Distracting players. How to deal with them?

[fusangite]

So... another social problem dressed up as a gaming problem.

Before I render a complete judgement, there are a few things I'd like to know:
(a) how many people are in the group at full attendance?
(b) how do the non-disruptive players feel about the disruptive ones (individually, not generally)?
(c) do the two disruptive players lack the capacity to pay attention in a sustained way always or just when their character is not the centre of attention?
(d) what is your social relationship with the disruptive players outside of the game?

Even without this information, I will make my usual statement: game rules are there to make games run better; they are not there to make social situations run better. Using game mechanics to fix problems like this is silly and ultimately debases your game by making non-character player action the basis for some events that take place in your game world.

Therefore, I'd recommend "cancelling" the game and only inviting back the players who make the experience enjoyable.

EDIT: And screw this pathologizing the problem -- it doesn't matter why these people act the way they do. So what if they have ADD!? You're not the school system. You're not going to accept a note from their doctor entitling them to keep disrupting your game. It's not your job to reform these people either. It is your job to be a good GM -- which seems to me like it involves getting these people out of your game.

 

[Knoxgamer]

Punishing a player's character for out of character actions the player has little or no control over sounds unethical to me.

Perhaps the ADD player could be designated an "Assistant DM", and whenever he needs something to do you could ask him to look up rules, prepare NPCs, monsters, etc. to help speed your game along.

As far as non-ADD players who are disruptive, I would recommend speaking to them about it between sessions in a serious manner. If they are unwilling to focus more on the game, ask them to find another game. In the case that they are close friends, consider bringing the game to an end if it would hurt your friendship.

The passive-aggressive response of killing or harming characters when a player acts in an unfavorable way is the worst solution. It is least likely to change the player's behavior, some players wont understand why it's happening, and those that do will likely be offended or hurt by it.

 

[JesterPoet]

For everyone whose immediate response to issues like this is always "boot him!" or "suspend him!" or "run, run fast and find another gaming group!"....

Geez people... lighten up. It's a game.


No, no... seriously.. I mean that. It's a game


If "kicking someone out" is your knee-jerk reaction... then, wow..... I'm glad I don't have to hang out with you.

And before anyone directs me to the url for "I'm a social outcast, so here's why it is okay to exclude my friends and decent people don't understand that" page, I've seen it before.

There can be good reasons for kicking someone out of a group, or taking a break... but some people seem to feel like this is the military, and you kick to the curb anyone who ever steps out of line. Good lord! We're all human beings here. We can frequently behave rationally. Again... if your knee-jerk reaction to any gaming problem is "kick the person out" then perhaps it is you who has the problem.

It's really worth thinking about.

 

[fusangite]

Punishing a player's character for out of character actions the player has little or no control over sounds unethical to me.

Perhaps the ADD player could be designated an "Assistant DM", and whenever he needs something to do you could ask him to look up rules, prepare NPCs, monsters, etc. to help speed your game along.

As far as non-ADD players who are disruptive, I would recommend speaking to them about it between sessions in a serious manner. If they are unwilling to focus more on the game, ask them to find another game. In the case that they are close friends, consider bringing the game to an end if it would hurt your friendship.

Let me get this straight: this guy is only entitled to have a properly functioning game if these people are healthy? I'm sorry: he's entitled to have a functioning game full stop. He's a DM, not a doctor/nurse; he's a volunteer. What if these people had psychotic episodes resulting from schizophrenia? Should he have to tolerate that because it's a medical condition? How about brain damage from a car accident?

What is causing these people to disrupt his game is only relevant insofar as it affects his ability to stop said disruption.

Speaking as someone who has wrestled with issues of mental health in the past, you are responsible for making sure, to the best of your ability that your illness doesn't ruin things for other people. If someone has a mental illness so debilitating that it ruins structured social gatherings, they have the responsibility to either control their condition or avoid these gatherings. This is something that is even taught to delusional schizophrenic people in outpatient programs.

There is nothing unethical about wanting to have a gaming group that only includes players your enjoy gaming with. To structure your gaming group any other way does a disservice to you and to your sane functional players who deserve a fun game every bit as much as the batshit loony ones.

The passive-aggressive response of killing or harming characters when a player acts in an unfavorable way is the worst solution. It is least likely to change the player's behavior, some players wont understand why it's happening, and those that do will likely be offended or hurt by it.

Here I can comfortably agree; not for the reasons stated but because of the violence this does to the narrative. This is a social problem not a game mechanical problem; it merits a social solution.

For everyone whose immediate response to issues like this is always "boot him!" or "suspend him!" or "run, run fast and find another gaming group!"....
Geez people... lighten up. It's a game.
No, no... seriously.. I mean that. It's a game

So, explain to me: does the game have any purpose other than the participants having fun? What are the necessary components of an RPG? A GM and one or more players. To me, if the sole purpose is actually having a game people enjoy, a necessary condition is that the GM be having fun. If he's not, then it's not much of a game, is it?

