Working with "Stubborn" Characters

[Mckma]

I feel I must be very clear when I ask all your opinions on this issue.  Essentially on the surface the topic is just asking about how you would deal with stubborn characters from a GM's perspective.  By stubborn I mean they really want to do something that either you really have no way to work in, or logically won't really work.  However I used the word stubborn in quotes and specified characters because the real reason that made me think of this was because I was actually playing one such character in the following scenario:

At the moment I am playing in a Fallout based game where we came across a small ghoul girl whose parents had been eaten by supermutants that we just killed.  I am playing a MacGyver-esque character who feels a need to help everyone and can't really say no (most of the time).  Naturally, my character would want to help the child who insisted we leave (because another character scared her), and I kept working to try and befriend her so we could get her to join us.  Eventually the other players got bored and had their characters leave to go to another building, but I didn't want to leave without the girl.  The GM clearly didn't plan to have us take her with us, and logistically there are problems with escorting a child around a post-apocalyptic wasteland with a bunch of mentally unstable gunmen/fighters.  Eventually I realized that I would have to give in and leave the child behind to not bog down the game, even though it felt out of character.

So, I understand the GM's plight and potential worry at my insistence to help and refusal to move on when it was made pretty clear we should, which is why I did.  I also was thinking in retrospect, I certainly wouldn't know what to do with a player who did want to move on (I did), but didn't because it felt out of character (I thought it did).  What would you do as GM in this, or a similar situation?

[Tadanori Oyama]

Well, as a GM I'd call a break in the game and talk to the player seperate from the others and explain that while playing your character is good, there are times when you need to let things slip past for the sake of the game.

Depending on the player, I present the issue differently. Since this is normally an issue for people very interested in their characters or who are just assholes about stuff, it can be one of two things.

For people interested in character developement, actions that are out of character serve as a contrast. People do sometimes do things which are out of character and it gives a player something for their character to reference later on. As a GM, it's my job to see that loose ends like that are eventually brought back around through the story.

If the player is just being a stubborn ass than I tell him to stop. I don't try to 'reason' with him so much as bride him. A really stubborn player isn't likely to listen to reason or we wouldn't require the GM/Player aside. So, I bride him with in-game 'currency' like twisting the plot so he's more involved in something, or that what he wants will happen without him directly involved, or whatever it takes to make the game run smoothly.

I'm not suggesting a GM always pay off players in game. Players may come to the conclusion that they can hold the game ransom to try and get what they want, which isn't very productive at all. I'm saying that in a gaming group, you do sometimes have negotiate with terrorists because to do otherwise can destory or damage the game or the group at large.

[Mckma]

I don't think I expressed my query as clearly as I had hoped, but I think you gave some really good advice.  I think what I'm actually seeking might be broader, seeking advice on both the player and GM side.  Essentially what kind of situation I am thinking of is one where every player realizes that everything of interest has passed, but a player or player(s) feel that their character would extend the scene for whatever reason (i.e. feeling compulsion to help a child NPC who is too scared to accept).  Obviously it is easiest just to move on and every player is "willing", but (like in my case) it didn't feel right for a character to just leave.  While I think a GM could write a game that minimizes instances, it still could happen.  I guess what I'm really getting at is, what are possible solutions to get moving without either feeling like you are railroading a character (from the GMs perspective) or violating what your character would do (from the players perspective).

Like I said, it's not necessarily a player problem, he/she is just not sure what to do because they (as a player) realize it's time to move on, but their character normally wouldn't.

And maybe I'm just overthinking this and should just move on and have fun (which I'll probably do in the future barring amazing suggestions)...

[Tadanori Oyama]

My universal approach is to not waste time. I count time wasted if more than one player isn't having fun. If it's just one dude then that guy's probably not paying attention anyway so fuck him. But more than one and obviously something uninteresting is going on.

If the interest of the other players has passed and the "problem", or whatever you want to call it, that the sole player is involved in doesn't significantly effect the plot than you can resolve it through the age old mechanism: the flash back. Move on, come back later.

The player makes a note of the event, as does the GM, and at the next break or after the game is finished, or during the chatter time at the start of the next session, or whenever works, the player and the GM resolve the "problem" in character. This way, the character involved knows how events transpired while others don't. It lets the individual develope, lets the player keep their character's behavior consistant, and doesn't force other characters to do things outside their natures or use up game time.

