Being non-judgmental about play styles

[Rel]

There is a lot of very interesting stuff floating around in this thread.

First I think it's interesting that the OP is coming from this from a player perspective rather than GM, but yet most assumed otherwise. I was just this weekend having a discussion with a fellow ENWorlder about how heavily the population here skewed toward GMs and the (perfectly reasonable) reasons for that. In any event, I think that saying, "I'm playing with somebody who has a somewhat conflicting playstyle and I'd rather become more tolerant of it," is the mark of a really excellent player.

Related to the other stuff I'd like to say, this recent comment stuck out to me:

Still, like I said, I keep my opinions on play styles I see to myself for the most part unless it's actively affecting my (or that of my players) enjoyment of the game.

No offense, JS, but I think you're making a mistake here. My opinion is that groups should talk about playstyle early, often and at some length. If the GM isn't urging this then it's worth bringing up to them privately. I think it can only make the game better for everybody in the long run. Because understanding and acknowledgment of everybody's playstyle at the table (GM included) is really valuable information to share if you want people to cut one another some slack from time to time.

Anyway, to address the OP very specifically, I think that it is key to treat this not from the perspective of "how does one tolerate a Powergamer?" but instead "how do I tolerate this particular player?"

People I game with in the long term are evaluated not simply on playstyle but on the question of, "What stuff is this player bringing to the table?" Playstyle is one of those things. But are they also a good friend? Are they incredibly creative and funny? Are they having scheduling issues that may make their attendance erratic? Are they somebody who has handled past conflicts well or poorly? There are a lot of important issues worth considering.

If you find that they are well into the Positive side of the ledger except for the playstyle conflict then most likely you'll feel better able to accept them with some minor adjustments. If they are barely into the Positives, or worse yet sitting on the Negative side of the ledger, then playstyle conflict is not going to make it any easier to keep a marginal player. At that point you're not even really being prejudiced about playstyle. It just happens to be the straw involved in the back breaking.

Once you're done evaluating those other things and are talking about playstyle then I'd say the key thing is openness and compromise. Everybody needs to be willing to discuss how their playstyle manifests itself. And then they need to be willing to listen when the rest of the group says, "Your playstyle is different but it's ok...except for when you do this one specific thing that sets everyone's teeth on edge."

It's the old 80/20 rule. 80% of the irritation is most likely emanating from 20% of the problem. If they can just fix that little bit then suddenly everything becomes a lot more tolerable.

Hopefully that's a bit helpful to you. But I do acknowledge that I'm saying all this as somebody who has recently tested very high for Communication as a strength and I tend to view most problems as solvable with additional communication.

 

[JediSoth]

There is a lot of very interesting stuff floating around in this thread.

No offense, JS, but I think you're making a mistake here. My opinion is that groups should talk about playstyle early, often and at some length. If the GM isn't urging this then it's worth bringing up to them privately. I think it can only make the game better for everybody in the long run. Because understanding and acknowledgment of everybody's playstyle at the table (GM included) is really valuable information to share if you want people to cut one another some slack from time to time.

I understand what you mean. I wasn't being as clear as I should have been. I meant I keep my mouth shut if I'm just an observer of someone else's game. If I'm actually playing in the game or running the game, I do speak up if I have a problem with a particular play style.

I just meant that I would never comment on play style if I was walking by a table at a convention and saw something I didn't like. There wouldn't be enough context for me to reasonably make a judgement, and besides, who am I to butt into their game? They might be having fun.

Sorry about the lack of clarity on my part.

 

[Starfox]

There can still be problems when everyone is min/maxed however:
1) It can greatly reduce the number of viable character types. Only a handful of classes, feats and spells in the rulebooks will be good enough. This means that large parts of the purchased books are useless.
2) It's harder for the GM to challenge the party. He has to spend more time creating NPCs and the type of challenges he can use may be severely limited. For example all bad guys may need to have dispel magic to bring down the self-buffing cleric in 3e.
3) The flavour of the game may become something other than intended. for example a supposed superhero game where the PCs use incredibly long range powers and sensory abilities to take out their foes from 5000 miles away. Or a supposedly medieval flavoured game where the knight is not viable. The lack of flight and ranged attacks makes him useless versus an opponent with both those powers.

These are interesting problems, the most substantial ones brought up in this thread. They are also pretty system-specific.

#1 applies mostly to class systems like DnD but can limit viable "builds" in a points-based game like Gurps as well. It is definitely the worst of these problems and the hardest to get around.
#2 applies specifically to 3E with all its lovely buff spells.
#3 can be a real problem in point-bye games like Champions - in many ways it is the same as #1 but for points-buy.

Many of these optimization problems are really rules problems.

The lesson here is that the GM should pick a system and set the parameters of his game in such a way that the players know what to build for. I was in a 3E game set in Cormyr. All the players were knights, except me who was a wizard. I was under orders to make a wizard that would not outshine the knights too badly. I tried to, but I think that I failed in the end, largely because of the Cormyr War Wizard prestige glass that encouraged much more blasting than the divination/buff heavy Merlin type I originally envisioned - another example of how rules encouraged problem behavior.

 

[Starfox]

I will admit I'm judgmental about play styles I either don't like or don't understand. However, unless said play style affects other players' fun, I generally keep it to myself.

