Gaming angst
Mar. 15th, 2005 01:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
melcharOkay, this is in the realm of midnight complaints. When I referee a game for others, my intent is that I really want to present a story in the game-world that is fun, inspires some emotional responses, makes the players think and exposes them to a sense of danger and adventure. [remember that Bilbo Baggins called adventures nasty untidy things that makes one late for breakfast.]
All in all I think I do a good job of preparing the game, keeping things going without turning it into an IRS audit session because of the rules - while not ignoring the structure that rules do provide.
Unfortunately for a while now I have had the sense that I have some players who would rather be somewhere else. Like playing on the PS2 or GBA or playing cards or reading or sleeping, rather than paying attention to what is happening at the table.
Some of this is my fault, just because:
[a] = during a combat, even the quickest combat turn passes slowly when there are more than 4 players in a game and each has their turn, describing their action/rolling dice;
[b] = that my corrected vision causes me to now have to = look at set-up with glasses to see table/take glasses off to refer to facts on sheet/make rolls/take notes = for each of the baddies they are fighting, which also takes forever when there is more than one monster on the table being fought -- so combat turns just take a lot of time
[c] = so combat turns take time and interaction takes time because it's not just one-on-one talking to a single character and when it's shopping everyone wants to have full concentration for their shopping all at the same time.
But just WHEN did everyone decide that if I was NOT looking at them then they were going to go away from the table?!? Even if it isn't all about THEM at the time, why aren't they interested in what else is happening?
And then there are players who are AT the table who seem like they would rather ruin the game for EVERYBODY else just so they can cause trouble by questioning rules, bringing up rules, wanting to amend the rules and quoting rules from memory [at rare times, actually quoting the rules correctly] - just to make a point.
And I find myself wondering = why am I putting up with this?
Currently my Saturday game has 9 players in it. The Sunday game has 7 players. Some of the problem players are in both games and piss me off for different reasons. Inattention pizzes me off almost as much as the rule-bitching because it implies indifference to the game.
I'm getting really annoyed in both games. I've been doing really choice games with involved plots and getting complaints about how tough the stories are for both games [while the characters still are 'winning' in that they are, for the most part, surviving to accomplish specific missions]. And the Saturday host is driving me out of the house by blaring at high HIGH volume his TIVO'd shows during the dinner break. More of the Saturday players really don't put any effort into putting any kind of personality into their character - and there are some who make really ANNOYING comments that make problems for others and then claim it wasn't being said by their characters. Sadly, the worst rule's-bitcher is in both games and making MORE people than just me want to strangle him. Meanwhile a couple of the better players are also pissing me off by doing the card playing thing way too often. But then there are the players who ARE trying to put life into their characters and who DO pay attention. And some of them are driving a considerable distance just to be in my games.
I am like SO conflicted. What do I do? It's not like there's a convenient DELETE button to get rid of the problem parts of my problem players. When good, they do contribute to a better game and I personally like ALL of the players, when away from the table. It's just mounting problems that is making my sanity points dribble out of my ears!
All in all I think I do a good job of preparing the game, keeping things going without turning it into an IRS audit session because of the rules - while not ignoring the structure that rules do provide.
Unfortunately for a while now I have had the sense that I have some players who would rather be somewhere else. Like playing on the PS2 or GBA or playing cards or reading or sleeping, rather than paying attention to what is happening at the table.
Some of this is my fault, just because:
[a] = during a combat, even the quickest combat turn passes slowly when there are more than 4 players in a game and each has their turn, describing their action/rolling dice;
[b] = that my corrected vision causes me to now have to = look at set-up with glasses to see table/take glasses off to refer to facts on sheet/make rolls/take notes = for each of the baddies they are fighting, which also takes forever when there is more than one monster on the table being fought -- so combat turns just take a lot of time
[c] = so combat turns take time and interaction takes time because it's not just one-on-one talking to a single character and when it's shopping everyone wants to have full concentration for their shopping all at the same time.
