As for the example you cite, I would not be all that interested in participating either, unless the position described was intended purely to be the starting position of the various factions, not to change unless such change could be justified by a pattern of trustworthy behaviour.

While roleplaying is not generally a competitive persuit, unlike a board game, giving characters a starting position for the race that they represent, and specific political objectives to be achieved that are in competition, can be perfectly valid. In fact, I have seen and heard of such games in various political science classes modelled on the United Nations where this technique is used to demonstrate the complexity of issues.

I am curious as to exactly what was said when you “talked to the GM about trying to make this campaign work and he refused to budge”. Was this a case of the players attempting to issue ultimatums to the GM, or suggesting that they learn to work together simply because their characters are PCs? Was the GM justified in taking his hard-line position?

While it’s true that a campaign doesn’t exist without players, it’s equally true that the GM is more than a mere facilitator for the players. It’s his world and his campaign, and while the players are participants, they don’t have the authority to overrule the GM just because it makes for better gameplay for them. This authority belongs to the GM exclusively; but it has to be balanced with the responsibility for making the campaign enjoyable, or (as in the example case) it will not last. Personally, I think his biggest mistake was starting things off with the PCs in such a dominant position, the focus of each race’s expectations and prejudices. I would have started them as relative nobodies, with mandated iniital attitudes, and let both the ruler being targetted for assassination, AND the assassins, AND those behind the assassination, all be NPCs. This puts the PCs in a position to find a way to work through their prejudices and find a way to cooperate without putting the entire campaign concept on the chopping block. Even so, success on the part of the PCs in achieving some level of mutual respect and cooperation would not have changed the world – that would have been the central task of the entire campaign. From antagonism and imminant war to a lasting peace due to the PCs actions – that’s a campaign worth playing in!

Sorry if I offend anyone, just trying to cover all points, and nothing was really said about how the GM ran the game.

I would keep asking each of the other pc’s “What are you doing now?” at regular intervals, to keep them involved at an equal level and try to give them all an equal playing time.
If the new player is still trying to hog the DM time then it’s time for a one to one chat.
I know it’s difficult as a DM not to give too much time to a player who has his own interesting agenda. I’ve been in a few games like that and it does get a bit annoying for the other PCs.

TheLemming’s last blog post..Short Updates 2009-02-25

1) I met with the player individually to find out what was really going on. I was very pleased to learn that it was just the player getting really into the character and nothing more.

2) We decided that it would be best if this character left the group. Together we planned a spectacular adventure that resulted with betrayal and the problem character slipping away unpunished.

3) We agreed that I could and would use this character as a reoccurring villain, with strong input from the player who developed the character in the first place.

In the months to follow, the party has grown even closer, including the new character that joined the group shortly after the betrayal. Now they look forward to any chance to fight this major enemy. It’s become much more personal for the entire party.

What was originally a big problem has turned into a great storyline.

@ Mxyzplk: You have a valid point, one that I thought I had covered in my answer. However, your comments added a fresh perspective on the whole question: this is exactly the sort of thing that you might expect to see from a clash between an “old school” roleplayer and gamers whose experience derives from MMORPGs and other online gaming. Which is a whole different can of worms. As I suggested, it might come down to the players having different expectations of what the game is going to be all about.

From the minimal information provided in the question, I get the impression that most of not the whole group are relative novices when it comes to gaming, though maybe that’s only the DM. Which is a whole different possibility again: I have seen some cases in which experienced DMs have trouble “letting go” when they are playing in someone else’s campaign. I have even seen one GM-turned-player who, out of frustration with a system mechanic that wasn’t working, deliberately set out to sabotage one of my campaigns because I had all the players that he wanted to be available for one of his games, something he later admitted. It would have been far better all round if he had simply told me of the problems he was having with the game mechanic, then we could have worked out a solution together, just as we did when someone else encountered the same problem.

Ultimately, anything in the whole gamut of human emotions could be the root cause of the problem, and unless that root cause is identified and addressed, anything other solutions will be bandaids at best.

For a person like this, they are honestly trying to play a character. A character doesn’t have to be a hedonistic psychopath to not necessarily trust four trained killers he just met. Besides “bribery,” what have the other *characters* done that would cause a person meeting and engaging with them to trust them? Perhaps this is a RP learning experience for the group and not this guy.

Or maybe he’s a jerk that needs setting straight. But all too often I see that assumption in an established group that does things a certain way and has become comfortable at their current level of RP. New ideas, even frankly “better” ones, get rejected out of complacency.

Consider handling situations like this in character rather than immediately leaping to metagame. Try to get the character to trust your characters for reasons more sound than “we’re all PCs!.” If he actually does things that in the real world would cause you to attack him or “fire” him or whatever, do that. (Playing in character works both ways. If someone steals from their party members because “they’re a thief,” then turn ‘em in to the cops and say “I don’t want you around me and my stuff, dude.” Then often it may be new character time so that the player can rejoin the action.

mxyzplk’s last blog post..Fourth “Empire of Ashes” Session Summary Posted