Need help don't know how to deal with this one player.

[kogwar]

OK so i have had a group running about 9 months and we have recently gotten to a point where a vampire force (the one form arzno) is invading the baronies and the group has kinda set themselves up to take these guys on. Now this would be fine except recently one of the player has stepped up and refuses to fight vampire he just refuses to fight them because their vampire for no other give reason than he does not like vampire and i can't see a way to fix it as the bad guy has already been set up (for a few month irl) and he is only now coming to me with these concerns and has shown no sign of it before. The way the campaign is set to go now is the group trying to stop this force from getting a foot hold in Colorado but they will be doing jobs in between try to stop these guys as it will take time for their spies to find out were these vampires are striking but again he does not want to fight them at all. I just don’t see a way to run this with this one obstinate player without got to far out of the way to make sure the group never runs into vampires with him in it for the reasons of i can't surprise the group and they will expect vamps when he is not around. I know it is tough but i thought maybe someone who has dealt with this could give me advice.

[Killer Cyborg]

Have him run into something much, much worse than vampires.
If he survives, he might rethink his placement of vampires on his overall list of fears.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Well, my honest advice is that I think you need to find out why he has an issue with vampires. And I know you said he's been reluctant to give reasons, but my suggestion would be to approach the situation in this way ...

In a calm, helpful tone. "I'm willing to make adjustments for you, but you need to help me understand why. If I don't know why, any adjustments I make may just make things worse, or at least no better. Maybe there's a very easy fix that can make everyone happy, but I can't know that until you tell me what's going on."
-or-
"I want to respect your wishes, but in order for me to do that you have to respect me enough to tell me why. I'm not going to change months of build up just 'because.'"

In the end, I guess it depends on how much of a friend this person is and/or how great of a player he is and how afraid you are to lose him as one. The way I'd honestly handle it (in 90% of situations) is that they either need to tell me why, or I'm not changing anything and they'll just have to deal with it. Of course some people consider me a jerk (I can be rather detached), but I like to help when I can (I just won't do it without knowing why).

Knowing why also depends on your maturity. I'm not saying you'd do any of these things, but if he's afraid you'll make fun of him and/or tell everyone else, then that can put a damper on things as well. Even though I have no problems cutting people out of my life like a diseased limb, most people know they can trust me (if they don't, we don't get along well for long). I have my own issues, so I'm not going to make fun of you for yours, and if you want it kept just between us then that's fine too.

Now if he does tell you, then you have to understand why and see what kind of adjustments you can make. A couple of ideas off the top of my head are ...

If he has religious issues, and he views vampires as some type of demons (and maybe the worst kind, because they effectively possess people or something), and he just can't separate his concepts from the game concepts, an easy solution might be to rename them. Maybe start calling them "chiropterans" (the name of "vampires" in the anime Blood: The Last Vampire and Blood+), or some other such name. Say they're some corruption of the vampire legends (or true vampires) created by Alien Intelligences (dont' even use the term Vampire Intelligence). Have this come up in game, and just don't use the "v" word any more. Have this come up in game maybe, and make sure to have a group meeting. "Hey everyone, I won't go into details, but from now on I don't want anyone using the term 'Vampire' in our games. They're going to be called 'Chiropterans' from now on, and I need everyone to take this seriously." In my experience, most won't have an issue agreeing.
-or-
Maybe his issue is that he is just really afraid of vampires, even fictional ones. He doesn't watch vampire movies, read vampire books, or anything to do with vampires because they just REALLY creep him out. Hey, I can't judge. Spiders freak me out. I won't open my copy of Monsters & Animals to a certain page because there's a picture of a spider on it. Don't even get me started on Lord of the Rings: Return to the King. I'm refusing to watch The Hobbit for similar reasons. If any version of a vampire will freak this guy out, maybe there's just nothing you can do. Talk to the player: "Okay, this is building up for months, I can't just eliminate vampires all together. I don't want to punish you, so give me a couple of game to tie that up, and I'll get to a new villain. If you think you can deal, cool. If not, I understand and I don't mind you sitting out. We can come up with some reason your character isn't around. Then once it's done we'll reintroduce him." Maybe the vampires aren't the main villains, maybe they're just some type of lackies and the player characters can work out a deal with them (Master Vampire: "Hey, we're only fighting you because so-and-so is making us. But we'll make you a deal. If you can take him out, we'll leave you alone. I can buy you one month. I'll tell him we're looking and can't find you or something, but that's all I can buy you. One month. Get it taken care of before then or we'll be back."), or maybe you can just wrap up that entire storyline in a hurry (put it on the express train). An express version of the story may not be as satisfying, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the good of the group.

