Setting expectations, resolving conflicts, and other Rx's for dysfunctional play
Callan S.:
Hi JJ, (do you have a real name we can call you by?)
There's alot there. I thought I'd just ask if you have trouble developing material for play when essentially the player doesn't contribute to the material, they just chew up what you've made into component atoms and move on?
In terms of options, it seems pivotal whether A: You need something back from the players in terms of contribution, in order to generate more material or B: Your quite capable of generating material till the cows come home?
If it's B, then there's some potential.
As a quick note on the adversarial discussions, it basically sounds like he's been using the games to assert his real life pecking order over you. Without games, he's starting to do it in discussions. While before he was so nice as a friend because he got this all out in the game session. Really he's kind of bent on having this style of friendship. Occasionally he needs to lord over you (frankly you can see a naked weakness in such a need, but anyway...). Someone I roleplayed with that I discussed games about I eventually discovered he thought he was my teacher rather than peer who discussed game theory with him. He refered to me as his padawan at one point - I kind of shrugged it off, but latter in trying to discuss a game he ran, he exploded. You don't question the teacher, after all!
It's not impossible to deal with other peoples warts, we all have them (you too, from what I read here!). It's a matter of deciding though, rather than just trying to 'go with the flow' on it. In my case, I sadly lost contact. I suddenly realised the whole friendship worked around - well, not friendship but a teacher pupil social pecking order and sadly I'm too bullheaded for that shit. Well, I tried, but he started bitching about a group he was playing with and previously I had taken this as a prompt for discussion as peers. But really it was about him knowing better and even though I tried to prompt him to talk about the possitives, he just kept slipping back into how they were crap, etc. Which eventually meant acknowledging him as knowing better/being the grand teacher.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi,
Welcome to the Forge!
I think this post might be really worth reading and thinking about how much this lines up with Fred:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=29073.msg271730#msg271730
I've often labeled the hyper paranoid, over planning stuff as "abused gamer syndrome" - so much expecting death from anything and everything, that, as you point out, it becomes about planning everything to avoid actually engaging the rules or risk, then hitting the "I win button" by only allowing for automatically successful actions.
A variation of that which also shows up involves making it completely opaque why the series of actions is being undertaken ("First I get a bag. Then I get a rope. Then I tie the rope around the bag...") - mostly because if the GM doesn't know what your overall intent is, they can't block your "completely innocuous actions" as you complete some plan.
Chris
stefoid:
Oh, I read a bit more - yeah other players are not into it. OK.
The way I figure it, the GM is doing everyone a favour by running the game, and as long as the GM can and does articulate the type of game to the group before play "hey a wanna run a game that works like this..." and they agree to play, then thats how the game should be played, right?
what might be helpful though, is if you picka game to mechanically support the way you want to play, rather than D&D 3.5
I think the game in question is doomed unelss you kick Fred out. Why put everybody through a game that isnt fun except for one person?
Double_J:
Hey guys, thanks for the responses so far. I think I like the direction this is going; so let's see what I can do to oblige.
stefoid,
Quote from: stefoid on January 01, 2012, 09:56:41 PM
(...) shared quibbling over resources (spending treasure etc...) is fine (...)
(...)
And you _are_ playing D&D 3.5, right, which is right up that alley. So it makes sense.
IF youre the only one who has the issue, and you still want to play with a group that has fun playing this way, then you have to conform to the expectations of the game they want to play - you are there to provide the right level of challenge such that if they plan and execute properly, they win, and if they plan and execute poorly, they lose.
yes, shared quibbling is fine .... the key word there is "shared". That isn't happening at all.
For clarification, in what exact context were you pointing out the specific Game? (i.e., treasure stuff? gamism?)
Yes, while it isn't necessarily clear in my previous posts, I do make it a point to try to adapt to the group's needs. As to your "right level of challenge" note, some people don't cope well with having flaws in their plans exposed (Fred, for example, has a tendency to meltdown and accuse the GM of going out or his way to screw him over -- 'cause, you know, how could his plan have actually been flawed, right?). It really is quite off-putting; and eventually, critical mass is reached; and, well, .... I'm at a particular point in my life where I'm simply not in the mood to indulge that kind of behavior by interacting with it in anyway.
Quote
The way I figure it, the GM is doing everyone a favour by running the game, and as long as the GM can and does articulate the type of game to the group before play "hey a wanna run a game that works like this..." and they agree to play, then thats how the game should be played, right?
My sentiments exactly.
Quote
what might be helpful though, is if you picka game to mechanically support the way you want to play, rather than D&D 3.5
I'm listening --
Hi Callan,
Quote from: Callan S. on January 01, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
Hi JJ, (do you have a real name we can call you by?)
That's actually what a lot of my friends call me. Some of them truncate it to just a single "J". But if you'd prefer ..... my drivers license says "Jason". ;-p
Quote
There's alot there. I thought I'd just ask if you have trouble developing material for play when essentially the player doesn't contribute to the material, they just chew up what you've made into component atoms and move on?
In terms of options, it seems pivotal whether A: You need something back from the players in terms of contribution, in order to generate more material or B: Your quite capable of generating material till the cows come home?
If it's B, then there's some potential.
Hmm. Well, I can pump out material all day long; but without meaningful engagement by the players, then there's no point -- I might as well just go write a novel.
