I've had a few irksome situations in recent memory, cementing my tenet that a DM needs to be able to talk to headache players, ie, confront the mismatch head on. I've had the guy that wanted to treat the scripted, linear adventure path as an extreme sandbox, blatantly ignoring agreed-upon "missions" to hi-jack the sessions. I've had the guy that insisted the only character he wanted to play was that neutral evil half-orc assassin, who promptly started messing with the other players as easier sources of XP than the dungeon. I've had the guy that thought old school exploration was a quaint and interesting throwback to the ancient times; real D&D involved a fully laid out miniatures battle mat, with both sides set up on the table ahead of game time, so the session could always start with the first combat.
Which made me think - yes, I agree that DM needs to be able to talk to headache players, but at the same time, isn't part of being an adult adapting and compromising on what you in particular want or need out of a given situation?
My favourite types of game are sandboxy, objectively GMed, and entirely open-ended, but if I'm with a group who are all into heavily plotted campaigns and want to play a supers game, I'm going to do my best to take that seriously and fit in with what they want. Isn't that just good manners?
One of the biggest geek social fallacies that I seem to come across, again and again, is this idea that it is your job to try to make everybody happy all the time by giving them what they want. No: being an adult is about compromising in the name of the greater good, and in role playing games that includes players as well as GMs. Beedo is right that it is important for the DM to be able to tackle headache players, but in the broader context, why on earth should he have to?
I think that that is part of Beedo's point. Namely, that compromise is supposed to be a two-way street. Except that a GM has the task of being the center that all the players are compromising with, and of negotiating each compromise. It is not uncommon to have a player who is difficult to compromise with. That is where strong social skills come into play.
ReplyDeleteIf all the players want to play a linear supers game, you need to be mature enough to play along.
If all the players are on board with your fantasy sandbox, except one guy who insists on playing Iron Man, you need to be able to bring Iron Man around to what the group wants.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, except that it's a sad state of affairs that that guy who insists on playing Iron Man exists in the first place.
DeleteI guess it depends on how the guy insists. If he's literally, consciously refusing to budge despite the wishes of the GM and the rest of the group, then he's not being adult and should seek his fortunes elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with saying (in a polite way) shape up or ship out.
DeleteOn the other hand, it's easy to assume someone's being recalcitrant when they're just being dense or clueless. Perhaps his last group though Iron Man in the fantasy sandbox was great? Or maybe he's a bit self-centered and not paying attention to social cues, but will do the right thing when it's pointed out to him.
One of the biggest geek social fallacies that I seem to come across, again and again, is this idea that it is your job to try to make everybody happy all the time by giving them what they want.
DeleteJohn Wick has written in his intriguing book, Play Dirty, that waht players want is to be beaten to an inch of their lives, and then fight their way back. They just don't know it. I think he is unto something.
I think that's dangerous thinking, Andreas - it sort of leads the DM to start thinking it's his job to constantly beat the players to within an inch of their lives and then allow them to fight their way back, in an effort to give them what they want. That way lies railroading madness, fudging, and GM illusionism.
DeleteI also personally genuinely, really don't want that as a player, and I sort of resent John Wick claiming that I do.
Depends on how you read it. Put on some friendly glasses and look beyond the hyperbole.
DeleteI do think the main thrust of his argument is that players do not always know what they want, and sometimes they want hardship instead if being gifted all the magic items in the book.
Sometimes they want something else, entirely. Naturally.
But, claiming that they might actually want something neither you nor them think they want is intriguing. Also, it suggest you might want to talk to them, try different things, and talk to them. Planting the idea that things aren't like you think is the big thing here.
People are either worth the pain in the ass that they are or they aren't. This goes for any situation, gaming or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that, and there's a hard tradeoff there: Do you focus on being awesome enough that it pays back the cost of your passions and sharp edges? Or do you put effort into getting more easygoing and responsive to others?
DeleteI think the same goes with other players in games too, do you head towards seeing what's good about their ideas? Or do you lay down the law about their annoying points?
And there's always judging and controlling distance as an option too of course.
I'm more of the "this is my game, this is what I'm running, who wants to play?" approach to GMing. I understand that not everyone is going to enjoy every game I run. Maybe I'll run a different game later that they will like better.
ReplyDeleteI don't really go for the idea that the GM runs what the players want him/her to run; I decide first what I want to run, then pitch it to prospective players. Player input can be valuable and should be taken into consideration, but not necessarily followed.
Eg I am more of a sandboxer type, I am currently playing a Rise of the Runelords game and starting to chafe at the linearity ("So we can't attack any of those goblin tribes 1-4 listed in the cryptic note? Only tribe #5, because it's the one described in the next section?"). I am going to ask the GM if he can open it up a bit, but he may well only want to run what's on the page, which is completely up to him. If we decide we want different things then I will drop that game. Likewise if a player doesn't like a game I GM, well maybe there is something I can change, but maybe that player should go do something else.
"My favourite types of game are sandboxy, objectively GMed, and entirely open-ended, but if I'm with a group who are all into heavily plotted campaigns and want to play a supers game, I'm going to do my best to take that seriously and fit in with what they want. Isn't that just good manners?"
ReplyDeleteAs a player - if a GM I like wants to run a 4-session linear rail-shooter I'll give it a try, and if there's stuff I like I'll stick with it to the end. But if I'm in for a 20+ session full campaign it really needs to fit with what I want out of a game. I've played in two heavily-pre-plotted linear campaigns in the past two years, I seem to have a break point at around 4 months or 8 fortnightly sessions where I start chafing at the constraints.