You talk about 'my players', suggesting you have a small fixed number of players to choose from. That you have one player who 'sabotages' play further suggests that.
A powergamer who does not like playing HQ is like a harpsicordist who does not like the sounds that a piano makes: not a wrong opinion, merely an opinion that is explicable in terms of the difference between them. Forcing such a harpsicordist to play a piano would be foolish.
In our game group, I've repeatedly argued that we should be part of a gaming club, rather than playing in our homes. This is so we have a pool of potential recruits, ensuring we can always make up numbers if players must leave. It also allows us to be a little more choosy about who we play with: we all like playing in the HQ style.
So, do you have a fixed group of players? If so, perhaps you all need to be more explicit about the 'social contract' of your group. With a fixed group you all must agree on the kinds of games you will play, which might require some compromises.
Your difficult player wants to play a powergamer-friendly game. You want to play a more narrative game. What kind of game do the other members of your group want to play? If the powergamer is a minority of one, they need accept that the group does not want to play in that style. If any playing style has a sizeable minority, you might alternate between RQ and HQ; if everyone knows that their favoured game style will be satisfied soon, they are much more likely to cooperate when playing in their disfavoured style. And if you are in a minority of one, even after trying to introduce HQ, perhaps you should not be pushing a game on people who do not want to play it.
Powered by hypermail