Managing Problems and Players

[FlyAwayAutumn]

While I personally have no experience with the topic on hand it is very interesting for me to read about the complications of a game that I've never had any experience with at all.

Also I thought I had an original thing going on with the eye of sauron but it appears I've been bested.

 

[0over0]

Well, I think you are wrong there. Hiding things from the DM is completely acceptable in some groups, particularly games that encourage adversial play like D&D 3.5. It's not how I run but I know DMs who run like that.

Anyway, the point of my article is that one person's "behave badly" is another person's "enjoyable in-game treachery" and that you can't even assess what's bad behavior until you've determined what your group's standard of good behavior is. More often than not, the problem is a player who isn't in line with the rest of the group's expectations. If the group dynamic is competition and treachery, the cooperative player is going to be perceived as a whiny carebear. if the group dynamic is cooperation and collectivism, the competitive player is going to be perceived as a jerk.

It's not convenient or handy to understand your group dynamic. It's essential.

As for players lying to the DM (in D&D at least)--I can't imagine it. To me that means the players don't trust the DM to play the game fairly, and if they don't trust the DM to play the game fairly, why are the playing in his/her campaign? I've played quite a bit of 3.5 and have not found it to be any more adversarial than any of the previous editions of D&D, but perhaps that's solely my viewpoint.

I agree that the DM needs to have a handle on the group dynamics, though you make it sound much more formal than need be--it's simple human relations that applies to everyday life all the time.

 

[mattaui]

I had to do some thinking, but I suppose I've been in groups that spanned the entire spectrum, but they were pretty similarly clustered in certain systems. In any game that I've run, and I've run a lot, I made sure that all the players understood the sort of environment going in, and that it fit with the setting. Cyberpunk 2020 (not to mention the overall genre) is pretty much made for individualistic play, and thus those games I ran featured situations where sometimes the entire party of PCs wasn't always on the same page, but all the players sure were - they pursued their own agendas as much as they could within the framework of the world provided, and sometimes that involved some PCs winning and others losing, though I tried to avoid forcing conflict between PCs, so that it would occur organically.

Call of Cthulhu games were a mixed bag, but again, something that all the players expected, both with characters that wanted to learn more about the Mythos at the expense of their own sanity and the other party members, and those who strove to protect not just themselves and the civilians around them, but even the crazy PCs from their own curiosity, which made it particularly Lovecraftian at times. Sure, we had the occasional 'I don't have to outrun the shoggoth, I just have to outrun you' moments, but again, it was expected and thematically appropriate, and no one got their feelings hurt if their PC didn't make it out alive, because everyone was having too much fun.

The World of Darkness, especially Vampire, while not promoting the sort of base violence that cyberpunk games might cause (though Werewolf sure did), just oozed all sorts of political intrigue at every turn. Everyone knew that it was a power struggle, and what was most amusing is that the Camarilla (the more human-centric Vampires) groups that I ran backstabbed each other far more than the Sabbat (who revel in their inhumanity) groups because the former just weren't as upfront and honest as the latter! When you know your entire party are fellow, unapologetic carnivorous sociopaths, it actually introduces some refreshing clarity to the mix. We had some truly epic betrayals, reversals of fortune and surprises for players and Storytellers alike.

It was in the fantasy games (D&D mostly) that we tended towards pure collectivist play, both in the games I ran and played in, which is largely once again due to the expectations of most players and the system itself. Sure, you could do evil (and we had a touch of that from time to time), but the alignment system, especially in 2e and 3e, was such that they really didn't want good and evil characters to mix well at all, at least not long term. Plus, the guys in the books you're supposed to kill (i.e. all the monsters in the monster manuals) were mostly evil or neutral, and all the guys you're supposed to help or get helped by are some flavor of good. This creates a lens through which to view the entire system, and thus you really had to do some proper homework if you wanted a believable and fun game of D&D that involved real conflict.

