Effective Communication Outside of Game Play

[MGibster]

I ran a campaign recently that was not to the liking of one of my players. Instead of talking to me about it directly, he had his character behave in a disruptive manner just to stir the pot, he made passive aggressive complaints, and when he had to replace his character introduced a new one who didn't at all fit into the campaign while giving him the stupidest name imaginable. It's something the other players noticed, one even commented about it, but I never addressed the issue with the player on a one-to-one basis like I should have. I did ask all the players what I could do to improve the experience for them, they gave me useful feedback which I incorporated to various degrees of success, but I should have talked to the player.

This isn't the first time I've had problems with this player. In past campaigns he's done things just to stir the pot that left me and the other players a bit exasperated at times. Mostly I thought it was behind us, but the disruptive behavior and passive aggressive comments came back in a big way. It's obvious I'm going to have to talk to him.

A few years ago, I had to take a course at work called Crucial Conversations which was all about how to have important and difficult conversations at work. It was mostly common sense stuff and if I could sum up the course it'd be as follows:

1. Be empathetic and have a positive intent for the discussion.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Don't be accusatory.
4. Try to remain calm.
5. Agree on a mutual purpose.
6. Come up with a plan of action.

What does this mean?

1. I'm starting the conversation knowing he doesn't like certain campaign types and hoping to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to him, me, and the rest of the players.
2. I dont plan on bringing up anything other than examples of game play and comments.
3. I won't accuse him of being a jerk or purposely messing things up for everyone.
4. I'll do my best to remain calm about anything negative he has to say about my GMing.
5. Hopefully we will both agree that we just want the game to be best for everyone.
6. What can both of us do to ensure the game goes well for everyone?

I understand the sad truth is that communication doesn't necessarily lead to finding an acceptable solution. There's a possibility that we won't reach a mutually acceptable solution and the best course of action might be for him not to participate in any games I'm running. I know some of the other players at the table are a little frustrated because his inclusion in our group limits the types of games we can play. But we're all friends and nobody wants to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[Mannahnin]

Given his disruptive and passive aggressive behavior up to this point I would be surprised if you're able to come to a reasonable solution while keeping him in the group. But this approach and the principles you've outlined here are great, and if anything is going to work, this seems like the way.

 

[sevenbastard]

Being a good Manager and being a good DM have a lot of the same skills. I definitely think I'm better at both from what I have learned at the other.

The "bad player, good friend" has ruined many a group. I got no easy answers for you, but a honest conversation about his behavior is a start.

 

[Theory of Games]

What can both of us do to ensure the game goes well for everyone?

The player can act like an adult and communicate what the problem is rather than acting like a spoiled child. If the problem player continues their BS, IME having "The Talk" (play nice or leave) is required. And if it STILL continues, I'd massacre their PC and show them the door.

 

[Mannahnin]

The player can act like an adult and communicate what the problem is rather than acting like a spoiled child. If the problem player continues their BS, IME having "The Talk" (play nice or leave) is required. And if it STILL continues, I'd massacre their PC and show them the door.

I don't think there's ever anything to be gained by taking consequences for real world behavioral issues into the game.

If the person can't get along and play nice it's a real world conversation, agreed. And if they refuse, they can just not play in the campaign. If they're a good friend in other ways, maybe folks continue playing other stuff with them, in parallel or in the future.

 

[Theory of Games]

I don't think there's ever anything to be gained by taking consequences for real world behavioral issues into the game.

If the person can't get along and play nice it's a real world conversation, agreed. And if they refuse, they can just not play in the campaign. If they're a good friend in other ways, maybe folks continue playing other stuff with them, in parallel or in the future.

Sure something can be gained: saving a group. I've had groups explode due to the behavior of players who always wanted their way. They push groups to the breaking point and when no one feels comfortable anymore -

 

[Mannahnin]

Sure something can be gained: saving a group. I've had groups explode due to the behavior of players who always wanted their way. They push groups to the breaking point and when no one feels comfortable anymore -

You seem to have misunderstood.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think there's ever anything to be gained by taking consequences for real world behavioral issues into the game.

There's not. It just creates hard feelings and the problem remains unsolved or gets worse.

Sure something can be gained: saving a group. I've had groups explode due to the behavior of players who always wanted their way. They push groups to the breaking point and when no one feels comfortable anymore -

That's not what he means. What Mannahnin means is that you shouldn't punish the player by handing out negative consequences in game. i.e. If you have a problem with a player who likes to tell others how to play the game, you don't have a giant step on him to squash the behavior. You talk to the player directly instead of handling it in-game.

 

[Umbran]

Sure something can be gained: saving a group.

The group will not be saved if you turn what should be an out-of-game discussion into in-game consequences.

Yes, problematic behavior needs to be addressed, but that ought to happen by way of having a candid conversation between the players and GM, not as in-game repercussions for the character.

 

[payn]

I want folks at my table who are interested in playing, and if they are not, id prefer they were not at the table. Must be a good friend if you are willing to go this far. I've had a good number of best friends, worst gamers in my time and I just don't tolerate it anymore. If we don't click, I politely part ways. Im not saying you shouldn't do this, or that its not going to work, I just save this kind of thing for situations I cant avoid.