, but it didn't really feel all that truthful. If you read above you will see that the group does like playing with him, but sometimes his IC actions and comments do irk the other PC's the wrong way. I did make the Empire go after him when he was caught killing some innocents, but that created a bit of a problem for the group because they felt like they couldn't do much and were always getting sidetracked...eventually I let them clear their names (for the most part, it involved hacking ) and then continue less impeded that before. I didn't want to keep that up because it was burning everyone out on combat and didn't let them feel like they were progressing the storyline at all.

On 3/25/2017 at 1:32 PM, Benjan Meruna said:

I was with you 100% up until this point.

Never, ever used in-game consequences to punish OOC behavior. If he's violating the OOC agreement, you need to tell him this, then tell him that if he doesn't clean it up and start working his way back to light side he'll get booted from the game. None of this "kill his ingame character" crap. That causes unnecessary OOC drama.

He'll have plenty of other options for killing people, with the Force or with blasters. About the best you could do is tell him not the play a combat character, but honestly? If he can't handling playing a combat character without being evil and violating the agreement you all made, then he shouldn't be playing with the group. Again, avoid in-game restrictions and punishments for bad OOC behavior.

...I thought he was barred for all lightsaber trees? I don't understand how this happened.

Drop him from the game. Tell him you can still be friends and hang out in other way, but he ruins the fun for everyone else at the table, including you. And when you try to get him to stop ruining the fun, he complains.

No one ever wants to boot anyone out, especially when they're friends in other areas. But it's not like you haven't given him fair warning, either. Just tell him "This is your last chance to play a reasonable character in our campaign. If you keep complaining, or try to go murderhobo again, we will boot you out, and we'll call you when we're do that Evil campaign." If he doesn't shape up after that, apply boot directly to ass.

In my eyes I don't view it so much as a punishment of "you were did bad, now I am killing your character off." I tried to clarify what happened previously and I think that allowed the situation to run its course and end that characters story so we could move on to a new character.

The part about him putting his XP into his stats for Willpower (or whatever it was) was an example of me showing how even though I asked him to not make a combat-focused character, he was still planning on buying into the Nimal Disciple specialization so he was powering his character up to be combat ready when he eventually bought into that tree. That is where I told him he is not exactly adhering to what I was saying, to not focus on combat but instead focus on doing other things during combat situations to either dissolve them before they happen or help in defensive or support ways instead. He just couldn't wrap his head around not using a lightsaber so that was just an example...

I am thinking about giving him the "This is your last chance to play a reasonable character in our campaign. If you keep complaining, or try to go murderhobo again, we will boot you out, and we'll call you when we're do that Evil campaign..." blurb you mentioned.

On 3/25/2017 at 1:57 PM, 2P51 said:

Ultimately my biggest problem is that all this time and effort put into making the squeaky wheel comply, or be happy, is time that should have been spent on game prep and making a good session(s) for the PCs that aren't being a pain.

This is true, but I am really good friends with everyone but especially him...the problem though is that we are very alike in some ways and totally different in others and that's where we experience problems in our game. He was the one who befriended me back when we worked together and introduced me to the whole group, which lead to me being very close to everyone else. I feel like a s***ty friend if I don't try to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to explain things how I see them and then try to understand where he is coming from before giving him the ultimatum or kicking him completely.

On 3/25/2017 at 5:11 PM, Benjan Meruna said:

From the sound of it, Bill doesn't JUST like combat, he also likes being evil. Specifically, Ender mentions that he asked Bill to please stop murdering and torturing, things that have nothing to do with combat. Whether or not Ender needs to add in more combat to satisfy a combat-type character, that won't solve the base problem he's facing from Bill. Mainly because the base problem is that Bill is an a-hole.

He may be an a-hole but we are all still friends with him and enjoy his company. I think he likes to play these types of characters and this particular way because he can't in many other types of games that he plays...This allows him to be more like Anakin...an evil dude who is helping others at a small price compared to other ways the other Jedi do things. I don't want to bog down my campaign with more combat and I think Bill just needs to realize that he can't always behave like this at any time in every RPG.

On 3/26/2017 at 10:34 AM, 2P51 said:

It's not the PC's job to deal with another disruptive PC. That's a job squarely for the GM.

