Table Dynamics: Fostering Collaboration

[KYRON45]

Oh, it's definitely a behavioral issue.

Are we talking people on the spectrum or just strange behavior?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Are we talking people on the spectrum or just strange behavior?

Nah, just a grumpy and overbearing old git.

 

[payn]

I find sometimes the best way to get through to the players is to show them instead of tell them. If they are on an adventure, have their NPC benefactors be part of a group that leads them through a situation piece by piece. Each step of the way the NPCs do what you;d like the PCs to do. Make sure that this is a total tag along situation, but give as many hints between setting the PCs out on their own as possible.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I like those edits. Are you thinking the one I bolded in your quote would cover the situation I've posted, or is that new one I'm thinking of getting at the cooperation goal?

I think your suggested XP trigger is great, you should use it.
"Did you roleplay or collaborate with other characters in your party to strategize as a team or assist in other team goals?"

Yours mentions cooperation, so you can fold it into the one I suggested with learning something new, or keep them separate. I see value both ways.

 

[payn]

My tip: just let it run!

Parties like that - and I'm ve-e-ery well acquainted with such - are the best! As DM I don't get frustrated in the least. Instead I just let them do what they're gonna do, sit back and neutrally rule on things if-when needed, and let the game rules sort it from there; and if some of them die because of their lack of co-ordination then so be it.

I'm not usually too concerned with knowing ahead of time what their approach might be to any given situation, in large part because I know full well that while they can plan all they like, odds are whatever plan they make goes straight out the window as soon as anyone starts actually doing anything.

I'm also very familiar with the one dominant player making bad decisions set-up, and again my answer is let it run. Sooner or later the other players will come to realize they're being led into bad spot after bad spot and will - one hopes - take a more assertive role in making sure it doesn't happen again. And if they're not willing to be assertive, IMO that's on them.

I wouldnt listen to any of this. I was in a similar situation and as a new player in a new group I was feeling out the boundaries. I didnt want to rock the boat at first becasue I wanst sure if it would pass or if a regular thing was being set up here. I finally worked up the nerve to address OOC at the end of a session. It ended up going pretty well. The seasoned player was used to being the decision leader/maker in their past groups, which were all passive. We ended up becoming good friends and mutual respected gamers. Though, I was ready for things to go sideways and preparing to leave the group as it was starting to impact my enjoyment. The idea things work themselves out in game is no solution at all to out of game problems.

 

[KYRON45]

Nah, just a grumpy and overbearing old git.

In that case; I think you know what to do.
It involves the lamentation of women and all that.

 

[TiQuinn]

Sure.

Two of the players are veteran role-players and the defacto "speaker" is one of them. They both understand well at least the concept of cooperative play, but the "speaker" pretty much dictates all tactical operations. He doesn't talk to other players, only to the GM. Of the other players, one is a complete noobie, and the other is relatively new, but understands well roleplaying and cooperative play. The speaker is definitely an old wargamer at heart and wants exact measurements of the height of the wall, how many feet exactly something away is, etc, etc. I always joke that he needs a holodeck in order to envision any scene, though we do use battlemaps.

I think he thinks because he's the tactician that he needs to "lead" even though I have to say some of the tactical advice isn't necessarily good. In any case, I'd love if the players talked out how they were going to proceed, made a decision as a group so that I don't feel like it's one guy playing the game, and everyone else tagging along.

One other thing to mention: we have a long rectangular table, and 3 of the players sit on the long sides, while the "speaker" sits at the end opposite me. I have thought about asking everyone to take up the side positions on the table, so that the "speaker" doesn't feel like he has some kind of personal connection and sway with the GM from the position opposite on the table.

I think one thing that can help is change the way you run the game by asking direct questions of each player about what they're going to do, ending with the leader. Engage them individually, and get them used to speaking up for what they want their PC to do. Similarly, when the speaker player comes up with an idea, put it back onto the rest of the party. You've indicated the speaker often doesn't make the right call. Give them a freebie the next time the speaker comes up with an idea that you know is not going to work out, but put the control back with the players:

"Do the rest of you agree with this plan? Is that really what you want to do? Maybe you folks want to talk it out amongst yourselves a little bit more."

You can even just be direct about it. You can say something to the effect of "I'd like to hear some more ideas from everyone at the table. I know Player X is willing to offer up the ideas for the group, but I'm not really seeing very much enthusiasm or engagement from the rest of you. If you're going to coordinate your plans, that's fine, but remember your character is your character." This might rub Player X, the speaker, the wrong way, but if this is an issue for your enjoyment, you can speak up since you are a player at that table too.

I would suggest doing this a few times, and if they don't pick up on it, you have a choice to let it drop or maybe find a different game, if it's really that much of an issue for you. Ultimately, you can't force someone to play a way they don't want to play. But sometimes, it's just about starting the ball rolling downhill to start a change, and you won't know til you try.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I think one thing that can help is change the way you run the game by asking direct questions of each player about what they're going to do, ending with the leader. Engage them individually, and get them used to speaking up for what they want their PC to do.

Oh I do this as standard practice. And everyone does give me their actions which works fine in most cases. But there are times between action scenes or when prepping for something upcoming that I’d like to see the group to coordinate or at least talk to each other. It’s the difference between constant silod actions and (sometimes silo + sometimes group planning).

Similarly, when the speaker player comes up with an idea, put it back onto the rest of the party. You've indicated the speaker often doesn't make the right call. Give them a freebie the next time the speaker comes up with an idea that you know is not going to work out, but put the control back with the players:

"Do the rest of you agree with this plan? Is that really what you want to do? Maybe you folks want to talk it out amongst yourselves a little bit more."

You can even just be direct about it. You can say something to the effect of "I'd like to hear some more ideas from everyone at the table. I know Player X is willing to offer up the ideas for the group, but I'm not really seeing very much enthusiasm or engagement from the rest of you. If you're going to coordinate your plans, that's fine, but remember your character is your character." This might rub Player X, the speaker, the wrong way, but if this is an issue for your enjoyment, you can speak up since you are a player at that table too.

I would suggest doing this a few times, and if they don't pick up on it, you have a choice to let it drop or maybe find a different game, if it's really that much of an issue for you. Ultimately, you can't force someone to play a way they don't want to play. But sometimes, it's just about starting the ball rolling downhill to start a change, and you won't know til you try.

Good call. I think we’re going to chat before our next session about group dynamics in general, how folks want to play their characters individually and how we might call for group discussion as opposed to the loudest voice in the room. I’ll mediate as much as I can.

 

[bloodtide]

The first, easy answer is simply: Game with better players.

My method is by having an Unfair, Unbalanced Harsh Hard Fun world were characters can die very often....unless they work together.

 

[Committed Hero]

The rule of fun applies here; if everyone is enjoying themselves, you are playing right. But if lack of collaboration is harming your experience, you are part of the group and your expectations are worth as much as the next player:

"One of the things I want you to do is play collaboratively and hear out each other's ideas."