Quitting a group & starting anew..ground rules?

[fusangite]

Perhaps you might feel uncomfortable about having an ex-con in your house, and that's all good. I have children and would also think twice about who I let in my house. However, there are 2 things I'd like to point out..

1. He didn't HAVE to mention it to you on the application. The only people he/she has to inform is an employer, land lord, or neighbors. Being honest usually indicates that the aforementioned person probably isn't too bad of a guy.
2. You posted it here as though it was an obvious statement that this person shouldn't be allowed to game with you. That's pretty discriminatory, and you might have missed out on a decent gamer. High and mighty attitudes like that can really steer interest away from our hobby.

This is a great, even-handed statement I'd like to commend.

 

[DonTadow]

This is a non-existent binary. Your idea is premised on the idea that one needs a set of written rules to weed out those who are debilitatingly socially challenged. I think meeting people for coffee for half an hour sometime before they show up at your home is not only less obtrusive; it's more effective in finding people likely to be socially disruptive.

How many times have we heard, gee he was such a nice and quiet neighbor. How many times is it always the guy you've had lunch with a dozen times. How come its always the guy at the bar whom ordered up another round with you. I am sorry, but I you can not judge a character in a casual 30 minute coffee break. IF people could, there'd be no need for second dates. Now, if you verbally ask questions similar that in the 30 minutes, is that not more evasive than having it on a peace of paper. At least having them written down, it doesnt sound like you're talking directly to that person. When their written down you get more of a sense that its a form and that these questions are not personal attacks at you. Now, if someone sat me down for coffee and asked me these questions point blank like its written, I could see myself being offended. But a nice form or application makes it very routine.

But, now that I think about it, perhaps I am swayed because I am a journalist by trade. I don't have a problem asking people tough questions in my personal or work life. My train of thought is that if you have nothing to hide there should be no offense taken.

 

[fusangite]

How many times have we heard, gee he was such a nice and quiet neighbor.

You know what? If someone can fool me into believing they are a nice affable guy for a whole two year campaign, that's just fine. As long as the noises in their head don't bother me, no harm.

However, what really baffles me here is that you are proposing that a set of published rules saying "No serial killers" is more effective at screening out serial killers than a pre-game interview. Your job, in this thread, is not to illustrate that my strategy for screening out problem players is imperfect; your job, if you want to make your point, is to demonstrate that your method is more effective than mine is.

I am sorry, but I you can not judge a character in a casual 30 minute coffee break.

I am arguing that my method is better at keeping nutcases away than yours, not that I have some form of easily-teachable telepathy.

Now, if you verbally ask questions similar that in the 30 minutes, is that not more evasive than having it on a peace of paper.

No. You garner more information about someone's social and psychological nature from an interpersonal interaction than you do by having them read a list of rules and then fill out a form.

At least having them written down, it doesnt sound like you're talking directly to that person.

Ummmm... why is it bad to sound like you're talking directly to the person to whom you are talking directly?

When their written down you get more of a sense that its a form and that these questions are not personal attacks at you.

But only socially dysfunctional people would feel more secure about starting a long-term social relationship (which is what gaming is) based on a form and set of rules than starting one based on a productive and enjoyable meeting over a warm or cold beverage.

Now, if someone sat me down for coffee and asked me these questions point blank like its written, I could see myself being offended.

But nobody is proposing to do that. Strawman alert. What I propose is having a nice free-flowing conversation comparing gaming tastes and social styles.

But a nice form or application makes it very routine.

There is nothing routine about filling out a form to participate in a social activity located in someone's home. Name another in-home social activity for which people are routinely asked to fill out forms.

But, now that I think about it, perhaps I am swayed because I am a journalist by trade.

I have a bunch of journalist friends. They seem to have pretty mainstream ideas about social interaction. They also have a clear sense of people's on-record and off-record selves. The off-record self is a lot harder to conceal in a coffee date than on a form.

I don't have a problem asking people tough questions in my personal or work life.

But you have already credited that if someone asked the questions/stated the rules on the form, people would not be out of line in feeling offended. I don't understand what your position is here.

My train of thought is that if you have nothing to hide there should be no offense taken.

I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Have you ever penetrated an ungulate? You shouldn't be offended. After all, you have nothing to hide.

 

[Hypersmurf]

:ff track:: is there a book of d and d jokes?

Try here.

-Hyp.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Fortunately, I haven't had a problem with this... I've been gaming with the same group of guys for about the last ten years or so. We don't get to game that often (one session every other Saturday, except if that Saturday falls too close to a 'family' holiday), but we have marathon gaming sessions (start at noon on Saturday, end at about two to four am on Sunday).

Sure, there's the occassional argument about the rules, but we're all adults, and we're all friends... The arguement goes on for a bit, and then the DM, whoever that happens to be at the time, puts a stop to it whenever he's had enough. We use various methods to do this. Mine involves cursing and smacking people. And then we go on our merry way, none the worse for wear.