No offense, JS, but I think you're making a mistake here. My opinion is that groups should talk about playstyle early, often and at some length. If the GM isn't urging this then it's worth bringing up to them privately. I think it can only make the game better for everybody in the long run.

With all due respect Rel, this can be very hard to do, especially as a relative outsider. It is scary to endanger your own position in the group by bringing up issues like this.

On the other hand, I strongly agree that this is a good thing to do. First, you are giving your friends a chance to actually improve their social gaming skills. Second, you can save them from being kicked out of a gaming group and not really knowing why. For a GM to not re-invite someone who has these issues, without bringing it up with them before is not to be the best of friends.

Still, this can be tricky to do well, especially when gaming with strangers or mere acquaintances rather than friends.

 

[Rel]

With all due respect Rel, this can be very hard to do, especially as a relative outsider. It is scary to endanger your own position in the group by bringing up issues like this.

On the other hand, I strongly agree that this is a good thing to do. First, you are giving your friends a chance to actually improve their social gaming skills. Second, you can save them from being kicked out of a gaming group and not really knowing why. For a GM to not re-invite someone who has these issues, without bringing it up with them before is not to be the best of friends.

Still, this can be tricky to do well, especially when gaming with strangers or mere acquaintances rather than friends.

You're absolutely correct. As I mentioned, I'm a communicator at heart and love to initiate conversations about all kinds of things. Not to derail us from the topic at hand but last night I was having a discussion with my wife about an upcoming meeting with her boss. There are some things about her work environment that are killing morale for herself and other employees that should be addressed and I was suggesting ways in which she should bring up these topics. Her response was, "Your ideas are good but I'm just not as good at presenting this kind of stuff as you are and I'm afraid I'm going to either freeze up or botch the delivery."

One thing I said to her, which I also think applies to the player tolerance issue, is essentially that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you don't say anything about your problems with another player but remain irritated or angry with them about their behavior, well that seems to be the quick path toward passive aggressive actions that probably won't do anybody much good. The trick is to squeak about it without seeming like you're all complaint and no solution.

And that's why my suggestions on this topic are not, "Tell the player that they are annoying you with their powergaming and that they should change their behavior to be less annoying." Even though that's probably what needs to happen at some point, it's a terrible sell. Instead I'm suggesting that the conversation be broached as a group discussion that proceeds by several stages.

First you probably need some kind of reference document. I strongly suggest any of the works of Robin Laws on this matter. Either the 3.5 DMG2, the 4e DMG or the system neutral "Laws of Good Game Mastering". This will give you a list of broad playstyles, one or more of which will likely resonate with each player.

Then everybody first acknowledges their own playstyle, including the GM. This will include being very specific about their "emotional kick" or "I'm having the most fun when the game is focused on..." I think it's usually best to use some specific examples of parts of the games that you've loved if you've all gamed together before.

And then it's time for people to, as diplomatically as possible, go around and cite some instances where other people's playstyles have caused them some irritation. This is the part where you've got to be willing to own your own crap as well as be honest about the other players.

Finally it's worth talking about some ways in which your playstyles actually support one another. If you're more of an "Immersion Roleplayer" playing a character who is an excellent diplomat, but there is also a "Butt Kicker" in the group, then don't just talk the Barbarian Chieftain out of attacking the nearby town. Instead talk him INTO assisting the party in attacking the band of Ogres that also threaten the town. This means that instead of your character stopping the thing that the Butt Kicker loves most you're enabling the thing that she loves most.

Then shake hands and smile because your gaming group is probably going to be a lot more harmonious than ever before.

If it sounds like I'm passionate about this concept and I've given it a lot of thought then it's because I am and I have. You should all be thankful that you weren't there at the ENnies a few year ago when I totally fanboi geeked out all over Robin Laws when I told him how his writings about playstyle had utterly transformed our gaming group by helping us get rid of all the rough edges that were rubbing each other wrong. All of you except Kiznit. He was sitting right there and introduced us.

I call myself a communicator but that wasn't pretty.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) Smart people make mistakes. The most intelligent person I know didn't put the date on her wedding invitations.
2) I see the rules as a very imperfect representation of the game-world's reality. The best tactic is quite easy for us to see because the rules are a gross simplification. One can't assume that even highly intelligent characters can see the same thing.

Yes, people make mistakes. But that's no excuse not to try. And the more obviously OP something is, the more likely it would be to be found.

Oh, OnlineDM, have you tried the Robin Laws' Quiz on player style in Starfox's sig? I'd recommend it.

 

[Umbran]

1) Smart people make mistakes. The most intelligent person I know didn't put the date on her wedding invitations.
2) I see the rules as a very imperfect representation of the game-world's reality. The best tactic is quite easy for us to see because the rules are a gross simplification. One can't assume that even highly intelligent characters can see the same thing.

3) Even the smartest people in the world have opinions and desires that impinge upon optimization or anything else that's supposed to be "objective truth".

Scientists, for example, have opinions - they will often enough choose to stand by a theory, even when the evidence is against that theory. Artists, for example, have aesthetics - even when it is demonstrated that their works simply don't sell, they may stick by their style choices, even when that means financial destitution.

Being smart does not imply that you make optimal choices - it just means that if you choose to be optimal, you have greater ability to do so.