But just WHEN did everyone decide that if I was NOT looking at them then they were going to go away from the table?!? Even if it isn't all about THEM at the time, why aren't they interested in what else is happening?
And then there are players who are AT the table who seem like they would rather ruin the game for EVERYBODY else just so they can cause trouble by questioning rules, bringing up rules, wanting to amend the rules and quoting rules from memory [at rare times, actually quoting the rules correctly] - just to make a point.
And I find myself wondering = why am I putting up with this?
Currently my Saturday game has 9 players in it. The Sunday game has 7 players. Some of the problem players are in both games and piss me off for different reasons. Inattention pizzes me off almost as much as the rule-bitching because it implies indifference to the game.
I'm getting really annoyed in both games. I've been doing really choice games with involved plots and getting complaints about how tough the stories are for both games [while the characters still are 'winning' in that they are, for the most part, surviving to accomplish specific missions]. And the Saturday host is driving me out of the house by blaring at high HIGH volume his TIVO'd shows during the dinner break. More of the Saturday players really don't put any effort into putting any kind of personality into their character - and there are some who make really ANNOYING comments that make problems for others and then claim it wasn't being said by their characters. Sadly, the worst rule's-bitcher is in both games and making MORE people than just me want to strangle him. Meanwhile a couple of the better players are also pissing me off by doing the card playing thing way too often. But then there are the players who ARE trying to put life into their characters and who DO pay attention. And some of them are driving a considerable distance just to be in my games.
I am like SO conflicted. What do I do? It's not like there's a convenient DELETE button to get rid of the problem parts of my problem players. When good, they do contribute to a better game and I personally like ALL of the players, when away from the table. It's just mounting problems that is making my sanity points dribble out of my ears!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-15 03:50 pm (UTC)The first thought is do you think the players know how you feel? Both as a group and on a one to one basis? Have you talked to each one that gives you specific problems in a private manner? Have you talked to the ones that don't? Some or even all might not realize that they are doing anything that is upsetting to you or realize the degree to which you are being upset and would want to know.
As for the 3 problems you list, (B) doesnt feel like it is going to slow things down as much as many other issues. People are going to take more time and thought then moving your glasses around. Also, can you get new glasses that solve your problem? As for (A) it sounds as if you like the system you have. If so and you have already examined it and removed whatever slows you down, your done here and there is no problem.
(C) is a pickle. (C) is what gaming is about. Sometimes the GM is talking to just one person and the others have to suck it up. The challenge is making sure everyone get a part of the big GM pie,or at least a part that everyone is happy with and that may not be possible depending on the amount of time each person needs to feel as if they are a part of the story. Some people need to be on screen in every scene to feel as if they are a part while others wait for their moment to shine.
Really, the rest of your post is about the players and there is where the hard choices lie. Some players don't mix well with other types of players or GMs or game systems or stories. Finding a good match is important. If someone is causing too much trouble they have to stop it. Period. It doesn't matter how they feel about it, it must stop. If they can't or won't then it is the wrong game for EVERYONE involved and keeping them around is just going to make things worse.
An easy example is you mention that one of your problem players is in both games. That means you get a double helping of stress from one person. He should be talked to so that he knows what is going on. He likely doesnt want to cause pain, it is just a natural to how he likes to play and who he is playing with. If he can't or wont change then you have to look at the situation: Does he cause more problems in one gmae or the other? Maybe you could releive alot of stress by simply asking him to bow out of one game.
There is one more thing that I have made the mistake of and I feel you have as well. This is a group story telling enterprise. While being the GM you have extra power and responsiblty but far from 100% or even 50%. Your players wants and desires matter. Your players ALSO have to take responsiblty for the game they are in. If there is a problem that many of the group are having with 1 or 2 players then the GROUP has to say something to those people as well as you. It isn't YOUR job it is, EVERYONES and they get off their ass and speak.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-15 04:08 pm (UTC)It seems to me one of the hardest things for you is not giving people what they want. What this means is that the people who want the most get the most,regardless of what it is. Part of what needs to happen is that people have to be told no and the people who want the most have to be told no the most.
