Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Micah Sweet]

I won't speak up a lot times, if I don't like a game, or GM, I will simply not play it, or with them. Not worth the hassle.

That works too.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a GM, I check in regularly with my players. Both as a group and individually. Most sessions end and we take a few minutes to talk about them and if anyone had any concerns or anything. Sometimes there may be something specific I bring up.

In my Stonetop game, I recently decided to have an important NPC be killed by an established and growing threat. The threat had reached a point where it had to take action, and so I chose a specific NPC to be its victim. After the game, I asked the players what they thought about the decision. And I listened to what they had to say. I mean, in this case the decision’s already been made and we played it out, but if anyone felt that strongly about it, I’d consider making a change.

For another game I’m running, Band of Blades, one player seemed a bit dissatisfied. Nothing huge, just an offhand comment he made one day, and then he missed a session. So I reached out to him to discuss it. We talked it all out and he appreciated that I checked in with him.

Checking in regularly just seems like a good idea. Even if you don’t do it every game, let the players know they can reach out to you if they have issues. Sometimes, that’s all it takes to get someone who might not normally speak up to do so.

 

[Aldarc]

Because there's an intrinsic power imbalance, and its not super-hard to figure out which people are non-confrontational?

I mean, you can argue he can be neutral about it instead, but I don't think its too much to make some extra effort to find out if people are genuinely fine with what you're doing before you assume they are and tell other people they are. It might be hard to do, but nobody every said being a good GM was easy.

IME, this is true. Most of my play groups were composed of friends. While friends can be honest with each other, they also tend not to be confrontational and can sometimes choose not to speak up due to a variety of social reasons.

 

[The Firebird]

IME, this is true. Most of my play groups were composed of friends. While friends can be honest with each other, they also tend not to be confrontational and can sometimes choose not to speak up due to a variety of social reasons.

And at a certain point, if your friend is putting in the time to GM and you keep complaining about things that they're doing, you're being rude.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And at a certain point, if your friend is putting in the time to GM and you keep complaining about things that they're doing, you're being rude.

This is why I try to be flexible as a player and accommodate the GMs style. Gaming is a lot of work. I want to approach the game with curiosity about their approach

 

[Thomas Shey]

Who said anything about telling other people how they feel or think?

I did, earlier in the chain. I've commented numerous times that people are really big about claiming "My players are fine with it" without sufficient evidence of that other than them not complaining about that (and in some cases making it clear that people complaining will be shown the door).

Make it clear anyone can come you via any method with which they feel comfortable (text, email, separate room, whatever). Otherwise you are assuming.

Nonconfrontational people may may be more prone to bringing something up by other methods than direct talk, but that doesn't mean a lot of them are still particularly likely to. And we're in a hobby where a fair number of people have been trained not to complain if they want to keep playing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Back in the day you used to have to physically go out and find people to game with. Now you can find folks just by posting online. I am not saying it is as easy as flipping a switch but it isn't an insurmountable task.

Watch threads where playing online is brought up and look at how many people find it unacceptable of have had serious trouble doing so successfully.

The only way for the GM to know if people have issues is for them to voice them, or for the GM to ask and see.

And I'm suggesting a lot of them seem to be willing to jump to that assumption without doing the latter.

Okay, so this GM might not be that perceptive, but also, the folks who are not enjoying themselves should just say something or find a group with a GM that doesn't bother them. They can also offer to run sessions for the group themselves (this honestly is one of the best solutions because I find when you have groups where more than one person GMs, you get a range of perspectives and styles that is helpful)

Any number of people are manifestly uninterested in running games; even some who have done so and can don't really like it. Telling people "If you don't like how I run my game, go run your own" is, for at least a plurality of people, synonymous to showing them the door in that situation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Most GMs will be open to concerns by a variety of means. At the same time, I have to admit, I don't really have time for people who are into creating drama or conflict. So I think while there can definitely be problem GMs and people are wise to not game with them, there are problem players and that is another factor here

There absolutely are, but when there's a disagreement in these sorts of context which end gets to "win" more often.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And at a certain point, if your friend is putting in the time to GM and you keep complaining about things that they're doing, you're being rude.

I agree if its a constant thing, but sometimes if its a single-issue GMs can be remarkably obtuse about how much of a problem it is. And of course even trying not to be overtly confrontational doesn't mean it isn't obvious you're having some kind of problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There absolutely are, but when there's a disagreement in these sorts of context which end gets to "win" more often.

I’d say it is equal among all participants. In a group of six people only one is the Gm. So it’s usually what the majority want that wins