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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.