Anyways, those are just some basic thoughts. I hope that helps. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[kogwar]

Greetings and Salutations. Well, my honest advice is that I think you need to find out why he has an issue with vampires. And I know you said he's been reluctant to give reasons, but my suggestion would be to approach the situation in this way ...

In a calm, helpful tone. "I'm willing to make adjustments for you, but you need to help me understand why. If I don't know why, any adjustments I make may just make things worse, or at least no better. Maybe there's a very easy fix that can make everyone happy, but I can't know that until you tell me what's going on."
-or-
"I want to respect your wishes, but in order for me to do that you have to respect me enough to tell me why. I'm not going to change months of build up just 'because.'"

In the end, I guess it depends on how much of a friend this person is and/or how great of a player he is and how afraid you are to lose him as one. The way I'd honestly handle it (in 90% of situations) is that they either need to tell me why, or I'm not changing anything and they'll just have to deal with it. Of course some people consider me a jerk (I can be rather detached), but I like to help when I can (I just won't do it without knowing why).

Knowing why also depends on your maturity. I'm not saying you'd do any of these things, but if he's afraid you'll make fun of him and/or tell everyone else, then that can put a damper on things as well. Even though I have no problems cutting people out of my life like a diseased limb, most people know they can trust me (if they don't, we don't get along well for long). I have my own issues, so I'm not going to make fun of you for yours, and if you want it kept just between us then that's fine too.

Now if he does tell you, then you have to understand why and see what kind of adjustments you can make. A couple of ideas off the top of my head are ...

If he has religious issues, and he views vampires as some type of demons (and maybe the worst kind, because they effectively possess people or something), and he just can't separate his concepts from the game concepts, an easy solution might be to rename them. Maybe start calling them "chiropterans" (the name of "vampires" in the anime Blood: The Last Vampire and Blood+), or some other such name. Say they're some corruption of the vampire legends (or true vampires) created by Alien Intelligences (dont' even use the term Vampire Intelligence). Have this come up in game, and just don't use the "v" word any more. Have this come up in game maybe, and make sure to have a group meeting. "Hey everyone, I won't go into details, but from now on I don't want anyone using the term 'Vampire' in our games. They're going to be called 'Chiropterans' from now on, and I need everyone to take this seriously." In my experience, most won't have an issue agreeing.
-or-
Maybe his issue is that he is just really afraid of vampires, even fictional ones. He doesn't watch vampire movies, read vampire books, or anything to do with vampires because they just REALLY creep him out. Hey, I can't judge. Spiders freak me out. I won't open my copy of Monsters & Animals to a certain page because there's a picture of a spider on it. Don't even get me started on Lord of the Rings: Return to the King. I'm refusing to watch The Hobbit for similar reasons. If any version of a vampire will freak this guy out, maybe there's just nothing you can do. Talk to the player: "Okay, this is building up for months, I can't just eliminate vampires all together. I don't want to punish you, so give me a couple of game to tie that up, and I'll get to a new villain. If you think you can deal, cool. If not, I understand and I don't mind you sitting out. We can come up with some reason your character isn't around. Then once it's done we'll reintroduce him." Maybe the vampires aren't the main villains, maybe they're just some type of lackies and the player characters can work out a deal with them (Master Vampire: "Hey, we're only fighting you because so-and-so is making us. But we'll make you a deal. If you can take him out, we'll leave you alone. I can buy you one month. I'll tell him we're looking and can't find you or something, but that's all I can buy you. One month. Get it taken care of before then or we'll be back."), or maybe you can just wrap up that entire storyline in a hurry (put it on the express train). An express version of the story may not be as satisfying, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the good of the group.

