How to get rid of the adversarial tone in the game

[Wik]

Talk about counter-productive. Starting a fight at the gaming table is going to lead to you looking for new victims players.

Either that or getting charged with assault.

Hunh. I guess someone failed their "Detect Sarcasm" check.

***

To answer the question at hand, I can understand where you're coming from. The last time I played, the game got into an adversarial mode, and I'd say it was the GM who started it (he kept upping the ante when we won the fights... somewhere, he forgot that we were SUPPOSED to win the majority of the fights). And it's not fun.

A neat idea that could get players in the right mood is to give them "DM for a scene" cards or something similar. Basically, you give each player a card that lets them change the scene in a subtle way, but only if it makes for a better/cooler story. For example, you have an encounter with a blacksmith. One of the PCs decides to play his card to make the blacksmith a religious fanatic who wants one of the players (A follower of the church) to take on some crusade.

That's off the top of my head. Really, though, players can use this to inform you of the sort of encounters they'd like. A thief player could play it to make a door trapped that they could unravel. A system like that encourages everyone in the group to work together.

My two cents, of course.

 

[hong]

Now saying "ditch the whiners" isn't an option, they're good friends of mine and we have been friends for awhile. I guess I'm just dreading the enventual talk we're going to have. It'll be civil, I'm just not the best at expressing my annoyance to me friends (which is odd cuase I'm a threapist and teach others to commnicate).

Bite the bullet, mang. If they're really friends, they won't mind some straight talk. Even if it ends in shouting, hey, there's no such thing as a relationship that's always perfectly smooth.

 

[Ry]

I have 2 house rules that help with this. One is an action point mechanic that gives the players more survivability and occasionally better control, the other is an experience mechanic that encourages players to get involved in things besides killing monsters.

I find that the net effect is players who actually want the GM to throw down something tough so they can show off how good they are at dealing with it.

 

[bento]

Bite the bullet, mang. If they're really friends, they won't mind some straight talk. Even if it ends in shouting, hey, there's no such thing as a relationship that's always perfectly smooth.

That's right - they're people just like you with a lot invested in the game. Put yourself on the other side of the screen. What would YOU want the GM to do if you changed places? Probably have a heart-to-heart talk about the underlying friction in the game.

Something I instituted in my games is finishing up a few minutes early and spending ten to fifteen minutes in a de-briefing. Allow players to give you feedback on what they liked, disliked, would change and wants more of. Just be sure to let them talk and you listen - I mean by this is not interrupting them with "but" or other interjections. You build trust by letting them air their opinions without fear of getting beat down for it.

Part of this time should be a discussion on group communications. Does everyone at the table have the same committment? Is someone joking too much? Is there a minority of the group that's being a little too whiny?

This debriefing is also your opportunity to bring up your concerns. Just be sure to put it in a way that's not picking. Frame it in a way of "I think I could kick it up a notch as a GM if we could agree to ___. That would help me focus on making ____ more fun by not worrying over ____."

Another thing you might find out is some players might have their energy flagging halfway through and gets cranky due to lack of food or little sleep the night before. You'll discover quite a few things at these talks that people wouldn't usually bring up at the beginning of the night.

I'm also a firm believer in having a Social Contract in place. If you've been playing for a while this may be a little hard to do so I'd think hard about it before doing, but its something to consider next time.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

Hunh. I guess someone failed their "Detect Sarcasm" check.

After the LARP campaign where a player ended up hospitalised due to a remark made in character, I tend to take that kind of comment fairly seriously.

 

[Chimera]

The complaining is getting to me, it's getting to the point where I'm not having fun, and I sometimes have thoughts of just saying "screw it" and quiting the campaign. I have anxiety before the games thinking "gee is this encounter going set the complaners off?". I said no to a feat cause I thought it was too abusive given the character build. I heard about it all night.

This is your key, right here. You need to communicate this.

You need to let them know that you aren't having fun anymore, that you've considered dumping the campaign. That their harsh adversarial tone and constant complaining are the root cause of all this. Maybe they don't realize how negative they sound.

If they don't change their behavior, then I might suggest ending a session early when they get too bad with it. Just tell them that you think things have gone too far (or that you're getting a serious headache from it) and you want to stop at that point before anything more is said. Pack up and go home - or if you're hosting, put everything away and invite people to stay for a movie or to talk, but be firm about the game being over for the night.

The good people will GET IT.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I prefer a non-adverserial relationship as well, both as a player and as a DM.

It seems to me that the best way to be non-adverserial is to say yes to fun. You say that this campaign is harder than some of the players are used to, but then you deny a feat as too powerful. The message your players may be getting is that you are the one who wants to keep them from "winning" too easily. Sometimes players want to be good at something. Realy really good. And then be allowed to actually do it. Sometimes players want to be ale to set up for a fight and make it a cakewalk through planning, instead of life being an endless cycle of hoping to eliminate the other guys' suprise round.

How do you respond to questions in the form of "Is there any way to...?" "Is there an X I can use to...?" "Do we know anyone who could...?" If your response is to check the module and only say yes if its mentioned as a specific possibility, this could be encouraging the adverserial mindset. If they can influence the plot in very small ways (and allowing an idea to be plausible* is a good one, imo) they are more likely to see themselves as partners in the story rather than players trying to beat you.

* plausible meaning that the tools needed are at hand, not that it will neccassarily work. If there is an old tapestry to slide down, you still need to make a jump or tumble check to land on your feet.

Also, in my expereince, modules lead to adverserial thinking because they are so level based. Sometimes you want to wipe something out to show you now can. And the whole "there is one way to solve this problem and if you try another way it will fail" thing that many have going. (Bastion of Broken Souls, I'm looking at you!)

 

[Jin_Kataki]

If their tactical plans verge on metagaming then somethign should be done yea, but also it is not like the PC's are allowed to know the tactical plans of the NPC's so why should the person playing the NPC's know the players tactical plans.

 

[shilsen]

It is not like the PC's are allowed to know the tactical plans of the NPC's so why should the person playing the NPC's know the players tactical plans.

You really don't see a difference? The person playing the NPCs is adjudicating things at the table while the people running the PCs are not. So the DM should know what the players are doing in order to be appropriately prepared to make rulings on various issues. Now if the DM takes what he knows and has the NPCs benefit from it even though they wouldn't know it, that's a different problem altogether.

 

[S'mon]

You really don't see a difference? The person playing the NPCs is adjudicating things at the table while the people running the PCs are not. So the DM should know what the players are doing in order to be appropriately prepared to make rulings on various issues. Now if the DM takes what he knows and has the NPCs benefit from it even though they wouldn't know it, that's a different problem altogether.

I generally find it only hurts the players if the GM doesn't know what the players are trying to achieve. If I as GM know what they want, I can help them get it! They're the heroes, they're supposed to win, right? If the GM is regularly 'winning' the fights then there's something wrong, IMO.