Help! Advice needed on how to game with my friend who is a jerk.

[scourger]

My advice for playing with a jerk is really simple: don't. Life's too short.

If you're concerned about not being invited back, be sure to speak to the other players (and DM) before you leave. Explain why you're leaving, ask them to let you know if/when they change systems and/or the jerk leaves, and part on good terms.

This is really good advice and I'm pondering it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's some folks who make money advising folks on how to do that conversation.

I'm one of 'em.

One trick is to use open ended questions. "How do you think I feel when you do ________?" "What is it about doing ______ that you find fun?" "How is doing _______ integral to your roleplaying your character?" And so forth. Those questions do not have a simple "Yes" or "No" answer- the respondent is forced to think.

(Don't EVER ask "Why ______?", because that word triggers certain things in the brain, often bypassing the rational mind, resulting in a retrograde to stock answers that might not mean a damn thing.)

Eventually, you may be able to unlock the puzzle of why your friend is behaving this way.

There are also playstyles you can adopt to change the in-game dynamics. You can play with equal intensity against his PCs goals. You may find that is what he's actually looking for, an in-game rival. OTOH, if you play a PC who will not engage his antics, like a wise old master who endures a brash student, he may not find antagonizing you as much fun, and will move on.

 

[Janx]

I've had people (well, a woman I had a crush on) not get "I feel" statements. Yes, they'll be upset for a while, but a true friend will get over it and not continue being a dick.

telling a girl how you feel is a whole different kind of converstion than the "difficult conversation with some who you've got a problem with" pattern.

they didn't train me for that....

 

[Umbran]

... if, as the OP indicates, the behavior is intentional, some confrontation will be required to make the behavior stop.

Well, since we are getting into definitions now, I suppose that depends on what you call a confrontation. I'm saying that if you start out being confrontational, you are less likely to get anywhere useful.

Now maybe what you mean by "Talk[ing] to him about it" is what I mean by politely calling him on it

I couldn't say. Where I come from, "calling him on it" is a relative of "calling him out", "calling him on the carpet", and "calling" in poker - all of which are confrontations. You bring the other person out, tell him what for, and see which of you comes out on top.

... I do think it will probably be necessary to say something along the lines of, "Dude, you're being a jerk and it seems like you're doing it on purpose." And then to proceed from there. A great follow-up question would be "Why?"

As Danny has noted, You can get across the fact that there's an issue, and find out why, a bit sidewise. Humans will defend bad behavior if you call it that blankly. The trick is to engage the friendship, and the person's empathy *first*, before their ego gets into the mix. Especially if they're being bad on purpose - and in this case, the OP is likely best served by not ascribing to willful malice what can also be explained by other things, at least until proven otherwise.

 

[Janx]

Well, since we are getting into definitions now, I suppose that depends on what you call a confrontation. I'm saying that if you start out being confrontational, you are less likely to get anywhere useful.



I couldn't say. Where I come from, "calling him on it" is a relative of "calling him out", "calling him on the carpet", and "calling" in poker - all of which are confrontations. You bring the other person out, tell him what for, and see which of you comes out on top.



As Danny has noted, You can get across the fact that there's an issue, and find out why, a bit sidewise. Humans will defend bad behavior if you call it that blankly. The trick is to engage the friendship, and the person's empathy *first*, before their ego gets into the mix. Especially if they're being bad on purpose - and in this case, the OP is likely best served by not ascribing to willful malice what can also be explained by other things, at least until proven otherwise.

At one end, it might seem like Umbran is arguing semantics, or just using mamby-pamby wussy speak to tell a dude he done wrong.

But, the kind of guy who see the difference between "calling him on it" and "talking to him about it" is usually the kind of guy who can handle this conversation delicately and reduce the chances of hurt feelings, getting him on the defensive or making an argument about it.

(speaking to the non-Umbran/Danny readers out there)

It's called Effective Communication . And there are classes on this kind of thing.

If you've never heard of this approach, or default to "Dude, you're being a jerk" type directness, then you are the target demographic of people who need to learn about it.

I'm a direct kind of guy. I would personally rather just say "Dude, you're being a jerk." But I'm also mature enough to realize that my way raises hackles and ratchets to a strong confrontation, rather that a peaceful conversation and acknowledgement of the grievance leading to a peaceful agreement on how to resolve it.

So, the first step to being a better communicator is to recognize when somebody like Umbran/Danny is describing a better, more diplomatic approach.

I reckon the next step is to try that approach, but I ain't made it that far...

 

[steeldragons]

Now, I am not claiming to be as astute with this material as Umbran or Danny, but I have been called a good listener and communicator on more than one occasion.

That said, I feel the need to point out a small bit of...possibly unimportant/unintentional but possibly relevant info. Namely, did anyone else notice...

The poster, in the thread title, did not ask for help dealing with "a friend who is acting like a jerk." They asked for help with "a friend who is a jerk."