Now one that I know is a problem are the rules that float around. I can think of 3 people that maybe causing you rules-trama, one of which could be me. Mine tends to be (I hope) more of a "what way should they work just because i like thinking about it" but that could be causing you greif even thou i want to avoid that. However anyone attached to the rules is going to have a problem when they can't see the rules. A custom rule system is not going to be for certain people.
As for shopping problem, well unless you are really attached to either lots of shopping or no shopping, sometimes people on both sides just have to suck it up and stay at the table and not get their way. Again,people have to be told they can't shortcut shopping and sometimes that they can't go shopping, even when they want to. It is about finding balance.
I also like the notion i just had about things like the cart or people encumberance. If they are really close to the edge and for some reson there is going to be a massive re-calc the they just go over the edge *for now* Ie make it so that have to be clearly one side or the other until end of game session. It might limit the time wasted in game to re-calcing all the number and it gets ride of being "just one pund under." Until end of session anyways. Thought anyways...
The single biggest issue I see being a part of everything is that players are not the same as friends. Sometimes players may just not fit in to a group. They can be great PEOPLE but not fit into a game. If someone wants to play a dark, brooding vamp in a game with a bunch of cartoons it isn't going to work.(not unless the player is happy being the straight man)
I am a good example. I might end up sleeping to much and leaving early too often. If you asked me to leave I should understand that it isn't personal, it is just what works for the game. If people are asked to change by the group for the group they should understand.
Remember your not alone. Talk to the players that you think feel like you do and see what solutions they can come up with and how they can support you.
Wow,that came out long.....
A Reply in Parts
Date: 2005-03-15 07:14 pm (UTC)Indeed. I won't even attempt to emulate Matt's dispassionate response portion, I'll just attempt to address things from my personal perspective. But before I dive into it, let me say that I believe the game should be fun for everyone, including the GM. If you're not having fun, that's serious biz and I want to help you fix it. (Even though I am part of the problem.) However, if 'fixing it' involves changing other people, the first step is finding out if they want (or are at least willing for) things to change. Otherwise you will end up trying to change things on the face of opposition, conscious or un-, and that's going to be harder. The status quo is nearly always to someone's advantage, and any specific change is nearly always to someone's advantage. Finding out who is in each camp will give you an idea of how the factions are likely to line up.
I'm probably one of the worst offenders as far as the 'inattention' goes. And I admit the problem has been growing for a while. I can offer some explanations and my perspective on the issue, but of course these will come out sounding like excuses. I am not making excuses -- my actions are my responsibility -- but sometimes it helps if you want to change things if you know how they got where they are today.
1) The referring to notes thing is minor -- when the notes are to hand. It may be time to reorganize your personal GM's manual, and recopy it in a larger typeface. ^_^ It may even be time to find someone to perform data entry on it, so you can the print it out and update the accumulated log of 'not-quite-rules-change-rulings' that have grown over recent years.
2) Combat is inherently slow. Spend time praising people who role-play 'at the speed of sound'. Award EPs for not stalling the turn. Deny the 'good role playing EPs' to players who habitually wait until their initiative comes up before they even start considering what their move will be. Be consistent about saying 'You delay until next initiative while you make up your mind'. 'Good role playing' is an award for being a good player, not just for having a character who makes amusing remarks and talks in a funny accent. However, on the flip-side, some things in the initiative system need work. And, although the GM does get a 'pass' because she has lots more things to think about than the players, use that pass judiciously. Make it clear that you are holding yourself to at least the same standards to which you are holding your players. (This relates to a lot of things: punctuality, preparedness, rules knowledge, etc.)