This doesn't need to be antagonistic or dramatic. It just needs to be the original OP sitting the problem child down and laying it out with the fact the details of the campaign were laid out, if that doesn't suit the PC that's fine he doesn't have to play if he's bored. The OP I'm sure doesn't want him to be bored, but at the end of the day the GM is allowed to run the campaign they want to run, it might not suit everyone's tastes, no hard feelings. The OP is trying to avoid the conversation and decision I'm sure is already painfully obvious to them, which is why they likely posted here.

I think it's important to stop this now and not let it continue. It's wasted GM time not focused on the game, there are apparently other PCs content with the direction of the game, and letting conflict or contrasting views simmer and persist typically only ends badly, which could spoil it for the other PCs happy with the game itself. Best to just nip it in the bud, put that foot down, and end it.

This is essentially what it is coming down to, I have done all that I can to help him OOG and IG so I am hoping that he realizes there is more to this game than lightsaber-driven combat...if he doesn't then I will most likely have to sit him and and tell him that we can't continue with the way he plays in our game.

On 3/26/2017 at 2:34 PM, themensch said:

The pirate might not want to weigh in here, but I will. Dealing with poor behavior from a player by imposing consequences to said player's character is often construed as unfair and passive aggressive. One could peruse decades of GM theory discussion to weigh it for one's own use, but the consensus has been that this is generally Not The Way To Do It™. In my experience, having tried both ways, I have found that direct communication is the easiest solution to maintain relationships and not end up with hurt feelings.

While it is everyone's responsibility at the table to create and sustain the enjoyment, it falls to the GM as the final arbiter in cases where all else fails, since the GM is the orchestrator of the entire shebang. In a perfect world the entire table might come together to try to steer a Bad Player™ back towards the theme. However, I haven't often seen that happen, if at all.

It keeps being brought up that I "punished him" by killing off his character. I didn't do this in haste, I discussed it with multiple people in and out of my game, I read up on GM/PC agreements when playing a campaign with a specific settings and house rules, and I debated about it until eventually Bill came to me and said that he would sacrifice himself if he can't get above the Dark side morality threshold. To me that was the perfect opportunity to let him know my feelings about his character and how he was playing it and that I thought retiring that character and creating a new one right now would be better than waiting for it. We sat down and created the new character and devised a loose plan to retire his old one, which we played through in our last session. His old character was killed off (Bill essentially made the other PC's realize how evil he was by attacking their mentor) and after that was done, the new character was introduced by said mentor and we proceeded forward.

On 3/27/2017 at 0:35 AM, k7e9 said:

I agree in part, it could be that Bill won't change and keep ruining the game for everyone.

But I've been in similar situations where players steal the spotlight by doing a-hole type of things during encounters. Like killing other PCs, murdering, beeing all out evil in a good campaign. Often I've found that it's because they feel that they do not get enough time to shine in their role, so they keep stealing the spotlight. Obviously one solution is kicking him out of the game, but it seems like Ender does not want to do that (yet?).

So I thought it might be a solution to try to give Bill more spotlight in by adding combat to encounters or simply add more combats. That way he'd have fun fighting and killing and might let the other players have their fun solving puzzles, talking to NPCs and investigating the clues wihout interfering. Especially if you have an OOC talk about it. It might work better than forcing him into a role he doesn't like.

Everyone in my game agrees that I give everyone the spotlight during their times of strength (and weakness at times) and I allow them to do what they want without railroading, so I don't think that's the problem here. I think his main issue is that he can't seem to really RP as someone else...every character he makes is basically a more "unrestricted version" of himself. He can't get in the mindset of someone else and it shows when he makes some of his decision IRL because he doesn't usually look at it from multiple perspectives, just his own. I have called him on this and he basically told me that his brain doesn't work like that and he finds it difficult to "think like someone else." I really don't know how to take that because I always tend to think of multiple perspectives when I am making important decisions...

On 3/27/2017 at 10:16 AM, Pyremius said:

I haven't been able to find the answer to this already. Have you spoken to the other players in the game about Bill's actions? This is critical, because the answers shape your possible successful solutions. If the players are fine with what Bill is doing, and you're the only one who isn't, then a change in style by you to match what Bill wants and the other players are fine with, is a viable solution. If you and Bill are both unwilling to change and embrace the other's preferred style, then one of you has to go - and that's a decision that needs to be made by the other players if you want friendships to have a chance of surviving.