[pwvogt]

Yeah, I really think this is an issue of actual character development. Nobody wants to stay behind except your character, where's your commitment greater, to the group or the kid? Either way you're moving on, but you end up showing your group loyalty or you're completely distraught over leaving the kid. Either way it's good role playing fodder and you just roll with it. This is what makes player characters central in the story - they make the hard choices.

Alternatively you could have left your character with the kid and started a new one, if this is what your character would have been more likely to do.

[malyss]

I would have, if I was GM'ing, just had the girl tag along.

I mean, how hard would it have been to give in on that little point and, as you mentioned, she is traveling with gunfighters. How many hit-points can she have? A stray bullet in the first encounter to come along solves the tag-along problem and gives the moody character something else to be moody about and move the game along. Or to be nice, you find someone willing to take her in at the next town. Just because you aren't prepared, don't punish your players. If you really aren't prepared to deal with it, just say so. It's better to move on as has been indicated before in these forums.

In general, when dealing with stubbornness, just try and make it work as well as you can without killing the game. Don't stop to deal with it, just handle it on the fly. It may present itself in a good way later on. If you stop, you are giving them exactly what they want - attention. And not in a good way.

I have had an instance where a player really wanted to do something. It was for no other good reason than he was trying to be a shit. So I let him. No one else gave a crap, that player had their little fit and the rest of the adults at the table let him know he was being childish and I punished his character in the next encounter. I did it in a way that was a little harsh, but still fit the game - not like a lightning bolt out of the sky, but if you have most of the baddies focus on them because they made themselves the target for a good reason, it can still work. They will either learn, or keep getting burned. If they get upset, maybe they need a hobby that allows them to re-load their last save and try again for a more favourable result...

Gm'ing is on-the-spot. If you plan for everything, you will never play. I would rather game with less prep than not game because I wasn't totally, 100%, stats done, HP calculated, treasure ready yadda yadda yadda.

Inspiration is the solution to most problems in gaming, but I don't expect the players to have it. They don't know the story and we (as GM/DM) don't always tell it the best way. I'm sure most of us have been in a situation where you acted in one way because you misunderstood something. Sometimes that is the fault of the GM, and they should allow a do-over, and sometimes it is the players fault, and they should be inspired to pay more attention.

Anyway, I'm ranting now. I'll stop.

[clockworkjoe]

Compromising works out best. Why not make a mini quest about finding a good home for the girl?

[IDaMan008]

If the interest of the other players has passed and the "problem", or whatever you want to call it, that the sole player is involved in doesn't significantly effect the plot than you can resolve it through the age old mechanism: the flash back. Move on, come back later.

The player makes a note of the event, as does the GM, and at the next break or after the game is finished, or during the chatter time at the start of the next session, or whenever works, the player and the GM resolve the "problem" in character. This way, the character involved knows how events transpired while others don't. It lets the individual develope, lets the player keep their character's behavior consistant, and doesn't force other characters to do things outside their natures or use up game time.

I think that's a brilliant suggestion. The player gets to roleplay his character, and the GM gets to keep the story on track, all through the use of a to-be-determined cut scene. I've actually done this several times with various players, and it has satisfied everyone involved without fail. Working things like that later also allows you to develop individual characters one-on-one with their players without keeping everyone else at the table hanging.

Depending on how quickly the GM wanted to resolve the situation, I could also see some other possibilities. He could have let you to win her trust somehow, maybe by offering her food, or by doing something else that doesn't take a significant amount of time, and then allowed her to fade gracefully into the background until he decided what to do with her later. If he didn't want her to tag along, he could have had you escort her to the band of survivors that her parents had been living with but became separated from, or something similar, and made the trip a quick, simple aside. I probably would have thrown in something to direct the players back to the main plot, something along the lines of, "Oh, you're looking for the entrance to Vault 105 [or whatever]? I know right where that is! I can take you there!" That way, by helping her, they've helped themselves achieve their goal. The GM may have intended the little girl to be a piece of window dressing, an element to reinforce the cruel, heartless world the players inhabit, but in my experience, there are few things more satisfying than having a player pick up on a little detail like that and make it an important part of the plot simply because it interests them.

Personally, I would have prepared for the possibility that the PCs would not want to leave a helpless little girl alone in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, especially if I knew one of my players was a good Samaritan.