How Do you have an adult conversation?

And it is rare.

As if you had statistics on that?

You don't see it often, personally? That's awesome. I don't see it at my table, because my table is made of friends I've had for a decade and more.

But, if someone's playing at their FLGS or something, I would expect the bag to be more thoroughly mixed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As if you had statistics on that?

You don't see it often, personally? That's awesome. I don't see it at my table, because my table is made of friends I've had for a decade and more.

But, if someone's playing at their FLGS or something, I would expect the bag to be more thoroughly mixed.
Well, if people are running into problem players frequently, it's possible that the players may not be the problem.
 


Well, if people are running into problem players frequently, it's possible that the players may not be the problem.

Really?

That's your reaction to folks not agreeing with you? Getting accusative?

Thanks. You've shown me all I need to know about this interaction. Have a good day.
 

I think that there are also other factors to consider.

First is, how good are you with problem player. It's easier to talk it straight up with no sugar coating if it's your friend than acquaintance or school/work colleague.

Other one is do you play irl or online. If it's online only and you are not very close to problem player, it's pretty easy. Straight up tell them what behavior is problematic and politely ask them to stop it. If they repeat, it's warning time, you again, politly ask to stop and warn them that you will not tolerate it further and should player continue, he/she will be banned from the game. Third strike, you are out. Revoke access (or block) from group. Don't be ahole about, send that final message and tell them they were kicked out due to ignoring polite requests and warnings.
 

Problem player is a pretty broad range. There are several benign ways someone well intentioned could tip over into that category and there could be all sorts of reasons for it. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
 

I'm not sold this is actually a good suggestion; I've not infrequently found text a better way to do it, because its a cooler medium.
As should be readily apparent from your time spent on the internet, not every human being is able to properly intuit other people's intent when dealing with the written word.

People have a tendency to read their own assumptions as to what a person is really trying to say, and that's only exacerbated online where you miss out on contextual clues like seeing the other person's face and expression.
 

As should be readily apparent from your time spent on the internet, not every human being is able to properly intuit other people's intent when dealing with the written word.

People have a tendency to read their own assumptions as to what a person is really trying to say, and that's only exacerbated online where you miss out on contextual clues like seeing the other person's face and expression.

As I said, I've also seen people who read the stressors that will already be there for having to have that sort of exchange going on at all as more strongly accusative than they are (or perhaps they genuinely are, and the other person is trying--unsuccessfully--to keep it tamped down) and elevate in return.

I'm not going to tell people it always is better to avoid that, but again, I've seen the text only approach go better.
 

Alternately, if somebody thinks that problem players aren't a problem, maybe that's because they are the problem player.
Sure, but it's important to define what constitutes a problem player, which will differ from GM to GM. This is why I think a session zero written document is the best way to convey your expectations for player behavior. As a number have people have said, you can't cover everything, but it should cat least cover the most egregious behaviors. IMO, it's certainly better that not providing any guidelines and blindsiding someone.

And this thread assumes that GMs are the reasonable ones, but that's not always the case.
 

As should be readily apparent from your time spent on the internet, not every human being is able to properly intuit other people's intent when dealing with the written word.
So what you're essentially saying is the color red is an indicator of psychotic behavior? (This was a feeble attempt at humor. We all know green is the indicator of psychosis.)

Problem player is a pretty broad range. There are several benign ways someone well intentioned could tip over into that category and there could be all sorts of reasons for it. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is. A player who has a hard time figuring out the tone of a campaign can be a "problem" in that they might be messing things up for everyone else. If we all think we're playing a 1960s style Silver Age super hero campaign and you're out there playing like it's a 1990s eXtreme to the max Image comic then there's a serious disconnect that needs to be addressed. The player isn't necessarily doing this deliberately, there's just a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Alternately, if somebody thinks that problem players aren't a problem, maybe that's because they are the problem player.
I'm getting to be an old man, and I've gamed with a lot of different people over the last 38 years. In the grand scheme of things, I've run into relatively few bad people when gaming. Gamers are pretty decent people for the most part.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top