Anyways, those are just some basic thoughts. I hope that helps. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Thanks you are very insightful but that is the thing he doesn't fear vamps he loves vamp movies has even gone as far as watching the hellsing anime (very bloody vamp anime) and he is fully aware of all the big baddies in rifts he is a clsoe friend and amazing rifts player and he has never done anything like this except twice once where he refuses to fight ludicrous mages and walked away and the second involved the lord of Deval so understandable. This is also very unlike his personality he is usually analytical and not a just because guy.

[flatline]

Maybe he just doesn't find fighting vampires to be fun?

I knew a player whose only interest was in getting loot and so he absolutely hated fighting things that didn't have stuff worth taking afterwards. He was really weird about it.

--flatline

[DhAkael]

I...
...I...
I don't even....
Internet!

[scottypotty]

Maybe he just doesn't find fighting vampires to be fun?

I knew a player whose only interest was in getting loot and so he absolutely hated fighting things that didn't have stuff worth taking afterwards. He was really weird about it.

--flatline

This sounds pretty accurate. What usually happens is that player just doesn't show up when they get bored. but it it's a close friend who always plays, maybe they just have to bite the bullet and deal with it. Roleplaying is really a group activity, and it sounds like he's being pretty selfish. Maybe he doesn't realize he's messing with your story. Overall, you're the only one with the best insight as to how to handle your player. Remember, it's just a game, and if it's not fun, then don't do it.

[dragonfett]

Have you thought about make fighting the vampires personal. Maybe he doesn't think that his character has a strong enough reason (such as the goodness of his heart, money, even lots of it). Maybe he needs a stronger reason for his character to tackle the vampires, maybe like the safety of family and/or friends, or to save them.

Or perhaps he doesn't like the thought of fighting Palladium vampires for some reason (such as he feels they are too rediculous).

[kogwar]

Have you thought about make fighting the vampires personal. Maybe he doesn't think that his character has a strong enough reason (such as the goodness of his heart, money, even lots of it). Maybe he needs a stronger reason for his character to tackle the vampires, maybe like the safety of family and/or friends, or to save them.

Or perhaps he doesn't like the thought of fighting Palladium vampires for some reason (such as he feels they are too rediculous).

Offered that as we are phasing in new chari to make the group more dynamic ( one of which is his) but he jaust said that would be forcing his chari to play a way he does not want to play.

[dragonfett]

Did he say how he wants to play his character?

[kogwar]

He really just does not want to fight vamps

[Chronicle]

"well player "X", it would seem that your 8 other comrades would like to fight these, if your character decides to leave, then you are out of the game during the conflict, unless you choose to bring in another character. Let me tell you, it gets really boring watching others play while you sit around doing nothing because you left.

[flatline]

The point of gaming is that everyone has fun, so if he's not having fun, then maybe you need to bend over backwards to make things work.

Even if it's cheesy like making the vampires into vampire robots from another dimension.

Just whatever you do, don't blame him. Never make it personal. It sucks to potentially lose months of preparation, but the players really are more important than the game.

--flatline

[scottypotty]

I believe the charaters should be important in the game, but sometimes things just don't work out. If everyone is having a great time except this one player, then it may just be their problem. They just don't like it, even though I'm sure it's not 100% vampires. I believe he's being selfish. He has an obligation to get along with the rest of the players. Everyone has their scruples, but believing that you are more important than anyone else in the game isn't fair.

