Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jim Hague" data-source="post: 2944085" data-attributes="member: 17550">And over time, can ruin a campaign.&nbsp; Or poison a work environment.&nbsp; Spoil a club.&nbsp; Any of a number of social activities can be set askew if not outright destroyed by one person, or several, for that matter, who bring a nasty, non-cooperative attitude to the table.&nbsp; You want proof?&nbsp; Pick up some studies on sociology and behavioral psych.Well, let's see - exploiting an unbalanced advantage and initiating hostilities in a situation that you know the other PCs can't handle, check.&nbsp; He's being a jerk.&nbsp; Being a jerk and hiding behind the classic saw of &quot;'I'm only playing my character!&quot; is fairly typical of folks who're only concerned with their own fun.You were all immature, therefore that was the expectation at the table.&nbsp; I doubt that if you took your 10 year-old self and sat him down at a table today the behavior that was accepted back then would be acceptable among a group of deep-immersion roleplayers now; children of that age simply do not possess the emotional maturity of adults.&nbsp; Sadly, it seems, our hobby also attracts those who haven't developed that same emotional maturity as adults.Google up some information on social contract; it could be educational.&nbsp; Some reading up on management theory in the workplace is also pretty useful, as are the dozens of sites, blogs and other material regarding GMing online.People game to have fun.&nbsp; A gaming group, presumably, wants to have fun as a group.&nbsp; When you have a player being selfish and immature, that can spoil a campaign.&nbsp; As for being the &quot;sole authority&quot;...ah, no.&nbsp; While Quas hasn't expressed the opinions of his players, it seems pretty likely they weren't too thrilled by this one player's asinine behavior either.So which is it - kill the characters or allow free-roam?&nbsp; You're contradicting yourself here.&nbsp; Forge-esque game theory really doesn't have any bearing here, other than to use important-sounding phrases like &quot;gamist&quot; and &quot;simulationist&quot; and &quot;storyteller&quot;; they're without inherent meaning and used out of context.That's a good point - however it's pretty clear from Quas example that the player(s) in question were plainly dissatisfied and acted in an immature manner, essentially throwing a fit when things didn't go their way.&nbsp; It's &quot;acting out&quot; in the worst possible manner, by being selfish and deciding that others' fun isn't as important as theirs.&nbsp; In many cases, that acting out is exacerbated by a GM who isn't willing to assert their authority and ensure that everyone has a good time; they're usually frustrated by the point that things are out of control that they don't act rationally.&nbsp; It's nonetheless incumbent on the players, who're participating in a group activity, to not act like naughty schholchildren.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jim Hague, post: 2944085, member: 17550"] And over time, can ruin a campaign. Or poison a work environment. Spoil a club. Any of a number of social activities can be set askew if not outright destroyed by one person, or several, for that matter, who bring a nasty, non-cooperative attitude to the table. You want proof? Pick up some studies on sociology and behavioral psych. Well, let's see - exploiting an unbalanced advantage and initiating hostilities in a situation that you know the other PCs can't handle, check. He's being a jerk. Being a jerk and hiding behind the classic saw of "'I'm only playing my character!" is fairly typical of folks who're only concerned with their own fun. You were all immature, therefore that was the expectation at the table. I doubt that if you took your 10 year-old self and sat him down at a table today the behavior that was accepted back then would be acceptable among a group of deep-immersion roleplayers now; children of that age simply do not possess the emotional maturity of adults. Sadly, it seems, our hobby also attracts those who haven't developed that same emotional maturity [i]as[/i] adults. Google up some information on social contract; it could be educational. Some reading up on management theory in the workplace is also pretty useful, as are the dozens of sites, blogs and other material regarding GMing online. People game to have fun. A gaming group, presumably, wants to have fun as a group. When you have a player being selfish and immature, that can spoil a campaign. As for being the "sole authority"...ah, no. While Quas hasn't expressed the opinions of his players, it seems pretty likely they weren't too thrilled by this one player's asinine behavior either. So which is it - kill the characters or allow free-roam? You're contradicting yourself here. Forge-esque game theory really doesn't have any bearing here, other than to use important-sounding phrases like "gamist" and "simulationist" and "storyteller"; they're without inherent meaning and used out of context. That's a good point - [i]however[/i] it's pretty clear from Quas example that the player(s) in question were plainly dissatisfied and acted in an immature manner, essentially throwing a fit when things didn't go [i]their[/i] way. It's "acting out" in the worst possible manner, by being selfish and deciding that others' fun isn't as important as theirs. In many cases, that acting out is exacerbated by a GM who isn't willing to assert their authority and ensure that everyone has a good time; they're usually frustrated by the point that things are out of control that they don't act rationally. It's nonetheless incumbent on the players, who're participating in a group activity, to not act like naughty schholchildren. [/QUOTE]

Verification