You know the types. They guys in a kill-team who HAS to do it their way, even if it gets someone killed or put the mission at risk. And then there's the effect on the fun. Or the ones that play to break games as soon as they stop being interested. Not seeking advice, just wondering what my fellow GMs and players do when this happens.

Yeah there is the obvious, "Please stop. No? Then please GTFO." (more of less) I'm looking more at stories from you guys.

For instance, I had a player (a very good friend of mine actually) who's total knowledge of 40k was from 4chan and Dawn of War. He was playing a Ultramarine Devastator in a kill-team of 6, and every so often he would yell, in character "For Chaos!" or "Chaos consume us!" First I warned him, the 10 corruption points. Harsh? Yes. The other players were generally with me, kinda funny (if terribly inappropriate IC) the first time but it got old quick. the third time it happened, two other players who knew little more fluff but were annoyed with it, pretty much screamed "Heretic!" and were about to break down into PvP (which rarely ends well, especially with the mood of the players involved).

I put a stop to it, gave him 60 corruption and each player a temporary fate point and some renown (a point). At the end of the mission he did it again, his character was pretty well put to death for it.

Another player committed suicide and got up and left because he was bored. He never came back, nor did anyone really invite him back.

if you're playing good guys and a player is so immature that he plays like that then he's just out of the group. haven't had that happed to me, just tell him sorry man you obviously don't wanna play this.

Ya. This was a couple years ago. And yeah, he never played again.

EDIT: The two weren't the same players.

I find it's a good idea to have some sort of discussion about the campaign beforehand. If half the players (as opposed to PCs) are expecting an actionfest and the other half are expecting mostly diplomacy, then there is going to be a problem. The 40k background has a bit of a learning curve and some effort should be made to bring people not familiar with it up to speed, if only so they have some handle on what's going on.

Once a campaign has started, I try talking it out with players (or GMs) I've an issue with. The idea is for everyone at the table to have fun and one person shouldn't be allowed to ruin that for everyone else. That can mean they change their behaviour or their game.

Sometimes a guy acting a bit strange can be a laugh. For example we have an absolute bastard of a Raven Guard Techmarine who during a mission booby trapped a dead body with a melta-bomb. He carried the guy around, with the melta bomb inside him, for the rest of the mission, looking for a good place to put him. He didn't find one, so when he got back he spent the requisite xp to turn the guy into a Servitor follower. Fred the Servitor has become the KT's robo-butler and heavy weapons guy, and we all love him.

On the other hand, the same player asked me whether he could persuade the rest of the team to allow him to install melta bombs in the other PCs. I told him that if he did this then he'd face trial from the Inquisition and the Lords Dragon, and faced a high risk of being executed.

Try and think about the in-universe consequences of their actions. That normally works for me.

As to the Ultramarine who sounded so fond of Chaos, I would probably have created a daemonic creature, inadvertently summoned by the obnoxious marine's actions, stat it to utterly outclass the obnoxious marine, and have it call him out on his honor to one on one combat.

I suppose this means my answer to the OP is that I tend to put in-game consequences for griefers, and steer things in just such a way as to have it work towards that player's character's demise.

If they're serious about playing the game, they'll reroll and hopefully be a little wiser, if they don't reroll, I'd rather not have them at the table anyway.

Also I try to be upfront and honest about how this game is going to be, and I don't sugar coat anything. "We are playing Deathwatch, and the way I run involves a lot of action and very little dialogue with NPCs and problem solving". "We are playing Dark Heresy, in combat, most of the things I bring out will kill you. I fully expect running away to be a big part of this game, so I'll be focusing the game on more investigative and social activities".

Decessor said:

I agree! I am know to run a pretty dynamic action game, more often than not. I'm actually not very good a investigative-type games… GM wise. But still, I try to tell players what the game/campaign's mood should be, according to me at least. Other times it has gone without issue.

AlphariusOmegon7 said:

Agreed on this as well. The off odd action can indeed be great! My group of friends' many year of gaming has always included it (once I had a sniper body surf on top of a rebel PDF along a hallway…unsure why haha), but also it means that no one really takes games seriously… ever. Except a few of us. Also in universe repercussions are the standard for minor things like the UM's actions, I had him killed by the party's favorite NPC/"partner."

CrunchyDemon said:

He didn't roll again, most of the group played again at different meetings, but he admitted that it was never his setting. The NPC challenged him to an honor duel/execution and lightning attacked him to death with a power sword on the first round… it was a big laugh, even for the UM's player, which was good. Yeah, I told everyone how it was (I was a last minute guest GM for a group I normally didn't go to despite knowing everyone in the group fairly well).