Many years ago I played in a game with a disgruntled player. The entire group was having a great time, including the GM. But one guy was unhappy with where the characters were at. Suggestions were made by everyone on how he can enjoy the game, as his situation was not going to be permanent. He didn't care. The third session of his attitude was the last. He got really pissy, said some offhanded remark, and everyone had was done with him. The GM quietly packed up his books in the middle of the game, looked him right in the eye, and politely told him to go f*ck himself. This guy was an old highschool friend, and my room mate at the time. We never played with him again. And what was worse, was roleplaying was this guys life.

This is a worse case scenario, but it could happen. No matter how much you work with someone, sometimes it's not enough. I would never do it myself, but you may have to axe the vamps if nothing else works.

[Noon]

He really just does not want to fight vamps

Is it the sort of game where he can go off in some other direction and do something else?

If not it sounds like his problem is you have to stick with the party and do whatever the party is doing, no matter what.

Say you've got four players: I'd explicitly say that I'd figure other events and take what the PC does by himself into account, but don't expect more than 1/4th screen time.

If he makes a face about that, then he may just be being childish - there are no real solutions for a split group beyond that. That I know of - if he has some secret cool solution for it, get him to tell you, then tell me!

[dragonfett]

What about asking the rest of the group what they would like to do. What ever the majority wants, then do that. While you have the responsibility to make sure that the players are having fun, you may not always be able to make all the players happy, but in my opinion, it IS your job to make sure that MOST of them are having fun nearly all the time. Just make sure that the unhappy players get to have fun too.

[Cinos]

Assuming he does not give a rational reason for it, just keep going with the current plan, if he refuses to help the party and they die from it, that's his fault and the group will easily see that. If he does give a rational reason (i.e cripplingly phobia, I had a player who I couldn't have spider or spider-morph monsters in because she's phobic of spiders to a massive degree, but she's upfront about it), then you can work around it, but how you work around it depends on what's been done, that's a detail I won't have the ability to understand as a random person on the internet. But some options are false information (Turns out he wasn't really a vampire! He's a demon / were-beast / insane guy who has plastic teeth), defeating him without direct confrontation (waves and waves of mooks, while he slips out when he sees things going bad), or another bad guy beats the party to the punch trying to take over the operation.

[Noon]

Assuming he does not give a rational reason for it, just keep going with the current plan, if he refuses to help the party and they die from it, that's his fault and the group will easily see that.

How's that the player doing something wrong in real life?

If you want an agreement that everyone works together as a hive mind team, just talk as adults about it. Trying to make people in RL get pissed with another player to peer pressure him into acting a certain way - that's not adult.

Meanwhile, if there is no agreement that the PC's stick together like glue, the player isn't at fault.

[dragonfett]

Rappanui just gave me a thought. How much of this character's back story do you know? Perhaps there is something in there. (If you don't know it, ask him for it)

[The Dark Elf]

Make him want to fight.

Have him bitten by one (slow kill) and another attempt the next day.

Otherwise make him personally involved so his character would fight, the vamps steal/kidnap something/one of his etc...

[Colt47]

Well, it sounds like he is either being loot picky, or doesn't like fighting vampires because they are one of a very specific subset of enemies that doesn't follow the standard MDC paradigm. I mean, there is a reason everyone has an MD firearm and then stakes and mallets along with something involving silver.

[Damian Magecraft]

Thanks you are very insightful but that is the thing he doesn't fear vamps he loves vamp movies has even gone as far as watching the hellsing anime (very bloody vamp anime) and he is fully aware of all the big baddies in rifts he is a clsoe friend and amazing rifts player and he has never done anything like this except twice once where he refuses to fight ludicrous mages and walked away and the second involved the lord of Dethval so understandable. This is also very unlike his personality he is usually analytical and not a just because guy.

actually this is quite telling to me...
on two other occasions he did not want to deal with an adventure concept and walked away thereby forcing the GM to accede to his wishes. And now he is threatening to do it again...
These are rather selfish actions in my mind.
As if he does not wish to face creatures that just might defeat his character or make for a difficult time for him.

