Setting expectations, resolving conflicts, and other Rx's for dysfunctional play
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Double J,
Quote
That being said -- after further discussions with some of my other players (most notably Bob and Jim), I have finally come to the determination that Fred and I cannot simultaneously occupy the same game table.(snip) It is what it is. I could try to re-engage; but I'm skeptical. You make sense; but at this point, I'm just so drained that I don't think that I'd be up for it right now.
Actually, there's no reason to re-engage. That's pretty much the reason I laced my comments with a whole LOT of IF's, because it seemed like at best you guys weren't interested in the same game, and more likely there's social communication issues there.
Sounds like the latter is the issue. Well, now you know and you don't have to pour energy into trying to make something work that isn't going to.
Chris
Callan S.:
Quote
So, in Bob's effort to get along and still be able to explore his character, he let his character do his thing off-screen -- but was forced to bring in another character just so that he would have something to do at the table.
Why does it work that way? If someone leaves the party, can't you just divide up time? I've done this while GM'ing - I give the seperated person a few minutes every so often, but the bulk of attention goes to the rest of the group. Generally the solo person gets less time than they would if they stuck with the party, but the capacity to head off is there.
Fred seems to say "Well, do X, but we wont come with you" as if he determines what we do - which he does, since your all joined at the hip. Frankly I'd just have my character march off to do something while he's doing all his planning stuff. What's that Fred, blah blah blah? Okay, see ya! But if the other players can't vote with their feet because when they leave it's all off screen - well then the GM operating that way is enabling Fred to take over. I'd enable people voting with their characters feet. You'd probably find they actually all team up again, without Fred, leaving him to having the few minutes every so often of planning.
Quote
As for "house ruling away your capacity to do such a GM fiat" .... with someone like Fred, I think that this would be disastrous. The presence of GM fiat capacity is one of the few things that keep him from taking control of the entire game (i.e., from everybody). I think that I've reached the point where I believe that someone that is that much of a control freak needs to be left sulking (with constructive discussion afterward). YMMV.
I wasn't talking about all GM fiat...not yet, anyway.
If one person at the table can take over the game from everybody, then that capacity to take over/that power vacuum is still there even if Fred is not playing. And someone will fill that vacuum. Not as bluntly taking it over as Fred. But is that the issue - it's okay for someone to take control of the entire game, as long as it's only in a certain way?
It's worth thinking about whether it's you as GM who normally fills that position, even if not in the same way Fred uses it. Pretty much all traditional RPG design and gaming sessions operate around this sort of power vacuum.
Quote
I'm still struggling a bit with this one. I would much appreciate a little more articulation here (if you don't mind).
Can you tell me where your struggling with it?
Double_J:
Hey Callan,
Why does it work that way? Well, that has to do with the particular group dynamic at the time. Fred+Jill+Kate = 3/5 of the players (and as stated before, Jill and Kate always follow Fred's lead) ; Jim and Bob are readily marginalized (being that Fred doesn't like their play).
**** Wait just a minute .... I think I just realized something: Fred didn't really start going over the top until Jill and Kate started showing up (at first it was just Fred -- at which point he was only starting to show signs) ..... Did the addition of Jill and Kate put Fred in the mindset that he was back to running the show?
Given that Jill and Kate are players in games that he runs; and since Jill and Kate have only known gaming with Fred as GM (and Fred self-admittedly likes to keep a tight control on his games) .......
Holy snot bubbles -- Fred really did think (subconsciously) that he was running the game!!!
Here I was thinking that he was just waiting until he got the comfortable with the group to pounce in and take over.
There's my problem.
So, back to your question ...
It has worked that way because I allowed myself to fall in to the trap of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil". As well as the reality that if Fred quit the game, then Jill and Kate would have left with him (that whole dynamic has recently changed, what with Kate dropping out of all gaming to take care of the newborn and Jill moving out of state).
And I think that I allowed myself to get pushed around like this for some simple (albeit embarrassing) reasons:
- in the last couple of years, I have found myself in a really low point in my life; and as such, I needed something to go "right" -- and I had somehow defined "right" as "maintaining my gaming group as-is". I would have seen the act of my group falling apart as yet another indictment of my competence at life (piled on top of having lost my job, being estranged from my family, etc., ). I'm not sure how my psyche would have handled it a year or so ago. However, I have been approaching the point that I'm starting to not worry about it so much (which may be a good sign for me).
Fred gobbled-up power over the whole game. With Fred gone, I expect that power vacuum to be filled by having everything going back to the way it was before Fred -- i.e., all the other players will go back to having their own autonomy (and thus have shared and significant input), the GM will be able to once again have authority to scene-frame and run NPCs as he sees fit, etc.
