| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see this sort of thing a lot on these boards when a player comes here and posts something along the lines of "My group is mad at me because I'm so awesome":
"Heck, don't let those babies tell you how to play! As long as you are within the rules, you have a right to play whatever you want!"
I think I've seen four or five such threads in the past week. And they all seem to more or less follow the same basic plot.
When people (like me) try to say things like "Hey, if there are five people at a game table and four of them are telling the fifth 'you need to change your play style', then it seems a little odd to me that we here on the boards immediately leap to the conclusion that the one player who came to these boards is the one being mistreated." that seems to be completely overlooked as a legitimate approach.
So I wanted to ask the folks here on these boards a fundamental question about gaming. That question is:
"Does an individual player (or GM) have any obligation or responsibility to recognize the preferences of the majority of players when they game?"
Because the impression I get on reading thread after thread is that a very vocal contingent of participants here think that the individual player's pursuit of "fun" is some sort of sacred mission that must be accommodated at all costs.
The problem I have with that position is that it makes no sense. If one person is ruining the fun of four people, what about the other four people's pursuit of fun? Doesn't that matter at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question, of course, is how often the issue is actually worth fussing over. I have very rarely seen a situation where what the other 4 people are complaining about is any of their freakin' business, or how that could actually bother anybody.
Let's take Ravingdork's recent thread, where the rest of the group hates on his character-class-choice process. Why is this any of their business? How does it negatively impair their fun at all? I can't see it. I can't comprehend why they should care, or how it impacts them at all.
Are there legitimate complaints? Yes. But 9 out of 10 of the 'everybody else hates my (X)' are just players who need to take the sticks out of their butts.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, it depends on the circumstances.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them! It's not my fault that they can't powergame!"
No, that guy is a douche.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them, even though I offered to help them build their characters and have curtailed my power to a significant degree and focus mostly on buffing them so they can function competently against basic threats."
In that case, the group is douchey, not the player.
I agree, it depends on the circumstances.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them! It's not my fault that they can't powergame!"
No, that guy is a douche.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them, even though I offered to help them build their characters and have curtailed my power to a significant degree and focus mostly on buffing them so they can function competently against basic threats."
In that case, the group is douchey, not the player.
This!
Though Claxon gives a good point for a response to the mpl's first example. And gives a very Nerdy quote at the same time. Well done Comrade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
I agree, it depends on the circumstances.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them! It's not my fault that they can't powergame!"
No, that guy is a douche.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them, even though I offered to help them build their characters and have curtailed my power to a significant degree and focus mostly on buffing them so they can function competently against basic threats."
In that case, the group is douchey, not the player.
This.
I will also note that some of the threads I see aren't "the players aren't having fun" it's either "the players don't like my choice" or "I don't like some other player's choice." If the "choice" has to do with someone getting screwed over or someone needing a gentle lesson in tactics, that's an issue that people need to chat with the person about. If the choice is "this person is playing something I don't like but actually it has no bearing on the game except for the fact that I choose to waste my emotional energy judging them" then yeah, it the person doing the judging needs to be advised to chill.
Really, everything as always boils down to:
1. Everyone should be having fun. If one person is having fun, however, at someone else's expense, they're a douchebag and should GTFO.
2. If the non-fun issue is more to do with a difference in play styles, then it's time to chat about splitting up the group into people whose playstyles mesh.
3. If in doubt, talk to everybody in game and value the power of open communication in group far more than the advice of any random stranger on the Internet.
I agree, it depends on the circumstances.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them! It's not my fault that they can't powergame!"
No, that guy is a douche.
"Nobody likes how I am ten times stronger than them, even though I offered to help them build their characters and have curtailed my power to a significant degree and focus mostly on buffing them so they can function competently against basic threats."
In that case, the group is douchey, not the player.
Or it's not the the people involved our douchebags, it's that the single player has a different playstyle than the other people. Some players thrive on hyper optimization, while other groups get bugged by that. I mean that is pretty obvious just from reading threads here. There are things certain posters hate with a passion that whole groups have never noticed.
I mean at a basic level if your playstyle is different from the GM and the rest of the group, than you should expect to blend in or politely find a new game.
|
I... really don't think people should be penalized for building an optimized character, but that's just me. A lot of these threads that pop up seem to revolve around someone in a group having built a character that is, in some way or another, more effective than the rest of the party at a specific set of things. It inevitably breaks down into the person that made that character being thrown under the bus, even if they meant to harm by it. Some people just like being able to inflict 200 damage in one round. Should their preference be any less respected than the guy with a +40 diplomacy at level 8? I believe they should.