This begs 2 questions: 1) Is this actually what the OP meant...subconsciously, perhaps? and, if so,2) Why are you "friends" with someone you recognize to be a jerk?

I advise trying the civilized mature discourse as already suggested and then, if that does not appear to work (and I have my doubts that it will with an actual jerk), move swiftly into delricho's "see ya" scenario.

And, if you come to the conclusion this person is a jerk (which does not equal "friend", in case you are wondering) then maintaining interactions with him outside of game time seems contraindicated, as well.

Good luck.
--SD

 

[Systole]

Personally, I favor the calling him out approach. Based on what you wrote of his past behavior, it does not seem to me that there will be a mutually satisfactory resolution to this conflict. It's unlikely he's going to stop being a tool, and you should rightfully not have to take it. Therefore, counselling and "I feel" statements are pointless wastes of time, with no disrespect to the others in this thread who do not share my opinion.

So my advice is: make your stand, say what you've gotta say in a direct but non-pissy fashion, and have done with it. Yes, he's probably going to blow up, get defensive, and and be a tool. In which case, congratulations, because he's just done a better job making your point than you would have. Alternatively, simply leave and make it known to the other players why you're leaving. (Note: If you go this route, keep it short and sweet. Do not whinge for hours about every thing that X has done to you. Chances are, the other guys don't need it spelled out.) Then, when things implode later -- and they will -- it leaves you in a good position with the other friends for future games, assuming you did not get pissy or start whingeing.

As another poster said, life's too short to deal with jerks.

Also, you might want to read Five Geek Social Fallacies. It's not directly applicable, in this case, but generally good advice in associated situations. http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

 

[Janx]

Personally, I favor the calling him out approach. Based on what you wrote of his past behavior, it does not seem to me that there will be a mutually satisfactory resolution to this conflict. It's unlikely he's going to stop being a tool, and you should rightfully not have to take it. Therefore, counselling and "I feel" statements are pointless wastes of time, with no disrespect to the others in this thread who do not share my opinion.

Bear in mind, with all this armchair psychologizing, ain't none of us have a full picture of what the OP's problem is. We don't know how long these 2 have been "friends" of if they really are friends vs. aquaintances who've gamed together a lot.

What I do know is lacking extra information, Systole's advice has a 10% chance of actually rescuing the problem and maintaining the relationship in a new corrected state. The other 90% yields the blow-up and loss of the jerky player or group.

Umbran's approach, regardless of any other information about the ACTUAL relationship of the OP and the jerk, yields a 40-60% chance of repairing the problem and keeping everybody together.

The gist is, the direct confrontation is most likely going to lead to a negative reaction and somebody will leave the group.

Umbran's approach is very unlikely to cause bad feelings between anybody (yes it's possible somebody could still react irrationally and angrily, but it'll be all on that person).

There's no need for direct confrontation, when a more diplomatic solution can be tried first.

Consider it this way, imagine your handling of this situation will be subject to a review by a higher authority. Sure, they might agree the other party is a problem person and behaved badly. But they will also frown and score you much lower when there are points in your interaction where you chose to instigate and escalate a more negative response in the other party.

I realize, there ain't no SocialPolice to enforce how you deal with people. But the world might be a bit better if folks did some introspection, and even better advance analysis of how things could play out and choose the nicer path.

Nobody should have to play with or put up with jerks.

But the best response in dealing with them is to be diplomatic, not compounding it with poor communication and bad behavior.

 

[Systole]

I agree with most of what you say. However, I look at it this way:

With either approach a successful outcome alters the friend's behavior and recovers the entire group. However, if you try the counselling approach and you're unsuccessful, then you just wasted a lot of time being a camp counsellor to someone who is a grown-ass man and should know better. I view this a very large negative. In the direct approach, an unsuccessful result means you've lost a friend who was a jerk and a group where you weren't having fun, with a good possibility of getting the group back without the jerk. I view this as still pretty damn positive.

So in my assessment, the counselling approach is a moderate chance of a positive outcome, and a moderate chance of a negative outcome. The direct approach has a low probability of a positive outcome, and a high probability of a slightly less positive outcome. Well, assuming you don't put a lot of weight on recovering a bad friend or a bad group, and personally I don't. YMMV.

 

[Janx]

So in my assessment, the counselling approach is a moderate chance of a positive outcome, and a moderate chance of a negative
outcome. The direct approach has a low probability of a positive outcome, and a high probability of a slightly less positive outcome. Well, assuming you don't put a lot of weight on recovering a bad friend or a bad group, and personally I don't. YMMV.

But that's just the thing, sans more information WE don't know if this is actually a bad friend or a bad group. So you're advice to the OP may be destructive if this WAS a good friend and/or a good group.

Whereas, Umbran's advice is safe for just about anybody, regardless of what WE THE ADVICE-GIVER knows, may work, and still leaves room for deciding to let loose the cannon.