As to where I'm struggling -- a couple of things ....
1) I'm not sure I'm fully with you on the relativism issue. I see where you're coming from, but I think it's apples-and-oranges, and therefore not a fully legitimate comparison -- one is a passive/indirect control, where the other is an active/direct control. And the reason that this makes a difference is at the point of the player(s) making decisions, and thus a matter of player agency.
2) When you have a group of people all trying to fulfill their own interests (whatever those interests may be), it really helps to have an established center of authority. Sure, you can say "the rule book and game 'contract' has the authority" and just go from there; however, I see that as a flawed position. Sure, some groups may be fine with this type of dynamic; however, even these groups will run in to problems when the inanimate authority is silent on an issue. Also, things get interpreted in different ways by different people; interests conflict; etc. Simply "talking it out" is many times an inadequate solution, especially when there are varying degrees of assertiveness and/or disparity in communication efficacy.
What am I missing?
Callan S.:
It seems plausible he was trying to maintain some sort of control he had in the other group. What's he done in game since those two player from his other group have left, or have you not played with him since then?
Quote
1) I'm not sure I'm fully with you on the relativism issue. I see where you're coming from, but I think it's apples-and-oranges, and therefore not a fully legitimate comparison -- one is a passive/indirect control, where the other is an active/direct control. And the reason that this makes a difference is at the point of the player(s) making decisions, and thus a matter of player agency.
I can't really see it that way - when you wack them with a rolled up newspaper when they do X, it's training them not to do X anymore.
Quote
Sure, some groups may be fine with this type of dynamic; however, even these groups will run in to problems when the inanimate authority is silent on an issue.
Ie, the text only gives an incomplete procedure.
Quote
Also, things get interpreted in different ways by different people; interests conflict; etc.
And poor technical writing by the author.
The authority (and the extent of it) is only 'required' because of these failures of design. If you like having that authority, fair enough. But if you don't really want to take up that authority position (or want a position with less authority), there is nothing forcing you to take up an authority position except for a procedure that hasn't been completed and poor technical writing not corrected. Again, if you like the authority position, fair enough. But it's not like your forced into that and don't have a choice about it.
Anyway, that's getting onto another subject and the usual pattern here is to keep threads on one subject and to cover new subjects in new threads (with a link from each thread to each other, which connects them kinda anyway). So I wont go on about it unless a new thread turns up on the subject.
Double_J:
We haven't played since .... or shall I say, i haven't played since.
Some of the other guys have played, with Fred as GM .... They don't seem to get chafed as bad as I do (that's largely an issue of personalities).
We have, however, gotten together a few times. In those times, there has definitely been some tension -- to the point that others have noticed. To be fair, I think that the main issue is that both of us are extremely opinionated and bull-headed to a fault; and when those opinions go perpendicular, well .....
"Training":
There is a decided difference between encouraging/discouraging behavior and hard-coding rules of behavior; and the difference lies in the basic underlying psychology ....
-- hard-coding, i.e. "here's the law -- that's the way it's going to be", tends to rub people the wrong way -- especially the "independently-minded". When faced with the fact that they have no choice in the matter, there are no few people who's natural instinct is to rebel against it, even if that hard-coding is the way they would do things anyway if left to their own devices (I would know; I've seen myself do it).
-- simply encouraging/discouraging a particular behavior (through whatever means) still leaves open the capacity of choice. Fair-minded and beneficent individuals, when shown what the expectations of "good" are, are more inclined to "go with the flow", so to speak, than if you had just "laid down the law". Once you have that level of buy-in, then it's a lot easier to get someone to self-police their behavior. The reason for this is that they have been given the free will of their own choice in the matter (regardless of how they came to it).
In a perfect world, I would get that buy-in before game start, so that I don't have to play whack-a-mole through the game. (see how I tied that back to the thread title there?) ;-)
"Procedure that hasn't been completed and poor technical writing":
Where does one draw the line between "bad procedure/writing", and inadequate reading comprehension and/or lack of contextual understanding? Who determines that? Presumably the procedure should designate someone to do that; however, we live in an age of fragile egos (thank you very much Dr. Spock), and thus is not always so easy as simply pointing to that said procedure and expecting compliance. It's not necessarily an issue of "design failure".
As far as I can tell, I oftentimes found myself (wrongly) relinquishing authority in the interest of avoiding conflict for the sake of maintaining the (dysfunctional) integrity of the group. Which was actually counter-productive to resolving the dysfunctionality.
BTW -- I don't think that we're straying too far ... just as long we keep things within the context of the thread title .
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page