Why players misbehave (from a teacher's perspective)

[BookTenTiger]

Not true in my experience. I only play with adults who act like mature, responsible adults. Expectations are clearly communicated, differences of opinion are respectfully voiced/heard, snd in the very rare event of a real disagreement, it can usually be handled in private.

Any player who continues disruptive behavior past the frank discussion phase is simply no longer a part of the group.

I work a lot of hours every week and I’m glad I’m in the situation where I can take a half day a week to enjoy this hobby. I have no desire to spend any of it teaching someone how to behave like an adult.

I think we may be defining misbehavior as two different things. To me, a misbehavior is a disruption to the flow of the game. It's everything from a player checking their phone during the game (which I am guilty of), to someone not looking up the rules of their own character, to disagreements on rulings between the GM and players. These things happen because we are human beings gathering together to play the game, and they happen no matter the maturity of those involved.

The most obvious misbehaviors are the ones that bring the game to a screeching halt: the tantrum, the racism, the cheating, etc. That's a whole other level of misbehavior that is often solved by controlling who you play with. These ideas are more for when the husband of the paladin wants to join in, but refuses to read the rules.

It is absolutely not the GM's responsibility to teach new behaviors, give therapeutic advice, or manage etiquette. However, for those looking for tips and tricks on how to help curb these behaviors at the table, I thought this listing would be useful.

I mean, we do have a 28 page thread right now called As a Player, why do you play in games you haven't bought into?. So, I think this is a topic GM's and other players would be interested in!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think we may be defining misbehavior as two different things. To me, a misbehavior is a disruption to the flow of the game. It's everything from a player checking their phone during the game (which I am guilty of), to someone not looking up the rules of their own character, to disagreements on rulings between the GM and players. These things happen because we are human beings gathering together to play the game, and they happen no matter the maturity of those involved.

I think these are all only problems if they significantly impact the enjoyment of the game for other people. I had a player once who never read up their spells before using them, and this slowed play down considerably, so at a certain point we had to tell them to either not play spell casters or to memorize the rules for their spells better. Generally though, I think looking at your players like a classroom of children is probably not a wise starting point. A GM has a different role than the other players at the table, and with that does come some authority over rules and setting, but I would be very uncomfortable treating my players like that (like it is my responsibility to help them cultivate better behavior). Perhaps you are saying something different and I am getting hung up on the classroom analogy. By all means if there is conflict between players that ought to be resolved. But the closest I see to that in my games is good natured chop busting. Where I have seen issues, and where I think the GM does have a responsibility to step in, is when expectations of play style are not aligned (a good example would be 2 people believing inter party conflict is on the table and 2 people not believing that---that kind of gulf has to be squared or you will have issues). But I am a bit with JD that these are adults so I am not really there to fix them.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think these are all only problems if they significantly impact the enjoyment of the game for other people. I had a player once who never read up their spells before using them, and this slowed play down considerably, so at a certain point we had to tell them to either not play spell casters or to memorize the rules for their spells better. Generally though, I think looking at your players like a classroom of children is probably not a wise starting point. A GM has a different role than the other players at the table, and with that does come some authority over rules and setting, but I would be very uncomfortable treating my players like that (like it is my responsibility to help them cultivate better behavior). Perhaps you are saying something different and I am getting hung up on the classroom analogy. By all means if there is conflict between players that ought to be resolved. But the closest I see to that in my games is good natured chop busting. Where I have seen issues, and where I think the GM does have a responsibility to step in, is when expectations of play style are not aligned (a good example would be 2 people believing inter party conflict is on the table and 2 people not believing that---that kind of gulf has to be squared or you will have issues). But I am a bit with JD that these are adults so I am not really there to fix them.

Well I did warn you this is from a teacher perspective.

If I were an engineer this would probably be "Why players misbehave (from an engineer's perspective)" and I'd be comparing everyone to, I don't know, levers and circuits.

I feel like asking a player to track initiative or describe a scene is hardly treating them like a child. And most of this advice is what in the classroom is called proactive discipline. It means doing the work before the lesson to make sure the needs of the students are met. I think GMs already do a lot of proactive work, this is just advice for GMs who want to help their tables run more smoothly!

 

[Shiroiken]

I suspect there's probably a tonal difference, as well, if the guy you don't game with anymore actually got "upset." People react less well to anger/snark than they do to a reasonably kind reminder. I have a bit of a tendency to remember people's abilities, myself, though I try more to predict them than to control them.

