Over the holidays I struggled with what kind of article I wanted to start 2013 with. For me, the winter holidays are always a time of renewal and reflection and I wanted to begin with something that was broadly applicable. For a while, I was coming up empty, but sometimes the answer falls right into your lap.
I was banging away at a project in my office when the Gnome Hot Line rang. The call was from a fellow GM and friend I’ve known for years. He just had a player leave his game in a fit and wanted to know if he’d done anything wrong. I asked him what happened.
He explained that a player in his D&D group had been really playing up the “chaotic stupid” act to the point where he’d been annoying the other players for several sessions with his antics, which often ruined their plans.* He also performed many juvenile acts along the way (making my inner 13 year old giggle but my outer 40 year old roll his eyes), and finally, the GM decided he’d had enough and changed the PC’s alignment from chaotic good to chaotic neutral.
There was more, but I stopped him right there. I asked him why he hadn’t confronted the player directly. After all, if he was ruining the game for the other players then why continue the pretense of playing?
It’s a fine line we tread sometimes. We want to be true to the RPG experience and confrontations amongst a group of friends is rarely fun, especially if someone takes offense. In spite of my flabbergasted response to my buddy I have to admit that there were several times in the past where I did exactly the same thing; I tried to solve problems in-game that rarely had the effect I’d hoped.
In this case, there were some warning signs. Another player mentioned that she’d talked the offending player out of quitting that gaming group several times. Any one of those times would’ve also been a good time to inform the GM about the problem (as far as I know she remained silent). While a discussion between the offending player and the GM may not have solved the problem, it would at least put all parties on notice. At best it could have solved the problem.
If the offending player still decided to leave then it would’ve been better all around. If he stayed, then after a few of the “antics” the GM could have paused and asked the offending player if he was frustrated, as his actions were out of place. Perhaps the other players could have helped him along the way.
So, in beginning this new year, the best advice I can give is don’t be afraid to use the direct approach. In my experience it’s led to much better gaming experiences.
What say you? Do you prefer the direct approach? What were the consequences when you chose to use it or deal with the issue some other way? As you evolve as GMs, do you use the direct approach more often or less often?
Happy New Year and Good Gaming!
*I want to be clear here that the biggest problem was the fact that the behavior was impeding on the other players’ enjoyment. If everyone at the table is cool with the “jolly anarchic jester” then no harm no foul!
I’m with you when it comes to the direct approach. Th only problem with it is that often the player in question can feel like they’re being victimsied, when they clearly aren’t, or just dent there’s a problem. I have a similar post to this one on the back burner, and it all comes down to the ‘no-wrong-fun’ idea, that as long as people are enjoying themselves, there’s no wrong way to play the game. I think this is just a poor excuse for people who can’t understand that not everyone has the same idea of fun and that they need to think about how they play the game affects the other players.
It seems to me that this player was engaged in these antics because he didn’t want to be here, not because it’s his normal mode of play.
Communication is key. Did the player expect something different out of the campaign? Did he feel stymied by a group perpetually gridlocked over how to proceed, or a GM whose favorite phrase is “that won’t work”? If these symptoms slowly appeared, it could be one of the above. Someone who fits this description may even believe they are doing the campaign or the group a favor. Solution: plan for it. Give them levers to pull. Give them doors to kick in. Give them a treasure chest to OH CRAP IT’S A MIMIC! Well, i never said you had to be nice about it. If they simply expected a different campaign, help them out. If they thought it was going to be action adventure, give them some goons to knock around. If they expected courtly intrigue and romance, give them a main NPC to swoon, with whom a relationship brings the group positives such as treasure or influence, and some negatives, like a king none-too-pleased with his daughter’s new infatuation.
The other option is that the player is pretty much just a jerk. I suggest that his character is eaten by wolverines and he is dismissed from the group. Maybe. The decider is this – is the person really capable of being a team player? If the answer is no, boot them. There’s no need to harm everyone else’s game so one jerk can get their kicks. If the answer is yes, a private, non-public embarrasment strategy is helpful. Calling them out is likely to cause bruised egos and the digging of trenches. If that happens, everyone loses.
A timely article. My group has been dealing with this issue a lot lately. I think there are two main issues in play. The first is that gaming is an emotional relationship. We open ourselves up. Second, often due to good in depth role-playing, we often do not take the time to speak as players.
As GM I have started a process that every couple of sessions, we sit down as players and talk. We are all mature adults (and if you have younger folks at the table this is a good thing for them to learn) and we talk as mature adults. Are people getting what they want out of the game? If not, what do they want? Are players okay with the in-game character conflicts (sometimes for the story characters need to fight and/or kill each other) and how they are playing out. If two characters are butting heads, can you as a player figure out an in character reasons for them to resolve their differences.
I call this positive meta gaming. I see it as a huge thing. Basically take a step back and say “As a rational adult human being, are we actually having fun? Is everybody enjoying themselves? If not, how can we help them to do so.”
The last major point, I often find people get frustrated when they are in the wrong game. This can be a matter of the GM wants to run Gothic Horror, and a player really wants to be playing a dungeon crawl. Or when a player who likes crunchy rules heavy combat systems is playing in a loose dieless system (trying to convert D&D players to Nobilis or Amber is all sorts of crazy). Again I think this can be solved by good communication. The GM needs to be upfront about the type of game they are planning on running (and then run that type of game). While the players either need to accept that type of game or not play.
Just a bunch of thoughts.
Your positive metagaming sounds great. There’s nothing better for making sure people are happy than verifying that they’re happy. Too many of us (me included) try to read the tea leaves of character action and deduce the player’s intent… which is foolish when we have the player on hand to ask directly.
I’m always a fan of the direct approach. It is rarely the easiest, but you get better with time. I’ve spent some time as a manager, and at the first hints of problems I confront them directly. It’s not always smooth, but it does always get something moving.
I’ve found that the direct out of game approach is best.
“Out of game” solutions to the problem at a gaming table will have a much higher chance of success than “In game” solutions.
They also have the potential to cause a problem player to reflect on their own play approach and perhaps modify that playstyle to ensure everyone’s fun at future table’s instead of just being concerned with their own fun.
Some players don’t even realize that they are doing this. I know that is hard to believe, but it is true. Particularly in young or inexperienced gamers. Out of game talks can work wonders. In game solutions usually make players feel singled out and/or picked on.