Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 5592206" data-attributes="member: 99">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: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.</blockquote>

Verification