It sounds like Bill's had plenty of other games where he's been allowed to play "his way". If the players say they want to do something different this time (your way), then Bill needs to leave (since he's already had two chances to adopt the campaign's theme, I don't see any positive results from granting another). I would definitely not kill off his character. Let them leave (or be driven out) narratively, and remain within the universe as a potential future adversary (Perhaps Bill could return to reprise his role, but as a direct opponent for the party).

If the players decide they like what Bill brings to the overall story but you are unwilling to allow it, then it is time for you to step down, and take the role of player instead of GM. I would absolutely work with the new GM to ensure that the transition is as seamless as possible - provide all of your notes, and create new ones for the ideas not yet documented, answer questions, spend some time on collaborative planning sessions. . . and then accept the fact that some details will change from what you envisioned. The more effort you put into making the change work, the greater the chance of the game continuing for everyone, and the better the chance of the players allowing you a future chance at running your game.

I have spoken to one of the other people in my group about it, I will try to speak to the others before our next session to get a better idea of how everyone is feeling about it. I know just from what I wrote above that people do get annoyed and visibly frustrated with Bills actions at times, but the fact that we are all friends usually means that no one holds a grudge and we eventually get past it.

Bill has definitely had other opportunities to play "his way" and be the most "Muchkin-y" player he wanted with his powerful blasters, high stats, and deadly accuracy in our EotE game to his crazy OP Fire Wizard in D&D. It is a bit too late to not kill his character, that's already been done...I am hoping that after all of this that he can at see the merit in not always using combat to resolve everything and see if he can play the game that way. If he can't deal with it then we will probably have to have "the chat" and tell him that this particular campaign just isn't for him.

Thanks again to everyone for all of the replies so far, it has helped me think further on this issue and how to handle it!

I think 'if' he's a really good friend, and you are very straightforward without being a jerk to him, he should be receptive to your concerns. 'If' not, then he just isn't being decent to you as the GM or really as a person if you're attempting to tell him he's making it un-fun for you, and potentially others. I've no idea what the rest of your table thinks, but I am loathe to involve the table in my issues, that really goes for life in general imo. You got a problem with someone, pirate up and deal with it.

1 hour ago, Ender07 said:

In the past we ended our EotE campaign with the Jewel of Yavin and right when they were stealing the Jewel Elaiza (the Jedi) appeared and used Force Influence on Bill's character to give it to her. Bill's character did not have much discipline so he refused but was compelled by the Influence power.

Hmm, I'm not a fan of doing that to PCs. It completely takes away player agency.

6 minutes ago, whafrog said:

Hmm, I'm not a fan of doing that to PCs. It completely takes away player agency.

It was referenced directly in the adventure book to go about it that way if they didn't want to part with it:

"If this does not appeal to the PCs, Elaiza uses her Influence Force power, coldly stating, "that gem will bring you nothing but ill fortune unless you give it to me" to the PC who carries it. If she passes the required checks in order to make another person believe something untrue, the target PC is sincerely convinced for three rounds that he should part with the gem."

I think that while it's true that it takes away some agency, there is a roll done by Elaiza to succeed vs. the players discipline (which in this case failed), and it only effects the single individual holding the jewel not the whole group.

The biggest takeaway from that example though was the fact that he lashed out and called BS then sulked and stormed off because he didn't get his way...

That's my my characters always distrust Jedi/Sith/Force Users, I might hate the Empire... but those snakes in people skin jedi arent any better

6 hours ago, Ender07 said:

It was referenced directly in the adventure book to go about it that way if they didn't want to part with it:

One reason I never run adventures as written...

6 hours ago, Ender07 said:

The biggest takeaway from that example though was the fact that he lashed out and called BS then sulked and stormed off because he didn't get his way...

I agree the player has acted poorly, certainly could have behaved better even if they disagreed. I'm not defending the player, just making a general comment about that kind of situation.

23 minutes ago, whafrog said:

One reason I never run adventures as written...

I agree the player has acted poorly, certainly could have behaved better even if they disagreed. I'm not defending the player, just making a general comment about that kind of situation.

Yeah, it was my first full length module and I was finishing the year of our initial foray into RPG's...I'd know better now, but you live and you learn.