Tone definitely make a difference, as "hey, a fireball right here would be great!" is much better received than "why the @#$@^ did you cast magic missile that didn't kill anything?" Frequency was more of what I was going for, although I didn't present it well. I might do this once every dozen or so sessions (as I try very hard to restrain myself), while the other guy did it multiple times per session. He even got upset at the DM when we started 5E, because he felt his charismatic should roll every Cha check with advantage in social situations (per the working together rules), even though he never had his character participate (he hated RP), simply because he had the best modifier.

 

[prabe]

Tone definitely make a difference, as "hey, a fireball right here would be great!" is much better received than "why the @#$@^ did you cast magic missile that didn't kill anything?" Frequency was more of what I was going for, although I didn't present it well. I might do this once every dozen or so sessions (as I try very hard to restrain myself), while the other guy did it multiple times per session. He even got upset at the DM when we started 5E, because he felt his charismatic should roll every Cha check with advantage in social situations (per the working together rules), even though he never had his character participate (he hated RP), simply because he had the best modifier.

Frequency would also make a difference, I agree. Once every few sessions is more likely to be palatable than a few times every session, even if the tone is relatively pleasant. When I go past predicting (which I usually try to keep to myself and use only to inform my own decisions) to advising, I try to couch it as reminder or a suggestion, depending on the situation; if someone has truly wrong-footed me, I might mention it later and ask what they were thinking.

 

[Scott Christian]

I feel this is a well reasoned theory. As a teacher, this post literally feels like reading a classroom management book.

But, unlike the classroom we do not need to accept everyone. I feel most problems that do occur spring forth out of miscommunication, unclear expectations, or people not gelling personally. There is little that can be done about the third, but the other two can be improved upon.

I have also run the D&D club at high school, and I can tell you their problems generally originate outside the game. The consternation caused at a D&D table about breakups, who's whose best friend, social status decline or incline, etc. is real. But that is the nature of growing up.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

A good thread, and I am enjoying the "teacher's perspective."

I'm considering it relation to the group I am currently running for and there is some very useful advice here. The group is especially suffering from talking out of turn and and inattention. We go back to face to face to face gaming as of next week and I'm going to assign some players some jobs (initiative tracking & map set-up sound great!) and encourage more character to character dialogue.

 

[uzirath]

I, too, have found this thread interesting. Although I've been lucky to have rock-solid adult groups for the past decade or so, I have certainly had problem players in the past and I often observe middle-school gamers behaving in all sorts of obnoxious ways. (I am a middle school teacher.)

The framework mentioned in the OP reminds me of the Developmental Designs approach that we use at my school. The program identifies four primary needs for adolescents: autonomy, competence, relationship, and fun. Student engagement increases when activities meet those needs.

I sometimes think about this as a game master, too. Players want to have freedom to explore and have an impact on the fictional world (autonomy). They want to understand the rules, to at least a minimal degree, and play a character who can be competent in a few areas. They want to engage with the people around the table (or the Zoom), feeling respected and appreciated (relationship). And, of course, everyone's goal is to have fun.

Sometimes if a game gets off-track, I think about whether I can boost any of those elements.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I feel like asking a player to track initiative or describe a scene is hardly treating them like a child.

Yeah, it is. If you have players who are so disruptive that you have to change you GM style just to keep them in line, you have players who are not right for the table.

The best way to prevent problems in RPGs is management of expectations, which is done at the very assembly of a GM and players. If everyone at the table has the same general expectation, the activity will be a success, whether it is a RPG campaign or a casual basketball game.

If you have one player who games, as has been noted, to break campaigns, or thinks harassing other players is funny, or gets bored and disruptive unless you are in combat (or when in combat) you have failed to manage expectations, and the solution is to eject the offender. Changing expectations is unlikely.

Your approach is colored by the fact that you get students thrust upon you, and must make the best of it. A GM, however, chooses who plays at their table, and should exercise great care in ensuring that expectations of all involved are broadly similar.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yeah, it is. If you have players who are so disruptive that you have to change you GM style just to keep them in line, you have players who are not right for the table.

The best way to prevent problems in RPGs is management of expectations, which is done at the very assembly of a GM and players. If everyone at the table has the same general expectation, the activity will be a success, whether it is a RPG campaign or a casual basketball game.

If you have one player who games, as has been noted, to break campaigns, or thinks harassing other players is funny, or gets bored and disruptive unless you are in combat (or when in combat) you have failed to manage expectations, and the solution is to eject the offender. Changing expectations is unlikely.

Your approach is colored by the fact that you get students thrust upon you, and must make the best of it. A GM, however, chooses who plays at their table, and should exercise great care in ensuring that expectations of all involved are broadly similar.

Cool, doesn't look like you have much use for this thread. Have a great day!