That being said, the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. If it's a case of someone using a super powerful character to rob everyone else of their fun, you should ask them to dial it down. Don't ask them to nerf their character, mind you, but request that they refrain from decimating every encounter like it's their job. Unless they're actually being a jerk, I don't see any reason their fun should have to be completely dismantled for the group to prosper. A simple request will usually lead to compromise, and while things might be LESS fun for them, they should still be able to enjoy the game.
Everyone's pursuit of fun needs to be considered, not JUST the majority. If it's just a case where the party (or the lone person in question) just can't arrive at a compromise, maybe the individual should find other people to play with. I can honestly say that I would choose to simply not participate in a campaign if it required that I not make the best possible stat, feat, and equipment choices for my characters that I had reasonable access to. The "one" person should recognize that optimizers get a lot of undeserved hate, and he may need to either shove off or practice restraint, depending on willingness to compromise.
That is one subject, but there are many others. If the one person is being disruptive and/or has a character that for some reason just makes it obnoxious to continue, that's another story. That needs to be addressed swiftly, and if a compromise can't be reached, they need to go bye bye.
Thumbs up for being named adamantine dragon, by the way. :P Super powerful 2nd edition version or garbage 4th edition?
Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
Eh, I think it's mostly due to who is the one posting it. if a person complains about the rest of the group, people will chime in to support him/her. If a GM or member of a group complains about one player, people will chime in and support that person.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Temperance and compassion in all things. Seriously. This is a collaborative game. No one person should determine the outcome or result for any other participant.
We're not in high school. Ok, SOME of this community is, but you know what I mean. There's no us against them any more. WE decide what's fun for us.
Personally, in my own life and games I strive for compromise. I am usually the GM and if I had it REALLY my own way, my game would be a really cool blend of gritty horror and Tolkien; Harry Potter but for older wizards.
But that's NOT what every player at my table wants.
I have 2 guys that honestly don't speak in character unless I make them and their idea of long-term plot is whatever they have to do to make it to next level. I have another player who surprised the heck out of me yesterday by not only remembering a month-old plotline but coming to the table with some decisions on where it was going and mining for more info. Finally I have a new player who just joined us that enjoys my aesthetic but hasn't played enough yet for me to determine just HOW gritty I can get.
I don't plan on coming to the table next session and TPKing the party in epic fashion. Instead I intend to tentatively let out a bit more grit, ratchet up the combat for my tactical players and also continue to interact w/my plot-driven PC in the guise of the NPC they're traveling with. That way we ALL get a little of what we want.
I tell my girls all the time "you can't have EVERYTHING the way you want it all the time. You have to think of others before yourselves." Why then should I be any different, especially with non-family gaming buddies?
It boils down to this simple phrase I stole from my wife's grandma. "Work hard; be nice." That's been her lifestyle since she was a little girl. The woman is 98 now and as with it as all of us. This cannot be a coincidence.
@Mark Hoover: I want to give you a hug all of a sudden...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Mark, once again I find our playstyles to be similar in the fundamentals.
As the GM I consider it a fairly major part of "my job" to make the game as fun as possible for everyone at the table.
That means I have had quite a few conversations with the odd person out at the table to let them know that they aren't really playing the same game the rest of us are playing. I pretty much let them know that there are two probable outcomes from the situation:
1. The rest of the group eventually votes the odd one out of the game.
2. The odd one out adjusts their approach enough to co-exist comfortably with the rest of the table.
My understanding is that people game together to have fun together. If someone gains the majority of their fun that is in some way dependent on other people at the table having less fun, I'll eventually ask them to find another game, or not invite them back after a chapter closes.
It's not really a "needs of the many" thing for me, it's a "We're here to relax and recharge after dealing with the daily crap of our lives" thing. Any player that is adding, instead of reducing, stress at the table simply does not belong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
mpl, the simple realities of probability and group dynamics would indicate to me that at least 75-80% of the time, the person coming here to complain is likely the problem person.
That's why my advice is almost always in the "get together and talk this out" vein, instead of "yeah, you're group sucks. Buncha pansies probably" vein.
Every now and then I'll see a thread where I will conclude that there really is a problem with the group, not the individual, but that's rare.
And you know what mpl? It generally has exactly the same solution. Talk it out and work out a compromise, or find a different group.
Bringing back some sort of "Neener, neener, I talked to all the 'experts' and they told me you guys all suck" response is pretty much never going to help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A to the F: jump in mate I'll love ya'. Seriously though, why WOULD any of us rag on others or blame them for us not having fun? Gamers as old as me are the guys who got excluded all the time because WE were the geeks. What good could POSSIBLY come from us excluding folks for our own hangups?
