1. Players who don't post often enough to keep the game moving.
I assume you're not referring to the "easier" situation where they ghost and you can simply declare them gone, recruit-to-replace if appropriate, and move on.
If they keep coming back just enough so that, say, you have to bot them every-other turn that gets touchier. I think at that point (say it's happened 2-3 times) I would PM the player and set clear expectations to stay in the game. From there it sort of depends on how they respond in the discussion...
- promise to get better and they get better?
- don't get better?
- don't respond to the PM discussion but keep posting inconsistently? this would be the harder situation. I guess post in gameplay, "hey PlayerX, I need you to check your PMs. Important."
2. Players who are overly argumentative about rules
If the player is dredging up rules previously discussed during that session, clearly state "this is closed and no longer up for discussion. Let's get back to the game." If the player keeps bringing up many new issues, comment in the open that "this is slowing down the game. If you have further issues, please PM me so we can resolve offline." If either of the above continues, engage the player in PM and be clear about how much of it is appropriate and the excess of which is affecting *all* players.
My approach above is to *first* remove the distraction from the game as experienced by the whole table. "Take it offline", and see if the player can be reasonable.
If this player somehow manages to rope other players' interest into the arguments... I think more of the same honestly.
3. Players who seems to try to 'derail' the adventure
Does this mean go off the scenario's "happy path"? This feels like the answer would be much like our previous discussion topic of how much off-script to let the adventurers go before, e.g., running out of time. Now, if it's one player wanting to do it and the others aren't up for going along with it, I might PM the player and state that they need to agree with the group or else leave the table. They won't be allowed to sabotage the table.
But let me know if this wasn't the spirit of the discussion point.
4. Players who have made characters that make other players uncomfortable.
Engage the player over PM in good faith, explain the situation, get a feel for how much (possibly fully, possibly none) of the uncomfortable RP is true to the character. Offer peaceable alternatives to keep the character true and make it work for the party. Suggest to that player that they might offer up these alternatives and get table feedback in the discussion thread. I would approach it this way to defer the feeling that I'm "coming down on them as GM", and let them retain ownership of how the character works within the party. Of course, if they insist and refuse to consider the rest of the table, *then* the GM's rule has to take affect, but I would prefer to defer it and suggest to the player to propose adjustments.
Like with previous questions, I think the appropriate response varies based on whether the session is a PFS session, AP, or homebrew.
For a PFS session I expect that I would just try to soldier through knowing that the game will be over in a few weeks. I would take the smallest steps possible to mitigate the problems and then not play with that person again.
For an AP or homebrew I think the steps outlined by GM Weenerton and GM PaleDim make sense. It seems that the basic idea is to PM the player, explain the situation, and try to negotiate a solution.
But there is one thing that bugs me about PMs. We don't get notification of PMs outside of Paizo and the "red dot" notification seems to break a lot. If a player isn't actively checking for PMs, it can take several days before they notice. For the case of the less-than-active player, they may not notice the PM for even longer.
1. Players who don't post often enough to keep the game moving.
This one bothers me and is a primary reason I have not jumped into running PBPs sooner. I do not understand players just vanishing without a word. That seems astoundingly rude to me yet it happens routinely. And while I believe most players have good intentions initially about posting it seems from observation that many never intended to meet the posting requirements. I have toyed with ideas like getting real life email addresses for people so I could remind them in a "stronger" manner than an PM. And even some type of stronger, almost covenant-like commitment to posting. I doubt either would work. I know real life happens but its not that hard to pop in and explain what is going on.
2. Players who are overly argumentative about rules
GMs get things wrong about the rules all the time. The rule set is just too complicated for everyone to be an expert all the time about everything. So I strongly believe an avenue must be maintained to discuss (not argue) rule calls. Maybe its fine in the discussion thread. Maybe its better by PM. When I disagree with an important call from a GM I usually PM them and explain why I believe the RAW means what it does. The goal is to be respectful and not argumentative and then be ready to accept table variations on those rules where RAW is not clear. So for me its would be best to spell out the path to discuss rules differences before the game begins.
3. Players who seems to try to 'derail' the adventure
I have not seen this as much. At table games I usually have little trouble getting things back on track; sometime with RP, in game hints, or guiding NPCs. But sometimes I am fine just stating that the mod does not go in that direction. This is important when time is a constraint. I know as a player I appreciate this as opposed to GMs that let the group wander pointlessly until there is noo more time.
