|
im home and bored been reading through forums for a few hours now and posted on several. a problem i keep seeing popping up has been problem between players. to the point of a player wanting to quit. and for good reason. one player complains of a barbarian in his party stealin all loot and threatening the other characters. going so far as to actually harm other characters. another player asking for advice as to how to handle his party not wanting him to use dominate person to control their characters.
when do the dms start playing god and actually handling in game disputes before causing real world problems.unfortunately not all players aer considerate of other players. and it is our jobs as players and dms to reign in the bad players so they dont ruin the game for everyone else.
the dm should have a few jobs when it comes to playing.
1. create a world and plot that is both well conceived and entertaining.
2. have a way to tell players what there goals are.
3. create fun, balanced, and fair encounters that all party members feel apart of.
4. control the flow of the game, this includes everything from making sure people show up on time to handling the time each player takes to finish their turn.
5. assist in the distribution of in game wealth. if players cant agree then someone has to step in and make teh decision for them.
6. STOP BULLYING and stop players from hiding behind "roleplaying" and "alignment" as execuses to be disruptive.
if a dm does all of these things players will have more fun and accomplish more goals increasing leveling and story progression. these few rules also help promote synergy within the party and they will feel like a team and eventually you will not have to step in at all the players will just know what to do.
You are assuming the players are not jerks, or that they can see how they are affecting the game for others with that last sentence. Often the issue is not about not knowing how the issue can be handled, but what to do when your friend is the one causing the problem.
Most GM's can boot someone if they are only gaming buddies, but when your best friend becomes a jerk it is not so easy, especially when he is only a jerk while at the gaming table.
Having the player see the issues he/she is causing helps out a lot. Making decisions for the player might just make him think he is getting picked on, even if he is the problem.
|
|
i completely took that into consideration. a gm should take control of the situation. if a player are jerks is when the dm has to step in. friendships aside it is his job to promote an environment that is fun and appealing to players. and letting one person ruin the game is not in teh dms best interest. a stern talk with a real friend should fix the problem if it doesnt a boot is in order.
At my table when I play with my semi-regular group, my job as DM is to kill the players, hopefully in as gruesome a way possible. My current campaign has been described as "Lovecraftian Torture-Porn" by my cousin.
|
control the flow of the game, this includes everything from making sure people show up on time to handling the time each player takes to finish their turn.
I respectfully disagree. If my players can't show up to a game on-time, it's not my job to babysit them. They are adults. They can put on their big-boy pants and show up when they know it's time for game. :) It's not my job, nor should it be anyone's job, to pester my players into showing.
The players also have responsibilities to the GM, each other, and the game.
|
You are assuming the players are not jerks, or that they can see how they are affecting the game for others with that last sentence. Often the issue is not about not knowing how the issue can be handled, but what to do when your friend is the one causing the problem.
Most GM's can boot someone if they are only gaming buddies, but when your best friend becomes a jerk it is not so easy, especially when he is only a jerk while at the gaming table.Having the player see the issues he/she is causing helps out a lot. Making decisions for the player might just make him think he is getting picked on, even if he is the problem.
If your best friend is causing problems, you should discuss the issues with him. Be sure to include how this is affecting you as well as the other players. Use words like "I feel" and "We think". Stay away from accusations. Point out that the turmoil between players is not enjoyable and everyone is here to have fun.
Do not: You are ruining the game by threatening the bard.
Do: The party feels our campaign is not fun because of negative player interaction. Remember yesterday when you threatened the bard? I do not understand why you felt that was necessary. Will you explain the situation to me?
This shows him that you are concerned for the party as well as his feelings. Maybe he has a good reason to threaten the bard or maybe you are missing something that the other players are doing. Rarely is a conflict one side.
If your "best friend" is not willing to discuss the problems or even compromise on some important subjects then he is not your best friend. The person is actually a toxic relationship and you need to find a new best friend.