A Reply in Parts (continued)
Date: 2005-03-15 07:22 pm (UTC)3) I know that some of the things that started me leaving the table when I am not involved were as follows: A) Accusations I was improperly using OOC knowledge, B) Non-verbal signals that other players were becoming irritated at me for 'dominating the game' (even when I wasn't saying anything because I apparently have very expressive body language), C) Concern that I was exemplifying the (negative) stereotype of the 'GMs boyfriend'. Since I started leaving the table when not involved, those things have decreased dramatically, and the comparatively minor nitpicks at me for leaving have been just that: much more minor. If you want me to change my behavior I need what you have provided me: feedback. It helps me (since the game is a social endeavor) if the feedback is consistent and comes from more than one source -- but I hadn't realized things had gotten so bad. Last time the rest of our gaming crowd got together and staged an 'intervention' for me about my 'rules lawyering', I made sincere effort to modify my behavior and I think everyone would agree I have been much better about such things since. If you want me to modify my behavior similarly in this regard, then let me know. But, if I spend time at the table interacting, I don't want to be made to feel bad about it, or that my presence at the table is unwelcome -- and that had begun to be the case for a while.
4) On a general note, one thing I have noted about the tenor of the games of late (compared to earlier games) is that the nature of the 'party' is much less close-knit, and that means that player's attentions wander when their character is not directly involved. When a party has more 'in-character' bonds, then what happens to one member affects the others -- either directly or indirectly -- so people have more of an emotional investment and more attention is paid. When was the last time you saw a bunch of players congratulate another player (sincerely) on going up a level or acquiring a powerful new magic item? It seems like there is a lot more 'competition' and less 'collaboration' going on among the parties of late -- with consequently reduced emotional investment for everyone. But that's just my reading of the situation and I could be completely mistaken. I'm also not sure how to fix this, since (to an extent) it involves 'changing other people', but I'd be interested in knowing whether other people's reading of the situation agrees with mine, or if I'm completely off-base here.
A Reply in Parts (continued)
Date: 2005-03-15 07:23 pm (UTC)5) When the gaming environment become hostile, move the game. Hosting the game is a significant inconvenience and sometimes a financial hardship (depending on how much effort is being put into it). If the host is feeling like his efforts are unappreciated, it may manifest in many ways. (Certainly our Saturday host has been receiving more than his ration of sh*t lately (IMHO). He may be asking himself, "Why do I knock myself out every week giving these people a comfortable place to play, just so they can come over, take my hospitality, and abuse me, then not even help clean up afterward?" It may begin to manifest in his behavior.)
6) To an extent the 'constantly revisiting past rules decisions with which a player does not agree' is a response to the fact that we've seen the GM change her mind based on who talks 'last and loudest'. You've been rewarding the behavior (though you may not realize it), so the rats are learning to push that button over and over again. Better and more consistent rulings are the only solution (IMHO) to this issue. Plus it will help (again IMHO) if you explicitly distinguish between interim and precedent-setting rulings more than you have in the past. Plus (and this is a big 'plus'), when you make an interim ruling, set aside some time outside the game, for the players to have some input into actually discussing the rule with you and coming up with a permanent rule. Players talk to you about rules during the game because that has been the only time you seem truly receptive to allowing them to discuss the game rules with you. The only time attention is paid, notes are taken, and results achieved. Once that has happened, the rule is 'final', and players should be discouraged from bringing it up again. This should happen immediately and be scheduled in advance. For example, if an interim ruling needs to be made that some players aren't happy with, say something like "I'm going to rule it this way for now, so we can get on with the game. There is an issue here. How about if we have a rules conference at 13:00 next week to come up with a good permanent rule for this situation? Anyone who doesn't want to have an input can come for the regular game at 14:00, instead. If you want to have an input, come early. If you don't come early, then don't bitch about whatever we come up with." Of course, scheduling should be negotiated to accommodate (as fairly as possible) all those who do want to contribute to coming up with the best rule possible. That should help keep the 'rules bitching' (distinct from the 'rules lawyering') from eating up quality game time. The rules sessions should be serious, concentrated, game design sessions with every member of the team being given an opportunity to be heard. Then they should end, on schedule, so the game can start and the issues be put behind people. (You may even want to include scheduling a 'cooling off period' to separate the game from the rules discussion sessions, depending on how the dynamic works out.)
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts and suggestions for making things better.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-15 10:44 pm (UTC)I admit i'm a little tired due to the 2 hour drive, but for me its worth it. I usually leave about 10 0r 10:30, but than there is the traffic.
Saturday is my only day to house clean so that has me a little worn too.
I really appreciate you scheduling the games every other week. If that's a problem too let me know. I certainly don't want to be a problem.
I think if there is a problem you should tell us. Some people may feel toes are stepped on but toes heal. If people don't take your disstress seriously than they really dont care in the first place.
I have had to take breaks from gaming just so people could cool off and stop the arguing. Eventually after the games continue the arguing isn't far behind.
Thats my 10 cents.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-15 11:49 pm (UTC)The annoyance factor is the worst with one specific player - and I may ask him to only be in one of the 2 games. That may help. Another aid may be to stop running at Paul's place on Saturday & reduce the number of Saturday players.
Comparing the two games, the Sunday game is much less stressful than the Saturday game - BUT it follows the Saturday game, so there is some slop-over-stress. And when there is an annoying, why-can't-they-drop-the-subject rules nagging, it always seems inspired by one player who gets the brunt of my irritation. Other people only get tarred with a very small amount of that annoyance.
The really distressing thing from my POV is that, whereas boojum makes me want to beat him senseless from his rules-bitching, he tends to play a good character in either game. The Sunday PCs have great personalities - and IMHO - even the weakest at the table is about 200% better than a couple of the Saturday guys. And Trey, when he can stay at the table, does a great job. Also MHO who the (expletive) cares if people thinks his PCs personalities drive the games? If (all caps now) SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE A PERSONALITY THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THOSE WHO DO!.
It pisses me off that Trey's gotten so gun-shy over criticism about his playing style. The ONLY other Saturday PC who has the ability to successfully manage a group of PCs is Silarus and she's found that it is a thankless task.
Then, of course, there's the Sunday game - and the players there have found that if a Trey PC isn't in charge .... they end up with _Bart_. (Actually, I have great fun with Tom - and with both he & Victor refereeing there are times I can share a few silent moments of fellow feeling with them.) For Sunday, I don't mind there being a lessened feeling of direction to the game. It works with what they are trying to do.
But a forceful Trey PC doesn't bug me. Flavorless PCs that run away from anything resembling flavor text and can't manage to do in-character dialogue for more than 2 sentences BUG me. Rule-nagging _really_ bugs me. Most of that is happening on Saturday, too. Just makes me feel all growly.
Gaming "Rules and Etiquette"
Date: 2005-03-16 11:09 pm (UTC)Game slowing due to Combat:
The game slowing due to combat is natural; however, if you have noticed in recent weeks/months, combat with the "natural" creatures (eg: giant crabs) has gone much more quickly. Combat with demons, where they get *many* attacks, hit most everything, and wade through lower level characters like "hot-knifes-tru-butta" make things slow down considerably. IMHO, it's because people take a much more active role in the eventual outcome of demon, gargoyle, and sirrush combats because the alternative is an entire afternoon of rolling backups. Also, our group is much more buff than before, and demons are more rare (even with the current group) than giant crabs or giant scorpions.
Table etiquette and wandering off:
You, as the GM, put considerable time into every situation you place in our path, and the players need to respect that more. AS a GM, I know it's frustrating when I have to keep calling people back to the table - especially in the middle of a combat or a big role-playing/interaction session. However, if someone has taken enough damage to drop them, are paralyzed, or are otherwise *not* in the game (ex: staying at the inn while others are shopping) -- then by all means (IMHO) wander off for a bit. We'll call you when you can play again. I don’t think you are requesting that people stay glued to their chairs – just stick around if you are alive, kicking, and are able to participate in the current course of events. Even if you CHOOSE to say nothing and be a ‘bump on the log’ – you will at least not need to be updated/informed of a situation you should have listened to in the first place.
AS a player, I often like to see what happens to other characters -- but have been known to wander off to play cards while my character is unavailable for comment, or EVEN at times when my interaction is needed. I will try to be more selective in my 'wanderings'... :0)
Rules discussions:
I am an advocate of a player’s right to have the GAME MASTER answer their questions. There have been too many times when I ask if I can do something, and players jump down my throat with every reason why I shouldn't even be asking. In my opinion, if a situation warrants other player commentary, fine. For example, the question: 'What squares are covered by a medium shield,' affects many people because many players HAVE shields and are directly affected by such a ruling. However, questions on Bart's Gloves that shoot line w/ grapnel, Gabrielle's Boots of Power, Dandon's hatchet of magical disruption, Tarot's scimitar 'Heart of the Sun,' Hyperion's crown, and Terrence's mind-zap power should be left to the GM and the player. The exception to this is if a player other than the owner of said item/power remembers that item/power acting in a way different than how they are acting NOW, then fine -- say something. If you are being attacked by Tarot’s sword, fine – say something. But arguments on how they SHOULD be acting when it doesn’t affect you or your stuff are up to the GM and the player.
Rules discussions are just part of the game ... but every discussion should not be the lead-in to an argument.
Complicated Plots:
True, complicated plots can be ... frustrating, but it's the good type of frustration (at least for me). I mean from my personal perspective, Bart wants to simply save Eldin and go home -- but this is looking more and more like it will never happen. I mean heck, he's wearing a deposed demon-lord as a necklace now. The nice thing about *complicated* plots is that they still have a smattering of normalcy in them by the simple fact that the world is always there, and abandoned keeps, ratel lairs, and sunken treasure chests will still show up along the way.
If people want simple dungeon crawls, then they should play online MUD’s – NOT play in a live game with an extremely talented GM (OK, so I had to kiss-up a little bit).
....
Tom
Re: Gaming "Rules and Etiquette"
Date: 2005-03-17 07:27 pm (UTC)As far as other players answering questions meant for the GM -- time with the GM is at a premium. In slowed-down games even more so. Strange as it may seem, some players think they are _helping_ if they try to answer questions directed at the GM, since that way the GM doesn't have to spend precious time answering the question, doing the research, looking up the answer, and being reminded of past related rulings. (All too often in _exactly_ that order, sad to say.)
Unfortunately, a desire for control appears to be a necessary component of the mindset of all successful GMs, so players' efforts to offload work from the overloaded GM usually backfire by dragging even _more_ GM attention away from the game, not less.
'Complicated plots'? Who brought that up. I don't know to what you are referring here. Don't remember anyone complaining about 'complicated plots'. ^_^
Re: Gaming "Rules and Etiquette"
Date: 2005-03-17 10:18 pm (UTC)(a) have to call said player BACK to the table [possibly more than one time] to get input/die rolls/a reaction or comment; or
(b) will have to RECAP what has just transpired to said player because they weren't at the table - but they whine their PC should know what went on since said PC was there -
then I bloody well want that player at the table!
And -both- of those instances have happened with annoying frequency of late. BOTH of them happened with _Gil_ at last Saturday's game, for instance.
IMHO the annoyance factor is increased when all the other problems are also happening. That is - while it is a minor niggle if someone takes a nap - it becomes more of a factor when other players are wandering AND a rule is being argued about AND someone is reading a book at the end of the table. The frustration seems to mount in a logarithmic fashion...