I'm new to GMing, and one of my players (also new to RP), lets call him Dave, is having a hard time getting immersed in his character. Out of my 5 players, 2 are brand new, but the other new player is at least trying to do the RP part of it, although she still is figuring out the mechanics of it all. Dave on the other hand keeps saying that he's trying to learn it and understand it, but then puts no real effort into becoming more knowledgeable. Although they haven't outright said anything, I can tell the other players' fun is suffering as a result. We're 6 sessions in and I still have to stop and explain how to make a dice pool.

Dave's excuse is that this wasn't what he was expecting the game to be. He plays a Droid Bounty Hunter, and supposedly was under the impression that he was going to start out the game like a badass. When the first encounter with a NPC shopkeeper came along, he pulled his gun and tried to shoot him but failed all his rolls, so our Wookiee stepped in and finished the job. I guess this left a bad taste in his mouth, because he was incensed that a "mere shopkeeper" wasn't immediately vaporized by a bounty hunter. I think he also saw all the other players succeeding in their checks, and was frustrated that he didn't have a moment to shine. So over the next few sessions I tried to put him in situation's where Dave specifically could wreck shop, but he would run away from the action and hide because "If a shopkeeper is that tough, how will I survive against a street thug?"

I'm sure being an inexperienced GM also trying to learn the game didn't help, but does anyone have any advice or input on this situation?

I would talk to him out of game and maybe set aside some time to make sure he knows how to run the basics first and also ask him outright what he wants to get from the game. He should be made aware that there are many different ways to play an RPG because there are many different type of people out there and everyone does things differently. He also has to realize that, unless you are started them off at a high level with extra XP, he is going to be a low level character without much skill...that comes with time and practice (and XP).

If he pulled a gun on a shopkeep and missed, you need to narrate it by describing how he missed...maybe the shopkeeper was really agile and ducked out of the way in time, maybe Dave's new PC wasn't quite used to his new blaster, or maybe it was just bad luck...missing or botching a roll is normal considering the PC's are starting with a low amount of XP and not too many ranks in any of their skills.

On the note of roleplaying, I have a player in my game who has always pushed my buttons a bit and sounds similar to yours as to how he needs to "learn and understand it" but then puts forward no effort. As the GM, you need to ask the other players if the lack of RP is negatively impacting their experience...sometimes it might seem like that to you, but it might not really be a big deal to the group as a whole. You also need to get a Player-GM-Agreement that everyone signs off on...basically something that tells you the rules of the table, etiquette, and the level of RP'ing, etc.

Good luck! GM'ing gets a bit easier with time, but the players will always keep you on your toes...it's just with practice you will know how to better handle those weird decisions and choices!

Without his even realizing it, I'd say Dave has come up with a great RP concept that both of you can work with.

Dave's character - like Dave - set out into the galaxy to make a name for himself (and some credits) as the big bad bounty hunter. But call it fate, call it luck, call it karma, call it the Force...his first foray, things didn't go his way. And now he's gunshy.

As a GM, I'd work with Dave and suggest playing up that angle. His character could reluctantly engage in the action when necessary, playing up the (fictional, not IRL) pity party. This would allow for an impact on the group, as his reputation DOES grow...just not in the way he'd hope. Of course, if I were the GM, this would lead to the proper time several sessions down the line for him to have his Big D@mn Hero Moment, stepping up to aid or even save the group when it's most needed.

After that...well, does that one moment go to his head? Was that moment pivotal in saving a town, making him their idolized hero? Is he concerned it was a one-time fluke? There's lots of places to go with it.

So, sit down with Dave and both of you capitalize on his actual reactions as a player to build a great, layered character.

I'd suggest some practice with just Dave making dice pools. If it's really causing consternation at the table, it's probably worth a one-on-one to do it. It probably wouldn't hurt to offer Dave the chance to redesign his character with GM assistance to try to make it meet his vision. However, few start life as a bad ***!

55 minutes ago, LukeStarkiller said:

I'm new to GMing, and one of my players (also new to RP), lets call him Dave, is having a hard time getting immersed in his character. Out of my 5 players, 2 are brand new, but the other new player is at least trying to do the RP part of it, although she still is figuring out the mechanics of it all. Dave on the other hand keeps saying that he's trying to learn it and understand it, but then puts no real effort into becoming more knowledgeable. Although they haven't outright said anything, I can tell the other players' fun is suffering as a result. We're 6 sessions in and I still have to stop and explain how to make a dice pool.