Accept that YOU are in charge of YOUR fun at the table. Also accept that the game is collaborative and a team effort that succeeds or fails based on EVERYONE'S buy in. Once those 2 points are firmly fixed and accepted in the hearts and minds of everyone at the table, everything else is just semantics.
Please, be excellent to one another, and party on dudes!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If one player in a group isn't having fun the group / GM can attempt to accommodate him. But if it kills the fun of the rest I'd say he needs to find a group that's more compatible with him. Not always possible, I know, but better, imo, than screwing over everybody else and making the game un-fun for them. My 2 cp.
mpl, the simple realities of probability and group dynamics would indicate to me that at least 75-80% of the time, the person coming here to complain is likely the problem person.
That's why my advice is almost always in the "get together and talk this out" vein, instead of "yeah, you're group sucks. Buncha pansies probably" vein.
Every now and then I'll see a thread where I will conclude that there really is a problem with the group, not the individual, but that's rare.
And you know what mpl? It generally has exactly the same solution. Talk it out and work out a compromise, or find a different group.
Bringing back some sort of "Neener, neener, I talked to all the 'experts' and they told me you guys all suck" response is pretty much never going to help.
I don't think talking with the group about the issue is ever bad advice. But that doesn't mean the complaining player is wrong.
And telling them their group is full of douches is absolutely not the same as telling them to tell their group that they are all douches.
Sometimes, people are upset about something in game and they come and complain. They like the validation they feel when the forum tells them its not their fault and the group was being unfair, etc. Then, they are satisfied and go back to the same group and have fun again with no further issues.
But if you tell them that they're the wrong ones and they need to adjust their attitude, they're going to get defensive and feel worse about the whole thing, making them more likely to cause more problems and escalate things until it really is a "get out of the group" situation.
The vast majority of people that complain just want sympathy and validation, not solutions, and if they receive it, the problem usually ends right then and there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mpl, and how is that approach different than my default "get together and talk this out, find a compromise or look for a different group" advice?
Sometimes I think the threads go on and on with thousands of words deconstructing the personal motivations and life histories of people nobody ever met and never will meet just because it gives people a chance to vent their own private frustrations and project them on a group of strangers.
... and I'll add to that the observation that in my experience, the people who start throwing around words like "douche" or "jerk" on the slightest hint of pretext are the ones doing the most obvious projection.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As GM, you can, and should entertain the style and tastes of every player at the table - to a point.
I think this is not so hard as it sounds, because most of us as human beings understand how to play a game with, and get along with others. We come into a situation, and through normal means of discovery, learn how far we can push things and what our companions will and will not laugh at, and take well. We learn quickly what they don't like. Most people, including most gamers, learn to operate within those parameters, and I think most games get along fine enough because of that instinctive equilibrium.
Here on the boards, the exceptions come up, and I think they get blown up out of proportion.
But I agree with Adamantine Dragon in that most of the advice given to the individual posters, at least where they seem to have an overwhelming response against them from others, is misguided and wrongheaded. Especially when they themselves are admitting that everybody they've talked to outside of these forums also thinks they were in the wrong. I can't tell if the main body of the posters here try to collude with such posters to bolster their own wrongheaded ideas about things out of a desire to be nice and supportive, or out of a desire to cause chaos, or (most likely I think) out of a desire to make themselves feel better.
I mean, to my mind, if somebody comes here and says, "My character killed all my fellow PCs for the kicks, and I don't care that I made the GM's girlfriend cry," and he receives not only applause and support, but gets a bunch of advice on how to more quickly kill the PCs the next time, and a post or two about how bad the girlfriends of GMs suck... Well, I can't help but feel that the people supporting such bad behavior are doing so to make themselves feel better for the awful things they've done to their fellow players. It seems pretty transparent to me.
As to the game, and managing players, yes, I do believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. When sometimes we have a player who cannot mesh with the others, for whatever reason, whether it be character power, play style, or general sociability (and these things must ALL BE EQUAL FACTORS TO A GOOD GM - no playing favorites because you think one guy makes "cooler, more powerful characters," or whatever), then sometimes a person must be asked to leave. Hopefully after many attempts at making a fit, and in a mature, reasonable manner.
I believe there is a gaming group out there for everybody. Somebody, somewhere wants to play with you in the style you play. So go find them and be happy.
mpl, and how is that approach different than my default "get together and talk this out, find a compromise or look for a different group" advice?