4. Players who have made characters that make other players uncomfortable.
I've only experienced this as a fellow player and wish the GM had done a better job at reeling the other player in. I have left two games because of this and I think those two were the only active games I have quit while the game was in progress.
In one cast a player was playing a male prostitute and wanted to get extremely graphic about his "day job" for no plot related reason and constantly tried to seduce the other players. I found it over the limit and quite offensive. Multiple PMs to the GM did not curtail the behavior so I left. A month later the GM PMed me saying the game had fallen apart and he wished he had curtailed the behavior.
The other case was likely more me not knowing how to handle the situation. One player at the table was playing a rude dwarven wizard. I mean he was constantly belittling to all the other players in character. Out of character the guy was fine and even apologetic about his PC but maintain that was his personality and that was how he was gonna play him. When I tried to "defend myself" in character I simply became the primary target of this belittling banter. It was constant. I guess in a way this was also a derailing as it made the game about him versus everyone else. I argued that IC no group of adventurers would put up with his company and the only reason he was allowed to be with us was the out of character convention of an adventuring party. GM was silent. I never asked for his help in a PM but did state that unless it got better I would have leave. When I announced I felt I needed to leave the game the player of the dwarf apologized and offered to leave himself, but did not offer to change the way he was playing. But without any GM backing I figured it was more my problem so I left.
I apologize for having just lurked for the last several weeks - I've had a particularly busy spell at work, and keeping up with my PbP games has been difficult. I think I have a better handle on my schedule now, and should be better shape going forward. I'm going to jump back in here with the current topic.
1. Players who don't post often enough to keep the game moving.
This is a tough one. I've played in scenarios where someone disappears during combat, only to return after it has ended and the GM has had to bot them (often without clear advance botting instructions). This can also slow the game outside of combat; I've seen several GMs deal with this problem with the "rule of two/three," which I think we discussed earlier.
I like the idea of getting email addresses for players to deal with the lack of reliable notifications for private messages at Paizo.com, but I know there are folks out there who are reluctant to give out any real-world contact information, often for good reason. Perhaps for those folks, it would be possible to create a stand-alone gmail account (forwarded to their regular email address) for PbP use?
2. Players who are overly argumentative about rules.
I haven't seen this much with players in PbP, maybe because there is usually time to look something up. I have also seen some GMs get defensive when questioned - probably because they are used to rules arguments at the table in live games. I guess I agree with GM PaleDim - if it can’t be resolved quickly in the Discussion thread, I think it’s best to take the discussion private, and deal with it that way. If necessary, I would call in one of the local venture officers - I have played with GMs who have done that when they were uncertain about a ruling themselves.
3. Players who try to ‘derail’ the adventure.
I think this one depends on how the other players react. Assuming it appears to be deliberate disruption from one player that the others aren’t joining in, I would treat it like a rules argument above. I suppose it could end with asking someone to leave the group, although I hate to think it would come to that.
If it is the entire group, I would remind the players that even if there isn’t a hard deadline to finish in a PbP game (other than specials), there may be in-game consequences for going too far off the rails, which may in turn affect the rewards on their chronicle sheets. I assume that in any PFS game - live or PbP - if the party just ignores the mission assigned and won’t get back on track after a couple of warnings, even if there is no definitive failure condition that ends the scenario, the Venture Captain can eventually recall the PCs and send out a new team to try again? That might be easier to do at a live table as the FLGS is closing, but even in a PbP there needs to be a way to pull the plug.
4. Players who have made characters that make other players uncomfortable.
I’ve been lucky - I haven’t seen anything like this myself, but then other than PbP, I don’t play much outside of our family home games, and the last couple of years at Gen Con. As a GM, I think it would be my job to reach out to the problem player early to address the issue, and give them a chance to make adjustments. If that doesn’t resolve the issue quickly, I think it would be time to tell them to leave the table.
1. Players who don't post often enough to keep the game moving.
We've done a great job of using "macro for botting" as an expectation of the game, and that's definitely curbed this - though in the last year I've seen this hit GMs more than players. Clearly posting your policy before the game can help too. That way they're aware of when you'll bot, and when you'll PM them. When it's a minor issue, I just let it go and make a mental note for later. I'm assuming that we're taking about severe issues.
Eventually, if the table is still legal and they've vanished, then I go by the book in the PFS Guild Guide for incomplete scenarios.
2. Players who are overly argumentative about rules.
Again, let's assume we're focused on OVERLY. First, know the rules. Know them cold. Know them better than the players. Second, take it outside. Don't let the gameplay thread get cluttered. This belongs on Discussion, and then via PM.