Dave's excuse is that this wasn't what he was expecting the game to be. He plays a Droid Bounty Hunter, and supposedly was under the impression that he was going to start out the game like a badass. When the first encounter with a NPC shopkeeper came along, he pulled his gun and tried to shoot him but failed all his rolls, so our Wookiee stepped in and finished the job. I guess this left a bad taste in his mouth, because he was incensed that a "mere shopkeeper" wasn't immediately vaporized by a bounty hunter. I think he also saw all the other players succeeding in their checks, and was frustrated that he didn't have a moment to shine. So over the next few sessions I tried to put him in situation's where Dave specifically could wreck shop, but he would run away from the action and hide because "If a shopkeeper is that tough, how will I survive against a street thug?"

I'm sure being an inexperienced GM also trying to learn the game didn't help, but does anyone have any advice or input on this situation?

Use the form fillable character sheets then no one has any excuses about how to make a dice pool since the sheets does them all for every skill.

Dave sounds like he wanted to jump in on easy mode in a video game. I'd have Dave watch some youtube on how tabletop RPGs gameplay typically goes, then ask Dave to do a no **** self assessment as to whether or not he really wants to play.

9 minutes ago, themensch said:

I'd suggest some practice with just Dave making dice pools. If it's really causing consternation at the table, it's probably worth a one-on-one to do it. It probably wouldn't hurt to offer Dave the chance to redesign his character with GM assistance to try to make it meet his vision.

Im letting him take an extra obligation so he can get a few better pieces of equipment.

I do like the idea of his droid having a pity party and all "woe-is-me", and being the cynical guy Dave his, he would probably appreciate that too.

Thanks for the input everyone! This was incredibly helpful.

Besides; instead of the droid "simply missing" the failure to hit can be described as the shopkeeper responding quickly, diving behind the desk or throwing something at him. Though turning into a woefully inefficent droid is amusing.

I am curious as to why a licensed bounty hunter would pull a gun on a shopkeeper of all people though and at the end of the day the player actually has to make a effort to integrate himself around the table. If he can't or isn't willing to engage properly in the long run then it's just going to be a long hanging rash. The system isn't hard to learn, but it requires the system to be learnt.

Tell him to man up and play. Sometimes your die rolls are crap and sometimes you cant miss. Tell him to just deal with it. May be a bit harsher than most here, but if he isnt willing to take a risk because he is afraid his imaginary character might get hurt, and it is getting to be a problem with the group, it needs to stop.

Just for the record, Dave tried to intimidate the shopkeeper by pulling his gun but failed, so the shopkeeper was having none of it and pulled out his own blaster and told them to "get the **** outta my shop". When Dave"missed" he actually did hit the shelf behind the shopkeeper, causing it to fall on him and knock him down. That's when the Wookiee finished it.

11 minutes ago, korjik said:

Tell him to man up and play. Sometimes your die rolls are crap and sometimes you cant miss. Tell him to just deal with it. May be a bit harsher than most here, but if he isnt willing to take a risk because he is afraid his imaginary character might get hurt, and it is getting to be a problem with the group, it needs to stop.

It's been my experience that this sort of indelicate approach can alienate newcomers to the hobby. Your reasoning is sound, no doubt. However, unless it's bootcamp, it seems people generally don't accept this training tactic. It's supposed to be fun, after all!

52 minutes ago, LukeStarkiller said:

Im letting him take an extra obligation so he can get a few better pieces of equipment.

I do like the idea of his droid having a pity party and all "woe-is-me", and being the cynical guy Dave his, he would probably appreciate that too.

Thanks for the input everyone! This was incredibly helpful.

The idea that a droid blames his faults on "faulty programming" is hilarious to me.

You could easily wrap up gaining new Obligation into the ongoing story - turns out that shopkeeper had some powerful friends....

47 minutes ago, themensch said:

It's been my experience that this sort of indelicate approach can alienate newcomers to the hobby. Your reasoning is sound, no doubt. However, unless it's bootcamp, it seems people generally don't accept this training tactic. It's supposed to be fun, after all!