[The Beast]

Thanks you are very insightful but that is the thing he doesn't fear vamps he loves vamp movies has even gone as far as watching the hellsing anime (very bloody vamp anime) and he is fully aware of all the big baddies in rifts he is a clsoe friend and amazing rifts player and he has never done anything like this except twice once where he refuses to fight ludicrous mages and walked away and the second involved the lord of Dethval so understandable. This is also very unlike his personality he is usually analytical and not a just because guy.

actually this is quite telling to me...
on two other occasions he did not want to deal with an adventure concept and walked away thereby forcing the GM to accede to his wishes. And now he is threatening to do it again...
These are rather selfish actions in my mind.
As if he does not wish to face creatures that just might defeat his character or make for a difficult time for him.

That right there tells me all I need to know. Send him packing.

[Noon]

That right there tells me all I need to know. Send him packing.

Have to wonder what scope of behaviour the players have in your games - can they do anything that's even slightly outside of what you might have planned? Okay, the OP's example is too much, but it seems the pot calling the kettle black if the GM doesn't allow any small scope of free behaviour for players.

It's hardly forcing the GM to accede to your wishes when you use the freedom the GM pretends to give you.

[Noon]

I like the rephrase, to phrase it as the other guys infraction as in he's not intereacting with the game. As I said, if the only way you can be considered to interact with the game is by doing exactly as the GM says, but the GM acts as if your characters have some leeway in what actions they can take beyond that - I don't think it's the player causing a problem.

[The Dark Elf]

Remember that ALL decisions are made IN CHARACTER.

So as his character wont help the rest of the group what do the rest of the group feel about this. The should role play the conversation. If it means his character leaves the party then so be it. Get ready to introduce one that has overheard the group is seeking to destroy a VI and wants to help cos he is dying to kill vampires!

I wonder what motive his character will give the group when they ask why he wont assist with their noble quest...

The GM doesnt control everything and peer pressure is commonly overlooked by GM's. Everything is character driven or its not an RPG.

[Damian Magecraft]

I like the rephrase, to phrase it as the other guys infraction as in he's not intereacting with the game. As I said, if the only way you can be considered to interact with the game is by doing exactly as the GM says, but the GM acts as if your characters have some leeway in what actions they can take beyond that - I don't think it's the player causing a problem.

you are ignoring the social contract that Players agree to when they play. (The Gm sets the frame work with in which the players will interact...)
I have no idea why you are trying to put the fault at the GMs feet when its clear the player is at fault here.
If the players character has issues with vamps thats one thing (reluctant hero and all that)
But the Player has made it clear he is the one in charge...
This is the 3rd occasion where he has threatened to walk away if the GM does not do what he wants and the rest of the players be damned.
Personally I would tell the player either he finds a way to deal with the scenarios I have planned or...
it was fun Gaming with you too bad you dont want to play with us any longer.

[ZorValachan]

The player here is a boy and not a man. A man who for whatever reason doesn't want to go along with the vampire theme would bow out politely and when that series of adventures is over and the next plotline/game system/whatever comes, come back and play. The boy here just throws a tantrum and expects everything to change for him.

[ZorValachan]

Remember that ALL decisions are made IN CHARACTER.

So as his character wont help the rest of the group what do the rest of the group feel about this. The should role play the conversation. If it means his character leaves the party then so be it. Get ready to introduce one that has overheard the group is seeking to destroy a VI and wants to help cos he is dying to kill vampires!

I wonder what motive his character will give the group when they ask why he wont assist with their noble quest...

The GM doesnt control everything and peer pressure is commonly overlooked by GM's. Everything is character driven or its not an RPG.

this isn't about the character. When the PLAYER refuses to run ANY character through the adventure because it deals with vamps and threatens to leave the gaming group, pouts, throws fits, to get his way, nothing anyone does in character is going to change the fact that a boy is acting like a 4 year old when he is not getting his way.