Some of us are smokers, some of us are not. In general, the non-smokers try to be considerate to the smokers, by allowing for breaks to smoke, kibbitz, whatever... And the smokers try to be considerate to the non-smokers by not smoking in someone's house unless asked to do so and by not complaining about the fact that they haven't had a cigarette for the last four hours.

Since we're all friends, we don't have to worry about someone being 'kicked out' of the group. We have our differences, and there are a few guys that don't like some of the campaigns that are run. but we work with each other... Player B has to leave early, because his wife is a shrew, we'll play DM A's campaign until he leaves, and then switch to DM C's campaign, because player B doesn't have a character for that anyway.

So... really, we have just a very few rules... Don't be a butt-hole. Clean up after yourself. Keep in touch. about covers them.

Later
silver

 

[DonTadow]

You know what? If someone can fool me into believing they are a nice affable guy for a whole two year campaign, that's just fine. As long as the noises in their head don't bother me, no harm.

However, what really baffles me here is that you are proposing that a set of published rules saying "No serial killers" is more effective at screening out serial killers than a pre-game interview. Your job, in this thread, is not to illustrate that my strategy for screening out problem players is imperfect; your job, if you want to make your point, is to demonstrate that your method is more effective than mine is.I am arguing that my method is better at keeping nutcases away than yours, not that I have some form of easily-teachable telepathy.No. You garner more information about someone's social and psychological nature from an interpersonal interaction than you do by having them read a list of rules and then fill out a form.Ummmm... why is it bad to sound like you're talking directly to the person to whom you are talking directly?But only socially dysfunctional people would feel more secure about starting a long-term social relationship (which is what gaming is) based on a form and set of rules than starting one based on a productive and enjoyable meeting over a warm or cold beverage.But nobody is proposing to do that. Strawman alert. What I propose is having a nice free-flowing conversation comparing gaming tastes and social styles.There is nothing routine about filling out a form to participate in a social activity located in someone's home. Name another in-home social activity for which people are routinely asked to fill out forms.I have a bunch of journalist friends. They seem to have pretty mainstream ideas about social interaction. They also have a clear sense of people's on-record and off-record selves. The off-record self is a lot harder to conceal in a coffee date than on a form.But you have already credited that if someone asked the questions/stated the rules on the form, people would not be out of line in feeling offended. I don't understand what your position is here.I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. Have you ever penetrated an ungulate? You shouldn't be offended. After all, you have nothing to hide.

But, as previously stated, the answers are not as important as how the answers are presented. The form is there to weed out players, not by their answers, but how they put their answers. It's more of a pyschological test than an exam. However, its hard to get a pyschological test out of someone verbally. The question is not "are you a pyscopath" but what are you interests other than gaming. From that, I can get a lot from a person. They do it during job interviews all the time. There was a portion of my criminal psychology class that discussed how to word questions to determine the pyschological profile of a person and asking their interests was one of them.

 

[fusangite]

Don,

You and I will have to agree to disagree. I believe it is a self-evident truth that in person interaction gives one more interpersonal information about the individual one meets than a written survey would. You believe the opposite.

In addition, there is the question of the information one transmits through these strategies. There, I haven't seen much of an argument from you.

 

[DonTadow]

Don,

You and I will have to agree to disagree. I believe it is a self-evident truth that in person interaction gives one more interpersonal information about the individual one meets than a written survey would. You believe the opposite.

In addition, there is the question of the information one transmits through these strategies. There, I haven't seen much of an argument from you.

Yeah thats true. I hate it, we're not far off with our wants, just our methods. Hopfully we'll meet up at gencon next year for that cup of coffee . my treat

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Again, I'm glad you have never met people whom need these rules, but I"ve met more than my share whom do, and obviously so has the OP and others. If you've only gamed with close friends, I honestly don't see how anyone can contribute to this opinion because they can not fully understand the situation.

I used to game with total retards who had no sense of social graces, and the dignity of a spastic walrus with the trots. That was when I was 15. Then I came to my senses and stopped hanging around with losers. If I have to keep hitting someone over the head with a reminder not to be a total ass, it's not worth the effort to try to game with them.

Whereas we are thinking about people we don't know, strangers ect. you guys are reading the post and thinking about long time friends, gfs, and family.

Or not. Where do you get the idea that those of us who don't game with rejects and also don't have to distribute manifestos to arrange it are only gaming with our longtime bosom buddies?

I'm sorry, meeting with somone for an hour can not determine if they are socially functionable.

An hour? Try ten minutes and a few questions.

 

[fusangite]

Yeah thats true. I hate it, we're not far off with our wants, just our methods. Hopfully we'll meet up at gencon next year for that cup of coffee . my treat

Sounds good. See you in August!