Control is the Root of All Gaming Issues?

Okay, so maybe not all problems. But I got to thinking that the cause of many problems at the gaming table come from too much or too little control. What is cheating at dice rolls but an attempt to control the narrative of your character? And railroading occurs when a GM controls the story of the adventure too tightly (on the converse, when the adventure gets away from the GM and just meanders down some tangential rabbit hole, that’s too little control). Rules lawyering arguably is a direct struggle over control between GM and player.

Thoughts? Was this just my brain misfiring as I went to sleep?

I guess I need you to define "gaming issues".

I think you are right, but I think you've also defined a tautology. You've defined gaming issues as problems that arises in a cooperative game when different participants in the game begin to compete for control of the narrative, a situation I tend to think of as playing the metagame rather than the game. You've then exclaimed that are the root of those gaming issues is a fight for control of the narrative.

I think that's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't address the really interesting problem of how you go about preventing those fights from occurring, or what you do about them once they occur. Or in other words, at the root of all fights for control of the narrative, there is usually something else.

For example, at the root of many contests between a player and a GM over control of the narrative is an issue of trust - the player has decided that the GM is not trustworthy, and so to ensure that the game is run 'correctly' they have to assume control over at least some of the GM's functions. But, player's not trusting the GM isn't the only problem that can lead to dysfunctional fights over narrative control.

Control and the lack of it or obsession with it tends to be a recurring theme in humanity, so sure.

I can reply from the perspective of an elementary school teacher!

Every misbehavior in my classroom has a root cause. It usually boils down to the student feeling one of the following:

Lack of Attention
The student is lacking positive attention, and so seeks negative attention to compensate. For example, a student hasn't been called on, so they shout out a silly joke to get everyone laughing.

Lack of Confidence
The student feels that they are not capable of achieving what needs to be done. So they do something else they feel control over. For example, a student feels lost in a multiplication lesson, so they draw on their page, or talk with their friend, or get up and wander around the classroom.

Lack of Power
As you said, sometimes a student feels like they lack control in a situation. So they misbehave in order to gain control. I've noticed that when my students come to school feeling tired, sometimes they misbehave in a really obvious way. I have them take a break in the "Take a Break Chair," and there's this look of relief! They were lacking control (feeling tired), and so did something with a predictable outcome that came true. They gained control through misbehavior!

Revenge
Sometimes a student just wants revenge! They feel injured by another student or teacher, and so act out because of it. This is a tough one as a teacher, because I have to take a step back and not escalate.
As a teacher, this is the biggest solution I have:

Proactive Discipline
The modern theory of classroom discipline is that 70% of discipline should be proactive, or happening before the chance for misbehavior. That means if there's been a repeated problem, or I can predict a problem, I introduce changes or structure to prevent that problem. For example, in my classroom, I have a number of very active kids. So when I plan a lesson, I always build into it chances to move around, stretch, etc. This prevents a lot of kids from feeling a lack of control.
How does this look at the table?

Think about the problems that the players or GM are having. Think about the root causes. What can you do before the next game to prevent that root cause from occurring? Does the rules-lawyer need a job of looking up rules in between turns instead of in the middle of turns?

I can also give an example from my own game!

We were having an issue with the story the GM was telling not match the story we as players wanted to tell. There wound up being a lot of talk behind each others' backs, groaning at the table... it just didn't feel very good. It seemed like a lack of control from both sides, plus maybe the GM feeling a lack of confidence.

We wound up creating a routine in which we regularly grabbed some food and a drink and talked about where the game was going next. This allowed everyone to have a voice without it taking up gaming time, and let the GM kind of speak from outside his GM Curtain.

Anyways, I hope some of this is useful to you!

In my experience, there are three broad sorts of gaming issues.

In gaming groups that arise out of bigger social situations (eg school/uni clubs) there are some people who don't really want to be RPGing at all, but are there just because a friend is, or they have nowhere else to be, etc. This happens in other group activities too. I don't think there's any uniform solution to this, but I think the solution obviously is a social one, rather than a game-related one.