If we assume that Knoxgamer is in the minority and the purpose really is to have fun and not to do volunteer work with the handicapable, then it is a perfectly rational response to change the group composition whenever the group dynamic stops working. It is just a game -- it's not church, it's not school, it's not a voting booth -- as such people who make the game un-fun are in no way entitled to be there.

 

[Knoxgamer]

Let me get this straight: this guy is only entitled to have a properly functioning game if these people are healthy? I'm sorry: he's entitled to have a functioning game full stop. He's a DM, not a doctor/nurse; he's a volunteer. What if these people had psychotic episodes resulting from schizophrenia? Should he have to tolerate that because it's a medical condition? How about brain damage from a car accident?

What is causing these people to disrupt his game is only relevant insofar as it affects his ability to stop said disruption.

That is not the argument I made. Please read my post. The argument I made was that punishing a character for the actions of the player that are out of his control is unethical. There are other solutions beyond punishing the player. I have not, at any time, made the claim that all DMs should be forced to play with all players. I, in fact, posted that he should consider asking a player not to return before punishing the player's character.

I completely agree with you that a DM should structure her gaming group however she likes.

 

[fusangite]

That is not the argument I made. Please read my post. The argument I made was that punishing a character for the actions of the player that are out of his control is unethical. There are other solutions beyond punishing the player. I have not, at any time, made the claim that all DMs should be forced to play with all players. I, in fact, posted that he should consider asking a player not to return before punishing the player's character.

My apologies. I see now that you were only talking about the issue of punishing a PC and were silent on the question of throwing people out. Glad to hear we're actually on the same side here.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Before I render a complete judgement, there are a few things I'd like to know:
(a) how many people are in the group at full attendance?
(b) how do the non-disruptive players feel about the disruptive ones (individually, not generally)?
(c) do the two disruptive players lack the capacity to pay attention in a sustained way always or just when their character is not the centre of attention?
(d) what is your social relationship with the disruptive players outside of the game?

Even without this information, I will make my usual statement: game rules are there to make games run better; they are not there to make social situations run better. Using game mechanics to fix problems like this is silly and ultimately debases your game by making non-character player action the basis for some events that take place in your game world.

Therefore, I'd recommend "cancelling" the game and only inviting back the players who make the experience enjoyable.

a) 6 counting myself
b) 1 will join in, 1 will let it go, 3 will let it go for a short while but get tired of it
c) The 1 disruptive player has true ADD. He cannot focus for more than a minute or 2, especially if there is a chance to talk.
d) friendly. genuinely nice person just can't focus

I will not screw a player's character over this. It's the player not the PC. Hurting a PC can lead to hurting the party in some situations.

I will not cancel a game and invite everyone but him. That's pure cowardess.

If he can not find his own way to control himself, then we'll have one final talk with everything laid out on the table. And let him know that he is ruining the fun and wasting the time of most everyone else. That decision is his.
I was just hoping someone had a better solution that me snapping at him every session.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...EDIT: And screw this pathologizing the problem -- it doesn't matter why these people act the way they do. So what if they have ADD!? You're not the school system. You're not going to accept a note from their doctor entitling them to keep disrupting your game. It's not your job to reform these people either. It is your job to be a good GM -- which seems to me like it involves getting these people out of your game.

You are, as always, the man

I couldn't agree more with the above statement. It hews close to the one rule I have for forming a gaming group: If I don't want to hang out with you outside the game, I don't want you at the game.

Too often gamers I know (and have heard of) seem incredibly forgiving of terrible social skills. Smelly jackasses who can't manage to act in a civil manner will not last at my table.

This is not therapy. This is not a "safe" place where you won't be "judged".

If you want to hang out with us, be someone worth hanging out with.

Now, that said, BBR states above that this is a nice guy whom he genuinely likes.

So ask yourself, are the three people fed up with his (admittedly uncontrollable) antics as good a group of friends as the guy with ADD?

If so, he needs to be dealt with.

If not, they do.

 

[Whimsical]

Here's a last chance option before booting him for good. It's called Abuse it - Lose it. Basically the player will be in a disinvited state, but if he agrees to these new rules that are just for him he will be allowed to come to each game session. The MOMENT he starts to do ANYTHING that detracts from the game, he must leave the game session for that day. The DM or someone else will continue to run his character for the rest of the game session. But he can still come back next week and try again. Read the article associated to the link to gain a full understanding of what this is all about.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Rephrasing a previous suggeston into another question or two.

1. Does the ADD require talking or are there other ways to keep the player occupied? Someone suggested card shuffling, another drawing. This is a more genneral question first.

2. If the player can be occupied by something besides talking (or making noise of any kind) would that be acceptable both to you and the the other players?

In our group we have one person who doesn't always pay attention. He just plays word games on a notepad and zones into his own world. Sometimes the DM has to mention his name a couple times to get his attention but at least it doesn't distract everyone else. As long as things are moving in the game he does ok. Sure it is not the full attention the DM would like but at least we can enjoy his company and still play the game.