Keep in mind, if you want to be his friend after you figure out he is a toxic person, you are to blame. Simply accept the fact that you are in for a long, hard life and stop posting about this subject.
i completely took that into consideration. a gm should take control of the situation. if a player are jerks is when the dm has to step in. friendships aside it is his job to promote an environment that is fun and appealing to players. and letting one person ruin the game is not in teh dms best interest. a stern talk with a real friend should fix the problem if it doesnt a boot is in order.
No, you do not have "a stern talk with a real friend." Never. You treat him as an equal and discuss the problems with compassion. He is not an employee or a child who has made a major mistake.
Maybe it is my age and wisdom, but this subject just boils down to common sense for me.
At my table when I play with my semi-regular group, my job as DM is to kill the players, hopefully in as gruesome a way possible.
And you haven't been arrested yet? Killing characters is A-OK, but killing players tends to be viewed as "murder" when the cops show up at your house. Unless this is some kind of imagination-within-an-imagination thing, in which you fantasize about killing fellow players of a fantasy game... something like American Psycho, I suppose.
My character and I are joined at the waist.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I can't remember ever having a problem with either jerk players or jerk GMs. Perhaps we've all just grown older together and we were all jerks together in our youth so no one noticed. At the moment I occasionally have to reign in our newest player who's the 17yo son of one of our group and over the years has gone from 'table mascot' to 'observer' to 'occasional participant' to 'player'. He can get competitive with other players (rather than characters) in a way that's destructive and is in that weird zone where he's not an adult but is expected to behave like one. Happily, he seems to be thriving and already knows the rules better than his mother - I've only had to threaten him with arbitrarily killing his character once.
|
|
control the flow of the game, this includes everything from making sure people show up on time to handling the time each player takes to finish their turn.I respectfully disagree. If my players can't show up to a game on-time, it's not my job to babysit them. They are adults. They can put on their big-boy pants and show up when they know it's time for game. :) It's not my job, nor should it be anyone's job, to pester my players into showing.
The players also have responsibilities to the GM, each other, and the game.
i would submit consequences for delay of game. if you tell someone to show up on time and they time after time decide to show up late there should be an in game consequence and a out of game talk. no reason to inconvenience other players.
|
|
@ iranshalee
picking part of my statement then assuming that by "stern talk" i mean "talk down to them" is a bit narrow. a stern talk
a : having a definite hardness or severity of nature or manner : austere
b : expressive of severe displeasure: harsh
i merely mean that the conversation serve a purpose. to explain plainly what has happened and how everyone feels about it. it is very possible to express your feelings about something without talking down to a person.
|
|
@ iranshalee
picking part of my statement then assuming that by "stern talk" i mean "talk down to them" is a bit narrow. a stern talk
a : having a definite hardness or severity of nature or manner : austere
b : expressive of severe displeasure: harshi merely mean that the conversation serve a purpose. to explain plainly what has happened and how everyone feels about it. it is very possible to express your feelings about something without talking down to a person.
In my opinion, what you "mean" was poorly translated in your first post.
Additionally, I did not type "talk down". I do not talk down to my employees or my children. It is counter-productive.
I feel your original usage of "stern talk" connotes punishment. Certainly not a way to treat a friend, but maybe I treat my friends differently than you.
|
|
@Nephril:
I'm lucky, personally. Most of my players let me know when they're running late, and we're a bit squiffy on the time we start anyway. :) Plus, my groups tend to like to play Guillotine, Lunch Money, or Munchkin while waiting--when they're not socializing.
It's my philosophy that the game, as a positive shared experience, is something both the players and the GM have a responsibility toward maintaining as a positive experience. I suspect we agree on that, just as I agree with most of your original post.
I disagree that "controlling the flow of the game" means it's my job to control my players' behaviour in a generic sense. It is my feeling that I cannot be responsible for the behaviour of other grown-ups; they must be responsible for themselves. (And hopefully they remember the unspoken social contract of the gaming table.)
But perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, I certainly apologize.
Either way, I count myself among the fortunate souls who has two gaming groups with mature adults that get along and want to play in a cooperative manner, for the most part! I'm grateful to be so lucky.