[jedi078]

Kogwar, if this player refuses to play in the gaming world you have created and the enemies you wish to present to the player group then boot him from the group.

I once had a player refuse to interact with another player in my long running Robotech PBP. He didn’t like how his character (fresh from training) was being treated (name calling being called a boot etc etc etc) by the other characters. He tried to attack another PC with his serving tray in the chow hall. As the rolls went he did not fare well and got his butt kicked. Afterward he decided to not interact with that particular player character.

Because doing so would have disrupted my game I saw no choice but boot him from my Macross era game. Furthermore I booted him from my Invid invasion era game, and my Chaos Earth game. The reason why I booted him from all of my PBP games is that if he was going to pull that kind of stunt he would do it again.

Furthermore seems like you are letting this player try to tell you the GM how to run your game since this is the third time he has refused to fight an enemy. I suggest you boot the little girl from your gaming table. You’ll be better off without him.

[Noon]

I like the rephrase, to phrase it as the other guys infraction as in he's not intereacting with the game. As I said, if the only way you can be considered to interact with the game is by doing exactly as the GM says, but the GM acts as if your characters have some leeway in what actions they can take beyond that - I don't think it's the player causing a problem.

you are ignoring the social contract that Players agree to when they play. (The Gm sets the frame work with in which the players will interact...)

Why doesn't the OP simply mention this social contract you talk about, quote the words they said prior to starting the game to the player...

Oh yeah, right, they didn't. So, why do you think you get to claim a social contract that you never talked about? Or if your group does have a chat about SC - it seems in the OP example, they don't and it doesn't apply does it? Unless I'm reading it wrong?

'Social Contract' is not the new 'whatever I feel like telling you to do, you have to do it'.

Instead it's stomaching that if you didn't actually verbalise an agreement on a matter, well, dang, if that particular matter turns out bad, it's not anyone elses fault.

He didn’t like how his character (fresh from training) was being treated (name calling being called a boot etc etc etc) by the other characters.*snip* The reason why I booted him from all of my PBP games is that if he was going to pull that kind of stunt he would do it again.

Hate that kind of stunt where they mind control other players to misstreat their own character, then gosh, have the tenacity to have their PC respond, of all things, instead of act like the doormat and RL lower pecking order they are considered as in the group. Take your lickin's like the beyotch you are, for gods sake, or get out!

[Damian Magecraft]

I like the rephrase, to phrase it as the other guys infraction as in he's not intereacting with the game. As I said, if the only way you can be considered to interact with the game is by doing exactly as the GM says, but the GM acts as if your characters have some leeway in what actions they can take beyond that - I don't think it's the player causing a problem.

you are ignoring the social contract that Players agree to when they play. (The Gm sets the frame work with in which the players will interact...)

Why doesn't the OP simply mention this social contract you talk about, quote the words they said prior to starting the game to the player...

Oh yeah, right, they didn't. So, why do you think you get to claim a social contract that you never talked about? Or if your group does have a chat about SC - it seems in the OP example, they don't and it doesn't apply does it? Unless I'm reading it wrong?

'Social Contract' is not the new 'whatever I feel like telling you to do, you have to do it'.

Instead it's stomaching that if you didn't actually verbalise an agreement on a matter, well, dang, if that particular matter turns out bad, it's not anyone elses fault.

He didn’t like how his character (fresh from training) was being treated (name calling being called a boot etc etc etc) by the other characters.*snip* The reason why I booted him from all of my PBP games is that if he was going to pull that kind of stunt he would do it again.

Hate that kind of stunt where they mind control other players to misstreat their own character, then gosh, have the tenacity to have their PC respond, of all things, instead of act like the doormat and RL lower pecking order they are considered as in the group. Take your lickin's like the beyotch you are, for gods sake, or get out!

so there is no agreement (spoken or unspoken) at your table?
the more you speak the less you say....