It is supposed to be fun. For everyone. If someone is causing ' other players' fun is suffering as a result' then something needs to be done. Trying to keep a bad player just to have another player isnt really a good idea. This guy is well on his way to being a bad player. He needs to be taken out of the 'woe is me' mindset and start thinking like a hero

18 minutes ago, korjik said:

It is supposed to be fun. For everyone. If someone is causing ' other players' fun is suffering as a result' then something needs to be done. Trying to keep a bad player just to have another player isnt really a good idea. This guy is well on his way to being a bad player. He needs to be taken out of the 'woe is me' mindset and start thinking like a hero

Yup, definitely supposed to be fun for everyone, and definitely needs to be addressed, no argument there. It seems that I miscommunicated, then. It wasn't that this conversation needs to happen, it was the manner in which you proposed it that I would caution against. Of course, do what you like at your table, but that's just not going to work for everyone. Having more tools in the toolbox isn't a bad thing.

I would

5 hours ago, themensch said:

Yup, definitely supposed to be fun for everyone, and definitely needs to be addressed, no argument there. It seems that I miscommunicated, then. It wasn't that this conversation needs to happen, it was the manner in which you proposed it that I would caution against. Of course, do what you like at your table, but that's just not going to work for everyone. Having more tools in the toolbox isn't a bad thing.

I would have nipped it in the bud during the first game session, but I have a little more experience at GMing. After half a dozen game sessions it is getting to be time for more direct and forceful methods. If left to cause problems for too long, the whole game may die.

11 hours ago, korjik said:

I would have nipped it in the bud during the first game session, but I have a little more experience at GMing.

I dunno, I've been GMing for over 3 decades now and I've found insulting my players to generally be a bad idea. Nipping poor behavior in the bud? Sure, that's essential, but so is how it is handled.

6 hours ago, themensch said:

I dunno, I've been GMing for over 3 decades now and I've found insulting my players to generally be a bad idea. Nipping poor behavior in the bud? Sure, that's essential, but so is how it is handled.

You are making assumptions on my behavoir. Unwarranted and incorrect ones. I didnt say I would do what I said. I said the OP should do what I said because he left the problem to fester for too long. Properly done would have been to explain to the player that sometimes the dice are a players worst enemy, and not to have taken that one failure as the way the game would always be. Then I would have gotten them into a piddling fight with some losers to get some confidence, and add in a little humor to lighten the mood. Problem and correction in half an hour, should it work right.

This was a group that played 6 sessions and the player was still causing problems from his first encounter. Problems that were starting to drag down the whole game. That is time for drastic measures. That is six sessions of trying to include the player and failing. A month and a half if playing once a week and it was starting to drag down the group. You are in the territory of kicking the player or losing the whole game. Insult is a little strong, but the time for finesse is over. Be blunt. If his feelings get so hurt he doesnt want to play, then that isnt always a bad thing.

On 5/17/2017 at 2:31 PM, korjik said:

You are making assumptions on my behavoir. Unwarranted and incorrect ones. I didnt say I would do what I said. I said the OP should do what I said because he left the problem to fester for too long.

This is the part I want to read over and over again, with the whole "man up" comment in context:

On 5/16/2017 at 0:20 PM, korjik said:

Tell him to man up and play. Sometimes your die rolls are crap and sometimes you cant miss. Tell him to just deal with it. May be a bit harsher than most here, but if he isnt willing to take a risk because he is afraid his imaginary character might get hurt, and it is getting to be a problem with the group, it needs to stop.

I still stand by my assumption that this is insulting. This is the only context readers like me have. Like I said, I don't disagree with your assessment, I disagree with your proposed solution. That may fly with a bunch of close friends but it's not a stretch to imagine situations where this would actually do more harm than good. That said, I'm only proposing a more gentle approach as an alternative. Far be it for me to tell anyone how to GM their own table - here is a reason there's an expression regarding carrots and sticks.

The difference is that I dont really think it could do more harm than good, much less would do more harm than good. If one player is making so much problem that the game is starting to fall apart, then hurting his feelings isnt really a concern. In my book, one person wrecking the fun of several others is a far bigger insult than 'man up'. If the player is going to take it as an insult and get all pissed and leave, then the problem is solved. If the player doesn't take it personally and fixes the problem then the problem is solved. Either way the problem is solved.

It is harsh, and can very easily lose players, but when everyone's fun is suffering it is time for drastic measures. That is the difference I think. The time for the gentle approach is passed or passing. The carrot hasnt worked, it is time for the stick. If we weren't talking about a new player, but an experienced player doing the same thing, most of the people here would be saying to boot the guy.

If the OP had said that he had this problem in the first session, and was looking for advice for the second, I would have had a completely different response. Probably exactly the same one as in my last post, since I have had to do that before.