Because your solution gives neither validation nor support--the person leaves your comment unsatisfied and the thing is, nobody is going to see a forum message saying, "Why not try talking to the group about it?" and think, "Oh man, why didn't I think of that?" Who posts here before they consider alternatives like talking? Wouldn't talking to the group be everyone's first idea? I'm pretty sure if they're here complaining, they're after something else.
Sometimes I think the threads go on and on with thousands of words deconstructing the personal motivations and life histories of people nobody ever met and never will meet just because it gives people a chance to vent their own private frustrations and project them on a group of strangers.
... and I'll add to that the observation that in my experience, the people who start throwing around words like "douche" or "jerk" on the slightest hint of pretext are the ones doing the most obvious projection.
First, using the word "douche" here was just for fun--it's always for fun. It's a funny word and I'm rarely serious about much of anything.
Second, I don't see what's wrong with deconstructing the motivations and histories of people you'll never meet in order to vent private frustrations. Isn't venting private frustrations something positive?
What I'm saying is two things:
1) There's context to consider as to who is actually being more unreasonable.
2) No matter who is wrong, the complaining player generally just wants some validation and sympathy and nothing more. They're not really looking for advice--they don't really want to find solutions. They just want to be told their complaints are heard and they are not alone. Once they have it, they just go back to the same group and have absolutely no issues from then on.
mpl, I suppose I'm not much in the business of providing "validation" or "sympathy" to people just because they posted their frustrations on a website. As I said, I believe the majority of those sorts of things are posted by the person who is most likely causing the problem so why would I want to do anything to give them validation of their non-productive behaviors?
Anyway, as I said, it's clear that there is a very large contingent of posters on this particular game message board who believe that players have the right and obligation to shove their version of fun down the throats of their playing partners. The irony of that position seems to utterly escape them.
Second, I don't see what's wrong with deconstructing the motivations and histories of people you'll never meet in order to vent private frustrations. Isn't venting private frustrations something positive?
What I'm saying is two things:
1) There's context to consider as to who is actually being more unreasonable.
2) No matter who is wrong, the complaining player generally just wants some validation and sympathy and nothing more. They're not really looking for advice--they don't really want to find solutions. They just want to be told their complaints are heard and they are not alone. Once they have it, they just go back to the same group and have absolutely no issues from then on.
But do we really have context? One person complaining about his group is fine...everyone needs to vent as you would say. But typically we are getting a very biased view of what happened, which is going to skirt other issues and downplay the person's own role (Man I am getting flashbacks to the milk thread from awhile back).
Once they have it, they just go back to the same group and have absolutely no issues from then on.
Do we get the follow up always or even usually? It strikes me that there is the potential that after a lot of affirmation the player will go back to the group and continue doing whatever the other players found aggravating. Or just continue onto another group with similar playstyle and run into the same problem.
Just because "talk it out with group/gm" or "find another group with similar playstyle" is obvious advice, doesn't mean it's not valid.
(To walk back a bit, this thread might be useful if a specific example was included. Right now everything so vague that pretty much everyone's view can't help but be interpreted as the correct one.)
MMCJawa, I already stated that this thread was about the continued assertion that a player has a right to pursue their version of fun regardless of the desires of their gaming partners. I believe that's more than clear enough to discuss. I'm sure those reading this can recognize the sorts of threads I'm talking about.
When people (like me) try to say things like "Hey, if there are five people at a game table and four of them are telling the fifth 'you need to change your play style', then it seems a little odd to me that we here on the boards immediately leap to the conclusion that the one player who came to these boards is the one being mistreated." that seems to be completely overlooked as a legitimate approach.So I wanted to ask the folks here on these boards a fundamental question about gaming. That question is:
"Does an individual player (or GM) have any obligation or responsibility to recognize the preferences of the majority of players when they game?"
I could start to talk about all kinds of complicated methods for working out how much fun (or lack thereof) is involved here, how to assign it to individuals, and how to work out whose fun (or lack thereof) is more important.
It'd be kinda pointless, though. At the end of the day, if the group doesn't like what one person is doing, the group will decide whether or not they still want that one person as a member of that group or not. That's really all that matters. Right, wrong, obligation, and morality do not figure into the equation, because the group isn't bound by any of those.
Be good to your group. They get to decide whether to play with you or without you.
I mostly pointed out that because the topic sentence is leading. I suspect at face value most people would agree with you. But then I feel most people don't feel that is what they are posting, and certainly don't phrase there question in that exact manner.
Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
There's a trope relating to that actually. The complainer is always wrong.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a trope relating to that actually. The complainer is always wrong.Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
There needs to be a trope about trying to prove one's point by contriving a "there's a trope about it" argument.
There needs to be a trope about trying to prove one's point by contriving a "there's a trope about it" argument.There's a trope relating to that actually. The complainer is always wrong.Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?Yeah, this thread seems to be going the same way.
