In the group I'm in, there is a player who claims that their character is "off his rocker", and is purposely throwing every situation into mindless childish chaos (it's been going on for the past 3 play sessions). I'm sick of it, the other players are sick of it, and it's starting to get under our ever-patient DM's skin. Immersion is out of the question, and nothing is really being taken seriously by anybody anymore.

We still want the player to stay in the group, but it's gotten to the point where the rest of the party just want something done about the issue, and nobody can figure out what to do.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/105093/… \$\endgroup\$ – goodguy5 Jan 16 '19 at 15:51
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already. I don't know if it's a perfect duplicate of the "disruptive player" question that goodguy5 linked, but it seems quite similar at least. If your situation is distinct from the one given in that linked question, could you clarify the differences that make your situation unique? (If that question solves your problem, of course, let us know that too.) \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jan 16 '19 at 15:54

D&D is primarily about the epic adventures of great heroes (or equally great villains); that is the default expectation when someone says “we are playing D&D.” To wit, the game is about dungeon-delving and dragon-slaying. You can play other things with the system, but it’s not the default expectation, and the further you get from that paradigm, the less well the system is going to be able to help you.

Great people need to have at least enough mental health to, say, recognize reality, understand cause and effect, and at least try to plan for the consequences of their actions. Someone who is “off his rocker” is not a player character in D&D. Such a character is not capable of fulfilling the expectations of a D&D character, and the disruption you describe here is the inevitable result of such a character. The character never should have been allowed with that pitch, and should be retired now that the group has seen firsthand why it shouldn’t have.

The alternative option would be for this player to grow up, recognize reality, understand cause and effect, and plan for the consequences of their actions—namely, that they are ruining the game for everyone. They could “decide to react differently,” and keep their character in line for the good of the game—that is, they could avoid My Guy Syndrome. However, since it seems pretty likely that this character was chosen specifically to disrupt the game, I tend to doubt that this will work. Starting a new character will be far preferable—a clean slate, no baggage, no ret-cons. And a sharp, clean cut indicates strongly to the player that they have misbehaved.

To be frank, when you say “We still want the player to stay in the group,” I suspect you may be making a mistake. I find it very difficult to believe that this player was acting in good faith, no matter how much I remind myself that we should always assume good faith.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.