[The Dark Elf]

Remember that ALL decisions are made IN CHARACTER.

So as his character wont help the rest of the group what do the rest of the group feel about this. The should role play the conversation. If it means his character leaves the party then so be it. Get ready to introduce one that has overheard the group is seeking to destroy a VI and wants to help cos he is dying to kill vampires!

I wonder what motive his character will give the group when they ask why he wont assist with their noble quest...

The GM doesnt control everything and peer pressure is commonly overlooked by GM's. Everything is character driven or its not an RPG.

this isn't about the character. When the PLAYER refuses to run ANY character through the adventure because it deals with vamps and threatens to leave the gaming group, pouts, throws fits, to get his way, nothing anyone does in character is going to change the fact that a boy is acting like a 4 year old when he is not getting his way.

Then whats to ask? **** him off out of the game and carry on without him. No loss! Do it now! Put him on the phone and I'll tell him!

[The Dark Elf]

Just thought of something-

Would he GM? I mean, would he GM properly? Seeing things from the other side can help ones viewpoint.

[Damian Magecraft]

I had to leave a group cause of Very contrasting game styles, One part of the group wanted to play old style, Gm Screws the players for not penny pinching every thing they have on character and general GM Dickery. a social contract is always subsumed when one games. In most games the contract is spelled out in the rule book, but if not it's generally assumed to be one of the two: Either the players and GM make the setting as it goes , or the GM controls everything and the players are at the mercy of the GM of surviving.

No most games dont spell out the contract...
If anything the concept of the social contract is new (well as new as 10 to 15 years can be).
The basic Social contract is the GM controls every thing except the PCs
Its When Players that think this is too much power for the GM and try to wrest that so called power away that issues begin to arise.
Personally I tell players of this stripe "if you think you can GM better than I then you GM the game."
Yah know what? not one of them has ever taken me up on it...

[Damian Magecraft]

I had to leave a group cause of Very contrasting game styles, One part of the group wanted to play old style, Gm Screws the players for not penny pinching every thing they have on character and general GM Dickery. a social contract is always subsumed when one games. In most games the contract is spelled out in the rule book, but if not it's generally assumed to be one of the two: Either the players and GM make the setting as it goes , or the GM controls everything and the players are at the mercy of the GM of surviving.

No most games dont spell out the contract...
If anything the concept of the social contract is new (well as new as 10 to 15 years can be).
The basic Social contract is the GM controls every thing except the PCs
Its When Players that think this is too much power for the GM and try to wrest that so called power away that issues begin to arise.
Personally I tell players of this stripe "if you think you can GM better than I then you GM the game."
Yah know what? not one of them has ever taken me up on it...

I agree, as long as the GM isn't railroading or generally being a power hungry *******.

well defining railroading is difficult these days...
and being a power hungry ass is when the gm violates the contract.

[Noon]

so there is no agreement (spoken or unspoken) at your table?

I don't know why you'd ask whether an unspoken agreement exists (it's like asking whether an unwritten book exists?).

But anyway, in terms of unspoken, no, no agreement at my table.

And in terms of spoken, it depends whether they actually gave it the nod.

The basic Social contract is the GM controls every thing except the PCs

I love how amazingly well terminology can be spindled and mutilated. The place I head social contract used the most (before it became popular terminology) actually identified what your describing as a complete paradox, called the impossible thing before breakfast.

Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.

Disagree as you will, but alot of people who also use the words 'social contract' would treat what your describing as not even being possible, let alone viable.

Never mind how the PC controls his PC to not fight the vampires and ... well, it's a 'throw him out' thing - but I thought the players controlled their PC's?

Basic logistical errors in the handing out of authority, yet instead of the badly written contract being thrown out, a player is.

[Damian Magecraft]

so there is no agreement (spoken or unspoken) at your table?

I don't know why you'd ask whether an unspoken agreement exists (it's like asking whether an unwritten book exists?).

But anyway, in terms of unspoken, no, no agreement at my table.

