[sting123]

This is a funny post lol. How are we going to get inside Steve? Well what do you have in mind Chriss? We could just act normal and just pay the cover. Lets see bribe our way inside if that dont work? Naw all that stuffs for amatures kid.. what we will do is control thoughts "you didnt see anything." Then you hold on to me and hum the Peter Gunn theme while i use my trusty zip line to get us past the goons to our reserved table. Are you sure this is going to work Steve? Certainly, I just seen it on the penguins of madagascar show this morning. Now hold tight and start humming Chriss.

[nightslasthero]

To me, it's just the notion that "invisible zipline" was someone's go-to answer for how to get into a nightclub.  I have trouble taking the rest of the conversation seriously or trying to come up with rules suggestions and GMing ideas and stuff, because every time I think "invisible zipline to get into a club," I start to giggle uncontrollably.

I'm with you on that. It would have taken me days, perhaps even years, to come up with using a zipline to get into the club. I'd almost say the player was trying to intentionally to disrupt the game as that is really pushing it, especially with him not being able to come up with any other idea to get into the club.

[nightslasthero]

This is a funny post lol. How are we going to get inside Steve? Well what do you have in mind Chriss? We could just act normal and just pay the cover. Lets see bribe our way inside if that dont work? Naw all that stuffs for amatures kid.. what we will do is control thoughts "you didnt see anything." Then you hold on to me and hum the Peter Gunn theme while i use my trusty zip line to get us past the goons to our reserved table. Are you sure this is going to work Steve? Certainly, I just seen it on the penguins of madagascar show this morning. Now hold tight and start humming Chriss.

lol I'm going to be laughing all night now.

[Valashar]

The point that my brain latched onto is this... why was he making rolls without you asking him to?

It's all good that he has this idea for his character... but unless it fits into your campaign it means nothing.

He is not the GM in this, you are. If he feels the need to start making rolls and interpreting them as if he were the GM, then there's a serious need to sit him down and point out that it's not him that makes decisions for your campaign.

[Lysanderz]

A dual wielding, scalping Amerind who kills first and asks questions later? Am I the only one who wonders why his teammates keep him around? Guys like that end up dead or hunted way way way too quickly. My big question is: Does he fit in on this team at all or is he just in this for the guns and magic?

[Scarecrow71]

My first question on this:  A zip-line has 2 connecting points, one at the high mark and one at the low mark, which makes the actual task do-able.  Where was the high point, and how exactly did he get the low point INTO the club beyond the 2 trolls so he could actually do the zip-lining?

My second question on this:  Considering he is the one, when he GMs, that decides if something works or not in his games, at what point did he honestly think that he could do it as a player in someone else's game?

[Malex]

Easy. Roll for Initiative.

[!Red13]

I think his attempt is more humorous than frustrating. 

"So this zip line.  The bottom end is attached just above the door so you swing in like a monkey.  Or, is it just running straight through what must be an open door to the club?  Gee maybe the door isn't even open....let's see"

Good for a laugh.

[AndyNakamura]

My favourite method of dealing with uncooperative players is taken from the game Paranoia.