I think the problems arise when you have a mixture of players at the table that don't all want the same thing, or a DM who thinks that -player conflict- is okay. You can pretend all you want that most people would shrug off having their PC killed by the guy sitting next to them, but unless he knew going in that it was a real possibility then it can lead to people not having any fun, and if people aren't having fun playing a game, you're doing it wrong.

 

[jono793]

I had to do some thinking, but I suppose I've been in groups that spanned the entire spectrum, but they were pretty similarly clustered in certain systems. In any game that I've run, and I've run a lot, I made sure that all the players understood the sort of environment going in, and that it fit with the setting. Cyberpunk 2020 (not to mention the overall genre) is pretty much made for individualistic play, and thus those games I ran featured situations where sometimes the entire party of PCs wasn't always on the same page, but all the players sure were - they pursued their own agendas as much as they could within the framework of the world provided, and sometimes that involved some PCs winning and others losing, though I tried to avoid forcing conflict between PCs, so that it would occur organically.

Call of Cthulhu games were a mixed bag, but again, something that all the players expected, both with characters that wanted to learn more about the Mythos at the expense of their own sanity and the other party members, and those who strove to protect not just themselves and the civilians around them, but even the crazy PCs from their own curiosity, which made it particularly Lovecraftian at times. Sure, we had the occasional 'I don't have to outrun the shoggoth, I just have to outrun you' moments, but again, it was expected and thematically appropriate, and no one got their feelings hurt if their PC didn't make it out alive, because everyone was having too much fun.

The World of Darkness, especially Vampire, while not promoting the sort of base violence that cyberpunk games might cause (though Werewolf sure did), just oozed all sorts of political intrigue at every turn. Everyone knew that it was a power struggle, and what was most amusing is that the Camarilla (the more human-centric Vampires) groups that I ran backstabbed each other far more than the Sabbat (who revel in their inhumanity) groups because the former just weren't as upfront and honest as the latter! When you know your entire party are fellow, unapologetic carnivorous sociopaths, it actually introduces some refreshing clarity to the mix. We had some truly epic betrayals, reversals of fortune and surprises for players and Storytellers alike.

It was in the fantasy games (D&D mostly) that we tended towards pure collectivist play, both in the games I ran and played in, which is largely once again due to the expectations of most players and the system itself. Sure, you could do evil (and we had a touch of that from time to time), but the alignment system, especially in 2e and 3e, was such that they really didn't want good and evil characters to mix well at all, at least not long term. Plus, the guys in the books you're supposed to kill (i.e. all the monsters in the monster manuals) were mostly evil or neutral, and all the guys you're supposed to help or get helped by are some flavor of good. This creates a lens through which to view the entire system, and thus you really had to do some proper homework if you wanted a believable and fun game of D&D that involved real conflict.

I think the problems arise when you have a mixture of players at the table that don't all want the same thing, or a DM who thinks that -player conflict- is okay. You can pretend all you want that most people would shrug off having their PC killed by the guy sitting next to them, but unless he knew going in that it was a real possibility then it can lead to people not having any fun, and if people aren't having fun playing a game, you're doing it wrong.

You quite rightly mention that different systems have different effects on the group dynamic. In my opinion, those systems that don't encourage individualistic styles of play are less flexible for it.

World of Darkness encourages that Darwinian mechanic. The world is big and bad, full of people and things much scarier than you are. There's danger around every corner, including the other players. If you don't look out for yourself, you'll find yourself quickly staked out in the sun. Because that's the fallback position, the storyteller and players can create a more collective dynamic within a WoD game, if they want.

D&D by contrast works on the assumption that everyone in the party are BFFs, and that's where problems arise. If someone goes all Leeroy Jenkins, the system has nothing to cope with it *within the structure of the game*. The only real thing to fall back on is out of game DM intervention, which breaks the suspension of disbelief, and reduces the fun all around.

 

[quantum mechanic]

I have not yet forgiven my brother for killing most of the party (including my precious eladrin wizard) by deciding that what his barbarian would do is run into the next room of the dungeon before we had healed, resulting in a horde of skeletons, resulting in death. Grrrrr.