And in terms of spoken, it depends whether they actually gave it the nod.

Never heard of the unwritten rule? Like the no cheating rule that is in effect in most board and card games? Its never been written down (except in Nevada and even there only in the vaguest of terms so as to encompass forms of cheating not already thought of) but everyone knows its wrong.
There are Unspoken agreements at your table whether you wish admit it or not...
Like how the players toss the dice, or that you the GM will not actively try to kill the characters, Or that the storyline the GM lays down is inviolate (or not depending), etc...
These are not things that are commonly discussed but woe be to he who violates the Unspoken rules.

[Noon]

so there is no agreement (spoken or unspoken) at your table?

I don't know why you'd ask whether an unspoken agreement exists (it's like asking whether an unwritten book exists?).

But anyway, in terms of unspoken, no, no agreement at my table.

And in terms of spoken, it depends whether they actually gave it the nod.

Never heard of the unwritten rule? Like the no cheating rule that is in effect in most board and card games?

That's superstition.

You've told people what the written rules are. Why would you have a second rule saying your not allowed to not use those rules - if they are going to ignore the set of written rules, why on earth would they for some reason follow this 'don't not use these rules/don't cheat' rule?

Your idea of a unwritten rule here is just an impossible superstition.

There are Unspoken agreements at your table whether you wish admit it or not...
Like how the players toss the dice, or that you the GM will not actively try to kill the characters, Or that the storyline the GM lays down is inviolate (or not depending), etc...
These are not things that are commonly discussed but woe be to he who violates the Unspoken rules.

As I said, I make a distinction between what I've made a verbal agreement on, vs what I might expect, but didn't make any verbal agreement on and instead got something other than I expected. Someone rolls the dice in a way I don't expect - if I didn't procure an agreement prior about how to roll, well, funnily enough I don't act as if I had already procured an agreement on the way to roll the dice prior to the roll. I don't act like I did something I didn't do. Simple enough.

You call them both an agreement. As if you'd told them before - when that's something you didn't do.

'woe be to he who violates the Unspoken rules' is simply zealotism to rules justifying itself through further zealotism. It never gets thrown out, because it's also woe to he who questions the unspoken rule. You worship in as much as you fear it - pretty traditional worship, in other words.

[Noon]

I think that's still conflating expectation (particularly the cyberpunk 'expected survivability' example) with agreed upon rules.

It ties into 'dealing with this one player', because to control behaviour, you have to draw a line somewhere. But blurring expectation and rule is just blurring the line.

[flatline]

Okay, this thread's coming up on 2 weeks old now. Have you settled the issue with the player yet?

If so, how did it resolve?

--flatline

[KillWatch]

Replying to original post:
So what?
Have the character's play it out. If 4 out of 5 want to do something then they do it. If number 5 still doesn't want to do it play it out in character. They will either part nicely, or get into a slug fest. Any which way it unfolds, the group pursues these vampires without character X, hiring, or coming across character Y, his new character. His views don't coincide with the group? Let it be. Just because they are a "group" doesn't mean they get a pass to not behave like real people.

We want to play futball
but I want to play baseketball
Ok maybe later but everyone else wants to play futball
but
no but. We know you want to play baesketball but we are going to play futball. You are welcome to come or stay behind and perhaps we will find another player to temporarily take your place. Stay in touch.

There is no problem as far as I can tell

Outside game:
everyone is doing this, you can a) play your discomfort in character and risk getting killed by either the vamps or the characters, b) not play at all and let me give you call when we are done with them, or c) Draw up a character that can go with them leaving your character safe and sound in this town

[KillWatch]

as long as they are only playing one at a time and it is clear that this is just during this leg OR the player actually liking this other character better, thats fine. I don't see the problem unless they keep doing it
-Oh we're facing dragons-new character
-smurfs-new character
-going for anice walk in the woods, did I mention I have arthritis in my left knee?
ok
but once or rarely? I don't see the issue.