The other opinions/techniques already posted on this one are pretty clear, nothing really to add here.
3. Players who try to ‘derail’ the adventure.
In a lot of ways, this is an easy one to handle. If you've never read it, I recommend Tracy Hickman's book on GMing. Using the technique of either soft borders (let them go off the rails, but provide increasingly overt and in-character pushes to get back on track) or the DM Force (if they are utterly convinced they need to focus on NPC x, but the story expects them to focus on y - then the GM simply makes it Y) you can handle most of those issues. If they're derailing for the sake of derailing, then it's the normal progression of PM with request, PM with warning, PM with ejection.
4. Players who have made characters that make other players uncomfortable.
Zero tolerance for something that breaks the paizo.com rules. I think we're all on the same page for the most part. I don't think we learn if we talk about the easy cases. The instance of this that gets tricky in my opinion is when someone is unreasonably uncomfortable. Demons, devils, sacred prostitutes of Calistria, etc. all make appearances in published content. Presumably a player knows what they're getting into, but they may not. If one person is being reasonable in my professional opinion, and someone else is being unreasonable in their stance, THEN its sticky. I get this all the time with my students. Someone will ask for a trigger warning on something that is just not reasonable, and it happens here too. I will politely say that I understand their concern, and do hear their issue. Then I will honestly go back and check the thread for anything that stands out. If, upon reflection, they have a reasonable issue, I'll talk to the other player. If they seem to be unreasonable, e.g. "I feel uncomfortable with a tiefling character" or "I don't like that flat-earth joke", then I will clearly state that while I appreciate their feelings, I have to take the enter group into consideration, and I would ask that they make a note of the other player and to watch for tables with them in the future. Meanwhile, we'll work to focus on keeping the game going so that it wraps up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Players who try to ‘derail’ the adventure.
In a lot of ways, this is an easy one to handle. If you've never read it, I recommend Tracy Hickman's book on GMing. Using the technique of either soft borders (let them go off the rails, but provide increasingly overt and in-character pushes to get back on track) or the DM Force (if they are utterly convinced they need to focus on NPC x, but the story expects them to focus on y - then the GM simply makes it Y) you can handle most of those issues. If they're derailing for the sake of derailing, then it's the normal progression of PM with request, PM with warning, PM with ejection.
Thanks for the reminder about Hickman’s book, DM S. I bought the Kindle version a few years ago and never finished it; time to go back to it.
|
Some players enjoy using PFS to explore their sexuality, to express their personal views through their PCs, or to work out a little passive-aggression by playing an annoying PC.
I generally don't object, so long as it doesn't get on everyone's nerves. If no one else seems to be into it, I usually just let the player/PC express himself or herself, and let it go. If the GM indulges it by responding to the provocative PC often and at length, it can be perceived as encouraging more of the same.
The PFS community is incredibly diverse, full of folks of every imaginable persuasion. Find like-minded players and GMs and indulge yourself with pleasure.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would encourage all of you to read through the GM 201 document. Many parts of it do not apply to PbP, but you may still find some helpful ideas.
At this point, I consider the classroom portion of GM school complete. Two of the tables are still working on their scenarios, and I will come talk to your table about chronicles and reporting when you get near the end.
If any of you have any questions that come up in the future, my PM box is open to you.
I will be marking this campaign inactive when I am able to.
Congratulations, everyone, on completing the classroom portion, and also congratulations to Lorenzo's table for completing GM school.
Thank you for having us, despite the many technical difficulties.
I was going to hit some of the commentary above but the discussion seems to have hit most of the points and concerns and would be more 'what they said' than anything constructive moving things forwards.
Thank you, Redelia, and everyone for your time, insights, encouragement, and commitment. I am a better player & GM because of it and I look forward to sharing tables with any of you in the future!
Thanks Redelia!
This has been an awesome learning experience.
Thank you, Redalia for organizing, and thank you to all of the mentors for helping out.
Fellow students, it has been awesone meeting you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks so much for running this Redelia and mentors (Lorenzo!)
This gave me a lot of think about, and I expect to keep this handy and revisit the discussions and reading continuously for a while as I get my PbP GM footing.
Thanks so much for running this. I'm feeling much more prepared to jump into the fray and start GMing PbP.
Thank you very much for running this, Redalia, and all of the other experienced PbP GMs who gave their time for this program.
I also enjoyed hearing from the other students (and playing live at GenCon with Blue Moose!).