"Yeah, all the people you game with are douches! Tell 'em to go to hell!"
I guess that'll just have to be the continuing default board reply for these situations....
There actually is I just can't remember it right now...
There needs to be a trope about trying to prove one's point by contriving a "there's a trope about it" argument.
... Found it.
Oh no it contained a link to xkcd...
When people (like me) try to say things like "Hey, if there are five people at a game table and four of them are telling the fifth 'you need to change your play style', then it seems a little odd to me that we here on the boards immediately leap to the conclusion that the one player who came to these boards is the one being mistreated." that seems to be completely overlooked as a legitimate approach.
Good thread and I agree 100% with the above. From another thread:
Remember that (the original poster) is giving us one side of the story. Chances are that if the majority of their group is annoyed with them, there is probably more going on...
There needs to be a trope about trying to prove one's point by contriving a "there's a trope about it" argument.... Found it.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah, I probably was too harsh there Sin, but I do get tired of all the "this is the XXX trope" commentary and when I go read the trope I'm all "what th' heck? This isn't ANYTHING like that..."
Anyway,I think I'm done with this. I do appreciate that there has been some reasonable conversation on this thread, but the constant assertion that one player's search for fun is some sort of sacred quest continues in complete obliviousness of the fact that the table is full of players who can't all pursue their quest without some collision with other quests.
The point is that we can't all do what we want all the time when engaged in group activities.
Seriously people, this is the first lesson that children are taught in kindergarten. It really, really is.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This game is underwritten by an implied social contract that everyone will contribute to creating the fun and no one will actively step on anyone else's fun. When a member of the group strays outside those bounds, the others need to nudge him back in. If the nudging is ineffective, it's time to let them go. Don't be "That Guy" that comes to the internets to complain about how everyone hates you. The internets might have sympathy for you, but it doesn't change how the group feels about you and it doesn't alter the underlying social contract.
-Skeld
I have to say I agree with MPL here. Context is necessary and while I absolutely agree there does need to be a "talk with the group" first option available always it comes with the understanding that you yourself are a part of the group and as a part of that group your fun has to be taken into account.
Context is important. It can't always be that the group is in the wrong nor is it about the individual being in the wrong.
Yet.
I do think that some people get bothered by the darndest things and while I'm not, as thenobldrake put it, in charge of telling people what to be bothered by, I don't hesitate to let people know that their overall butthurt is detracting more from the game through the sheer force of their petty crying than whatever imaginary nerd crime the target of their anguish is committing. Honestly, some people just need to wipe their tears and get on with the damn game.
I do think that some people get bothered by the darndest things and while I'm not, as thenobldrake put it, in charge of telling people what to be bothered by, I don't hesitate to let people know that their overall butthurt is detracting more from the game through the sheer force of their petty crying than whatever imaginary nerd crime the target of their anguish is committing. Honestly, some people just need to wipe their tears and get on with the damn game.
Yeah, but put that butthurt into its proper context. Is the whole group crying? If it's one person, your point holds up. If, for instance, Ravingdork is only bugging one person, then yeah, maybe that person is too easily butthurt and maybe that person is the one who needs to get over it.
But odds are the whole group are not babies. And basically, that is what the thread is about. If the majority think that a single player is coloring outside the lines, then perhaps he is.
So, your point is taken, but it's kind of outside the point. Your example would be outside the situations we are actually talking about.
More to the point, where do the tears you talk about come from? Well, they come from misery. Misery is not fun. No fun, no game. Telling somebody to just get over it and get on with playing really doesn't make the game any more fun than does getting butthurt in the first place. Not really a solution, is it?
Eh, don't you think you should evaluate things on a case-by-case basis rather than assume that the Complainer is Always Wrong?That's what I do. Sometimes the player is mostly wrong. Sometimes it is the group. Sometimes it is inbetween.
That depends if your aim is to try and make the complainer feel better, or to help find a way to keep playing with their group ;)
Telling them that the group is wrong, even if they are, doesn't fix the problem of their group not liking their playstyle. It's more likely to leave them going back to their group and telling them "the internet told me you're all wrong" and resulting in them getting booted.
Maybe them getting booted from the group is a good thing in the long run, of course, but I'd imagine they're not likely to thank people for the advice that caused it.
What it comes down to is whether they're asking for sympathy, or whether they're asking for a way to help them fit in better with their group. If the latter, deciding who is in the wrong isn't going to help.
(Personally, I still believe 95% of game problems can be solved by accepting that you're just trying to fit in with the wrong group, and looking for another)