Help I don't know how to deal with this guy

Running an alternate history campaign based on the idea that Germany never unified and instead stayed as hundreds of little states that each kick into a "Teutonic Knights" military force that protects all of them. Set in 1900-1905.
But I have one player that keeps bitching that it's "not historical" and stops play for at least an hour every session to argue about minor historical points.
I don't really want to kick him out the group and I don't even know if I could because although I'm GM'ing, I'm the newcomer to the group and I only good friends with one guy there. I suspect he's annoyed because we all voted on what campaign to play next and my campaign idea won.

How do I deal with this salty cunt? He's really making it impossible for me to run this game.

Agree with everything he says and tell him he's completely right.

But don't actually change the game in any way.

And then have fun despite him

Exactly.

>"...so the criminal pulls out a revolver-"
>"UM ACHTUALLY REVOLVERS WEREN"T INVENTED UNTIL EIGHTEEN-HUNDRED-AND-PULL-IT-OUT-MY-ASS. THIS ISN"T REALISTIC!"
>"Oh really? That's interesting, and you're totally correct. So the criminal pulls out a revolver...."

When he begins his shitfit, loudly say "Oh, will you stop?" and if he keeps going wait until he stops and blankly ignore him. Just keep playing the game.

And if he still interupts, talk over him, saying "no no no, you ain't doing this again" until he gets the point.

This is terrible advice.

desu the advice before me is better (I was still typing when it got posted) but nah, you either treat the children like children or you get trampled over.

That's the perfect way to just get into a shitfest shouting match that OP will likely lose if he's the new person to the group.

Hah I actually laughed out loud, because that's nearly word for word what he said in one of the sessions.

Except it was for an semi-automatic pistol. He was also wrong on that one because he claimed semi automatic pistols weren't invented till 1911. It only got resolved when my friend looked it up on wikipedia on his phone and showed him when the actual one was made (I forget when it was). He subsided into grumbling for the rest of the session and glaring at my friend.

I mean, the teutonic knights as an entity were never going to last the reformation so unless they're still catholic he's entirely right, and if they're still catholic it's a wonder there hasn't been a revolution yet.

In the game they are a new organisation set up by Bismark that appropriated the name and have very little in common with the actual Teutonic knights of history beyond the name.

It was 1892, the Austro-Hungarian military's Schönberger-Laumann 1892 or (possibly) the Salvator Dormus of 1891 (but was quickly abandoned).

Treat everything he says as in-character, and let the world react accordingly to his insane and incorrect ramblings about how the world "actually" is.

The problem with this is when I'm trying to build tension, say during tense negotiations to buy land for a trans-german railway project and he says "ACKSHEWARLLY this TOTALLY non-historical because bla blah bla", it would totally blow the tension of the moment from a role playing perspective. I don't know how someone would realistically react to such a lunatic during a high tension moment except deciding they're being mocked and walking out on the negotiation, which kind of blows the mission for the party.

Do it until he learns his lesson and stops.

Or just fucking throw the sperg out.

And if he doesn't learn, the other players will want to toss him.

Not really fair on the rest of the party.

Keep iterating to him that the game is in an alternate universe, you're the GM and it is your setting and therefore it is historical for the purpose of the game, realism/historicity be damned

I agree with what said, and would tell them that yes, it's not historical. The entire campaign is alternate history. He's entirely correct, and that this is the entire point of the campaign.

OP here, I've got it.

Turns out there's a famous inventor who invented all manner of amazing things. Unhappily he died in infancy in our real world timeline, but in my campaign timeline he luckily got saved by an alert housemaid who regonised her symptoms, and who was only there because unlike in our timeline her family never left the Principality of Ansbach.

He invented pretty much everything, end of discussion.

What do you guys think?

You seem pretty intent to accomodate and indulge your sperg player. Never learned to say "no", have you?

...

here. I think what you're saying is avoiding the problem and a colossal asspull. I would just be up front and say that it's alt history - things will not match up as the player says. It doesn't feel like a mature response, is what I'm saying.

The problem is that he's not into alt history, not that there's a reason why it happened; he needs to accept that this is what the campaign is. That being said, I would do research and figure out what would be the ramnifications of the germanic state staying separated. How would relations with France/Austria-Hungary be? Would there be relations at all?

Thats letting him feel like you will accommodate him. Just stick to your alt-history guns and dont give him an inch.

It is a colossal asspull. I'm trying to subtly mock him for demanding that alt-history conform to history. I was thinking about giving the inventor a silly name to make the point more obvious.

I got what you were shooting for, user. I don't know why these retards can't parse a couple sentences to save their own lives.

Don't lower yourself to his standards - all you're doing is antagonizing him; you're the GM, you're above that shit.

I got it pretty much instantly, I just hold myself to higher standards than basic shit like that

I () got it, but the point stands-giving him the slightest feeling that he got anywhere, even if it is ridicule, will give him the impetus to continue being a sullen, passive-aggressive asshole that questions every single aspect of your setting.

I mean, sure, but this is a totally unrecoverable situation. The fucker has more social capital and he's not going to stop because he's a history sperg. You can't cure that.

In any other situation the only correct solution would be to kick the fucker out.

So I should quit the group, or kill my campaign then? That hardly seems fair.

At the start of your next session, just say that this is an alternate history, and some things are different from our history. If he continues to whine and bitch about that, he'll also continue to whine and bitch if Charles Magnus Karling invents the invent-o-matic of eighteen-dickety-three, but this way your setting isnt tainted by crap handwavium.

Neither - just be up front with the direction/intent of your campaign. He can either conform or quit - you don't have to tolerate him being a child

If he's gonna act like. Nazi, make it so his best friend is alternate history Hitler