Are most gaming problems really out of game problems to be solved?

[Janx]

This is an idea I had from reading the Lame Duck thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?474690-Dealing-with-lame-duck-characters/

In there, a group has a problem with a player who keeps making lame duck PCs and plays recklessly. Turns out, the player doesn't like D&D, and wants to play something else.

I'd say a good chunk of the advice was all about solving the problem in-game, though there were some wise folk (even before the "doesn't like D&D additional info appeared) advised solving it by talking to the player/handling outside of the game.


Anyway, here's the theory:

It should be well known that you should solve out of game problems, outside of the game. So if Timmy is a jerk, deal with Timmy outside of the game, not by doing stuff to his PC. GMs lacking this fundamental rule of thumb can make their problems worse.

I posit that just about anytime somebody has got a problem that makes them seek out advice from fellow gamers, that it is almost always really an out-of-game problem (and thus needs an out of game solution).

Whatever crazy stuff players are doing in your game that isn't causing strife in your group isn't a problem because your players don't have problems that irritate the in-game enjoyment.

which means, whatever's going on that seems like a problem, is most likely coming from outside the game.


I of course, could be wrong, but it seems to me that an eye to what's going on outside the game, when there's a perceived problem should be the FIRST thing to think of. Stop defaulting to in-game solutions without considering a broader picture of the players involved.


What do y'all think? Am I right? OR are there more obvious "this is a problem, but it really is an in-game problem" examples?

 

[iserith]

I agree. While I don't have any hard data sufficient to claim that "most" problems stem from out-of-game issues, I would say it is true in my own experience. When something about game play isn't as good as it could be, I consider it a symptom for some underlying problem, typically one of everyone not being on the same page. That is generally resolved pretty easily with a page-setting conversation outside the context of the game.

 

[Umbran]

To change the terminology just a touch, I would agree that many issues at table are people-problems, rather than game-system-problems, yes.

We often give game-system solutions because to solve any problem, you must know the subject of the problem. We share systems, so we can all pitch in with system-solutions. You have to know the individuals at the table to help solve people-problems.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's an inherently social hobby, so it makes sense that communication will always be a major hurdle, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that most problems are entirely out-of-game. It's possible that most of the problems arise from a combination of system deficiency and player expectations not being met.

 

[steenan]

I agree. Nearly all problems people ask here about are problems that need out-of-game solution.

This is not equivalent to "problem player" problems. Sometimes, it's a matter of miscommunication or mismatched play styles. Sometimes, it'a a matter of someone unable to verbalize their expectations. Sometimes, it's a matter of using a game system that doesn't really work for the group's needs, or one that just plain doesn't wok at all. But these are all problems to be discussed and solved out of game.

And it's not surprising at all. After all, if a group uses a good game, understands it and is willing to really play it (as in, play according to the game assumptions and intended style), and everybody tries to be friendly and helpful to other participants, what can cause major problems?

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

I wholeheartedly agree. This hobby is so much about the real people you are sitting with around the table. If there is a problem in the game (i.e. a player or the DM doesn't enjoy the game as much as he/she would like to etc.), do talk to the people and ask them what they don't like. Communication is king. In this day and age we should be open minded enough to talk with other people about what we want and how we feel. Even on a games-night situation.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Specifically, IMHO, lack of communication is 99% of problems (either in OR out of game).

 

[Big J Money]

This has been pointed out for decades.

Some people aren't willing to accept it for a variety of reasons. When those people happen to be DMs, I tend to stay away from their games. Not that they can't run successful ones, just that they tend to run successful ones only when all the players of their group have the same opinion as them about "the right way to play" RPGs.

 

[Nytmare]

My previous group had two house rules that grew to avoid a possible problem but not (per se) because of a problem person. One of our players moved away and we were left with a vacancy that we wanted to fill. The best candidate that we had available to us was a guy that we all knew and liked and had board gamed with before, but we knew from experience that he was going to be a little bit of a rough fit because he played RPGs very differently than we did.

We were playing what we considered to be a very serious role-play and story heavy game, and didn't mind power gaming as long as it fit within the confines of the tone we had set. We knew that the new guy (mostly because it was the only kind of gaming he had ever been exposed to) was a kind of gonzo gamer who only ever played one character concept (talk in lolcat and cast as many fireballs as possible) and who preferred stat arrays (which is how we were playing) because then he wouldn't need to make a new character sheet when using suicide as a means to heal his character of hit point and attribute damage.

Instead of talking to him outright about it I sat down with the rest of the group and we talked about our options and the possible pitfalls. What we decided to do instead of possibly upsetting him or putting him on the spot and trying to convince him to do things a different way was to add a set of rules to our character creation process that would force him to make choices he wasn't normally used to making and that put a limit on the choices we were afraid he might end up abusing.

We referred to the system we ended up making as the "A Team Array" and it basically limited where a player was able to place their primary and their dump stat. No character could have the same primary or dump attribute as any other current PC (including a character who had just died). So for example there was only ever one "strong" (STR 16) guy and one clumsy (DEX 8) guy in the party at a time, and when a new character would show up, there was an incentive to have them be very different than the character who had just died. With four players that meant that there would always be two high and two low stats for a new character to choose from and combine in different ways.

I sent out an email to the new guy, outlining his choices and options for the campaign and character creation (and we had left him a hole to make his high int, low charisma blasto-mage of choice if he wanted it). He responded almost immediately, excited about the game, and mentioning nonchalantly that when his mage died he'd have to "kill off the new character pretty quick so that Int and Cha came back up on the table, haha."

The rest of the group went back into head scratching mode and we settled almost immediately on a "new characters come back two levels lower" rule to just avoid the potential problem.

In the end, I think it worked. He was introduced to a new way of doing things and the rest of us felt that it was an easier way to go about having the conversation without ever having to actually have the conversation.

His character run for the campaign ended up being a disposable blasto mage ("lulz!") who ended up fireballing himself to cure himself of CON damage, to a disposable bard who ended up committing suicide by charging into single combat with a troll because "wait bards don't have fireball on their spell list?" BUT his third character was a high INT, low CON Mystic Theurge artificer who still occasionally fireballed things but who spoke in full sentences and who interacted with the world they were in beyond the next combat round.

We as the group, or I as the DM could have talked to him instead of tweaking the ruleset, but even in retrospect and especially knowing the person, I think that all that would have happened is that he would play lip service to a conversation and then just continued to do what he always did. Whereas as a proudly self proclaimed rules lawyer and min maxer, he saw a codified set of rules as something to screw with and take advantage of, which broadened his perspective and showed him something different that he ended up enjoying.

So yeah, in the end I'd say that communication is 100% the most important thing, but being able to recognize the best way to communicate with someone is just as important.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

So yeah, in the end I'd say that communication is 100% the most important thing, but being able to recognize the best way to communicate with someone is just as important.

That's a very good point (and a very interesting story to back it). I hadn't thought about it this way.