Sometimes there are players who want to play the game, but they have social issues which manifest in the game. I think RPGing probably attracts more than the human statistical norm for this sort of person. Eg they have a tendency to attack or trick other PCs. This is the same person who, in a wargame, always breaks alliances even if it hurts his/her own position. I don't think there is any game-related solution to this either.

Then we get to issues that arise from how the game is run - stuff that tends to get described as viking hat GMing, railroading, player entitlement, etc. I think a lot of this stuff results from a combination of (i) a lack of clarity as to what the players are meant to be contributing to the game, relative to what the GM is contributing, and (ii) poor rules, or inadequate procedures/techniques more generally (not all of these are spelled out expressly as rules).

I think that this last category is the sort of stuff that [MENTION=30438]Ralif Redhammer[/MENTION] is describing as about "control".

Communication is one way of solving these issues: different people want different things from RPGing (both in general, and in any particualr campaign/session/moment). I happen to like The Forge's way of describing these differences, but no doubt there are other ways of thinking about the same basic point.

As well as communication, though - ie getting clear on who is hoping for what - there is then actually the need to reach agreement (and I don't think there is any distinct magic for RPGing in this respect, any more than working out which film to go to or where to meet up for lunch). And once agreement has been reached, there is then the need to actually give effect to it. This can require both GMs and players learning how to do stuff. At this stage of things, there's no substitute for practice.

Great insight and discussion, all, thanks!

I don’t think there will ever be a one true root cause, or a silver bullet solution. But I think understanding the sources of problems is important, and can lead to potential solutions.

Though, one could argue that everyone just doing their best to treat everyone else at the table like actual human beings would solve and prevent many problems.

Ralif Redhammer said:

one could argue that everyone just doing their best to treat everyone else at the table like actual human beings would solve and prevent many problems.

Click to expand...

I would say, though, that if you have problems that need solving, and can be solved, this way, then they're social problems that will equally come up when the five (or however many there are) of you decide to go out to a film.

When it comes to RPG-specific issues, such as Is the GM allowed to disregard NPCs' attack rolls?, or When a PC casts ESP on a creatuer, is that a means of finding out something the GM already wrote down, or rather a trigger for the GM to make something up?, I think just being a decent person won't solve the issue, because the differences of preference here aren't about decency of character but rather about the sort of game experience someone wants to have.

For a more serious response, or less serious I suppose....

I think one of the biggest problems stems from the fact that everyone has a different definition of "control". Should I get a reflex save? Should that DC be reasonably passable? Do I get an opportunity attack? Can we travel over there? Will there be anything worthwhile? Can I build a castle? Will the DM define my morality? Require me to track how many pieces of lint my character carries?

Everyone comes to the table with different ideas of what they should be allowed to do, how they should be allowed to play and so forth. No matter how many Session 0's you have there are always going to be ideological differences, even if you eliminate the bigger potential differences that just means the smaller ones are left uncovered. That's really only as much of a problem as you let it be though. Being able to demonstrate your authority on an issue and exert control over it without infringing on the general decency of the table or abusing your players are difficult concepts that really few people ever master.

KRussellB said:

I can reply from the perspective of an elementary school teacher!

Every misbehavior in my classroom has a root cause. It usually boils down to the student feeling one of the following:

Click to expand...

I'm showing my wife, an elementary school teacher, this post. Then I'm going to ask her why she exhibits all these problems at our game table.

JK. She's awesome.

True, but as a DM, there's a world of difference between someone politely questioning a rules call and someone being a rules lawyering jerk about it. Kindness won't solve the issue, but it sure does help.

pemerton said:

I think just being a decent person won't solve the issue, because the differences of preference here aren't about decency of character but rather about the sort of game experience someone wants to have.

Click to expand...