In order for me to generate material that is interesting for me to watch, then yes, I do need meaningful player feedback. In order for me to have fun, I need for the players to show some initiative -- it's kinda the point. Otherwise if just feels like I'm leading them by the nose.
Please, continue.
Quote
As a quick note on the adversarial discussions, it basically sounds like he's been using the games to assert his real life pecking order over you. Without games, he's starting to do it in discussions. While before he was so nice as a friend because he got this all out in the game session. Really he's kind of bent on having this style of friendship. Occasionally he needs to lord over you (frankly you can see a naked weakness in such a need, but anyway...). Someone I roleplayed with that I discussed games about I eventually discovered he thought he was my teacher rather than peer who discussed game theory with him. He refered to me as his padawan at one point - I kind of shrugged it off, but latter in trying to discuss a game he ran, he exploded. You don't question the teacher, after all!
It's not impossible to deal with other peoples warts, we all have them (you too, from what I read here!). It's a matter of deciding though, rather than just trying to 'go with the flow' on it. In my case, I sadly lost contact. I suddenly realised the whole friendship worked around - well, not friendship but a teacher pupil social pecking order and sadly I'm too bullheaded for that shit. Well, I tried, but he started bitching about a group he was playing with and previously I had taken this as a prompt for discussion as peers. But really it was about him knowing better and even though I tried to prompt him to talk about the possitives, he just kept slipping back into how they were crap, etc. Which eventually meant acknowledging him as knowing better/being the grand teacher.
That pretty much sums up where I'm at right now. I was just hoping that might be something else to be done.
BTW, please describe these warts of mine that you derived from my posts -- I'm interested (I rarely turn down an opportunity for self improvement; thus I welcome constructive criticism).
Hey Chris,
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on January 02, 2012, 08:10:26 AM
I think this post might be really worth reading and thinking about how much this lines up with Fred:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=29073.msg271730#msg271730
I've often labeled the hyper paranoid, over planning stuff as "abused gamer syndrome" - so much expecting death from anything and everything, that, as you point out, it becomes about planning everything to avoid actually engaging the rules or risk, then hitting the "I win button" by only allowing for automatically successful actions.
Thanks for the link (damn, that Ron guy really knows his stuff).
I also really like your term "abused gamer syndrome" (I'll just call it "AGS" for right now)
Like I mentioned before, I noticed his AGS right away in the first session. Despite my best efforts for 2 years, I simply couldn't breach it (let alone break it). However, you do add some insight to it -- I'm not sure that I've ever fully recognized this specifically as a method of avoiding the rules. The more I think on it, though, the more that makes sense. Additionally, identifying the issue for what it is also lets me know that I may have unwittingly acted counter-productively in my attempts to resolve matters -- every time one of his plans didn't work as planned, he'd double-down and get even more paranoid (at one point, he was seriously gonna have his character go hide in a mountain somewhere until the major campaign-defining problem blew over).
But then, that poses a major question for me: If letting the plans work only serves to encourage further planning (through reward), and disrupting those plans only serves to pressure him to plan more/better, and talking to him head-on gets dismissed .... what the heck can be done to break him out of his Skinner box? It's like watching a gambling addict at a blackjack table. On that note, I know from my own experiences education that the only way to break an addict of his addiction is to start with removing the stimulus (which seems to imply that Fred needs to be removed from gaming).
It's definitely something to chew on.
Quote
A variation of that which also shows up involves making it completely opaque why the series of actions is being undertaken ("First I get a bag. Then I get a rope. Then I tie the rope around the bag...") - mostly because if the GM doesn't know what your overall intent is, they can't block your "completely innocuous actions" as you complete some plan.
I'm very familiar with this one; though I've never associated it with AGS, nor would I have ever associated it with Gamism (if that is indeed what you're saying). But again, the more I think on it this way, the more sense it makes.
On this particular behavior, I'm of 2 minds -- and, as with most things, context is everything.
On one hand, something like, on occasion, this can really serve to bring about a moment of levity when, for example, you have a series of sessions that have been especially brutal.
On the other hand, if this is just the way the player operates by default, then it gets really annoying, and (in my experience) usually doesn't amount to much more than childish antics that henge on exploitation of rules loopholes.
Thinking about AGS reminds me of a term that has been batted around at a couple of other forums that I've frequented -- "IP Proofing". "IP" stands for "iterative probability"; as in, proofing your character against the iterative probability that "team monster" will win. I see this mentality all over the gaming internet; and the justification for this type of thing is demonstrative of (in my not-so-humble opinion) the sickness born out of the "every child gets a trophy" mentality. But I digress.
Thanks guys. What else y'all got?
Double_J:
Just had another thought (refers back to the thread title) ...
How much pre-game material related to setting players' expectations is too much? It seems like every time I get a disruptive player or experience instances of incoherent/dysfunctional play, I end up having yet more things that get added to the pre-game briefing (to the point that it's not so "brief" anymore). I now find myself spending a whole evening "interviewing" perspective players, before I even let them come near my table.
After having spent a little time lurking here, I'm tempted to just have any/everyone read the Glossary and "neophytes threads", and then discuss that. But a big part of me feels like that may be a bit too much.
Thoughts?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page