Alright, just to interject but I do believe a discussion should be had to establish an ultimatum; as PC's looking to get a break from reality one should be ready to fully embrace the mayhem of the universe, I mean the worst that can happen is a character passing on but even the biggest heroes and villians can fumble. We have the rest of our lives to be law abidding office workers thus sometimes we have to be more robust then a single roll; it's fine to get salty over a roll and perhaps develop a interesting character trait over it but letting it define one's entire RPG experience is a bit much.

I mean, if he's actively running away from seeking any time to shine then that deserves a direct conversation with the said player. Doesn't have to be a long discussion but to make it clear what the two of you are expecting of the session so both are on the same page. I mean, there's plenty in life that is boring without making the social event of Edge boring too.

On 5/16/2017 at 11:22 AM, themensch said:

However, few start life as a bad ***!

This is true for EVERY system, not just FFG. Go play D&D with visions of Conan laying waste to armies and bedding women left and right, and your level one barbarian will most likely trip over his own sword and go "If there are any girls there, I wanna do them!"

4 hours ago, Desslok said:

This is true for EVERY system

ALMOST every system, but I can count on 1 hand the number of systems I know about that do not abide by this.

Man, that video dredged up some old gamer trauma!

I do think "Dave" needs a talking to. Honestly, if several sessions in he's still referencing that first "shopkeeper" incident, then his problem isn't with the game mechanics, it's with roleplay (and maybe life) in general. He should either give it a rest or walk.

But it might be worth having a polite discussion first. He needs to understand that dice are random: sometimes it's awesome, sometimes disappointing. As you get better your odds improve, but nothing is ever guaranteed. It's weird to me that even the most veteran role-players fall into the trap of believing an initial disappointing roll determines the future fate of their character forever. I have a friend who does exactly that, both to me and the other GM in our group. It's really irritating, but if you want them to play you have to give them the old "You made one bad roll, stop making a federal case out of it!"...topped with whatever extra layers of politeness or bluntness you deem necessary.

The other thing is why he wanted to immediately off the shopkeeper in the first place. A lot of people who try RPGs think it's a chance to enact their murder hobo fantasies, but that may not sit well with the group. Maybe you host a GTA type of game, in which case everything is fair game. However, if you want to host a world that has something resembling "actual consequences", then just randomly killing strangers isn't the best tactic. I make it clear up front in my game that actions have consequences. If the PCs pulled that kind of stunt on me, well, it turns out that shop is owned by "Rex", a retired clone trooper, and Wolf and Gregor are in the back...

I think Dave needs to get over himself. I would guess he is the type to save scum when he plays video games. The fun of table top games is that they are unpredictable and there is no "save game" feature to let you go back and redo the things you balls up.

After talking to Dave and explaining the difference between table top gaming and video gaming, you should make sure this kind of game is even something he is into. If your view of what you want for the game, as the GM, is something that he is just not into then it might be best for the whole table that he doesn't play. If his goals and views as a Player differ from what you want as a GM drastically it will only ever cause trouble. Don't get me wrong, GMs and players styles and attitudes can and should differ greatly, but if the gap between GM and Player style and attitude is too great expect friction.

Once things were sorted with Dave, I would add obligation to his character. Something like "Obsession" or "A Score To Settle" to represent his inability to let go of that mess up with the shopkeeper. Perhaps you could even make that "Score to Setlle" with the Wookiee PC. Sometimes PC rivalry makes for some great moments at the table.

If he tries to murder hobo any more of your NPCs (without good reason at least ) then make sure he feels the full consequences. Add a bounty to him (and the party). That's bad news for a bounty hunter especially. The rest of the part will help to reign him in if they are getting heat from his actions. Have the ISB investigate crimes he commits. If he is a member of a guild have them take disciplinary action against him for "unprofessional behaviour".

During your next session add in a holonet news segment about that shopkeeper being captured by imperial troops. Turns out he's a Rebel and highly skilled operative or even a jedi in training. Make it look like the reason he missed was that guy was really tough. Sure it's BS. But it might make him start thinking about how he didn't miss because he sucked he missed because that guy was awesome. I doubt he remembers his dice pool, just that he missed, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

On 5/19/2017 at 7:03 PM, whafrog said:

If the PCs pulled that kind of stunt on me, well, it turns out that shop is owned by "Rex", a retired clone trooper, and Wolf and Gregor are in the back...

Brings to mind an article I remember from... 30 years ago, apparently: