If you don't want to talk to a player alone, and you don't want to confront them at the table, consider taking them aside with one other player, so you don't feel alone.
Matthew Colville unrelated comment, I just wanted to let you know that because of you I have started using the phrase "I am a river to my people". I haven't even watched Laurence of Arabia...
What great advice! This is one of the situations where life skills from work can be directly relevant to DnD, but also how we learn to interact with and manage other people can be transferred into the real world. Seriously, once I have some experience with this, I'll definitely bring it up in a job interview if I think I handled it well.
Joshua do you mean the player don't know the game as well/less experienced/a bit slower than the rest of the table? If so i'd say that doesn't have to be a problem - I assume the rest of the table will realise this as well so why not nudge the player into making that into a character trait? Using one players weakness could be great from a storyline perspective and playing with more experienced or "better" players will rub off in the end and make for a nice character arc so that as that player improves in confidence so can the PC. We all have to start somewhere remember!
Rod of Wang Rod, artifact This sturdy rod ends in a bulbous finial. As a bonus action, you can attach it to the pommel of a weapon by thrusting it into the weapon's handle, or detach it by pulling it out. A weapon with this rod attached deals an extra 2d8 thunder damage on a hit. When you miss with a weapon that has this rod attached to it (voluntarily or otherwise), you can use your reaction to strike the ground instead, creating an enormous "wang" sound. When you do so, choose a wang size between 1 and 5. All creatures within a number of feet of you equal to the wang size times 5, including yourself, take 6d10 thunder damage. The damage to yourself cannot be reduced, resisted, or negated in any way. When the wang damage is dealt, roll a d6. If the result is equal to or under the wang size, you cannot use this reaction again with the specific attached weapon until the next dawn.
Wang Rod - Cursed Item - Disadvantage on all Charisma Checks with all other Players and DM. When you roll you must utter the phrase, "But that's what my character would do." - Lose ability to read social cues. - Gain the ability to be totally self centered. Can not be dispelled. - Count 2, 8 or 14 as a Nat 20 & Nat 1 become 19, by giving dice a little nudge.
One really good example of compromise, which I think you've talked about before, is how Travis handles shopping episodes in Critical Role. Watch any shopping episode, and you can see Travis immediately tune out - Grog or Fjord, it's *Travis* who thinks shopping in D&D is literally the worst. But when he tunes out, he doesn't pull anyone else out with him, he doesn't pull out his phone and start playing Candy Crush, and he doesn't sit there grumbling about "When are we going to get to something important?" (Although he does complain good-naturedly when other people ask how he's doing). Everyone at the table knows Travis hates shopping, and as a group they try not to get too bogged down in it so that they can have their fun and he can have his; but all of that is dependent on Travis being a good sport and letting them have their fun instead of being a wangrod.
That’s great- but always remember that everyone in CR is paid to be there. For him, it’s a slow shift at work, not hours of his free time being consumed by a massive shopping session. Travis is a nice guy and an amazing player, but I think it’s fine to ask that the boring parts of a session are moved through more quickly, especially when you have nothing to do or say. I don’t get a lot of free time in a week, I’d rather spend it playing the game than RPing with a shop keeper for the price of rope
Thing is I can't see his characters being too interested in shopping either , they may pick up one specific item or maybe a few potions (if grogs on potion pick up duty, hint : don't do that)then be done for the trip
@@noahblack914 this is where you're thinking binary either they like it or hate it , they may just be like "fine I needs to pick up a few things " ant go from there doing their basic shopping while also looking for role play opportunities like overhearing someone talk about a job they did or a rumor about someone they're looking for , which as a dm I'd definitely try to seed also ,there may be a fight
@@Ike_of_pyke I think you're misunderstanding my point? I agree that both Travis and his characters don't enjoy the extended periods of shopping, and find other fun while that's happening. I was saying that that seems like an obvious choice to me. It'd be a bit strange if he played a character that's way into a part of the game he doesn't enjoy? We often play characters that aren't like us, but in ways that are fun and/or interesting, and primarily narratively, not mechanically. It'd be like not liking combat, but trying to optimally play a technical warrior. Or not enjoying social encounters, but building a party face. Those are more extreme, but it seems similar.
I appreciate the fact you say that sometimes there are fundamental incompatibilities. Its not always about someone being an a hole, sometimes you just quite truly want different games.
Matt mentions that when you confront a player about their behavior, it immediately becomes this situation where that player will be uncomfortable and want to revert to the previous state of not having that conversation. He likened it to having to have a conversation with a worker as a manager. I definitely understand this, but I think there may be a small thing DM's can do to help mitigate this. Part of my management training at work has taught us that part of the reason people feel uncomfortable when confronted about poor behavior/performance etc. is because they're only ever talked to about their behavior and performance when it's negative. So when you say "We need to have a chat," it immediately has a negative connotation to it. The solution to this is to intentionally and continuously have positive conversations with them (sincerely and honestly, fake flattery won't work), and when something negative comes along, it'll be easier and more natural for them to listen to your feedback. They call this the 85/15 rule, meaning 85% of your conversations with a person should be positive in nature. Translating this to DMing, well yeah you're always talking to the players. But maybe the DM should go out of their way to have a post-session chat specifically about player behaviors. What they did that made the game better, what they did that made it worse (as a social experience, not how well their characters performed or something). Or just make a point to praise (on the spot) the kind of behavior you want to see at the table when it happens. Maybe this doesn't actually make sense, but it reminded me of that advice they gave us, and I think it might help with problem players.
JohnMatt3000 great advice. Our DM regularly singles us out in post-game follow-up emails by referencing cool or interesting things we did in the session. "It was awesome when you..." That kind of thing. And then at the next session before starting he might say, "hey Brent, last time you weren't sure about how your feat worked and you had to look it up. Do you want to go over it again real quick or are you good?" It's the kind of management that would make it easy to address a more serious problem if it ever came up.
I like this. Thank you. I have a player who happens to be my wife is the type of player who seems to always be actively trying to argue with every npc and and always get the last word in. I’ve been trying to find ways to have these conversations in a neutral non negative way.
I've heard similar. In this instance ask them about what they want from the game and their character. That way you can see if there are any elements within your control to manage, even if it is just their expectations.
This worked for me years ago, I took over a game troup as the GM. I wanted to try my hand at it and the GM wanted to take a break. He rewarded good sportsmanship in players by giving them a clear d10 they could add to a roll that session when they did good. It worked really well, I don't know why I did not bring that trick with me when I joined in a new group after moving but If I start running a table I would do something like this again.
I've been the problem player, so to speak - in the way that I've had the experience of being the "odd player out". I was invited into an existing group who had played together since their teens, but it turned out we had very different play styles from each other. It took me a long while to realize that it wasn't just a matter of us getting used to each other, but when I did recognize the issue for what it was, I got out. They're nice people and while the DM felt a little hurt and frustrated, because he felt responsible (he wasn't at all) we parted on fine terms. I learned a lot from that experience - not least of them was to ask myself "Wait. Am I actually the odd player out here?" when I am not having as much fun as I thought I would. Even as a DM it's a good question to ask yourself. And I think we can stand to frequently remind ourselves that being the odd player out doesn't equal being a bad person, or even being unliked. May we all find the perfect gaming group for us! Cheers.
The Will of G Hey. The playgroups I "grew up in", seen in the rearview mirror (very early 90's) focused a lot on narrative play and flavor and teamwork, and character building was often done randomly. We always built our characters "in plenum" and even if we didn't always weave our stories together pregame, we kind of always molded a group of characters. It was always a big part of our gaming experience, and I just never really thought about whether our way was "special", because it never came up. The group I talked about above had played together since their teens, and most of them had played exclusively with each other. With this group, pre campaign, we got an email with a short description of our characters' world and situation, and then we just arrived with characters, and it turned out that the tone giving players in this group grew up and enjoyed tactics a lot, and took a lot of their enjoyment from mechanic optimisation if their characters and combat effectiveness, as well as having a true affinity for intense inter party conflict. That was all very new to me. When I identified the source of the friction, I tried stepping up the "mechanical" side of my game, and a few of the group we very much up to meet me halfway with flavor and flaws and interpersonal backstories, but as time went by I just felt like I was not having as much fulfilment from playing with this group as I wanted, and I could tell I was kinda dragging the tone giving players' fun too. It was a frustrating lesson at the time, but very enlightening! None of us had ever had the need to identify our playstyles before, even after so many years, but it turned out we had simply been playing and had fun in two very different bubbles, under vastly different paradigms. It was a sad realisation for a big part of the group when we finally decided to accept that I just didn't fit in very well, but we decided not to take it personally, so we're perfectly fine aquaintances now. I think another part of what went right is that we decided not to argue that any playstyle was bad or wrong, so I was not a Problem Player as such - we were just not a good match, no matter if we liked each other as people well enough. Well, that got long! Sorry about that. :P
My first time ever playing, the entire group was wildly toxic. Partially because the people in it were toxic outside of the game, but also because every single one of us had different playstyles and expectations. My ex-best friend at the time was a classic Actor and it could be incredibly entertaining, but she also wanted to be the star of the show (she also wanted to be playing in Critical Role, not the game we were in); the rogue was a standard wangrod who was high out of his mind at every session; the paladin wanted to play because she would have felt left out if she didn't but otherwise had zero interest in D&D; the bard was the DM's girlfriend and her faerie dragon companion gave her the answers to all of our problems; and the DM himself was so dead-set on NOT railroading us that he outright refused to help the party in any way when we got stuck or didn't know where to go/what to do next. He was perfectly happy to sit there and let us waste time for multiple sessions with absolutely no direction until finally the faerie dragon just gave the bard the answer. If I had to guess, I'd say that from their perspectives my own "toxic player" behavior was that I wanted... reasons for killing the monsters, and the other players/DM didn't share that idea or expectation. The Monster Manual says that goblins are evil, and so that's all we need to know to justify slaughtering the goblin village. There were very few combat encounters that my cleric willingly took part in because most of the time, it felt like we were killing people who were just minding their own business, and the rest of the table - DM included - were pretty regularly frustrated that the party cleric was taking a pacifist stance when they just wanted to show up and kill monsters. Meanwhile, outside of the game, I was spinning my wheels trying to keep the peace as though it was solely my responsibility to fix something that just couldn't be fixed. It was so bad that the eventual implosion of the campaign ruined our actual friendships. As much as I look back on that game and feel miserable that my first exposure to D&D was so dramatically, catastrophically terrible, I also appreciate how much I learned about the game and myself as a player from it.
"Hypothetical Steve" reminds me of Hypothetical Harpsichord, the NPC wizard that my second ever GM named on the spot. He kept saying "Hypothetically", so the party did what parties do and made it into a humiliating nickname. Harpsichord became the BBEG.
I can tell you right now, Matt, the way you described the hypothetical conversation had with a problem player is EXACTLY how my conversations have gone with one player who's been causing some problems in my campaign. Stating they felt attacked, stating that they were singled out, stating they didn't see any issues with their behavior, and even stating that they thought the conversation was unnecessary/needed. You've nailed the exact way these things go, and I can say that I'm honestly surprised my respect for you could have even rose further, but this video has managed to do that. Good stuff.
I agree. I was a little awestruck by how insightful the observation about the player being singled out feeling is. I usually feel that way when I'm being called out on something.
Rohan Emmet Basically, my experience has led to the same result with this over ane over. This approach with these sorts of players only tends to rix the issue for a little bit. They will be vigilant about the problem, but there's a big chance that they'll slip back into that behavior.
10:13 This rings so true to me. I've seen the players show up who are "only here to play D&D" and when the session is over they're out of there. It leaves me, as the GM, feeling like I'd just been used. I like just had a hook-up with a closet-case.
I really appreciate your video on types of players. I’ve often felt like I was a problem player (not without reason) because I didn’t play for the “right” reasons. Learning that there are lots of reasons one might play and the types of players there could be, it has helped me realize that it’s ok to want different things out of TTRPGs as long as I make space for others to do the same. Thank you, Matt
Great advice. I would add two things: 1) before saying, "it seems like you are interested in having a different kind of fun than the rest of the group," we could add the very helpful phrase "when you [blank], it seems..." This makes the statement more direct and let's the player know what behavior is rubbing us the wrong way. 2) even if the talk doesn't seem to go very well in the moment, it is often the case that a person will take more in than it seems. They'll go away thinking about it. They may need time to process it. We could add a preface such as "you don't have to respond to this right away" or "please think about what I'm going to say before you respond". Awesome work, Matt. Thank you for keeping us all realistic.
Ardin Helme same here fam. Although I've known for a while and have been working hard on actively not being a problem player. Matt's been a great help with that tbh
Jan Plewa I mean, I obviously didn't consider myself a problem player, nor do I think I ever really was one looking back. But I can sympathize with a lot of the behavior he describes. I enjoy optimization, and it would not be uncommon for me to point out that someone us performing a less than optimal turn. I would never try to impose my will upon another player, but that being said I don't know that I ever really would have had the chance. You see, I play with my siblings, and we're all fairly new to the game, well, sorta, we've been playing for two or three years now but we are only are able to play every few months due to scheduling. As a consequence of this there is some weirdness with player experience. Since I got bitten by the D&D bug hard, I've gotten super into it and researched a ton of stuff about it, but a lot of my other siblings are still relatively new, so simply mentioning that something is less than optimal is enough to get them to change. I think this has more to do with the fact that at our table everyone wants to do the most that they can, so they don't intentionally do suboptimal things. Funnily enough my first character was a super well optimized Monk, but he was no fun to play, so I changed to a very poorly optimized Bard. When I say that I was on the fast track to becoming a problem player it probably revolves around that. My character not being very optimal causing me frustration in combat. And when you combine that with all of my research into D&D, I could get pretty rules lawyery. These days I'm much better about that stuff, in no small part due to watching Colville, because the idea that you could play suboptimally on purpose intrigues me. It's kinda like optimizing your character as a whole into a specific persona, and that's a strange but interesting concept to me. I don't know if any of this rambling has been helpful to you, but I guess the TL;DR is that I had a habit of being rules lawery that could have gone wang-rodish but it didn't.
Ardin Helme Thanks for sharing that. I realized early on that the tactician in me wanted to do the most expedient option to maximize obtaining goals that I felt would best accomplish finishing a quest. The rules lawyer in me needed a reminder that what is expedient isn't always in character. My solution is now to discuss options with my character`s voice and knowledge rather than from a player perspective and it is my personal rule. Since I have imposed this on myself, discussions on what to do next have been more entertaining and less stressful. Voicing disapproval or enthusiasm comes from the character and playing from the role rather than the overview has provided me with personal challenges to convince others as a Triton Paladin that staying with the river and following its majestic path (instead of a well travelled road) feels like the best choice.
Oh hell yeah, I have definitely edged towards being that player. Watching my mate dump dex as a Warlock made me physically wince, start to comment and then catch myself and say "it's not what I'd do, but seriously ignore my BS and just play you". Hated saying every single word, but I knew it was the right thing to say so I'd say recognising the tendency in yourself is an incredibly good sign.
We had one member in a group that would always cheat by fudging rolls. Others didn't notice it at first but I am a very analytical person, I slowly noticed that his rolls weren't possible for his class, stats, level etc. I watched him more closely and he was fudging his rolls. I brought it up to the group and just to watch him and they all saw it too. WE did bring it up to him and he did admit that he does fudge his rolls. We told him that he needed to stop but said that is not how he wants to play and was not willing to stop. He did get kicked out, which is sad, but we didn't want a cheater.
Thanks for the new name for the librarian in my campaign world town of Steveton. It is a town that is populated by people named Steve. The Sheriff is Steve the Paladin and he is married to the town Wizard, Stefanie. Hypothetical Steve will be the librarian.
@@gmrayoman8758 I have to say I'm disapointed in the fact that you say everyone isnamed steve, and then call the wizard Stephanie. Call her steve, I dare you. (I'm ofc being fasecious, you do you, It's you guyses game)
D&D is a game where people sit around talking to each other. It makes perfect sense that a group that likes to talk to each other as well as playing D&D together is almost always going to be a more enjoyable experience.
A group breaking apart is one of the worst things, it can affect you as a player or GM but it can also affect your long term friendships. It can be a real eye opener, and you can learn things or see things in friends you never fully realised were there. Gaming can be a great joy but its not without risks either. The whole thing with the 'conversation about the problem is perceived to be the problem' - Some people can triangulate, either there at the table or behind the scenes with other players and foster a sense of doubt or discontent with certain players or the DM. I have been on the receiving end of that as both. It can take a long time to realise its going on too if you are a normal naive person thats coming to the table for the sole purpose of playing a game and assume everyone else is too. Sometimes people bring their own baggage along though. They can turn that conversation into evidence of wrong doing on someone elses part. There is no fixing that, that person has to go and it might well damage the group and take a few others that they have poisoned/manipulated. It was an awful situation to watch unfold, terribly damaging to several relationships several of whom are unaware of the full story. I think its a tough lesson for a DM to learn that the answer to what makes a problem player a problem is sometimes nothing to do with the game or the group but its a personality issue, possibly even a personality disorder. It may be tough to actually learn it but the realisation is also a relief because you are letting go of taking responsibility for someone elses issues. You cant solve every problem and if someone comes to the table with issues they dont want to fix you will not fix them. EVER. Great vid, from 13.30 you make some absolutely spot on descriptions of what you can run into with problems players. Oh and the Wangrod was called... Steve haha I chuckled every time you said it. Christ he sure put the Wang in Wangrod!
"Hopefully you'll be able to watch the first five or six minutes..." Matthew you said it at the five minute mark and you haven't started giving advice yet xD aside from that, thank you, your videos are always extremely helpful!
I think that a player only becomes a "problem player" when they start to prioritize their fun over other people's fun. And this can happen with any of the different types of player you mentioned. A Power Gamer can become a Munchkin if they optimize their build so hard that the rest of the party becomes irrelevant. A Tactician can become a Bully if they start to tell other players what they should or must do. Or a Rules Lawyer. An Actor can become a Spotlight Hog if they start to milk every scene for melodrama when the other players aren't interested. A Specialist can become a Special Snowflake if they try to force the story to cater to their particular whims. A Butt-Kicker can become a Slayer if they just kill everything, all the time, and refuse to entertain any other roleplaying. A Mad Scientist can become a Monkey Wrench if their randomness gets in the way of tactics and/or plot. An Audience Member can become a Deadweight if they are unable to take their turn when needed. And Storytellers can become Fatalists if they take the idea of an "honorable death" too far and stop trying to overcome challenges. It's a question of control; everyone wants to have fun, and is using their allotted amount of social power to make the game fun for themselves. But if a player starts to overreach their social control and prevent other players from doing what is fun for them, that makes them a problem. I think that, most of the time, this is an accident and as long as you can power through the "this conversation is the problem" problem, you'll do okay. The only problem player for which there is no hope, is the cheater. This isn't an extension of any player type. This is just asshole behavior.
@@Badartist888 Good point, which also points to a major issue with problem players. Narcissist can't handle being criticized, so giving "constructive criticism" usually won't work
In my case, I was a cheater back in my teens. I got better when I realized that I wasn't just playing a game: I was playing a game *with people.* Once it clicked for me that a major part of the fun of these sorts of games was being a functioning part of the group, that's when I quit worrying about "winning," and finally started to try and focus on the real point of the game.
@@DimT670 Totally agree. As a DM, I've only really encountered "cheating" in a couple of scenarios, and I don't think they're game-breaking. First, to avoid their character's death because they're really attached to that character (or if the character is genuinely important to the party, who'd be in trouble if this character died). Second, to get a vital piece of information the party will miss entirely if they don't obtain it in that moment, which could derail the plot of a great campaign that everyone is really enjoying. As a DM and a player, I'm happy to let either of those scenarios slide. As a player, I also really don't care if another player is fudging their dice rolls a bit if the DM is having a bit too much fun making them, or all of us, suffer. I try to avoid these DMs if I can, but they are a problem all of their own, to be honest.
My best friend was in my game. He was immediately a problem. He was playing Skyrim or some other game, not telling a story with us at the table. We played games together all the time. I thought he was going to be the best player. He was not. He was the worst. He is no longer in my game. He now plays in 2 other games and it actually makes me very sad. I feel like he fixed his problem and took his gaming to other people. I don't really see him much anymore. They always say no dnd is better than bad. But I am super jealous that he got to sharpen his immature attitude on the game I was prepping for us, grow and then move on to other people's games.
Jeremy Williams have you talked to him about this? Could be that there is a game in the future you could play together and see if he's matured and fits in at your table better now.
Run a one shot for two people: your friend and an experienced player that you trust. Give the experienced player instructions to do what your friend says, and observe your friend in action. This is an easy way to find out if someone is a good fit for your table.
No words for how much I appreciate you; your perspective, the years of experience that fed this series, the empathy with which you approach situations like this and your players and the time you have put in putting these videos together. As a very new DM who is excited about the decades of improvement ahead of me, you are a part of that growth and all of the above is a part of every session I DM and play. Thank you, Mr. Colville. Very sincerely.
This is hitting on so many levels, and I wish there were more guys like you on this public platform able to not only touch on these subjects but do so from this useful well of experience. There are plenty who would enter into this kind of discussion with dismissive overtones towards this or that kind of person but you're facing it head on, treating everyone like people you respect and that is just great.
"I think you're looking for a different game from the one we can give you" is the exact response I needed to take when someone I *live* with (gulp) was the problem player. It was really a last resort sort of thing though, because by that point we'd had the discussion at the table "Hypothetical Steve, so you understand, if you walk out of the fight with the big bad of the arc you're effectively retiring your character from this game," we'd also had a couple of discussions off of the table where his response to me nudging him away from going full on murder hobo in a largely story driven group was to blame other people (and *my*) roleplaying, to him finally forcing a fight with the rest of the party, while sabotaging a brilliant bit of RP by another player, on literally the GM's second ever session running the game. It's ugly when you have to do it, and especially when you still like the person involved, but spotting it early is useful and being proactive really did make the difference.
"Dungeon Master! You are not alone, seek succor from your tablemates!" Damn, this is what we come here for, the Colville meta-advice. G-reat video, senpai. I am truly blessed with a great group that has been going strong for almost 5 years, no complaining, lots of DMs, and a variety of games (tho mostly D&D and Gorefest).
Just wanted to say I loved this video subject and I really hope to see more of it! We as a community sincerely need to continue learning about the social side of this game just as much as we learn about making encounters and drawing dungeon maps. Thank you!
I love it when Matt brings up "Setting Expectations" and I think he even just skims the surface of how important it is. Running a session zero, clearly communicating how you want to run the game, and asking for the input of the players early on is going to solve soo many issues before they ever become issues.
I don't think Session 0s solve all of the potential problems, but I think some of this can be addressed earlier if the campaign starts with one, and if the group gets a new players the DM should have a mini-session 0 with them. I'm still new, but I feel like getting sore spots like "team pvp" and "optimal decision vs acting out flaws" out in the air early can at least help things go smooth, even if only for a good many session
Geoffrey Perrin It definitely doesn't, but as you said, it helps. And it helps a lot because even though you probably won't prevent the situation from happening, it sets the bar in case the situation happens. "Alright, we just started a PVP situation. Was PVP allowed? No? We talked about that in Session 0, so why is it happening now? Should it be allowed now? Why do you guys think?"
I'm 5 sessions in to my game and half my players just now realized that I was DMing a sandbox style where they could do whatever they wanted. I said this SESSION 0. It doesn't matter, some players are just thick. I told them that interparty conflict was ok, not everyone had to be friends nor did I expect them to be.., that they could get in over their heads and that i wouldn't just putright kill them. When I introduced the BBEG(a super-lich) and gave them a choice to join him, they thought he would kill them if they didn't that was session 5. A week later I had to have a meeting to reaffirm that there were options and that I never took your agency away. They made assumptions and didn't ask him the lich, or me as the DM questions. I didn't eant to break the immersjon and the drama to interrupt that terrifying scene but that didn't matter. They felt like they had no choice that they had no option and that I put them in a corner. If we had had more time to play they would've seen more options pop ho but tine was a factor and I rhought that was a dramatic dropping off loint for that session 5. I gave them all that info session 0and it meant notbing when it happened.
Thanks for the video. I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to put some thought into these. It's always great to hear some measured, sensible, advice when it comes to tabletop RPGs.
Great video! I had an interesting moment last night where one player’s actions got them into trouble with the local townsfolk when their actions enraged an ogre into killing a villager, then the PC looted the dead body in front of some other villagers who then naturally expressed their displeasure. Nobody got violent, but none of the party backed the PC up and I think it really caused an interesting point of contention. The misalignment in expectations meant the player was expecting the spirit of camaraderie to take precedence, but instead they alienated themselves somewhat from the party and the village.
Hello, Matt! I used the information in this video about a year ago when I first became a dm. My group was a handful of high school students, and they were disruptive players, brought their drama to the table, and began to bully one of the players outside of the game and in the game. I talked to the players and they really were playing d&d just because they wanted to play d&d. So, I invited ALL of my friends who were interested in the game and they became so interested in the game, that the bullies from the original group stopped coming. We've been playing consistently for about a year now after that, beating Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation, and are trying to finish Waterdeep! I think all your videos are so down to earth, and very helpful. Thank you so much.
I wish I saw this a year ago. It is so important to bring this up when it happens and not to ignore it. Problems do not get better with time. No gaming is better than bad gaming.
An idea. Instead of struggling to wrap one's head around the difficulty (e.g. running a session specifically catering to the weird needs of PP), the GM can do something to broaden the scope for the group. Namely, every now and then inserting a totally different one-shot game. One which kicks the players out of routine playing experiences. For example, GM can announce that he/she has an idea to produce a richer and more fun plot. And ask players to help, using, say, a session of Fiasco - it is really a wonderful tool for creating juicy antagonists. Also Fiasco is a 'play-to-lose' game, an antidote for those who want to win, since here they experience that losing can also be fun. Also they will have more fun in following sessions, meeting those NPCs they played at Fiasco session. By the way, I have facilitated a lot of Fiasco sessions, and never had a single problem player...
There's a few ways to mitigate "problems" at the table. I have developed a habit of two tenets in my GM introduction. First, as a GM, I do not play God. I even tell Him what to do. (it establishes my in game authority)... Second, I do not believe in "plot armor" in my campaigns. You are expected to adventure at your own risk. (it establishes, that I'm not mommy, and there won't be hand holding and nursing through this thing)... I do applaud you, Matt, for the point that this isn't therapy, nor a grandma's poetry recital. It's D&D, and we (GM's) are not parent figures meant to babysit and coddle the Players through their rambling petty discontents. It's a collaborative game and I'm supposed to be making problems for the Players to take on... not the other way around... Talk is a good (or even great?) first step. At the same time, talk is cheap. Yet, I use the regular XP doling as a great opportunity to "train" my Players for the kind of game experience I hope to bring to everyone at the table. I dole out Party XP for all the group endeavors, and then individual XP awards for Role Play, Problem Solving, Creativity, and Genuine Playing the Game stuff... During the Individual awards, I invite the table for commentary. This ingrains in the Players a sense of camaraderie, that they stick up for each other as much as call each other out for "malicious antics" in the game. It lends the whole group a certain agency with each other's XP bonuses to get their "two cents' worth" involved in addressing behavior issues, metagaming too much, unimaginative actions, wall-flowers, and all the way to Power Gaming... It tends to tighten a group into a focused and well running effort for the collaborative story we want, while occasionally weeding out the disruptive types who either don't understand the game in our style, or simply thought they'd come in to over-ride everything and dominate the board... or worse, trying to win D&D. As you very aptly pointed out, though... For some there simply is not a solution. Sometimes, there are just people who don't need to play D&D, and there are some people who simply will not fit with some groups. There is a group and game for just about everyone, though. I agree with that too. AND finally, I think (based on experience here) I've noticed that a lot of problems, are experience related. There are probably phases and stages of Role Play, both as Players and as GM's. Some of these inexperienced problems are only problems because there hasn't been a chance to practice and then apply something for that situation... Like creating the narrative to fit Splitting the party up. That's usually (early on in D&D) a horrible thing to do, almost always resulting in a TPK unless the GM nerfs the encounters to fit the two new parties created... or worse. Somewhere along the line, a GM starts to figure out how to pace it so he can go back and forth, and encourage his Players through just enough antics to get the party back together. Further along, there's almost no need to split the party without some tactical advantage and a nod of GM approval while he's already foreseen the likelihood. BUT that first split-up, is an awkward, tedious, brain warping pain... and can easily turn to a TPK... just for spite. Sure, there are other forms of "problematic behavior" but they come at stages and in waves. The more we play, the further we explore, and then the easier we seem to return to a sort of core of "what's good is classic" and "what's classic is timeless". SO... how do YOU prefer to handle "noob's" at the table? ;o)
Hey Matt, I would like to let you know that watching this video has showed me that earlier in my life, I resided in the territory of being a problem player. It helped me self-reflect and aim to be a better player as it is a big burden on my DM's shoulders to design a world for me and my friends to banter in. For that, I thank you my man :)
I have two groups that I run for and (thankfully) don't have a problem player as such, but I do have a group that I think have very different expectations from D&D. A couple of them are very much about pursuing character goals, building a tavern, getting revenge for a murdered friend etc. One is very much about pushing the overall story forward, and another likes the routine of "find enemy, plan, kill it" and likes the freedom to explore the different ways of achieving a goal, not strictly the most direct or easy route. I think Matt is right when he says there is a table for everyone, you can't expect every person who turns up to play to enjoy all the same aspects as each other or you. I'm fortunate that my group knows my personality and my style, they also know that I like to throw in lots of different ideas into a campaign and understand that eventually, they'll get the session they want. That's really, really important for a group. A campaign doesn't have to carry the same tone all the way through. If you have a player that obviously likes a bit of levity and silliness, through in a few side quests that have that style. If you have someone who likes relentless action, give them that big battle they have been itching for. Not all the time, you have other players to cater to, but sometimes. And, if you are a player, wait your turn. Your DM is working hard to bring you fun every week (in most cases). Make your expectations clear without making demands, and the part of the game that you love will come around. Don't try to make it all about you, that's not D&D and it's not playing with friends, that's writing a novel. All comes back to what Matt says about Sportsmanship. I never really thought of it in that term before but he's so dead on, it's excellent advice. It greases the wheels of a healthy group, same with the DM having a degree of authority. That doesn't mean you have to boss people about, authority can be a friendly thing. Excellent video, Matt.
Reverend Rover can I ask some questions. 1. Did you do anything help the groups understand your style or does that just come with time? 2. Do you believe the people at those tables have to be separate because their styles are so different? 3. How did you figure out when one of your ideas interested a group?
14 minutes in and I agree with everything about your point about good sportsmanship and compromise...I agree with everything except the "no grumbling and no grousing". That's like, the number one thing my friends and I do. I think that might be our foundation that we built decades on, is the ability to say "this sucks" in a relatively funny way.
Hey Matt, generally good advice here. My only disconnect was in saying that you think the best players are the ones that would be happy to play another game and that those that only show up to play D&D tend to be the problem players. I play in a weekly Wed night group at my FLGS and didnt know anyone until the day I first showed up and sat down at the table. I look forward to this night SO much and the people I play with are engaged, they are creative, we all gel together and have an amazing time. We created a group text and talk throughout the week and plan and discuss and all get excited as Wed draws near. I can say, however, that as much fun as we all have and the bods D&D has created, if the store closed down D&D and decided to make it board game night or any other game, it would fall apart. We are there to play D&D and have an amazing time doing it. I also run a Sunday night game. Many of these players would be more than happy to just have a movie night, or play another game, or just hang out and socialize. They all enjoy playing D&D... but they would be just as hapy to play any game I dropped in front of them. In this group, one of the players constantly wanders away from the table. Every turn has to ask "who has taken damage?" and is (by all accounts) a problem player. He's a good friend... he likes having fun and he enjoys playing... but (and I'll say this is Colorado and he does partake in a lot of weed smoking) the fact that he would be happy to play ANY game, the fact that he isnt there "to play D&D" has caused me to loose players who did want to play the game and got frustrated. I have 2 current examples of groups and both conflict with what you said. Otherwise, your video was spot on. As to how I dealt with it, I closed down the Sunday game. I'm now creating a new custom world, and when Im ready to start again, it will be with many new players.
This is all fantastic advice. Thanks Matt. I did want to say that my experience with groups has been different in the sense of players being friends that play alot of games... In my experience we get together to specifically to play DnD and only DnD. It has worked great for me/us. I played for 6 years with a group that only played DnD. We only stopped beause i had to move away. And I'm in a group now that's been going for 2 years and we only get together for DND. This obviously doesn't change the meat and potatoes of this video. I just thought I'd add my experience.
At the beginning you mentioned there are two problems: One problem player, or a misalignment with everyone. You mostly touched in having one problem player. In my game I’ve got 5 players that want something different. And 3 of them obviously want something different. From what myself and 2 other players want. This leads to moments of stepping over each other’s feet in game and ruining plans or making the game less enjoyable for others. I’ve attempted to fix this about a month ago by trying to discuss what everyone wants and what their characters want. But this put all of the solution in myself and I got overwhelmed with trying to figure out a way to cram what everyone wants into one session. And now we’re back to steeping on each other’s feet. I plan on trying to simplify and out source the work for everyone to do their own part, but I know based on the effort those 3 players have put in, that they likely won’t take the step to improve or change how they approach the game.
Hey Matt, love your videos man! One of my players is starting down the road of "problematic". So your timing with this video is spot on! Anyway I'm working on solving this problem already, and what I did was this; I talked to him about some of the red flags I noticed popping up for the last few sessions. I decided one-one would be best for this person. We talked, but as you said, he wanted to stop as quickly as we could... however I felt he understood where I was coming from and said he would work on it. With that, I spoke to each of my other members to let them know what we'd talked about and what I'd like to see from everyone moving forward. Everyone agreed I did the right thing and they were happy the talk happened. I feel as though I was direct with my words and questions, yet gave him room to express his side and feelings of the events. Granted he was very defensive while talking. Anyway, your advice on groups being tight knit and playing other games together is a great Idea, I'm going to see how it pans out and we'll likely take a week away from our D&D sessions. I'm sure my players will be eager to jump back into D&D the following week and hopefully, we can build our bonds some going forward. In closing, I hope this problem works its self out in the end, I feel like, for the most part, we're already past it. But I get the feeling that it wont be the last time a red flag pops up, I'd hate to ask someone to step down, he's not a bad player, he's just slightly aggressive, controlling, and a bit of a rules lawyer (only when it suits him though). But again, Hopefully this wont keep being a problem.
@@Link933 Ah wow, this was a while ago huh? Let's see what I remember lol. While everything went okay for the remainder of that campaign, I realized that he wasn't really the only problem. I started writing for our next campaign and one of my good friends/player offered to take over DMing for me while I did. I don't know what it was, maybe me being a player and not having to juggle 100 things at once? Either way, it let me observe the group a bit more. I learned that two other players were actively playing other games, in the middle of the session, while the rest of the party was trying to get shit done. Hence why they were so quite when we played. Anyway, at this point I was running a vampire campaign too while also playing in my friends game. Once the vamp campaign came to a close I had made up my mind. Half our party was great, the other half... not so much. Worse still was that two of the problematic players were friends of my good players. I let them join per those requests... Meaning I never had the time to properly vet them before they joined, a mistake I wouldn't make again! lol So... I finally finished writing for my next campaign and decided that sharing all my hard work with those three would just be more upsetting for me than fun. So I set out on a LFG reddit group and made a post for my next campaign. Not sure if it was my writing, setting, or what... but I got over 60 applications for the three slots. I spoke with my good party members and they were fully understanding of me trying to find better party members. After days of interviews, I did indeed find the people that make up my current party! We're actively playing that campaign every week, with a big party of seven (eight with myself). Been playing for nearly two years with the new guys and have zero complaints about anyone in that session. The current game is going great and everyone is quite active!
@@IICubeII oh man, the playing a different game on the side thing seems pretty disrespectful. Glad the current game is going great and thanks for the response.
I agree with most of what you say, but I feel it mainly applies to a home game. My route back into D&D came through a brilliant game store, where many groups got together through the store's Facebook page. This means that many players are making contact just to play D&D. They don't know the rest of the group until they meet, then they are in that group to play that one game. Being part of that gaming community gives them outlets to scratch their gaming itch in other events run by the store, but D&D night is for that - nothing else. In that context, where friendships build at the table and are delicate constructs, public conversations about trouble players can be quite destructive. Equally, many gamers have social anxieties which collaborative gaming helps with. There is a much higher representation of neuro-atypical people in the gaming world. Public confrontations can be devastating, even when handled sensitively. In all 3 long campaigns I have played in store there was at least 1 player with ASD or other social difficulties. In 2 of the 3, we had a problem player who fell within this group. I tend to think this is typical of gamestore groups, although I have no empirical evidence for this. For this reason, I would suggest a more phased approach, with phase 1 being a quiet conversation away from the table, perhaps by text, email, Messenger or whatever.
I've recently had an extreme advancement in self-awareness. I was DMing for 2 years for this group of friend/collegues and they were all having fun (i guess due to the fact they kept asking/organizing the next session each week),,,, but I wasn't! I know it's NOT my game but at least i should have fun in my freetime.... i was giving them what they wanted (killing stuff and seducing any female... alive or not).... after a year and half of slow building burnout i've decided it was enough. I've let one of the players take the mantle and i've stepped out of the group. Don't get me wrong they are fine people, but their gaming style isn't mine... i don't want nor have the right to impose my will BUT... in the end i've realized that is true both ways! Maybe i will find another group maybe not... atm i don't really care...I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
I recently ended a campaign for similar reasons. It became more work than fun. I've used this time in between campaigns to write potential adventure/campaign ideas and do more world building stuff so that I can really just sit back and enjoy the next campaign without stressing about what I've got to plan next. I foresee my next campaign going really well mainly just because I'm much more organized now.
Something familiar... In my place, most players I've played along with have been satisfied with flat killing and looting. Also not my favorite style. I'm more into narrative heavy and rules light games. And I suspect that both D&D and PF with their monstrous monster tomes provoke certain type of games. Whenever I get a group to play some indie RPGs it's totally different experience.
A phrase to start the conversation starts at 5:39 . Id recommend leaving out the "but" when transitioning to the second phrase. "But" devalues everything that was said before. It can emotionally invalidate. Compare (just say these phrases out loud to yourself and see which feels better): "Listen Steve, I want you to have fun playing DnD with us. BUT I am not having fun right now. I want us all to get along and it seems like you want different things from the game." To: "Listen Steve, I want you to have fun playing DnD with us. And I want to have fun as well, which I'm having a hard time with. I want us all to get along and it seems like you want different things from the game." Additionally, you can experiment with how much of a "you vs me/us" you are creating. You want Steve to be aware they are breaking the norm, and at the same time, you want them to still feel part of the group.
Regarding the "...not taking the game seriously" issue, it may be worth suggesting a session (or even a one-shot) in which you play it their way. Sometimes it's fun to kick the dungeon door down and kill the monsters, and the only motivation is "duh, they're monsters". Sometimes its fun to go a silly route and play for laughs. And sometimes getting to do that (and even overdo that for an entire night) is enough to scratch the itch of the player who is only there to roll dice and make jokes. There will still be communication necessary, but it may be something worth trying once in a while.
The issue is when the rest of the group absolutely does not want to do that. Like, I, when I was still new to DMing, was running a group that was made almost entirely of people that enjoyed thick, serious gameplay (myself included), and one person who was completely taking the game without the slightest semblance of seriousness. If I catered to that one player, not only would I have a more unpleasant night, but so would the rest of my players.
Elijah Scott Absolutely. And I think that style of game has a shelf-life anyway. Sometimes, it only takes a session or so for people to "get it out of their system" so to speak. Sometimes not, of course, but it doesn't hurt to try.
Agreed, people being annoyingly stubborn and stuck in their own way of doing things has been a serious problem, especially within Tabletop D&D. There has to be some leeway in any social interaction or you're gonna have a hard time.
Yeah, I mean, even if you manage to pull off the improbable and get 4-6 like-minded people together around the table, you're still not clones. Gotta be accommodating from time-to-time, or, even better, try to find a little fun in their style, especially if you're pushing them to find the fun in yours.
I think the group discussion is a useful tool for dealing with problem players, but I don't think it should be the first one. I think pulling the rough equivalent of a public name-and-shame is a quick way to get people resentful. Whenever I've had to have a talk with a player in one of my games, with two exceptions they genuinely didn't realize they were doing the problem behaviors. I pulled them aside privately, approached it as a problem to be solved rather than a stern talking-to ("Hey, this is the situation, this is why it's an issue, how can we avoid it in the future?"), and they've turned into model players. Occasionally I'll have to remind one if they start slipping into bad habits, but it's a rarity and it's almost never intentional. Of course, problem players who this does NOT work on, can then be best addressed at the table. Bring the group into it, it establishes clear escalation without being unreasonable (this is still a "this is an issue, we'd like to solve it with you" conversation, after all) and it establishes clear cause and chain-of-events in case the player continues doing the thing and you need to take the nuclear option and ask them to find another table to play at (hopefully avoiding gossiping about the tyrant dm who kicked their friend out of the group for no reason)
While the sentiment of having a group who plays games and one of them happens to be D&D may be your experience, I don't think that is how it works for most people. Not all of us just have friends that all want to and have the schedule alignment to play D&D together. As a player I went out and join random groups that met for D&D and managed to meet some great people, and I learned a lot playing with some great DMs that I would have never have known playing with friends. The first group I started was made from people who I'm friends (and friends of friends) with and happen to like D&D, that crashed and burned because we all had different ideas about what we wanted from a game and the level of investment wasn't there. So I gave it another shot and found most of my players online. My players now all have the same passion for D&D that I do, and they have similar outlooks on what they want since I clearly defined my philosophy and how I want to run things as a DM beforehand. We all come to the table because we love D&D, not some other random game, and it has been going great so far.
Well his point doesn't seem to be pick people you have played with before, but play with people that you *can* play other things with in the future. If your new dnd group that you've only played dnd with cuz that's how you met them one night goes "hey wanna play cards against humanity? Not feeling up for the whole dnd thing", if those are people you really enjoy playing with you'l probably sit down and play with them even if CAH isn't as fun to you as DnD. And the act of having players willing to compromise means you have a good group of people who can empathize with eachother and see beyond their own PoV. His point wasn't "only play with people you've played with before" but play with people that are tolerable outside of the DnD table.
I think that is a nice ideal scenario, and D&D is better when you know who people are outside of the table, but it takes time and trust to build that kind of relationship. If your group has a problem player in it than people are less likely to get to the point where the group would attend a session of Cards Against Humanity rather than skipping it to do something else. There is a huge gap between someone who may not be comfortable with playing different games with a group for a variety of reasons and a problem player. A lot of Matt's advice can be applied universally, but that is a statement that is limited by his perspective. Working in the games industry and being a published author gives Matt far more opportunities to meet people who are passionate about D&D and tabletop games than the average person. I'm the only person at my company that plays D&D, most of my co-workers don't even know what D&D is. If your life is surrounded with people who have those passions it becomes the norm to be in a group that would play a variety of tabletop games. Someone who is just there to play D&D tends to be a problem player for the style of groups Matt plays in, but it is a correlation Matt noticed from his perspective and not an actual sign of an actual problem player. I don't think people should be using it as criteria for determining problem players, since that likely isn't a problem at most tables.
Yes but his point isn't necessarily wrong it's just not likely for everyone to achieve. I went from gaming with only my group of friends to gaming at our local dnd club and i went from never having a problem player to consistently having problem players and usually it boiled down to the player unwilling to compromise what *he* wants from games to facilitate the good of the group having a good time. If you sit down with a group of friends you know you can play games with for hours then you know for sure you will get a game with players who are willing to compromise with eachother to have fun. You aren't guaranteed that when you play with people you found *just* to play dnd. He isn't saying that having groups of random people *creates* problem players it just means you're more likely to get someone who hasn't figured out how to compromise with others for the good of a group. The point to take away from this is "not to only play with people that you currently are friends with" it's that people you have had gaming nights with countless times before will already know how to empathize with others.
I agree Luckmaker. That's just been his experience. I'm in four groups now, and all we play together is D&D. Several of the members are now friends, though we started as strangers. My groups are certainly healthy groups -- if they weren't I'd be kicking the problems, as I've done in the past. I think that groups that start as friends who then play D&D are more likely to conform to his experience. Groups that start as strangers who come together to play D&D are more likely to only play D&D together. All that said, the day I lose interest in D&D or would like a break, I'd be open to playing something else briefly. However, D&D is what brings us all together.
My D&D buddies started out at adventures league thursdays at our local games shop. then we started a homebrew campaign when we were tired of that. That was 4 years ago now. We still get together to play, and over time we've played a lot of other rpgs and board games too. Sometimes the DM just isn't in the mood and that's why I always keep terraforming mars and evolution in my car. :)
Thanks for another great video Matt, definitely some solid advice. My in-person group I've been playing with for ~3 years now has several problem players, and it's making the current campaign completely tedious for me, and I think for pretty much everyone else too. One of them, the one that brought this group together to begin with and spent the first two-ish years DMing us and is now a player, is only engaged in moments where he is the center of attention, often scrolling through stuff on his phone during others scenes or simply wandering off to lie down on the couch or whatever. He constantly needs details repeated to him from the DM, breaking everyone's immersion, and ruining the flow of scenes. He's also playing a goblin character, but then not accepting the social ramifications of that within a world where goblins tend to be, well, monsters who kill civilized folks, seeming to want everyone to just accept him as a normal character. One of the other players really doesn't want to be playing D&D, as he hates the mechanics, especially those of combat. He really wants to be playing a system built more for fluid and freeform combat, that doesn't use initiative trackers or really many dice. So whenever we have combat (which I love and have mostly built my character around) I feel like I don't get to enjoy it cos his demeanor turns completely sour and his character only begrudgingly gets involved in combats at all, sometimes even just running off and hiding somewhere. I'm not the DM of that group though, so I don't feel like it's my place confront these players. I know the DM has tried to adjust the game to incorporate more for the anti-combat player, and I know he's talked to the other player too, but nothing's improved, and for many months now I walk away from every session feeling like it's been not only a waste of time, but also severely frustrated and like maybe it's time I drop out of the group, even though I really don't want to, cos I consider them all to be really good friends, and I don't want to not play with them anymore. Maybe, ultimately I'm the problem player though. I want to play a serious, combat heavy, RP'd campaign in a homebrew world, where players get into character, and take the situations seriously and add to the immersion rather than taking away from it. I don't want to play other games most of the time, because I love the D&D system so much. It works for how I like to play the game, and the settings I like to play in. I play in two long-running 5e D&D campaigns, and am writing and running my own homebrew campaign for a group too. I honestly don't know, maybe I'm just too passionate about this game!
Sounds like you have options, at least. I mean, does the DM know you feel this way? Maybe the lazy Goblin-player would be more inclined to change his ways if he got some pushback from the group?
Matt, I just wanted to let you know I've watched a lot of your videos I've implemented a lot of your advice. The last Star Wars adventure I ran and it was a blast because of it. You've helped me be a better GM and the game has improved.
Simon Hobson same here. My buddy is running a side game for us, (normally I dm) and he recreated his own city to the east of the Land of Amn in Faerun. Been a lot of fun to be a player for once.
Hey Matt, thanks for the great video. Definitely going to make use of some of this advice. One thing I've had an issue with is a player who spends a lot of the game time (10-30 minutes per session) arguing with the GM about EVERYTHING. It's in part because they don't have a solid grasp of the rules and tend to skim-read abilities. They're also very strongly opinionated, which causes them to want to argue GM rulings on rules and abilities and also tend to argue narrative points or the power level of NPC characters. Eventually many of their arguments boil down to "that's so bullsh*t". I feel like the core of the issue is that they're not respecting my authority as the GM, nor are they considering the other players at the table. I think part of the reason they don't respect my authority as GM is because they tend to think of the campaign as a video game, and one where they can argue and petition directly with the game to make changes that they want. We're all good friends out of game, and this particular player is heavily invested in their character and the world I've been building. I've been pretty lenient with them so far (I'm not a very confrontational person), but I have talked to them about their behaviour before. They said they would try to work on it, yet nothing has really changed. I've talked to another player about them and the consensus was that I would make my expectations clear next time there's an issue. If you have any further advice, that would be fantastic.
I think I read a comment up top that said something about words being only as strong as your actions behind them. So if your player is not changing his or her way, I'd say it is ok to crack down on them by just saying you won't discuss this with them now and if there are any rule-problems or whatever, to come to you after the session. If your discussions are always gonna end with him calling bullshit, you might as well just skip to that part immediately.
I think you'd have to be as firm as you can be that you're not discussing this with him at the table, that it can be discussed at a later date. Point out that other people are waiting to get on with the game.
I'm a pretty stern DM- I try not to be overly mean or anything but when players try to 'negotiate' with me about how I run the game, I don't have a lot of patience. Usually, if a player is unhappy and says that they want something to be done a different way, I explain why it happened that way and suggest other actions they can take to get the outcome they want. For example if a player tries to use an ability in a way it can't be used, I just say "sorry, that ability doesn't work that way. If you're trying to achieve X, you could always try methods A or B." That way I am clear that no, they cannot take that course of action to get the outcome they want, but give them other ideas to think about so that they don't feel I am limiting them or shutting down their desires. That being said, if someone is CONSISTENTLY arguing with me for a LONG time after I have already told them that they can't do something, or that they can do it but it won't work the way they think it should, I get strict and employ some DM punishments. For instance if someone is arguing with me about a ruling during their turn in combat, I say "okay- it has been over 5 minutes of this and your combat turn has passed with your character just standing there. Next player! What are you going to do?" Also I have had players who are just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and when they are bickering with me about something maybe about how the world works, or they think an NPC should have responded a different way, I just say that their character got struck by a bolt of lighting and they took 2 damage. And then if they keep arguing then oh hey wow another bolt of lightning! How odd! (I save this for the players who I know will just laugh it off and take the hint to move on. Also by the time they enter into any combat I let them know that they have healed from the lightning damage) Ummmm so that was a lot longer than I thought it would be but they're just some ways I deal with difficult players. I try to be clear that during the game we are going by MY rules, and I call people out when they halt the progress of the entire group in order to argue one tiny detail. Obviously, different things work for different people and players, but I hope you manage to everything out and both you and your players can have a more relaxing game!
I started running my first game of D&D earlier this year, and, unfortunately, I had to have this conversation with one of my players. I essentially pointed out that he seemed to want a different type of game than the one I was running. Due to the severity of his behavior, I had to eventually ask him to leave. It was a bit of an unfortunate start, but I'm happy to say that I've found better players that make GM/DMing a treat.
Can I ask you a question, without being judged?! I'm super green to D&D, what is GM, and is it different than DM? I know DM is Dungeon Master, right? Is GM Game Master? I'm really trying to understand this all....thank you for any help!!! :)
@@mrskkrueger It is not a very important distinction. The term GM is used for the Game Master of any game (be it rpg or not), while Dungeon Master (DM) specifically refers to *Dungeons* & Dragons.
@@sjiht0019 THANK YOU!!!! I really appreciate the straight up answer. We are waiting for responses to start a group in my area, and while we wait, my husband suggested I play Neverwinter. I'm enjoying the game, but wanted to ask someone with experience playing tabletop, verses playing Neverwinter, did it help understand tabletop? I think I'm understanding the game better, playing Neverwinter, just curious if anyone else went about it backwards, like I am?!
@@mrskkrueger Neverwinter is a good, enjoyable game, but it's unnecessarily complicated. It's most useful when you're running a game that is also set in the Forgotten Realms, but there's always something to learn from Neverwinter, even if that's what not to do.
You are amazing. Thank you for holding my hand through every single video. You are great at explaining yourself. You make great sense. I think your advice can roll over to other parts of peoples lives. You are a great teacher. Thank you for your videos. I have learned so much. I am a totally blind mother of four children who want to play d and d you inspire me to run a game for my kids.Thanks again.
What if your problem player gainsays your worldbuilding? "No, that's not how that works," or, "That's not how much that weighs(/costs)." Penny for your thoughts
"Is this your world?" "Ever heard of homebrew?" Had a player do that when I had an npc who was a dragon not know where dragonborn came from (he saw them as too low to be on his radar) and he thought it was when dragons and humans crossbreed, and the player went "No it isnt, that's not where they come from" 😧
If you make the worldbuilding part more collaborative, this might not come up. Don't tell them what is in the woods, ask them. Discover it together. So it's not a Boss DM, it's a narrator, who is serving the players. If you have good players, who all want the same kind of fun, it should remove the conflict.
Good video Matt! I think something that really helps a lot is having a session zero before you start a campaign, so that everyone knows what the expectations are and is on the same page. Then if someone steps out of line in a way that's ruining the game for other people a conversation like this isn't out of turn, but could be expected. Our group made a " Magna Carta" to outline our table rules and ecpectations.
My major problem right now is that my problem player is the problem friend in a friend group, and we're all at that point in life where everyone lives together, and has too few assets and alternatives to weed out an incredibly toxic person from our lives without the turmoil of the weeding out being significantly worse than the current toxic state of affairs. We're talking violence and threats of it, constant bullying of friends, high levels of stress when they are around. The whole shabang, they even don't wash their dishes. And oh yeah, we regularly play D&D together, and it results in problems. People will often tell you "easy, the problem is just leave, or just talk to them" but it sort of ignores the massive difficulties in coping with people who aren't misunderstanding anything, who are aware of the discomfort they cause, and believe it makes them "dominant" (Great neutral or lawful evil villain inspiration though). Sometimes social situations are tied up in such a way there is no easy way out and the question has to become "How do I make this more comfortable for everyone else involved?" Thanks for the video Matt, I've done something similar in my game in calling the table to a halt to ask if someone is having fun, but I've never been able to dissect and find wording quite as good as this rather specific advice, which should help me bare with this player for the next few months when the problem will resolve itself.
That sounds like a really rough situation. I think the best thing to do if possible is band together against this person. If they get violent with one person, everyone should dogpile them and sit on them til they learn about strength in numbers.
Well if you’re not exaggerating and they’re actually physically harming people and further threatening others, the simple solution is call the police and they’ll remove the problem player from the game AND apartment for you…
@@Bonobo_JoJo Police are NOT an instant-win button and thanks to courts, making someone go away legally is very long, very difficult, VERY expensive, and may not even work.
DM job is to facilitate a successful run, which includes group cohesion, cooperation and consideration for one another. Often times, you can simply ask the group to sit in different spots and if asked why, mention an observation, cite an example and express a hope for a change in behavior or to be able to better hear a player who gets talked over too often.
Johnny Bigbones Yep. Sometimes louder, more outgoing or experienced players get caught up with a strategy or chance to roleplay a certain personality and it isn't intentional, but they get louder and more animated at the expense of quieter or less experienced players. Simply asking to organize their placement so you can better hear someone usually sparks a conversation where no one stands accused by the DM. The first time, anyway. The `don't be a dick` rule has always been part of any group I have been part of. The outright contrarian skullduggery outlined below is something I have never witnessed so this method very likely wouldn't work in such a situation.
Good topic Matt and great advice. I think one other reason people ask these questions is that they want to hear DM horror stories about the groups they have been in and want to see if & how the issues were resolved or not. They are looking to see if the stuff going on at their table is reflective of what other DMs have encountered.
Talking about the topic of the video, I think you honestly are mostly right. Talking to problem players (me being always the DM) about their behaviour and/or views of the game often leads to future games being more enjoyable as a group. However, if a players is a bit more sensitive or outright aggressive, then even mentioning that they are not right about something could turn the night into a disaster. What I am trying to say is that I would add one thing to the video (which your sort of mentioned) is to think before you talk to those problem players about what they are doing “wrong”. If you know that they will be calm and ok about it, then go ahead, talk it through then move on with the game. If this isn’t the case and you know they are a bit hot headed, then you are probably better off talking to them privately. Great video as always, and I hope everything goes right for you, Matt.
This is a good point. You need to confront them, but logistically, if there is a decent chance of it blowing up your entire gaming night, then don't invite everyone over for the blow up. Just talk to the person on the side.
Obstreperous: a word that Matthew Colvile has introduced to my vocabulary. Thank you! I've been watching your stuff on UA-cam. You seem like a well learned DM. On the few points/topics where I disagree with what you present I think there is ample room for discussion. Cheers!
It's interesting, the difference between a problem player and problem behaviour in-game. Someone could be perfectly civil at the table and an absolute nightmare in-game, killing NPCs and hoarding magic items. In one regard you have an opportunity to put your concerns to the group at the table and hopefully work through the problem and in the other you can pursue the player with in-game consequences. "The guards want a word about this wanted poster from the next town over", "as you collect up the magical items you look down at the obsidian blade in your grasp and feel a sense of dread as you hear the words 'oh, another soul to play with' in the back of your mind.", so many options :-P
I like your attitude here. If someone is a problem player but you still wanna play with that person assuming they change a few habits of theirs, exhaust your options for making it work through communication, but be ready to realize that at one point you will have exhausted all options without finding a solution and that's okay. And that's just one of several good points made in this video. The advice about a good group ideally having more than just D&D that binds them is also great. I won't follow because I'm a super introverted, asocial wangrod for most hours of my life and only really need a bit of D&D each week to fulfill my social and creative needs. Still, I can tell how my approach to to the hobby means I'm not taking advantage of its full potential and how many of the times I've been a problem player has been at least influenced by this approach of mine. Still, I've been able to have and contribute to fun so I'm sticking to this part of myself.
I got kicked out of a gamer organization that had a DND section. Me and another player were the "Problem Players". If you think you might be a problem player, make sure you have a good dialogue with the GM and other players. When the administration of the organization changed the other "Problem Player" went crying to the admins and get me kicked out. The new administration didn't reach out to me, they just booted me. If I had talked to them first about how we often fought and he was the instigator, then perhaps I could have hopped ship and gotten into a game without him, while staying inside the same org.
Dealing with a similar problem right now. I joined the campaign as I was friends with the DM and so did a few people from the same discord server, this one guy and I have issues. (We play over discord chat so the "table" dynamics are very different) Really came to a head last night when we had an IC issue and then he came at OOC and I retorted when I should have bit my tongue. This has been ongoing for a month or so now and he's usually the instigator. DM has just threatened to throw us both off more or less if it keeps up. So now I'm just trying to talk to the other players about what happened.
This probably isn't the best video to leave this on, I just wanted to leave it on a more recent video. THANK YOU COLVILLE! I have watched a lot of your older stuff to get ready for my game and it has helped a ton. I will be DM'ing for my first time soon and I can't wait to start stretching these DM muscles.
Remember, there is also the following problem players: My wife, who never played d&d before I started running a campaign, caused TPK first session, and is on her 4th character in this campaign. My 9 year old son, who plays his barbarian as if it is a video game and has no sense of teamwork or communication. My 4 year old, who's cleric randomly "shoot fire", "run over there", "help mommy", or "climb a tree" My 2 year old who throws the dice on the floor and wants to cram fifty dice in a dice tower at once, and who's character has long since died but insists on rolling dice when her brothers do. They have been in the same 6 room dungeon for about 10 sessions. They got their first magic item yesterday: A +1 Silvered Dragonhide Whip of Grappling.
For the family folks out there, I highly recommend running a family game night. It is VERY fun and VERY cute. My 4 year old was the only one to make his perception check for a trap, so I told him all about the trap, and then I urged him to tell the others (his mom and brother). The result was amazing. I'm not 100% sure of everything he said, but he did describe most of the trap (a pendulum blade trap) but then he launched into an explanation of something, not sure what, that sounded like it was just EPIC in his head. He was waving his hands about and doing sound effects. I was so proud.
The obvious sequel to this wonderful video is 'Problem Dungeon Masters' . Let's stick it to those who run the game to tell their story and make the players watch! ;)
We did a thing with our group when the current campaign ended, where each player would play a 3-5 session mini-campaign. This way, everyone would get to experience DM'ing without heavy commitment. I've had one of them literally chop the continent we were on in half with impassable fire except for the one spot where they toppled a tree (must've been a huge tree) over the chasm, all just to create a tense moment. Obviously, we were not inclined to travel over a fire-chasm walking over a tree, but he made it literally impossible to do anything else. Surprisingly, when the DM rotation was over and he suggested to do a real campaign, no on was particularly exited about that suggestion. We quickly moved on to the other person who actually managed to put in a pretty cool story without railroading every spoken word.
My players thought i was doing that when i started my campaign. But in reality i was using my first three sessions to setup the bad guys and give the players the feeling that they where in way over their heads. Now that they are higher level and have better gear everything seems to work out as they really want to stick it to the bad guys. Only problem i have is a player that sometimes tries to take over my game.
Look up the Henderson Scale of Derailment and do a 0.5 or a 0.75 Henderson to them. If they realize their mistakes, there won't be a new session and they might even drop GMing completely. If they don't, do a full Henderson, then tell them, bit by bit, preferably from a list prepared beforehand, every single detail that made the entire time playing an absolute parody of the genre and how the wankfest-tier shitshow of a story the GM pulled isn't interesting for anybody on the table, except for them.
You're a problem upon this community if you don't let your players have any agency (regardless if it's for the first three or thirty sessions) under any excuse, even as boring as "I have to set up the bad guys." If your players' choices don't matter, do everyone a favor and end the campaign. Nobody wants to hear your bad guys' motivations or the backstories to your amazing NPCs.
I had a player in our group whose belief was that it was all a magic show by the DM who was *supposed* to secretly railroad the players and simply present an illusion of mortality, and to cleverly bail out the players of any situation. I run a world with limited resurrection capacity, so when this player's bell finally tolled, they then expected me to bend the rules of the world to save their character. We had a long argument online about it later and it confirmed my, and the group's, suspicions that really he'd been pretty much playing his own game the whole time, with the expectation that we were all doing the same thing. The last communication we had was that he never wanted to hear from me again unless it was to announce I was going to (somehow) bring his character back.
To be fair - I think the grittiness and policy towards character death should be very well understood by all players right up front. Hard to do, and some people still won't understand it until their character is dead and gone.
I completely agree. Which is why, during our Session 0, I made it plain and clear that resurrection was a 1-and-done. 1 attempt can be made on any given soul to bring it back, successful or not. And yet this player persisted in thinking that it was just a smokescreen and that it was just a piece of foreboding window dressing, as opposed to the clear and present danger that it actually was.
That sounds difficult, can I ask if there was any particular lesson you learned from that? Or was it just that you have to hold your ground with the rules of your style of play?
Unfortunately I think all I learned is that some players will pout and stomp their feet to try and get their way, and that I think you need to hold your ground when they do, otherwise it just emboldens them.
I think I needed this video. I'm very non-confrontational so if there's something going on that I don't like I usually just stay quiet and deal with it. But if it's something that affects not just me, but the whole table, I need to step up and lay down expectations.
I would hate being singled out in front of a group of people in such a way. Because that's what this advice does and there's a lot of presumption here that assumes how the singled out person will feel or react.
Yeah I also would probably not do that unless pushed to it by some sort of exceptional circumstance. I think these things are almost always better done one on one. But I'm fairly confident, I think Matt's advice is aimed at people who are less confident and may feel like they need support.
Singling the person out is kind of the point. I suspect you mean to imply unfairness, and sure, if you're unfairly singled out, that's not cool. But when you have a problem player, it is not right or fair to address the table as a whole, as that is not reasonable to expect the PP to understand you are really talking to THEM, and it sends the message to the other players that they are to blame for another person's actions.
I would recommend the book: Never Split the Difference. These are subtle negotiation tactics that build empathy. Get the problem player on the case of solving the problem himself.
"I think any video over 12 minutes is a long video." I did too before I subscribed to your channel. Now anything less than 45 minutes is a short video.
My friends and I are pretty new to D&D and we've always talked about making a large sandbox game that will last for ages. As the dungeon master, I was pretty nervous. However, your videos have made me way more confident and have given me ideas that I wouldn't have considered before. Thanks!
This will be unpopular but it works. Train the bad player like a child ignore bad behavior and reward good behavior. Whenever they behave well say "hey thanks man you did a great job in that scene!" If they play a scene out poorly just move on, don't laugh or pay it anymore attention and absolutely no rewards for bad behaviour. This will make the player 'want' to play better as the purpose of the bad behaviour is to gain attention.
Do you compliment at the table as a off hand comment or do you make a point of it after the game? Or do you do a mix of both? I'm trying to become a DM and just trying to pick up skills and this approach seems like an interesting one.
Rohan Emmet hi! Yes I will say after a great scene "that was great guys!" Because I'm trying too encourage positive attitudes in the players. Most people are seeking approval from the GM and other players so when they do a great role-playing scene or speak in character when they won't normally out of fear give them encouragement and boost their ego. After the game is over I always thank the players for coming and making an effort in game. You will thanked back in return and respected, I've even had players tell me I'm the best GM they've ever had. (So that's nice!) Some of this strategy comes from my time in the army. When you take the GM role you are the leader of the group so you have to act like it at all times. Not an angry drill sergeant but a charismatic captain that people want to work with.
Rohan Emmet an example of negative play I dealt with was a player who ran off to the other side of a large building to loot treasure. Well the large exciting fight happened without him there so I said you aren't in it because you ran off and don't know it's happening. So he sat it out while the other players struggled without him to beat a very dangerous monster which nearly killed one of them because he wasn't there. He realised his actions have consequences felt guilty and never ran off again like that.
This relates to an interesting comment on the sub-reddit post on this video. Someone with office manager experience was talking about the 85/15 idea, I'm just quoting them but it basically said that if you only every talk to someone when they do something wrong then they are automatically on the defensive when you say something like "we need to talk," but if 85 percent of the time you make a point of talking to them when its positive then they are more open the other fifteen percent. Thoughts? Also Simo thank you for answering my earlier questions.
8:13 except there not your friends if that's the case. More like acquaintances who didn't know you as well as they thought and you them. All of this could have been avoided some grounds for DND etiquette had been discussed and before starting the game so that everyone clearly understood what they were getting into. Communication is key in everything.
It really hasn't though, in places where the virus is more managed (hi from Norway btw) people still play face to face as much as they can defend, and people are aching to get back to the table elsewhere. If anything the COVID situation has shown us why digital won't kill in-the-flesh gaming, by forcing us to live through something simmilar and see how miserable it is. That said, digital is so much better than nothing, and a valid preference, though the part about it not filling social needa fully still hold, I think
I think people go to the " There is a better group for you" option too fast. The decision that a player is a problem much more final. There is an expectation for problem players to to see the problem a bit already BEFORE it's communicated with them. WITH them is key there. SOOO much Us v Them happens. Soo much " I don't want to hurt feelings" happens until a straw breaks the camels back. Yes. I agree that lack of comparability is a very real thing, but everyone in the group has to be a part of it working out. So yeah " Dude you are hogging the stuff" " Hey sarah, your telling him how to play his character. That's not cool" don't dance around it. You don't have to be insulting, blunt or cruel, but don't sugar coat it. "Hey maybe you should take a break, lets talk about a new character maybe" is not acceptable when you mean " Fun is not happening we need some serious change if this going to work. It might not, but lets get on the same page tell me what you expected, and then let the rest of perspectives be heard." Or worse when they come back " Dude we asked you to leave, why are you here?"
"Hey maybe you should take a break, lets talk about a new character maybe" is not acceptable when you mean " Fun is not happening we need some serious change if this going to work. It might not, but lets get on the same page tell me what you expected, and then let the rest of perspectives be heard." I like that point. Its not acceptable to dance around an issue because it make you uncomfortable, I do it but its not right.
Exactly, there are in essence two kinds of problem players - those who want to be a problem and those who don't realize they are a problem. For the first generally the only solution is to ask them to leave because they just don't care about making it work with your group. For the second you need to be respectful but clear about why they are a problem and what they should do to not be a problem anymore.
Thanks Matt. I love that phrase, "I don't think you're here for the same reasons as the rest of us. Why do you play DND?" I also love the idea that I don't have to take it away from the table as it is a table thing, we're all involved...it's not just me. I just had a game like that. I had a werebear NPC eat the character (yeah, I just happened to have one hanging around) and that was the end of him. But, I do what to solve the problem so there's not a next time, with another character. I think this will be a video I will be coming back to.
4:55 When I did this during my last campaign, I got unanimous agreement from the other players. They were not having fun because of the problem player. When I offered ways to talk it out with the problem player and offer solutions / work-arounds, the problem player quit the group. The other players were so bummed out that someone quit that they quit too. I haven't played D&D again in over a year because of this. Some problems just don't have solutions. Sometimes the terrorist comes in and kills everyone and there is nothing you can do about it.
I think this is good advice. Conversation is only half the battle - you need action. I like that you brought up playing other games as well. Gave me something to think about.
Matt answers the question @5:05
I respectfully disagree ... Matt solves the problem @5:40 ... but only if your player's name is Steve.
Hypothetical Steve, what a douche
Matt adressess "problem player" directly at 8:10
Matt addresses the fact that it is hypothetical Steve at 16:00
Matt says the word "Fish" - 22:14
If you don't want to talk to a player alone, and you don't want to confront them at the table, consider taking them aside with one other player, so you don't feel alone.
Matthew Colville unrelated comment, I just wanted to let you know that because of you I have started using the phrase "I am a river to my people".
I haven't even watched Laurence of Arabia...
Matthew Colville what would you do about individuals who aren't playing at the same "level" as other players?
What great advice! This is one of the situations where life skills from work can be directly relevant to DnD, but also how we learn to interact with and manage other people can be transferred into the real world. Seriously, once I have some experience with this, I'll definitely bring it up in a job interview if I think I handled it well.
Joshua do you mean the player don't know the game as well/less experienced/a bit slower than the rest of the table? If so i'd say that doesn't have to be a problem - I assume the rest of the table will realise this as well so why not nudge the player into making that into a character trait? Using one players weakness could be great from a storyline perspective and playing with more experienced or "better" players will rub off in the end and make for a nice character arc so that as that player improves in confidence so can the PC. We all have to start somewhere remember!
what videos can we except soon, politics 4?
The Wang Rod is my favorite classic DnD artifact.
Rod of Wang
Rod, artifact
This sturdy rod ends in a bulbous finial. As a bonus action, you can attach it to the pommel of a weapon by thrusting it into the weapon's handle, or detach it by pulling it out. A weapon with this rod attached deals an extra 2d8 thunder damage on a hit.
When you miss with a weapon that has this rod attached to it (voluntarily or otherwise), you can use your reaction to strike the ground instead, creating an enormous "wang" sound. When you do so, choose a wang size between 1 and 5. All creatures within a number of feet of you equal to the wang size times 5, including yourself, take 6d10 thunder damage. The damage to yourself cannot be reduced, resisted, or negated in any way. When the wang damage is dealt, roll a d6. If the result is equal to or under the wang size, you cannot use this reaction again with the specific attached weapon until the next dawn.
Wang Rod - Cursed Item
- Disadvantage on all Charisma Checks with all other Players and DM. When you roll you must utter the phrase, "But that's what my character would do."
- Lose ability to read social cues.
- Gain the ability to be totally self centered. Can not be dispelled.
- Count 2, 8 or 14 as a Nat 20 & Nat 1 become 19, by giving dice a little nudge.
I imagine Wag rod as a race
the question is whether the wang rod is immovable...
Truly, a weapon to surpass metal gear
One really good example of compromise, which I think you've talked about before, is how Travis handles shopping episodes in Critical Role. Watch any shopping episode, and you can see Travis immediately tune out - Grog or Fjord, it's *Travis* who thinks shopping in D&D is literally the worst.
But when he tunes out, he doesn't pull anyone else out with him, he doesn't pull out his phone and start playing Candy Crush, and he doesn't sit there grumbling about "When are we going to get to something important?" (Although he does complain good-naturedly when other people ask how he's doing).
Everyone at the table knows Travis hates shopping, and as a group they try not to get too bogged down in it so that they can have their fun and he can have his; but all of that is dependent on Travis being a good sport and letting them have their fun instead of being a wangrod.
That’s great- but always remember that everyone in CR is paid to be there. For him, it’s a slow shift at work, not hours of his free time being consumed by a massive shopping session.
Travis is a nice guy and an amazing player, but I think it’s fine to ask that the boring parts of a session are moved through more quickly, especially when you have nothing to do or say. I don’t get a lot of free time in a week, I’d rather spend it playing the game than RPing with a shop keeper for the price of rope
Thing is I can't see his characters being too interested in shopping either , they may pick up one specific item or maybe a few potions (if grogs on potion pick up duty, hint : don't do that)then be done for the trip
@@Ike_of_pykeWell, why would someone who doesn't like spending D&D time shopping make a character that does like it?
@@noahblack914 this is where you're thinking binary either they like it or hate it , they may just be like "fine I needs to pick up a few things " ant go from there doing their basic shopping while also looking for role play opportunities like overhearing someone talk about a job they did or a rumor about someone they're looking for , which as a dm I'd definitely try to seed also ,there may be a fight
@@Ike_of_pyke I think you're misunderstanding my point? I agree that both Travis and his characters don't enjoy the extended periods of shopping, and find other fun while that's happening.
I was saying that that seems like an obvious choice to me. It'd be a bit strange if he played a character that's way into a part of the game he doesn't enjoy? We often play characters that aren't like us, but in ways that are fun and/or interesting, and primarily narratively, not mechanically.
It'd be like not liking combat, but trying to optimally play a technical warrior. Or not enjoying social encounters, but building a party face. Those are more extreme, but it seems similar.
I appreciate the fact you say that sometimes there are fundamental incompatibilities. Its not always about someone being an a hole, sometimes you just quite truly want different games.
Matt mentions that when you confront a player about their behavior, it immediately becomes this situation where that player will be uncomfortable and want to revert to the previous state of not having that conversation. He likened it to having to have a conversation with a worker as a manager.
I definitely understand this, but I think there may be a small thing DM's can do to help mitigate this. Part of my management training at work has taught us that part of the reason people feel uncomfortable when confronted about poor behavior/performance etc. is because they're only ever talked to about their behavior and performance when it's negative. So when you say "We need to have a chat," it immediately has a negative connotation to it. The solution to this is to intentionally and continuously have positive conversations with them (sincerely and honestly, fake flattery won't work), and when something negative comes along, it'll be easier and more natural for them to listen to your feedback.
They call this the 85/15 rule, meaning 85% of your conversations with a person should be positive in nature. Translating this to DMing, well yeah you're always talking to the players. But maybe the DM should go out of their way to have a post-session chat specifically about player behaviors. What they did that made the game better, what they did that made it worse (as a social experience, not how well their characters performed or something). Or just make a point to praise (on the spot) the kind of behavior you want to see at the table when it happens.
Maybe this doesn't actually make sense, but it reminded me of that advice they gave us, and I think it might help with problem players.
JohnMatt3000 great advice. Our DM regularly singles us out in post-game follow-up emails by referencing cool or interesting things we did in the session. "It was awesome when you..." That kind of thing. And then at the next session before starting he might say, "hey Brent, last time you weren't sure about how your feat worked and you had to look it up. Do you want to go over it again real quick or are you good?" It's the kind of management that would make it easy to address a more serious problem if it ever came up.
I like this. Thank you. I have a player who happens to be my wife is the type of player who seems to always be actively trying to argue with every npc and and always get the last word in. I’ve been trying to find ways to have these conversations in a neutral non negative way.
I've heard similar. In this instance ask them about what they want from the game and their character. That way you can see if there are any elements within your control to manage, even if it is just their expectations.
This might make the "perhaps you should find someone else to play with" a significantly more high-stakes conversation ;)
This worked for me years ago, I took over a game troup as the GM. I wanted to try my hand at it and the GM wanted to take a break. He rewarded good sportsmanship in players by giving them a clear d10 they could add to a roll that session when they did good. It worked really well, I don't know why I did not bring that trick with me when I joined in a new group after moving but If I start running a table I would do something like this again.
I've been the problem player, so to speak - in the way that I've had the experience of being the "odd player out". I was invited into an existing group who had played together since their teens, but it turned out we had very different play styles from each other.
It took me a long while to realize that it wasn't just a matter of us getting used to each other, but when I did recognize the issue for what it was, I got out.
They're nice people and while the DM felt a little hurt and frustrated, because he felt responsible (he wasn't at all) we parted on fine terms.
I learned a lot from that experience - not least of them was to ask myself "Wait. Am I actually the odd player out here?" when I am not having as much fun as I thought I would.
Even as a DM it's a good question to ask yourself.
And I think we can stand to frequently remind ourselves that being the odd player out doesn't equal being a bad person, or even being unliked.
May we all find the perfect gaming group for us! Cheers.
Pru-Pruh what was the difference in style from you and the rest if you don't mind me asking? Also good on ya for fixing that problem on fine terms.
The Will of G Hey. The playgroups I "grew up in", seen in the rearview mirror (very early 90's) focused a lot on narrative play and flavor and teamwork, and character building was often done randomly. We always built our characters "in plenum" and even if we didn't always weave our stories together pregame, we kind of always molded a group of characters.
It was always a big part of our gaming experience, and I just never really thought about whether our way was "special", because it never came up.
The group I talked about above had played together since their teens, and most of them had played exclusively with each other.
With this group, pre campaign, we got an email with a short description of our characters' world and situation, and then we just arrived with characters, and it turned out that the tone giving players in this group grew up and enjoyed tactics a lot, and took a lot of their enjoyment from mechanic optimisation if their characters and combat effectiveness, as well as having a true affinity for intense inter party conflict.
That was all very new to me.
When I identified the source of the friction, I tried stepping up the "mechanical" side of my game, and a few of the group we very much up to meet me halfway with flavor and flaws and interpersonal backstories, but as time went by I just felt like I was not having as much fulfilment from playing with this group as I wanted, and I could tell I was kinda dragging the tone giving players' fun too.
It was a frustrating lesson at the time, but very enlightening!
None of us had ever had the need to identify our playstyles before, even after so many years, but it turned out we had simply been playing and had fun in two very different bubbles, under vastly different paradigms.
It was a sad realisation for a big part of the group when we finally decided to accept that I just didn't fit in very well, but we decided not to take it personally, so we're perfectly fine aquaintances now.
I think another part of what went right is that we decided not to argue that any playstyle was bad or wrong, so I was not a Problem Player as such - we were just not a good match, no matter if we liked each other as people well enough.
Well, that got long! Sorry about that. :P
My first time ever playing, the entire group was wildly toxic. Partially because the people in it were toxic outside of the game, but also because every single one of us had different playstyles and expectations. My ex-best friend at the time was a classic Actor and it could be incredibly entertaining, but she also wanted to be the star of the show (she also wanted to be playing in Critical Role, not the game we were in); the rogue was a standard wangrod who was high out of his mind at every session; the paladin wanted to play because she would have felt left out if she didn't but otherwise had zero interest in D&D; the bard was the DM's girlfriend and her faerie dragon companion gave her the answers to all of our problems; and the DM himself was so dead-set on NOT railroading us that he outright refused to help the party in any way when we got stuck or didn't know where to go/what to do next. He was perfectly happy to sit there and let us waste time for multiple sessions with absolutely no direction until finally the faerie dragon just gave the bard the answer.
If I had to guess, I'd say that from their perspectives my own "toxic player" behavior was that I wanted... reasons for killing the monsters, and the other players/DM didn't share that idea or expectation. The Monster Manual says that goblins are evil, and so that's all we need to know to justify slaughtering the goblin village. There were very few combat encounters that my cleric willingly took part in because most of the time, it felt like we were killing people who were just minding their own business, and the rest of the table - DM included - were pretty regularly frustrated that the party cleric was taking a pacifist stance when they just wanted to show up and kill monsters. Meanwhile, outside of the game, I was spinning my wheels trying to keep the peace as though it was solely my responsibility to fix something that just couldn't be fixed.
It was so bad that the eventual implosion of the campaign ruined our actual friendships. As much as I look back on that game and feel miserable that my first exposure to D&D was so dramatically, catastrophically terrible, I also appreciate how much I learned about the game and myself as a player from it.
Can Hypothetical Steve be a recurring character?
He shall now be a character in my campaign. He shall appear in impossible situations and be a dick.
Haaa! Stealing this!
I feel very guilty for no reason
@@stevie_ily you know what you did!
Jeffs Email AHM SORREH
We should have called this one "Problem Players, Ruining the Game #57"
The straight dope, don't be a wang rod, and if you're called on it, accept that you are being rodlike and wangish.
As a “Steve” and (hopefully) not a “hypothetical Steve” I laughed a ton at your clarification.
My name actually is Hypothetical Steve :'(
you fucked up man, get your shit together.
It's okay, Hypothetical Steve.
I'll be the problem player at your table. I know it's a tough spot to be in and I don't want you to feel alone.
"The name's Steve, Hypothetical Steve"
James Bond eat your heart out
"Hypothetical Steve" reminds me of Hypothetical Harpsichord, the NPC wizard that my second ever GM named on the spot. He kept saying "Hypothetically", so the party did what parties do and made it into a humiliating nickname.
Harpsichord became the BBEG.
I can tell you right now, Matt, the way you described the hypothetical conversation had with a problem player is EXACTLY how my conversations have gone with one player who's been causing some problems in my campaign. Stating they felt attacked, stating that they were singled out, stating they didn't see any issues with their behavior, and even stating that they thought the conversation was unnecessary/needed. You've nailed the exact way these things go, and I can say that I'm honestly surprised my respect for you could have even rose further, but this video has managed to do that. Good stuff.
If I can ask did pursuing the conversation work or did you have to take a different approach?
Yeah, that's been my experience too. I guess if someone had the self awareness to know they were causing problems, they wouldn't be causing problems.
I agree. I was a little awestruck by how insightful the observation about the player being singled out feeling is. I usually feel that way when I'm being called out on something.
Rohan Emmet
Basically, my experience has led to the same result with this over ane over. This approach with these sorts of players only tends to rix the issue for a little bit. They will be vigilant about the problem, but there's a big chance that they'll slip back into that behavior.
@@Msharkftw Yep, same tiger, same stripes!!!
10:13 This rings so true to me. I've seen the players show up who are "only here to play D&D" and when the session is over they're out of there. It leaves me, as the GM, feeling like I'd just been used. I like just had a hook-up with a closet-case.
I really appreciate your video on types of players. I’ve often felt like I was a problem player (not without reason) because I didn’t play for the “right” reasons. Learning that there are lots of reasons one might play and the types of players there could be, it has helped me realize that it’s ok to want different things out of TTRPGs as long as I make space for others to do the same.
Thank you, Matt
Great advice. I would add two things:
1) before saying, "it seems like you are interested in having a different kind of fun than the rest of the group," we could add the very helpful phrase "when you [blank], it seems..." This makes the statement more direct and let's the player know what behavior is rubbing us the wrong way.
2) even if the talk doesn't seem to go very well in the moment, it is often the case that a person will take more in than it seems. They'll go away thinking about it. They may need time to process it. We could add a preface such as "you don't have to respond to this right away" or "please think about what I'm going to say before you respond".
Awesome work, Matt. Thank you for keeping us all realistic.
17:51 That one guy whose parents named him Hypothetical Steve is freaking out now.
*That moment when you realize that before you started watching Matt Colville you were probably on the fast track to becoming a problem player...*
Ardin Helme ; could you elaborate? I'd like to read that perspective. Everyone talks about their experience with PP, nobody about theirs as a PP.
Ardin Helme same here fam. Although I've known for a while and have been working hard on actively not being a problem player. Matt's been a great help with that tbh
Jan Plewa I mean, I obviously didn't consider myself a problem player, nor do I think I ever really was one looking back. But I can sympathize with a lot of the behavior he describes. I enjoy optimization, and it would not be uncommon for me to point out that someone us performing a less than optimal turn. I would never try to impose my will upon another player, but that being said I don't know that I ever really would have had the chance. You see, I play with my siblings, and we're all fairly new to the game, well, sorta, we've been playing for two or three years now but we are only are able to play every few months due to scheduling. As a consequence of this there is some weirdness with player experience. Since I got bitten by the D&D bug hard, I've gotten super into it and researched a ton of stuff about it, but a lot of my other siblings are still relatively new, so simply mentioning that something is less than optimal is enough to get them to change. I think this has more to do with the fact that at our table everyone wants to do the most that they can, so they don't intentionally do suboptimal things. Funnily enough my first character was a super well optimized Monk, but he was no fun to play, so I changed to a very poorly optimized Bard. When I say that I was on the fast track to becoming a problem player it probably revolves around that. My character not being very optimal causing me frustration in combat. And when you combine that with all of my research into D&D, I could get pretty rules lawyery. These days I'm much better about that stuff, in no small part due to watching Colville, because the idea that you could play suboptimally on purpose intrigues me. It's kinda like optimizing your character as a whole into a specific persona, and that's a strange but interesting concept to me.
I don't know if any of this rambling has been helpful to you, but I guess the TL;DR is that I had a habit of being rules lawery that could have gone wang-rodish but it didn't.
Ardin Helme Thanks for sharing that. I realized early on that the tactician in me wanted to do the most expedient option to maximize obtaining goals that I felt would best accomplish finishing a quest. The rules lawyer in me needed a reminder that what is expedient isn't always in character. My solution is now to discuss options with my character`s voice and knowledge rather than from a player perspective and it is my personal rule. Since I have imposed this on myself, discussions on what to do next have been more entertaining and less stressful. Voicing disapproval or enthusiasm comes from the character and playing from the role rather than the overview has provided me with personal challenges to convince others as a Triton Paladin that staying with the river and following its majestic path (instead of a well travelled road) feels like the best choice.
Oh hell yeah, I have definitely edged towards being that player. Watching my mate dump dex as a Warlock made me physically wince, start to comment and then catch myself and say "it's not what I'd do, but seriously ignore my BS and just play you".
Hated saying every single word, but I knew it was the right thing to say so I'd say recognising the tendency in yourself is an incredibly good sign.
We had one member in a group that would always cheat by fudging rolls. Others didn't notice it at first but I am a very analytical person, I slowly noticed that his rolls weren't possible for his class, stats, level etc. I watched him more closely and he was fudging his rolls. I brought it up to the group and just to watch him and they all saw it too. WE did bring it up to him and he did admit that he does fudge his rolls. We told him that he needed to stop but said that is not how he wants to play and was not willing to stop. He did get kicked out, which is sad, but we didn't want a cheater.
Hypothetical Steve is such a Wang Rod.
He makes for a good That Guy.
There’s the next shirt slogan.
god damn it, who invited Hypothetical Steve!
Thanks for the new name for the librarian in my campaign world town of Steveton. It is a town that is populated by people named Steve. The Sheriff is Steve the Paladin and he is married to the town Wizard, Stefanie. Hypothetical Steve will be the librarian.
@@gmrayoman8758 I have to say I'm disapointed in the fact that you say everyone isnamed steve, and then call the wizard Stephanie. Call her steve, I dare you. (I'm ofc being fasecious, you do you, It's you guyses game)
D&D is a game where people sit around talking to each other. It makes perfect sense that a group that likes to talk to each other as well as playing D&D together is almost always going to be a more enjoyable experience.
A group breaking apart is one of the worst things, it can affect you as a player or GM but it can also affect your long term friendships. It can be a real eye opener, and you can learn things or see things in friends you never fully realised were there. Gaming can be a great joy but its not without risks either.
The whole thing with the 'conversation about the problem is perceived to be the problem' - Some people can triangulate, either there at the table or behind the scenes with other players and foster a sense of doubt or discontent with certain players or the DM. I have been on the receiving end of that as both. It can take a long time to realise its going on too if you are a normal naive person thats coming to the table for the sole purpose of playing a game and assume everyone else is too. Sometimes people bring their own baggage along though. They can turn that conversation into evidence of wrong doing on someone elses part. There is no fixing that, that person has to go and it might well damage the group and take a few others that they have poisoned/manipulated. It was an awful situation to watch unfold, terribly damaging to several relationships several of whom are unaware of the full story.
I think its a tough lesson for a DM to learn that the answer to what makes a problem player a problem is sometimes nothing to do with the game or the group but its a personality issue, possibly even a personality disorder. It may be tough to actually learn it but the realisation is also a relief because you are letting go of taking responsibility for someone elses issues. You cant solve every problem and if someone comes to the table with issues they dont want to fix you will not fix them. EVER.
Great vid, from 13.30 you make some absolutely spot on descriptions of what you can run into with problems players.
Oh and the Wangrod was called... Steve haha I chuckled every time you said it. Christ he sure put the Wang in Wangrod!
"Hopefully you'll be able to watch the first five or six minutes..." Matthew you said it at the five minute mark and you haven't started giving advice yet xD aside from that, thank you, your videos are always extremely helpful!
Shichiyoo I know, I thought that was hilarious -- and perfectly timed. 😎
No he said it at 3:15
I think that a player only becomes a "problem player" when they start to prioritize their fun over other people's fun. And this can happen with any of the different types of player you mentioned.
A Power Gamer can become a Munchkin if they optimize their build so hard that the rest of the party becomes irrelevant.
A Tactician can become a Bully if they start to tell other players what they should or must do. Or a Rules Lawyer.
An Actor can become a Spotlight Hog if they start to milk every scene for melodrama when the other players aren't interested.
A Specialist can become a Special Snowflake if they try to force the story to cater to their particular whims.
A Butt-Kicker can become a Slayer if they just kill everything, all the time, and refuse to entertain any other roleplaying.
A Mad Scientist can become a Monkey Wrench if their randomness gets in the way of tactics and/or plot.
An Audience Member can become a Deadweight if they are unable to take their turn when needed.
And Storytellers can become Fatalists if they take the idea of an "honorable death" too far and stop trying to overcome challenges.
It's a question of control; everyone wants to have fun, and is using their allotted amount of social power to make the game fun for themselves. But if a player starts to overreach their social control and prevent other players from doing what is fun for them, that makes them a problem. I think that, most of the time, this is an accident and as long as you can power through the "this conversation is the problem" problem, you'll do okay.
The only problem player for which there is no hope, is the cheater. This isn't an extension of any player type. This is just asshole behavior.
I really like the dichotomy between the rules and the problem player types you aligned. Very cool.
@@Badartist888 Good point, which also points to a major issue with problem players. Narcissist can't handle being criticized, so giving "constructive criticism" usually won't work
You are right in all except one thing. A cheater is the least important issue to have. Wow a player is rolling better than average. Who cares
In my case, I was a cheater back in my teens. I got better when I realized that I wasn't just playing a game: I was playing a game *with people.* Once it clicked for me that a major part of the fun of these sorts of games was being a functioning part of the group, that's when I quit worrying about "winning," and finally started to try and focus on the real point of the game.
@@DimT670 Totally agree. As a DM, I've only really encountered "cheating" in a couple of scenarios, and I don't think they're game-breaking. First, to avoid their character's death because they're really attached to that character (or if the character is genuinely important to the party, who'd be in trouble if this character died). Second, to get a vital piece of information the party will miss entirely if they don't obtain it in that moment, which could derail the plot of a great campaign that everyone is really enjoying. As a DM and a player, I'm happy to let either of those scenarios slide. As a player, I also really don't care if another player is fudging their dice rolls a bit if the DM is having a bit too much fun making them, or all of us, suffer. I try to avoid these DMs if I can, but they are a problem all of their own, to be honest.
My best friend was in my game. He was immediately a problem. He was playing Skyrim or some other game, not telling a story with us at the table.
We played games together all the time. I thought he was going to be the best player. He was not. He was the worst.
He is no longer in my game. He now plays in 2 other games and it actually makes me very sad. I feel like he fixed his problem and took his gaming to other people. I don't really see him much anymore.
They always say no dnd is better than bad. But I am super jealous that he got to sharpen his immature attitude on the game I was prepping for us, grow and then move on to other people's games.
Jeremy Williams have you talked to him about this? Could be that there is a game in the future you could play together and see if he's matured and fits in at your table better now.
Run a one shot for two people: your friend and an experienced player that you trust. Give the experienced player instructions to do what your friend says, and observe your friend in action. This is an easy way to find out if someone is a good fit for your table.
No words for how much I appreciate you; your perspective, the years of experience that fed this series, the empathy with which you approach situations like this and your players and the time you have put in putting these videos together. As a very new DM who is excited about the decades of improvement ahead of me, you are a part of that growth and all of the above is a part of every session I DM and play. Thank you, Mr. Colville. Very sincerely.
If there was one good thing in Ready Player One, it was the fact that I now know what Matt’s icon and whole portcullis shtick is from.
I knew what Adventure was and I still couldn't figure it out until you said it.
*problem player one ;-)
Next time don't hesitate to ask. Any one of us would have been glad to explain it and spare you the experience of RP1. ;)
Scott William Hannan ok I'll not hesitate and ask. Please explain
There's an Atari game called Adventure, and the player avatar was a yellow pixel. That's the icon!
This is hitting on so many levels, and I wish there were more guys like you on this public platform able to not only touch on these subjects but do so from this useful well of experience. There are plenty who would enter into this kind of discussion with dismissive overtones towards this or that kind of person but you're facing it head on, treating everyone like people you respect and that is just great.
"I think you're looking for a different game from the one we can give you" is the exact response I needed to take when someone I *live* with (gulp) was the problem player. It was really a last resort sort of thing though, because by that point we'd had the discussion at the table "Hypothetical Steve, so you understand, if you walk out of the fight with the big bad of the arc you're effectively retiring your character from this game," we'd also had a couple of discussions off of the table where his response to me nudging him away from going full on murder hobo in a largely story driven group was to blame other people (and *my*) roleplaying, to him finally forcing a fight with the rest of the party, while sabotaging a brilliant bit of RP by another player, on literally the GM's second ever session running the game.
It's ugly when you have to do it, and especially when you still like the person involved, but spotting it early is useful and being proactive really did make the difference.
"Dungeon Master! You are not alone, seek succor from your tablemates!" Damn, this is what we come here for, the Colville meta-advice. G-reat video, senpai. I am truly blessed with a great group that has been going strong for almost 5 years, no complaining, lots of DMs, and a variety of games (tho mostly D&D and Gorefest).
Just wanted to say I loved this video subject and I really hope to see more of it! We as a community sincerely need to continue learning about the social side of this game just as much as we learn about making encounters and drawing dungeon maps. Thank you!
I love it when Matt brings up "Setting Expectations" and I think he even just skims the surface of how important it is. Running a session zero, clearly communicating how you want to run the game, and asking for the input of the players early on is going to solve soo many issues before they ever become issues.
I don't think Session 0s solve all of the potential problems, but I think some of this can be addressed earlier if the campaign starts with one, and if the group gets a new players the DM should have a mini-session 0 with them. I'm still new, but I feel like getting sore spots like "team pvp" and "optimal decision vs acting out flaws" out in the air early can at least help things go smooth, even if only for a good many session
Geoffrey Perrin It definitely doesn't, but as you said, it helps. And it helps a lot because even though you probably won't prevent the situation from happening, it sets the bar in case the situation happens.
"Alright, we just started a PVP situation. Was PVP allowed? No? We talked about that in Session 0, so why is it happening now? Should it be allowed now? Why do you guys think?"
I'm 5 sessions in to my game and half my players just now realized that I was DMing a sandbox style where they could do whatever they wanted. I said this SESSION 0. It doesn't matter, some players are just thick. I told them that interparty conflict was ok, not everyone had to be friends nor did I expect them to be.., that they could get in over their heads and that i wouldn't just putright kill them. When I introduced the BBEG(a super-lich) and gave them a choice to join him, they thought he would kill them if they didn't that was session 5. A week later I had to have a meeting to reaffirm that there were options and that I never took your agency away. They made assumptions and didn't ask him the lich, or me as the DM questions. I didn't eant to break the immersjon and the drama to interrupt that terrifying scene but that didn't matter. They felt like they had no choice that they had no option and that I put them in a corner. If we had had more time to play they would've seen more options pop ho but tine was a factor and I rhought that was a dramatic dropping off loint for that session 5. I gave them all that info session 0and it meant notbing when it happened.
Thanks for the video. I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to put some thought into these. It's always great to hear some measured, sensible, advice when it comes to tabletop RPGs.
Great video!
I had an interesting moment last night where one player’s actions got them into trouble with the local townsfolk when their actions enraged an ogre into killing a villager, then the PC looted the dead body in front of some other villagers who then naturally expressed their displeasure. Nobody got violent, but none of the party backed the PC up and I think it really caused an interesting point of contention. The misalignment in expectations meant the player was expecting the spirit of camaraderie to take precedence, but instead they alienated themselves somewhat from the party and the village.
Hello, Matt! I used the information in this video about a year ago when I first became a dm. My group was a handful of high school students, and they were disruptive players, brought their drama to the table, and began to bully one of the players outside of the game and in the game. I talked to the players and they really were playing d&d just because they wanted to play d&d. So, I invited ALL of my friends who were interested in the game and they became so interested in the game, that the bullies from the original group stopped coming. We've been playing consistently for about a year now after that, beating Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation, and are trying to finish Waterdeep! I think all your videos are so down to earth, and very helpful. Thank you so much.
I wish I saw this a year ago. It is so important to bring this up when it happens and not to ignore it. Problems do not get better with time. No gaming is better than bad gaming.
This video transcends DnD and gives insight into the concepts of sportsmanship and socialization! This may be one of your best videos, Matt!
An idea. Instead of struggling to wrap one's head around the difficulty (e.g. running a session specifically catering to the weird needs of PP), the GM can do something to broaden the scope for the group.
Namely, every now and then inserting a totally different one-shot game. One which kicks the players out of routine playing experiences. For example, GM can announce that he/she has an idea to produce a richer and more fun plot. And ask players to help, using, say, a session of Fiasco - it is really a wonderful tool for creating juicy antagonists. Also Fiasco is a 'play-to-lose' game, an antidote for those who want to win, since here they experience that losing can also be fun.
Also they will have more fun in following sessions, meeting those NPCs they played at Fiasco session.
By the way, I have facilitated a lot of Fiasco sessions, and never had a single problem player...
There's a few ways to mitigate "problems" at the table. I have developed a habit of two tenets in my GM introduction. First, as a GM, I do not play God. I even tell Him what to do. (it establishes my in game authority)... Second, I do not believe in "plot armor" in my campaigns. You are expected to adventure at your own risk. (it establishes, that I'm not mommy, and there won't be hand holding and nursing through this thing)...
I do applaud you, Matt, for the point that this isn't therapy, nor a grandma's poetry recital. It's D&D, and we (GM's) are not parent figures meant to babysit and coddle the Players through their rambling petty discontents. It's a collaborative game and I'm supposed to be making problems for the Players to take on... not the other way around...
Talk is a good (or even great?) first step. At the same time, talk is cheap. Yet, I use the regular XP doling as a great opportunity to "train" my Players for the kind of game experience I hope to bring to everyone at the table. I dole out Party XP for all the group endeavors, and then individual XP awards for Role Play, Problem Solving, Creativity, and Genuine Playing the Game stuff... During the Individual awards, I invite the table for commentary. This ingrains in the Players a sense of camaraderie, that they stick up for each other as much as call each other out for "malicious antics" in the game. It lends the whole group a certain agency with each other's XP bonuses to get their "two cents' worth" involved in addressing behavior issues, metagaming too much, unimaginative actions, wall-flowers, and all the way to Power Gaming... It tends to tighten a group into a focused and well running effort for the collaborative story we want, while occasionally weeding out the disruptive types who either don't understand the game in our style, or simply thought they'd come in to over-ride everything and dominate the board... or worse, trying to win D&D.
As you very aptly pointed out, though... For some there simply is not a solution. Sometimes, there are just people who don't need to play D&D, and there are some people who simply will not fit with some groups. There is a group and game for just about everyone, though. I agree with that too.
AND finally, I think (based on experience here) I've noticed that a lot of problems, are experience related. There are probably phases and stages of Role Play, both as Players and as GM's. Some of these inexperienced problems are only problems because there hasn't been a chance to practice and then apply something for that situation... Like creating the narrative to fit Splitting the party up. That's usually (early on in D&D) a horrible thing to do, almost always resulting in a TPK unless the GM nerfs the encounters to fit the two new parties created... or worse. Somewhere along the line, a GM starts to figure out how to pace it so he can go back and forth, and encourage his Players through just enough antics to get the party back together. Further along, there's almost no need to split the party without some tactical advantage and a nod of GM approval while he's already foreseen the likelihood. BUT that first split-up, is an awkward, tedious, brain warping pain... and can easily turn to a TPK... just for spite. Sure, there are other forms of "problematic behavior" but they come at stages and in waves. The more we play, the further we explore, and then the easier we seem to return to a sort of core of "what's good is classic" and "what's classic is timeless".
SO... how do YOU prefer to handle "noob's" at the table? ;o)
Hey Matt, I would like to let you know that watching this video has showed me that earlier in my life, I resided in the territory of being a problem player. It helped me self-reflect and aim to be a better player as it is a big burden on my DM's shoulders to design a world for me and my friends to banter in. For that, I thank you my man :)
Hi. In which way was you a problem player?
There seems to be many kinds of mismatch.
I have two groups that I run for and (thankfully) don't have a problem player as such, but I do have a group that I think have very different expectations from D&D. A couple of them are very much about pursuing character goals, building a tavern, getting revenge for a murdered friend etc. One is very much about pushing the overall story forward, and another likes the routine of "find enemy, plan, kill it" and likes the freedom to explore the different ways of achieving a goal, not strictly the most direct or easy route.
I think Matt is right when he says there is a table for everyone, you can't expect every person who turns up to play to enjoy all the same aspects as each other or you. I'm fortunate that my group knows my personality and my style, they also know that I like to throw in lots of different ideas into a campaign and understand that eventually, they'll get the session they want. That's really, really important for a group. A campaign doesn't have to carry the same tone all the way through. If you have a player that obviously likes a bit of levity and silliness, through in a few side quests that have that style. If you have someone who likes relentless action, give them that big battle they have been itching for. Not all the time, you have other players to cater to, but sometimes.
And, if you are a player, wait your turn. Your DM is working hard to bring you fun every week (in most cases). Make your expectations clear without making demands, and the part of the game that you love will come around. Don't try to make it all about you, that's not D&D and it's not playing with friends, that's writing a novel.
All comes back to what Matt says about Sportsmanship. I never really thought of it in that term before but he's so dead on, it's excellent advice. It greases the wheels of a healthy group, same with the DM having a degree of authority. That doesn't mean you have to boss people about, authority can be a friendly thing.
Excellent video, Matt.
Reverend Rover can I ask some questions.
1. Did you do anything help the groups understand your style or does that just come with time?
2. Do you believe the people at those tables have to be separate because their styles are so different?
3. How did you figure out when one of your ideas interested a group?
14 minutes in and I agree with everything about your point about good sportsmanship and compromise...I agree with everything except the "no grumbling and no grousing". That's like, the number one thing my friends and I do. I think that might be our foundation that we built decades on, is the ability to say "this sucks" in a relatively funny way.
Well said, lol. Even if you had to say it before me! *Grumbles Audibly*
Hey Matt, generally good advice here. My only disconnect was in saying that you think the best players are the ones that would be happy to play another game and that those that only show up to play D&D tend to be the problem players.
I play in a weekly Wed night group at my FLGS and didnt know anyone until the day I first showed up and sat down at the table. I look forward to this night SO much and the people I play with are engaged, they are creative, we all gel together and have an amazing time. We created a group text and talk throughout the week and plan and discuss and all get excited as Wed draws near. I can say, however, that as much fun as we all have and the bods D&D has created, if the store closed down D&D and decided to make it board game night or any other game, it would fall apart. We are there to play D&D and have an amazing time doing it.
I also run a Sunday night game. Many of these players would be more than happy to just have a movie night, or play another game, or just hang out and socialize. They all enjoy playing D&D... but they would be just as hapy to play any game I dropped in front of them. In this group, one of the players constantly wanders away from the table. Every turn has to ask "who has taken damage?" and is (by all accounts) a problem player. He's a good friend... he likes having fun and he enjoys playing... but (and I'll say this is Colorado and he does partake in a lot of weed smoking) the fact that he would be happy to play ANY game, the fact that he isnt there "to play D&D" has caused me to loose players who did want to play the game and got frustrated.
I have 2 current examples of groups and both conflict with what you said. Otherwise, your video was spot on. As to how I dealt with it, I closed down the Sunday game. I'm now creating a new custom world, and when Im ready to start again, it will be with many new players.
This is all fantastic advice. Thanks Matt.
I did want to say that my experience with groups has been different in the sense of players being friends that play alot of games... In my experience we get together to specifically to play DnD and only DnD. It has worked great for me/us. I played for 6 years with a group that only played DnD. We only stopped beause i had to move away. And I'm in a group now that's been going for 2 years and we only get together for DND.
This obviously doesn't change the meat and potatoes of this video. I just thought I'd add my experience.
At the beginning you mentioned there are two problems: One problem player, or a misalignment with everyone. You mostly touched in having one problem player.
In my game I’ve got 5 players that want something different. And 3 of them obviously want something different. From what myself and 2 other players want. This leads to moments of stepping over each other’s feet in game and ruining plans or making the game less enjoyable for others.
I’ve attempted to fix this about a month ago by trying to discuss what everyone wants and what their characters want. But this put all of the solution in myself and I got overwhelmed with trying to figure out a way to cram what everyone wants into one session. And now we’re back to steeping on each other’s feet.
I plan on trying to simplify and out source the work for everyone to do their own part, but I know based on the effort those 3 players have put in, that they likely won’t take the step to improve or change how they approach the game.
Hey Matt, love your videos man!
One of my players is starting down the road of "problematic". So your timing with this video is spot on! Anyway I'm working on solving this problem already, and what I did was this;
I talked to him about some of the red flags I noticed popping up for the last few sessions. I decided one-one would be best for this person. We talked, but as you said, he wanted to stop as quickly as we could... however I felt he understood where I was coming from and said he would work on it. With that, I spoke to each of my other members to let them know what we'd talked about and what I'd like to see from everyone moving forward. Everyone agreed I did the right thing and they were happy the talk happened. I feel as though I was direct with my words and questions, yet gave him room to express his side and feelings of the events. Granted he was very defensive while talking.
Anyway, your advice on groups being tight knit and playing other games together is a great Idea, I'm going to see how it pans out and we'll likely take a week away from our D&D sessions. I'm sure my players will be eager to jump back into D&D the following week and hopefully, we can build our bonds some going forward.
In closing, I hope this problem works its self out in the end, I feel like, for the most part, we're already past it. But I get the feeling that it wont be the last time a red flag pops up, I'd hate to ask someone to step down, he's not a bad player, he's just slightly aggressive, controlling, and a bit of a rules lawyer (only when it suits him though). But again, Hopefully this wont keep being a problem.
Way too late but how did the situation continue after the talk?
@@Link933
Ah wow, this was a while ago huh? Let's see what I remember lol.
While everything went okay for the remainder of that campaign, I realized that he wasn't really the only problem. I started writing for our next campaign and one of my good friends/player offered to take over DMing for me while I did.
I don't know what it was, maybe me being a player and not having to juggle 100 things at once? Either way, it let me observe the group a bit more. I learned that two other players were actively playing other games, in the middle of the session, while the rest of the party was trying to get shit done. Hence why they were so quite when we played.
Anyway, at this point I was running a vampire campaign too while also playing in my friends game. Once the vamp campaign came to a close I had made up my mind. Half our party was great, the other half... not so much. Worse still was that two of the problematic players were friends of my good players. I let them join per those requests... Meaning I never had the time to properly vet them before they joined, a mistake I wouldn't make again! lol
So... I finally finished writing for my next campaign and decided that sharing all my hard work with those three would just be more upsetting for me than fun. So I set out on a LFG reddit group and made a post for my next campaign. Not sure if it was my writing, setting, or what... but I got over 60 applications for the three slots.
I spoke with my good party members and they were fully understanding of me trying to find better party members. After days of interviews, I did indeed find the people that make up my current party!
We're actively playing that campaign every week, with a big party of seven (eight with myself). Been playing for nearly two years with the new guys and have zero complaints about anyone in that session. The current game is going great and everyone is quite active!
@@IICubeII oh man, the playing a different game on the side thing seems pretty disrespectful. Glad the current game is going great and thanks for the response.
@@Link933
Yeah, good friends don't always make for good players!
I agree with most of what you say, but I feel it mainly applies to a home game. My route back into D&D came through a brilliant game store, where many groups got together through the store's Facebook page. This means that many players are making contact just to play D&D. They don't know the rest of the group until they meet, then they are in that group to play that one game. Being part of that gaming community gives them outlets to scratch their gaming itch in other events run by the store, but D&D night is for that - nothing else. In that context, where friendships build at the table and are delicate constructs, public conversations about trouble players can be quite destructive. Equally, many gamers have social anxieties which collaborative gaming helps with. There is a much higher representation of neuro-atypical people in the gaming world. Public confrontations can be devastating, even when handled sensitively. In all 3 long campaigns I have played in store there was at least 1 player with ASD or other social difficulties. In 2 of the 3, we had a problem player who fell within this group. I tend to think this is typical of gamestore groups, although I have no empirical evidence for this. For this reason, I would suggest a more phased approach, with phase 1 being a quiet conversation away from the table, perhaps by text, email, Messenger or whatever.
I've recently had an extreme advancement in self-awareness. I was DMing for 2 years for this group of friend/collegues and they were all having fun (i guess due to the fact they kept asking/organizing the next session each week),,,, but I wasn't! I know it's NOT my game but at least i should have fun in my freetime.... i was giving them what they wanted (killing stuff and seducing any female... alive or not).... after a year and half of slow building burnout i've decided it was enough. I've let one of the players take the mantle and i've stepped out of the group. Don't get me wrong they are fine people, but their gaming style isn't mine... i don't want nor have the right to impose my will BUT... in the end i've realized that is true both ways! Maybe i will find another group maybe not... atm i don't really care...I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
I recently ended a campaign for similar reasons. It became more work than fun. I've used this time in between campaigns to write potential adventure/campaign ideas and do more world building stuff so that I can really just sit back and enjoy the next campaign without stressing about what I've got to plan next. I foresee my next campaign going really well mainly just because I'm much more organized now.
Flavio Zancarli the sad truth of the DM is you never play your perfect game, because you cannot run it for yourself
Too true. lol
Upvote for my favorite LOTR quote
Something familiar... In my place, most players I've played along with have been satisfied with flat killing and looting. Also not my favorite style. I'm more into narrative heavy and rules light games. And I suspect that both D&D and PF with their monstrous monster tomes provoke certain type of games. Whenever I get a group to play some indie RPGs it's totally different experience.
A phrase to start the conversation starts at 5:39 . Id recommend leaving out the "but" when transitioning to the second phrase. "But" devalues everything that was said before. It can emotionally invalidate.
Compare (just say these phrases out loud to yourself and see which feels better):
"Listen Steve, I want you to have fun playing DnD with us. BUT I am not having fun right now. I want us all to get along and it seems like you want different things from the game."
To:
"Listen Steve, I want you to have fun playing DnD with us. And I want to have fun as well, which I'm having a hard time with. I want us all to get along and it seems like you want different things from the game."
Additionally, you can experiment with how much of a "you vs me/us" you are creating. You want Steve to be aware they are breaking the norm, and at the same time, you want them to still feel part of the group.
Regarding the "...not taking the game seriously" issue, it may be worth suggesting a session (or even a one-shot) in which you play it their way. Sometimes it's fun to kick the dungeon door down and kill the monsters, and the only motivation is "duh, they're monsters". Sometimes its fun to go a silly route and play for laughs. And sometimes getting to do that (and even overdo that for an entire night) is enough to scratch the itch of the player who is only there to roll dice and make jokes. There will still be communication necessary, but it may be something worth trying once in a while.
The issue is when the rest of the group absolutely does not want to do that. Like, I, when I was still new to DMing, was running a group that was made almost entirely of people that enjoyed thick, serious gameplay (myself included), and one person who was completely taking the game without the slightest semblance of seriousness. If I catered to that one player, not only would I have a more unpleasant night, but so would the rest of my players.
Anthony Scurto Well, then that idea wouldn't work for you. So... don't do it. /shrug
Elijah Scott Absolutely. And I think that style of game has a shelf-life anyway. Sometimes, it only takes a session or so for people to "get it out of their system" so to speak. Sometimes not, of course, but it doesn't hurt to try.
Agreed, people being annoyingly stubborn and stuck in their own way of doing things has been a serious problem, especially within Tabletop D&D. There has to be some leeway in any social interaction or you're gonna have a hard time.
Yeah, I mean, even if you manage to pull off the improbable and get 4-6 like-minded people together around the table, you're still not clones. Gotta be accommodating from time-to-time, or, even better, try to find a little fun in their style, especially if you're pushing them to find the fun in yours.
I think the group discussion is a useful tool for dealing with problem players, but I don't think it should be the first one. I think pulling the rough equivalent of a public name-and-shame is a quick way to get people resentful. Whenever I've had to have a talk with a player in one of my games, with two exceptions they genuinely didn't realize they were doing the problem behaviors. I pulled them aside privately, approached it as a problem to be solved rather than a stern talking-to ("Hey, this is the situation, this is why it's an issue, how can we avoid it in the future?"), and they've turned into model players. Occasionally I'll have to remind one if they start slipping into bad habits, but it's a rarity and it's almost never intentional.
Of course, problem players who this does NOT work on, can then be best addressed at the table. Bring the group into it, it establishes clear escalation without being unreasonable (this is still a "this is an issue, we'd like to solve it with you" conversation, after all) and it establishes clear cause and chain-of-events in case the player continues doing the thing and you need to take the nuclear option and ask them to find another table to play at (hopefully avoiding gossiping about the tyrant dm who kicked their friend out of the group for no reason)
While the sentiment of having a group who plays games and one of them happens to be D&D may be your experience, I don't think that is how it works for most people. Not all of us just have friends that all want to and have the schedule alignment to play D&D together.
As a player I went out and join random groups that met for D&D and managed to meet some great people, and I learned a lot playing with some great DMs that I would have never have known playing with friends. The first group I started was made from people who I'm friends (and friends of friends) with and happen to like D&D, that crashed and burned because we all had different ideas about what we wanted from a game and the level of investment wasn't there. So I gave it another shot and found most of my players online. My players now all have the same passion for D&D that I do, and they have similar outlooks on what they want since I clearly defined my philosophy and how I want to run things as a DM beforehand. We all come to the table because we love D&D, not some other random game, and it has been going great so far.
Well his point doesn't seem to be pick people you have played with before, but play with people that you *can* play other things with in the future. If your new dnd group that you've only played dnd with cuz that's how you met them one night goes "hey wanna play cards against humanity? Not feeling up for the whole dnd thing", if those are people you really enjoy playing with you'l probably sit down and play with them even if CAH isn't as fun to you as DnD. And the act of having players willing to compromise means you have a good group of people who can empathize with eachother and see beyond their own PoV. His point wasn't "only play with people you've played with before" but play with people that are tolerable outside of the DnD table.
I think that is a nice ideal scenario, and D&D is better when you know who people are outside of the table, but it takes time and trust to build that kind of relationship. If your group has a problem player in it than people are less likely to get to the point where the group would attend a session of Cards Against Humanity rather than skipping it to do something else. There is a huge gap between someone who may not be comfortable with playing different games with a group for a variety of reasons and a problem player.
A lot of Matt's advice can be applied universally, but that is a statement that is limited by his perspective. Working in the games industry and being a published author gives Matt far more opportunities to meet people who are passionate about D&D and tabletop games than the average person. I'm the only person at my company that plays D&D, most of my co-workers don't even know what D&D is. If your life is surrounded with people who have those passions it becomes the norm to be in a group that would play a variety of tabletop games.
Someone who is just there to play D&D tends to be a problem player for the style of groups Matt plays in, but it is a correlation Matt noticed from his perspective and not an actual sign of an actual problem player. I don't think people should be using it as criteria for determining problem players, since that likely isn't a problem at most tables.
Yes but his point isn't necessarily wrong it's just not likely for everyone to achieve. I went from gaming with only my group of friends to gaming at our local dnd club and i went from never having a problem player to consistently having problem players and usually it boiled down to the player unwilling to compromise what *he* wants from games to facilitate the good of the group having a good time. If you sit down with a group of friends you know you can play games with for hours then you know for sure you will get a game with players who are willing to compromise with eachother to have fun. You aren't guaranteed that when you play with people you found *just* to play dnd. He isn't saying that having groups of random people *creates* problem players it just means you're more likely to get someone who hasn't figured out how to compromise with others for the good of a group. The point to take away from this is "not to only play with people that you currently are friends with" it's that people you have had gaming nights with countless times before will already know how to empathize with others.
I agree Luckmaker. That's just been his experience. I'm in four groups now, and all we play together is D&D. Several of the members are now friends, though we started as strangers. My groups are certainly healthy groups -- if they weren't I'd be kicking the problems, as I've done in the past.
I think that groups that start as friends who then play D&D are more likely to conform to his experience. Groups that start as strangers who come together to play D&D are more likely to only play D&D together.
All that said, the day I lose interest in D&D or would like a break, I'd be open to playing something else briefly. However, D&D is what brings us all together.
My D&D buddies started out at adventures league thursdays at our local games shop. then we started a homebrew campaign when we were tired of that. That was 4 years ago now. We still get together to play, and over time we've played a lot of other rpgs and board games too. Sometimes the DM just isn't in the mood and that's why I always keep terraforming mars and evolution in my car. :)
Thanks for another great video Matt, definitely some solid advice.
My in-person group I've been playing with for ~3 years now has several problem players, and it's making the current campaign completely tedious for me, and I think for pretty much everyone else too. One of them, the one that brought this group together to begin with and spent the first two-ish years DMing us and is now a player, is only engaged in moments where he is the center of attention, often scrolling through stuff on his phone during others scenes or simply wandering off to lie down on the couch or whatever. He constantly needs details repeated to him from the DM, breaking everyone's immersion, and ruining the flow of scenes. He's also playing a goblin character, but then not accepting the social ramifications of that within a world where goblins tend to be, well, monsters who kill civilized folks, seeming to want everyone to just accept him as a normal character.
One of the other players really doesn't want to be playing D&D, as he hates the mechanics, especially those of combat. He really wants to be playing a system built more for fluid and freeform combat, that doesn't use initiative trackers or really many dice. So whenever we have combat (which I love and have mostly built my character around) I feel like I don't get to enjoy it cos his demeanor turns completely sour and his character only begrudgingly gets involved in combats at all, sometimes even just running off and hiding somewhere.
I'm not the DM of that group though, so I don't feel like it's my place confront these players. I know the DM has tried to adjust the game to incorporate more for the anti-combat player, and I know he's talked to the other player too, but nothing's improved, and for many months now I walk away from every session feeling like it's been not only a waste of time, but also severely frustrated and like maybe it's time I drop out of the group, even though I really don't want to, cos I consider them all to be really good friends, and I don't want to not play with them anymore.
Maybe, ultimately I'm the problem player though. I want to play a serious, combat heavy, RP'd campaign in a homebrew world, where players get into character, and take the situations seriously and add to the immersion rather than taking away from it. I don't want to play other games most of the time, because I love the D&D system so much. It works for how I like to play the game, and the settings I like to play in. I play in two long-running 5e D&D campaigns, and am writing and running my own homebrew campaign for a group too. I honestly don't know, maybe I'm just too passionate about this game!
Sounds like you have options, at least.
I mean, does the DM know you feel this way? Maybe the lazy Goblin-player would be more inclined to change his ways if he got some pushback from the group?
As in life, so too in D&D: "Winning" is about demonstrating that you play well with others.
Matt, I just wanted to let you know I've watched a lot of your videos I've implemented a lot of your advice. The last Star Wars adventure I ran and it was a blast because of it. You've helped me be a better GM and the game has improved.
Would watch tonight, but I'm going to be busy.... Playing Dnd.
Simon Hobson same here. My buddy is running a side game for us, (normally I dm) and he recreated his own city to the east of the Land of Amn in Faerun. Been a lot of fun to be a player for once.
Saturday is game night for me too
you are excused sir!
k
How was it?
Hey Matt, thanks for the great video. Definitely going to make use of some of this advice.
One thing I've had an issue with is a player who spends a lot of the game time (10-30 minutes per session) arguing with the GM about EVERYTHING. It's in part because they don't have a solid grasp of the rules and tend to skim-read abilities. They're also very strongly opinionated, which causes them to want to argue GM rulings on rules and abilities and also tend to argue narrative points or the power level of NPC characters. Eventually many of their arguments boil down to "that's so bullsh*t". I feel like the core of the issue is that they're not respecting my authority as the GM, nor are they considering the other players at the table. I think part of the reason they don't respect my authority as GM is because they tend to think of the campaign as a video game, and one where they can argue and petition directly with the game to make changes that they want. We're all good friends out of game, and this particular player is heavily invested in their character and the world I've been building.
I've been pretty lenient with them so far (I'm not a very confrontational person), but I have talked to them about their behaviour before. They said they would try to work on it, yet nothing has really changed. I've talked to another player about them and the consensus was that I would make my expectations clear next time there's an issue. If you have any further advice, that would be fantastic.
I think I read a comment up top that said something about words being only as strong as your actions behind them.
So if your player is not changing his or her way, I'd say it is ok to crack down on them by just saying you won't discuss this with them now and if there are any rule-problems or whatever, to come to you after the session.
If your discussions are always gonna end with him calling bullshit, you might as well just skip to that part immediately.
The often start with him calling bullshit, end with him calling bullshit, and coincidentally happens to be the meat of his arguments.
I think you'd have to be as firm as you can be that you're not discussing this with him at the table, that it can be discussed at a later date. Point out that other people are waiting to get on with the game.
I'm a pretty stern DM- I try not to be overly mean or anything but when players try to 'negotiate' with me about how I run the game, I don't have a lot of patience.
Usually, if a player is unhappy and says that they want something to be done a different way, I explain why it happened that way and suggest other actions they can take to get the outcome they want. For example if a player tries to use an ability in a way it can't be used, I just say "sorry, that ability doesn't work that way. If you're trying to achieve X, you could always try methods A or B." That way I am clear that no, they cannot take that course of action to get the outcome they want, but give them other ideas to think about so that they don't feel I am limiting them or shutting down their desires.
That being said, if someone is CONSISTENTLY arguing with me for a LONG time after I have already told them that they can't do something, or that they can do it but it won't work the way they think it should, I get strict and employ some DM punishments. For instance if someone is arguing with me about a ruling during their turn in combat, I say "okay- it has been over 5 minutes of this and your combat turn has passed with your character just standing there. Next player! What are you going to do?"
Also I have had players who are just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and when they are bickering with me about something maybe about how the world works, or they think an NPC should have responded a different way, I just say that their character got struck by a bolt of lighting and they took 2 damage. And then if they keep arguing then oh hey wow another bolt of lightning! How odd! (I save this for the players who I know will just laugh it off and take the hint to move on. Also by the time they enter into any combat I let them know that they have healed from the lightning damage)
Ummmm so that was a lot longer than I thought it would be but they're just some ways I deal with difficult players. I try to be clear that during the game we are going by MY rules, and I call people out when they halt the progress of the entire group in order to argue one tiny detail. Obviously, different things work for different people and players, but I hope you manage to everything out and both you and your players can have a more relaxing game!
I'm naming my next character Hypothetical Steve
I LOVE the campaign prep! Always a great insight into seeing how other people work. I always learn something new from every person.
I started running my first game of D&D earlier this year, and, unfortunately, I had to have this conversation with one of my players. I essentially pointed out that he seemed to want a different type of game than the one I was running. Due to the severity of his behavior, I had to eventually ask him to leave.
It was a bit of an unfortunate start, but I'm happy to say that I've found better players that make GM/DMing a treat.
Can I ask you a question, without being judged?! I'm super green to D&D, what is GM, and is it different than DM? I know DM is Dungeon Master, right? Is GM Game Master? I'm really trying to understand this all....thank you for any help!!! :)
@@mrskkrueger It is not a very important distinction. The term GM is used for the Game Master of any game (be it rpg or not), while Dungeon Master (DM) specifically refers to *Dungeons* & Dragons.
@@sjiht0019 THANK YOU!!!! I really appreciate the straight up answer. We are waiting for responses to start a group in my area, and while we wait, my husband suggested I play Neverwinter. I'm enjoying the game, but wanted to ask someone with experience playing tabletop, verses playing Neverwinter, did it help understand tabletop? I think I'm understanding the game better, playing Neverwinter, just curious if anyone else went about it backwards, like I am?!
@@mrskkrueger Neverwinter is a good, enjoyable game, but it's unnecessarily complicated. It's most useful when you're running a game that is also set in the Forgotten Realms, but there's always something to learn from Neverwinter, even if that's what not to do.
You are amazing. Thank you for holding my hand through every single video. You are great at explaining yourself. You make great sense. I think your advice can roll over to other parts of peoples lives. You are a great teacher. Thank you for your videos. I have learned so much. I am a totally blind mother of four children who want to play d and d you inspire me to run a game for my kids.Thanks again.
What if your problem player gainsays your worldbuilding?
"No, that's not how that works," or, "That's not how much that weighs(/costs)."
Penny for your thoughts
Had that one :T
"Is this your world?"
"Ever heard of homebrew?"
Had a player do that when I had an npc who was a dragon not know where dragonborn came from (he saw them as too low to be on his radar) and he thought it was when dragons and humans crossbreed, and the player went "No it isnt, that's not where they come from"
😧
If you make the worldbuilding part more collaborative, this might not come up. Don't tell them what is in the woods, ask them. Discover it together. So it's not a Boss DM, it's a narrator, who is serving the players. If you have good players, who all want the same kind of fun, it should remove the conflict.
The bit about face-to-face time hits different now
You are absolutely right. There is NOT always a solution. Some people are non-malleable..
Good video Matt! I think something that really helps a lot is having a session zero before you start a campaign, so that everyone knows what the expectations are and is on the same page. Then if someone steps out of line in a way that's ruining the game for other people a conversation like this isn't out of turn, but could be expected. Our group made a " Magna Carta" to outline our table rules and ecpectations.
My major problem right now is that my problem player is the problem friend in a friend group, and we're all at that point in life where everyone lives together, and has too few assets and alternatives to weed out an incredibly toxic person from our lives without the turmoil of the weeding out being significantly worse than the current toxic state of affairs.
We're talking violence and threats of it, constant bullying of friends, high levels of stress when they are around. The whole shabang, they even don't wash their dishes.
And oh yeah, we regularly play D&D together, and it results in problems.
People will often tell you "easy, the problem is just leave, or just talk to them" but it sort of ignores the massive difficulties in coping with people who aren't misunderstanding anything, who are aware of the discomfort they cause, and believe it makes them "dominant" (Great neutral or lawful evil villain inspiration though).
Sometimes social situations are tied up in such a way there is no easy way out and the question has to become "How do I make this more comfortable for everyone else involved?"
Thanks for the video Matt, I've done something similar in my game in calling the table to a halt to ask if someone is having fun, but I've never been able to dissect and find wording quite as good as this rather specific advice, which should help me bare with this player for the next few months when the problem will resolve itself.
That sounds like a really rough situation. I think the best thing to do if possible is band together against this person. If they get violent with one person, everyone should dogpile them and sit on them til they learn about strength in numbers.
Well if you’re not exaggerating and they’re actually physically harming people and further threatening others, the simple solution is call the police and they’ll remove the problem player from the game AND apartment for you…
@@Bonobo_JoJo
Police are NOT an instant-win button and thanks to courts, making someone go away legally is very long, very difficult, VERY expensive, and may not even work.
Your insight in this video extends beyond DnD, its just great advice for human interaction in general. As always, well done!
DM job is to facilitate a successful run, which includes group cohesion, cooperation and consideration for one another. Often times, you can simply ask the group to sit in different spots and if asked why, mention an observation, cite an example and express a hope for a change in behavior or to be able to better hear a player who gets talked over too often.
I'd agree but I would also say the players have a responsibility not to be jerks.
Johnny Bigbones Yep. Sometimes louder, more outgoing or experienced players get caught up with a strategy or chance to roleplay a certain personality and it isn't intentional, but they get louder and more animated at the expense of quieter or less experienced players. Simply asking to organize their placement so you can better hear someone usually sparks a conversation where no one stands accused by the DM. The first time, anyway. The `don't be a dick` rule has always been part of any group I have been part of. The outright contrarian skullduggery outlined below is something I have never witnessed so this method very likely wouldn't work in such a situation.
Good topic Matt and great advice.
I think one other reason people ask these questions is that they want to hear DM horror stories about the groups they have been in and want to see if & how the issues were resolved or not. They are looking to see if the stuff going on at their table is reflective of what other DMs have encountered.
Talking about the topic of the video, I think you honestly are mostly right. Talking to problem players (me being always the DM) about their behaviour and/or views of the game often leads to future games being more enjoyable as a group. However, if a players is a bit more sensitive or outright aggressive, then even mentioning that they are not right about something could turn the night into a disaster. What I am trying to say is that I would add one thing to the video (which your sort of mentioned) is to think before you talk to those problem players about what they are doing “wrong”. If you know that they will be calm and ok about it, then go ahead, talk it through then move on with the game. If this isn’t the case and you know they are a bit hot headed, then you are probably better off talking to them privately. Great video as always, and I hope everything goes right for you, Matt.
This is a good point. You need to confront them, but logistically, if there is a decent chance of it blowing up your entire gaming night, then don't invite everyone over for the blow up. Just talk to the person on the side.
Obstreperous: a word that Matthew Colvile has introduced to my vocabulary.
Thank you! I've been watching your stuff on UA-cam. You seem like a well learned DM. On the few points/topics where I disagree with what you present I think there is ample room for discussion. Cheers!
It's interesting, the difference between a problem player and problem behaviour in-game. Someone could be perfectly civil at the table and an absolute nightmare in-game, killing NPCs and hoarding magic items. In one regard you have an opportunity to put your concerns to the group at the table and hopefully work through the problem and in the other you can pursue the player with in-game consequences. "The guards want a word about this wanted poster from the next town over", "as you collect up the magical items you look down at the obsidian blade in your grasp and feel a sense of dread as you hear the words 'oh, another soul to play with' in the back of your mind.", so many options :-P
I like your attitude here. If someone is a problem player but you still wanna play with that person assuming they change a few habits of theirs, exhaust your options for making it work through communication, but be ready to realize that at one point you will have exhausted all options without finding a solution and that's okay.
And that's just one of several good points made in this video. The advice about a good group ideally having more than just D&D that binds them is also great. I won't follow because I'm a super introverted, asocial wangrod for most hours of my life and only really need a bit of D&D each week to fulfill my social and creative needs. Still, I can tell how my approach to to the hobby means I'm not taking advantage of its full potential and how many of the times I've been a problem player has been at least influenced by this approach of mine. Still, I've been able to have and contribute to fun so I'm sticking to this part of myself.
I got kicked out of a gamer organization that had a DND section. Me and another player were the "Problem Players". If you think you might be a problem player, make sure you have a good dialogue with the GM and other players. When the administration of the organization changed the other "Problem Player" went crying to the admins and get me kicked out. The new administration didn't reach out to me, they just booted me. If I had talked to them first about how we often fought and he was the instigator, then perhaps I could have hopped ship and gotten into a game without him, while staying inside the same org.
Dealing with a similar problem right now. I joined the campaign as I was friends with the DM and so did a few people from the same discord server, this one guy and I have issues. (We play over discord chat so the "table" dynamics are very different) Really came to a head last night when we had an IC issue and then he came at OOC and I retorted when I should have bit my tongue. This has been ongoing for a month or so now and he's usually the instigator. DM has just threatened to throw us both off more or less if it keeps up. So now I'm just trying to talk to the other players about what happened.
This probably isn't the best video to leave this on, I just wanted to leave it on a more recent video. THANK YOU COLVILLE! I have watched a lot of your older stuff to get ready for my game and it has helped a ton. I will be DM'ing for my first time soon and I can't wait to start stretching these DM muscles.
Matt should make Hypothetical Steve a thing.
Matt you always know exactly what issues I'm having and release a video on that! Thanks! :)
Remember, there is also the following problem players:
My wife, who never played d&d before I started running a campaign, caused TPK first session, and is on her 4th character in this campaign.
My 9 year old son, who plays his barbarian as if it is a video game and has no sense of teamwork or communication.
My 4 year old, who's cleric randomly "shoot fire", "run over there", "help mommy", or "climb a tree"
My 2 year old who throws the dice on the floor and wants to cram fifty dice in a dice tower at once, and who's character has long since died but insists on rolling dice when her brothers do.
They have been in the same 6 room dungeon for about 10 sessions. They got their first magic item yesterday: A +1 Silvered Dragonhide Whip of Grappling.
That sounds cute and fun, but extremely frustrating at the same time.
For the family folks out there, I highly recommend running a family game night. It is VERY fun and VERY cute. My 4 year old was the only one to make his perception check for a trap, so I told him all about the trap, and then I urged him to tell the others (his mom and brother). The result was amazing. I'm not 100% sure of everything he said, but he did describe most of the trap (a pendulum blade trap) but then he launched into an explanation of something, not sure what, that sounded like it was just EPIC in his head. He was waving his hands about and doing sound effects. I was so proud.
that sounds amazing. something to look forward to for me.
That sounds genuinely miserable.
The obvious sequel to this wonderful video is 'Problem Dungeon Masters' . Let's stick it to those who run the game to tell their story and make the players watch! ;)
Same advice, go talk to them.Maybe talk to the other players if they agree with you and tell them what makes you not having fun
We did a thing with our group when the current campaign ended, where each player would play a 3-5 session mini-campaign. This way, everyone would get to experience DM'ing without heavy commitment.
I've had one of them literally chop the continent we were on in half with impassable fire except for the one spot where they toppled a tree (must've been a huge tree) over the chasm, all just to create a tense moment. Obviously, we were not inclined to travel over a fire-chasm walking over a tree, but he made it literally impossible to do anything else.
Surprisingly, when the DM rotation was over and he suggested to do a real campaign, no on was particularly exited about that suggestion. We quickly moved on to the other person who actually managed to put in a pretty cool story without railroading every spoken word.
My players thought i was doing that when i started my campaign. But in reality i was using my first three sessions to setup the bad guys and give the players the feeling that they where in way over their heads. Now that they are higher level and have better gear everything seems to work out as they really want to stick it to the bad guys.
Only problem i have is a player that sometimes tries to take over my game.
Look up the Henderson Scale of Derailment and do a 0.5 or a 0.75 Henderson to them. If they realize their mistakes, there won't be a new session and they might even drop GMing completely. If they don't, do a full Henderson, then tell them, bit by bit, preferably from a list prepared beforehand, every single detail that made the entire time playing an absolute parody of the genre and how the wankfest-tier shitshow of a story the GM pulled isn't interesting for anybody on the table, except for them.
You're a problem upon this community if you don't let your players have any agency (regardless if it's for the first three or thirty sessions) under any excuse, even as boring as "I have to set up the bad guys." If your players' choices don't matter, do everyone a favor and end the campaign. Nobody wants to hear your bad guys' motivations or the backstories to your amazing NPCs.
Looking forward to the next pantheon video. The collaborative thing was neat but I find your ‘process’ more interesting.
I had a player in our group whose belief was that it was all a magic show by the DM who was *supposed* to secretly railroad the players and simply present an illusion of mortality, and to cleverly bail out the players of any situation. I run a world with limited resurrection capacity, so when this player's bell finally tolled, they then expected me to bend the rules of the world to save their character. We had a long argument online about it later and it confirmed my, and the group's, suspicions that really he'd been pretty much playing his own game the whole time, with the expectation that we were all doing the same thing. The last communication we had was that he never wanted to hear from me again unless it was to announce I was going to (somehow) bring his character back.
To be fair - I think the grittiness and policy towards character death should be very well understood by all players right up front. Hard to do, and some people still won't understand it until their character is dead and gone.
I completely agree. Which is why, during our Session 0, I made it plain and clear that resurrection was a 1-and-done. 1 attempt can be made on any given soul to bring it back, successful or not. And yet this player persisted in thinking that it was just a smokescreen and that it was just a piece of foreboding window dressing, as opposed to the clear and present danger that it actually was.
That sounds difficult, can I ask if there was any particular lesson you learned from that? Or was it just that you have to hold your ground with the rules of your style of play?
Unfortunately I think all I learned is that some players will pout and stomp their feet to try and get their way, and that I think you need to hold your ground when they do, otherwise it just emboldens them.
I think I needed this video. I'm very non-confrontational so if there's something going on that I don't like I usually just stay quiet and deal with it. But if it's something that affects not just me, but the whole table, I need to step up and lay down expectations.
I would hate being singled out in front of a group of people in such a way. Because that's what this advice does and there's a lot of presumption here that assumes how the singled out person will feel or react.
Yeah I also would probably not do that unless pushed to it by some sort of exceptional circumstance. I think these things are almost always better done one on one. But I'm fairly confident, I think Matt's advice is aimed at people who are less confident and may feel like they need support.
Singling the person out is kind of the point. I suspect you mean to imply unfairness, and sure, if you're unfairly singled out, that's not cool. But when you have a problem player, it is not right or fair to address the table as a whole, as that is not reasonable to expect the PP to understand you are really talking to THEM, and it sends the message to the other players that they are to blame for another person's actions.
Yeah. In my experience with other things, doing this will end up putting the person in defensive. Which is the opposite of what you want.
Your comments about irreconcilable Incompatibility with players is definitely very true, it's been my experience as well.
I would recommend the book: Never Split the Difference.
These are subtle negotiation tactics that build empathy. Get the problem player on the case of solving the problem himself.
This is a great book!
"I think any video over 12 minutes is a long video." I did too before I subscribed to your channel. Now anything less than 45 minutes is a short video.
My friends and I are pretty new to D&D and we've always talked about making a large sandbox game that will last for ages. As the dungeon master, I was pretty nervous. However, your videos have made me way more confident and have given me ideas that I wouldn't have considered before. Thanks!
This will be unpopular but it works. Train the bad player like a child ignore bad behavior and reward good behavior.
Whenever they behave well say "hey thanks man you did a great job in that scene!"
If they play a scene out poorly just move on, don't laugh or pay it anymore attention and absolutely no rewards for bad behaviour.
This will make the player 'want' to play better as the purpose of the bad behaviour is to gain attention.
Do you compliment at the table as a off hand comment or do you make a point of it after the game? Or do you do a mix of both? I'm trying to become a DM and just trying to pick up skills and this approach seems like an interesting one.
Rohan Emmet hi! Yes I will say after a great scene "that was great guys!" Because I'm trying too encourage positive attitudes in the players. Most people are seeking approval from the GM and other players so when they do a great role-playing scene or speak in character when they won't normally out of fear give them encouragement and boost their ego.
After the game is over I always thank the players for coming and making an effort in game.
You will thanked back in return and respected, I've even had players tell me I'm the best GM they've ever had. (So that's nice!)
Some of this strategy comes from my time in the army. When you take the GM role you are the leader of the group so you have to act like it at all times. Not an angry drill sergeant but a charismatic captain that people want to work with.
Rohan Emmet an example of negative play I dealt with was a player who ran off to the other side of a large building to loot treasure.
Well the large exciting fight happened without him there so I said you aren't in it because you ran off and don't know it's happening.
So he sat it out while the other players struggled without him to beat a very dangerous monster which nearly killed one of them because he wasn't there.
He realised his actions have consequences felt guilty and never ran off again like that.
When I behaved badly as a child my parents called me out on it and punished me. Worked pretty well.
This relates to an interesting comment on the sub-reddit post on this video. Someone with office manager experience was talking about the 85/15 idea, I'm just quoting them but it basically said that if you only every talk to someone when they do something wrong then they are automatically on the defensive when you say something like "we need to talk," but if 85 percent of the time you make a point of talking to them when its positive then they are more open the other fifteen percent. Thoughts?
Also Simo thank you for answering my earlier questions.
8:13 except there not your friends if that's the case. More like acquaintances who didn't know you as well as they thought and you them. All of this could have been avoided some grounds for DND etiquette had been discussed and before starting the game so that everyone clearly understood what they were getting into. Communication is key in everything.
11:50 Human's are clockworks there is avails solution if you want to find it.
Matt I couldn't agree more with what you expressed around the 13 minute mark. Great material! Keep up the good stuff.
Heh.
"I dont think digital will kill face to face"
2020:
It really hasn't though, in places where the virus is more managed (hi from Norway btw) people still play face to face as much as they can defend, and people are aching to get back to the table elsewhere. If anything the COVID situation has shown us why digital won't kill in-the-flesh gaming, by forcing us to live through something simmilar and see how miserable it is. That said, digital is so much better than nothing, and a valid preference, though the part about it not filling social needa fully still hold, I think
This advice works in almost any situation... Not all, but a lot of them.
Matt's a smart guy.
I think people go to the " There is a better group for you" option too fast. The decision that a player is a problem much more final. There is an expectation for problem players to to see the problem a bit already BEFORE it's communicated with them. WITH them is key there. SOOO much Us v Them happens. Soo much " I don't want to hurt feelings" happens until a straw breaks the camels back. Yes. I agree that lack of comparability is a very real thing, but everyone in the group has to be a part of it working out. So yeah " Dude you are hogging the stuff" " Hey sarah, your telling him how to play his character. That's not cool" don't dance around it. You don't have to be insulting, blunt or cruel, but don't sugar coat it. "Hey maybe you should take a break, lets talk about a new character maybe" is not acceptable when you mean " Fun is not happening we need some serious change if this going to work. It might not, but lets get on the same page tell me what you expected, and then let the rest of perspectives be heard." Or worse when they come back " Dude we asked you to leave, why are you here?"
"Hey maybe you should take a break, lets talk about a new character maybe" is not acceptable when you mean " Fun is not happening we need some serious change if this going to work. It might not, but lets get on the same page tell me what you expected, and then let the rest of perspectives be heard." I like that point. Its not acceptable to dance around an issue because it make you uncomfortable, I do it but its not right.
Exactly, there are in essence two kinds of problem players - those who want to be a problem and those who don't realize they are a problem. For the first generally the only solution is to ask them to leave because they just don't care about making it work with your group. For the second you need to be respectful but clear about why they are a problem and what they should do to not be a problem anymore.
Thanks Matt. I love that phrase, "I don't think you're here for the same reasons as the rest of us. Why do you play DND?" I also love the idea that I don't have to take it away from the table as it is a table thing, we're all involved...it's not just me. I just had a game like that. I had a werebear NPC eat the character (yeah, I just happened to have one hanging around) and that was the end of him. But, I do what to solve the problem so there's not a next time, with another character. I think this will be a video I will be coming back to.
4:55 When I did this during my last campaign, I got unanimous agreement from the other players. They were not having fun because of the problem player. When I offered ways to talk it out with the problem player and offer solutions / work-arounds, the problem player quit the group. The other players were so bummed out that someone quit that they quit too.
I haven't played D&D again in over a year because of this.
Some problems just don't have solutions. Sometimes the terrorist comes in and kills everyone and there is nothing you can do about it.
I think this is good advice. Conversation is only half the battle - you need action. I like that you brought up playing other games as well. Gave me something to think about.