Superhero/villain

[LAST CRUSADER]

There was only one player in the game. And he seemed to feel like my attempts to change him were all part of the challenge of playing the character. I did more than once have NPC heroes either fight him or refuse to help him but it would have made the world unrealistic if he never found any like minded characters, so he did find NPC.S to hang out with who shared his views.
One hero in particular who opposed him constantly had an attack that made him unable to teleport for a short time. Tricking him or having the universe itself turn on him would be unfair because as GM. I have such power, but he knows who the GM. is. He wouldn't see this as the natural result of his wrong deeds but as ME being hostile to him, so it wouldn't change his views. It would only convince him that "THE DM. IS A TWIT" (a phrase that was often used anyway despite my attempts to be impartial.) And I've always felt that part of being a good GM. is being impartial. Let the sun shine on the just and unjust alike don't you know.
The debates that were part of the campaign and my attempts to actually effect his thinking rather than just stop him were the things that kept me interested in playing the game despite my dislike for the character.

[magic-rhyme]

it would have made the world unrealistic if he never found any like minded characters, so he did find NPC.S to hang out with who shared his views.

Why? It sounds more realistic for him to be the only person with his point of view who had evaded prison. Finding everyone who ever agrees with him ending up in prison puts across the moral issue fairly clearly.

He wouldn't see this as the natural result of his wrong deeds but as ME being hostile to him, so it wouldn't change his views.

That's HIS problem, not yours.

I have seen too many bad players who insist that realistic consequences are only proof the GM is being a "meany" -- which is their favorite trick for trying to guilt-trip or browbeat the GM into letting them realign realism itself for their own personal convenience.

It would only convince him that "THE DM. IS A TWIT" (a phrase that was often used anyway despite my attempts to be impartial.)

To be completely honest with you, it sounds to me as though your player had mastered the arts of browbeating, bullying, guilt-tripping, and whining as necessary to control you like a puppeteer pulling the strings of his favorite wooden marionette.

To put it more colloquially: he been playin' you the whole time.

I would never allow any player to try to bully his way through a game by using phrases like "The DM is a twit!" I would politely tell any player who tried such manipulative tricks on me that he was free to play elsewhere; if he continued, I would refuse to game master him any further until he grew up. No Game is always better than a Bad Game.

It sounds to me as though you enjoyed the challenge of running your game under his rules, though. If you both had fun, it doesn't matter what I write or anyone else writes, really.

P.S. Look up the studies on macchiavellianism as a personality trait or condition, and you'll probably nod at how often the descriptors fit him.

[LAST CRUSADER]

"No Game is always better than a Bad Game."
You see THAT is where you and I differ. It's not as if I had a lot of choice about who to game with. As a high school student with no transportation living in Birmingham Alabama I had very little choice about who to game with. And I dearly loved playing the game any chance I got.
I miss those days when I had a regular game going. Now the only time I get to game is on rare weekends when I can work up the energy to put an adventure together for my son. I greatly prefer playing to GMing but I have no one else to GM at all. It's sad really. I spend a lot of my free time working on a game I made but I rarely ever get to play.
Anyway, check out the game I made at the link below and tell me what you think.