 

[Darth Rahu]

Man, these columns are pretty useful for that up and coming tabletop gamer. Great stuff

 

[Archon]

D&D by contrast works on the assumption that everyone in the party are BFFs, and that's where problems arise. If someone goes all Leeroy Jenkins, the system has nothing to cope with it *within the structure of the game*. The only real thing to fall back on is out of game DM intervention, which breaks the suspension of disbelief, and reduces the fun all around.

The mention of Leroy Jenkins strikes me as very appropriate.

In fact, one could almost argue that the "social dynamics" I'm talking about are directly comparable to choosing what your "server type" is going to be. Are we playing PvE, factional PvP, or open PvP? Is there going to be friendly fire, or not? etc.

 

[Eldarion]

Have people actually played in long-term, successful "Individualist" D&D campaigns? I've never been involved in anything other than strongly Collective ones, and friends who have come from Individualist groups to ours always seem, after an initial settling in period, to find the Collective approach more relaxing and enjoyable. It's so far outside my experience I'm just curious what the draw and payoff are to an Individualist style?

Me and my friends play individualist almost exclusively. Its WAY more fun to let the dice fall were they may in terms of character interaction.

Conflict between party members can be lots of fun and a great chance for character development.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Macris puts across some interesting types of social dynamics and their influence upon games. Individual, collective or mixed are interesting summaries for how parties act. One dynamic that is missed is the group that is led, or which possesses a clear leader or leaders.

I bring this up because I have recently come from a game that had an aspiring leader. It finished just over an hour ago and was set in Cthulhu flavoured Vietnam. Although role-players, we bring our baggage of knowledge and preferences with us. Some players are charismatic devils, some want the power and to tell others what to do, others will have expertise or pseudo-aspirations to expertise and attempt to push the game how they believe it should be run. Examples of this can include military enthusiasts in games featuring soldiers, or post-apocalypse settings. With a further example being history enthusiasts or medievalists that try to be the knights and commanders, because well, they have the setting-related knowledge if the game is dnd, fantasy or a period they feel confidence directing. Why I am explaining this is because the directors and would-be leaders exist as a phenomenon that I as a player and DM have encountered before, and continue to encounter.

Rapidly, once the leader gets moving, things change. An equal, one could say collective game becomes lop-sided. Instead of all working together towards a goal, debating, going-back-and-forth in discussion and hammering out plans and direction to be pursued, the leader steps in. Orders are given, the leader seems alive and involved. As the leader directs the party and any npcs attached other players fade into the background. When this happens, their spirits will flag, they will typically contribute less and may leave the game. If gaming is an escape, a form of escapism then the leader is a prime symbol of what is detested in many encounters in life outside of the game--he is a figure of authority raising himself to a hierarchical position and lording his sway over others.

Fun rapidly begins to bleed out of the game, even as the fights become easier and the team is coordinated to effectively defeat opponents. Individualism, save the individualism of one or two leading pcs operating together (to reinforce their power and sway) leaves the game. Now there is a hero (or heroes) and the others are support characters.

I say leaders because at times parties can become quite divided. Worse is a game controlled by the one confident despot, but almost equally as frustrating is a small boys' club of experienced gamers moving the other pcs around as if pawns and keeping their position through stealing the centre stage. This condition is assisted by human psychology, as the Romans and Dostoevsky observed, mundus vult decipi--mankind wants to be deceived and led. For some, being the hero is not what they really want to do or feel comfortable doing, they are content to bask in the shadow of more central figures who steer the plot and story as they concentrate their development on less ambitious planes (skills and items for instance). A leader if cunning can keep the helm, but bribe pcs or seem to be listening to the wider opinions.

It is because of the frequent emergence of leaders in rpgs that ideas of collective games or even individualist groups is not the whole picture. There are also those gaming groups in which clear leaders emerge; commonly to the annoyance of the others players that feel frustrated, but which don't possess the claims to setting-specific knowledge that the intending leader or leaders possess.


Thanks for reading, it is good to share gaming experiences.