1) No matter what everybody says, the players are ultimately there for your amusement. If you're not having fun running the game, what's the point of doing so?
2) Therefore, you must make sure that the players make the game enjoyable for you. You will want them to repeat the behaviours you like, and not repeat those you do not like. The best way to do so is to train them using operand conditioning, which works as follows:
3) Reward the players' behaviours that you find amusing. Clever ideas, daring stunts, amazing roleplay, letting you hog the Cheetos bag.
4) Punish the behaviours that are not amusing. Arguing rules, taking their sweet time, acting out-of-character, hogging the Cheetos bag themselves.
5) The players will eventually learn which behaviours are rewarded, and which are punished. They will want to do more of the former, and less of the latter.
6) A common mistake is to punish the characters, not the players - this can be seen as arbitrary GMing. But if you can't take the characters' shinies or karma, the question arises, how do you punish players for bad behaviour? (Unless you're _that_ kind of a Dungeon Master, in which case I am staying the hell away from your basement). Likewise, how do you reward them without compromising game integrity?
7) Paranoia has a system where players are giving poker chips (or other markers) as a reward for desired behaviour. These chips can later be traded for favours from the GM, like roll bonuses, advantageous circumstances, Plot Armor(TeeEm), or a go at the Cheetos bag. As punishment, these chips can be taken away, or black chips can be given - these hover over the player like the Sword of  Damocles, for at any time the GM can take all (or part) of them away and smite the player with a mishap of appropriate severity. The chips are usually re-set to at each game (but subject to GM's fiat and level of annoyance).
Shadowrun already has a similar mechanic in Edge. A homerule may be made to allow the GM to manipulate Edge more arbitrarily, and allow GM-given temporary Edge to exceed the Edge attribute, or to be reduced below 0. At the end of the session, the Edge is re-set to its current level, or the Edge rating, whichever is the lowest.
9) This also helps if you want to move the game closer to your particular style - if, for example, you run a "cat burglar" campaign, and a player has a tendency to go through the front door guns-a-blazing, you can deal with it by punishing the brute force tactics, and rewarding stealth and cunning.

[Zilfer]

My favourite method of dealing with uncooperative players is taken from the game Paranoia.

1) No matter what everybody says, the players are ultimately there for your amusement. If you're not having fun running the game, what's the point of doing so?
2) Therefore, you must make sure that the players make the game enjoyable for you. You will want them to repeat the behaviours you like, and not repeat those you do not like. The best way to do so is to train them using operand conditioning, which works as follows:
3) Reward the players' behaviours that you find amusing. Clever ideas, daring stunts, amazing roleplay, letting you hog the Cheetos bag.
4) Punish the behaviours that are not amusing. Arguing rules, taking their sweet time, acting out-of-character, hogging the Cheetos bag themselves.
5) The players will eventually learn which behaviours are rewarded, and which are punished. They will want to do more of the former, and less of the latter.
6) A common mistake is to punish the characters, not the players - this can be seen as arbitrary GMing. But if you can't take the characters' shinies or karma, the question arises, how do you punish players for bad behaviour? (Unless you're _that_ kind of a Dungeon Master, in which case I am staying the hell away from your basement). Likewise, how do you reward them without compromising game integrity?
7) Paranoia has a system where players are giving poker chips (or other markers) as a reward for desired behaviour. These chips can later be traded for favours from the GM, like roll bonuses, advantageous circumstances, Plot Armor(TeeEm), or a go at the Cheetos bag. As punishment, these chips can be taken away, or black chips can be given - these hover over the player like the Sword of  Damocles, for at any time the GM can take all (or part) of them away and smite the player with a mishap of appropriate severity. The chips are usually re-set to at each game (but subject to GM's fiat and level of annoyance).
Shadowrun already has a similar mechanic in Edge. A homerule may be made to allow the GM to manipulate Edge more arbitrarily, and allow GM-given temporary Edge to exceed the Edge attribute, or to be reduced below 0. At the end of the session, the Edge is re-set to its current level, or the Edge rating, whichever is the lowest.
9) This also helps if you want to move the game closer to your particular style - if, for example, you run a "cat burglar" campaign, and a player has a tendency to go through the front door guns-a-blazing, you can deal with it by punishing the brute force tactics, and rewarding stealth and cunning.

There is techinically a ability that will allow you to exceed your maximum edge. A great Dragon can grant extra edge. I'm not sure if anyone has done this In Game. I bet it's one of those things that go under utilized, but i'm sure you could easily say a great dragon may have taken an interest or amusement in their antics or just not explain why this is happening all of a sudden. To each his own

[All4BigGuns]

[Snip]

... if, for example, you run a "cat burglar" campaign, and a player has a tendency to go through the front door guns-a-blazing, you can deal with it by punishing the brute force tactics, and rewarding stealth and cunning.

Instead, I feel it's a better idea to reevaluate the game rather than punishing the player for what he/she enjoys more.

[Glyph]

I think GMs already tend to reward game play styles that are compatible with their own.  They should be trying to keep the game at least semi-enjoyable for players with different (but not completely incompatible) play styles, not using metagame rules to make the game even less fun for them.