Table Dynamics: Fostering Collaboration

[Wolfpack48]

So one of the things I've had struggles with in our group is getting players to talk with each other and to strategize together. Often, each player is a miniature silo telling me what each is doing without any interaction or cooperation with other players. Pretty frustrating, especially when I am trying to get a general idea of the approach they are going to take with some tactical or sensitive situation ahead. One of the players tends to dominate the proceedings, and he often makes bad decisions. Any tips?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Yeah, this is certainly a issue at many tables. I have seen it tons, so you are not alone.

Here are a few things I have tried to foster players to engage with each other =

- Give the current "Problem" they are facing Clear and Well Defined sub-parts which are clearly tied to different characters. That way each person gets a chance to solve a pieces of the Problem, and no one person can fail or succeed at the whole Problem. This may require auto-failing characters who try to do a portion of the Problem not meant for them - BUT allow them to AID the character that portion was set for.

- Use a house rule mechanic of "helper tokens". So players can gain Helper Token by roleplaying with other player characters in character. And they can spend the token to help someone with their roll (however the system you are using needs bonuses or re-rolls or whatever). I give a list of setting situations that players can roleplay together to earn the token: go party, go have date/sex, go debate/discuss a non-plot related backstory lore or philosophy, go celebrate someone's life/victory/achievement, go build a side-plot tool/macguffin together, etc etc

- Make the 'Problem player" only able to obtain their desired goal/item - by way of helping another player achieve a goal of theirs (but DONT TELL them this is how they get it). This will teach players a little foundation of selfless assistance. It feels like awesome bonuses and extra goodies when they find out that they get a thing they want after doing someone else's side-quest. This means you need to give players personal quests that only appear to apply to them, and that they really want so they go do it. And the first time everyone else see's a helper get a goodie for helping, they may all do so more often.

- Don't punish players for demanding their solutions are the ones being used. They are really just desperate to solve the problem, and overly zealous about it. Make the problem one they are clearly un-equipped to handle or address, make the problem too messy for one idea to work, make the problem happen when they are not around... but don't punish them when they step up. It can create frustration and resentment.

 

[Wolfpack48]

You just gave me a great idea. Dragonbane awards bonus XP checks for each of the following questions (each session):

• Did you participate in the game session?
• Did you explore a new location?
• Did you defeat one or more dangerous adversaries?
• Did you overcome an obstacle without using force?
• Did you give in to your weakness (optional rule)?

I think I'll add one more:

• Did you roleplay or collaborate with other characters in your party to strategize as a team or assist in other team goals?

I'll stipulate that this means cooperative play, not barking orders at each other.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Just as aside....

IMHO... I am strongly not a fan of the following three XP checks various games have =

• Did you participate in the game session?
• Did you explore a new location?
• Did you defeat one or more dangerous adversaries?

Participation is automatic, this punishes players who had to deal with family or work or other issues that kept them away from the game that night...

Not every game session explores a new location, that's just frustrating to not have a chance at XP at that point...

Not every game session has a adversary to defeat, and this undermines the "overcome without using force"...sometimes the plot is what it is, and its no fun to be losing XP over what isn't available or functional

Instead.... I use =

• Did you use your class ability or theme to address a problem?
• Did you learn something new about the setting, lore, or other player character?
• Did you express your character's ideals, principles, or oaths? (bonus if you were challenged and doubted them)

it's not a big deal, but I find the above three create much more engagement, and can be done every single game session even if it was only combat or social or explore or whatever...

 

[KYRON45]

Is this a behavioral issue or are they not understanding how cooperative games are played?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Is this a behavioral issue or are they not understanding how cooperative games are played?

Oh, it's definitely a behavioral issue.

 

[TiQuinn]

Oh, it's definitely a behavioral issue.

You may need to elaborate with some specific examples. I can't tell if this is just hesitancy to speak up during games since there's at least one player who is making themselves the defacto "speaker", if it's because they're new to TTRPGs, or if it's because they're more accustomed to tactical games or board games that don't require teamwork. For instance, if this is a behavioral issue, what if this is simply the way they like to play?

 

[Wolfpack48]

You may need to elaborate with some specific examples. I can't tell if this is just hesitancy to speak up during games since there's at least one player who is making themselves the defacto "speaker", if it's because they're new to TTRPGs, or if it's because they're more accustomed to tactical games or board games that don't require teamwork. For instance, if this is a behavioral issue, what if this is simply the way they like to play?

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.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Just as aside....

IMHO... I am strongly not a fan of the following three XP checks various games have =

• Did you participate in the game session?
• Did you explore a new location?
• Did you defeat one or more dangerous adversaries?

Participation is automatic, this punishes players who had to deal with family or work or other issues that kept them away from the game that night...

Not every game session explores a new location, that's just frustrating to not have a chance at XP at that point...

Not every game session has a adversary to defeat, and this undermines the "overcome without using force"...sometimes the plot is what it is, and its no fun to be losing XP over what isn't available or functional

Instead.... I use =

• Did you use your class ability or theme to address a problem?
• Did you learn something new about the setting, lore, or other player characters?
• Did you express your character's ideals, principles, or oaths? (bonus if you were challenged and doubted them)

it's not a big deal, but I find the above three create much more engagement, and can be done every single game session even if it was only combat or social or explore or whatever...

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?

 

[Lanefan]

So one of the things I've had struggles with in our group is getting players to talk with each other and to strategize together. Often, each player is a miniature silo telling me what each is doing without any interaction or cooperation with other players. Pretty frustrating, especially when I am trying to get a general idea of the approach they are going to take with some tactical or sensitive situation ahead. One of the players tends to dominate the proceedings, and he often makes bad decisions. Any tips?

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.