Group Dynamics, Player Expectations, Different Gaming Styles

[The_Confessor]

So, I have a quandry in my local group, aka The Swedish Gaming Society is having problems and I'm at a loss of what to do. So let me give you the skinny about members of the SGS. Names have not been changed because no one (myself included) is innocent.

James (aka me): I am the primary GM among the group. I run about 90% of anything we play. I've been told I'm very good at running space opera and high adventure games. I'm a big believer in working together to create a story, and often have control issues. I want my PCs to be heroes, not self-serving neutrals or selfish evil-types. I'm a big believer in getting character histories, backgrounds, and details. I believe role-playing and storyline are far more important than mechanics. Lately I've been trying to branch out from high adventure into political and personal games. I also have a short attention span and change gears, games and moods quickly.

Emily (my live in SO): She is interested in character exploration and collective creation of a story. She hates needless combat and crunchy mechanics and doesn't want to roll dice unless its absolutely required. She's a good role-player who comes up with good character concepts. Similar to me she believes that characters should be good, unless the setting specifically dictates in its tone for something else. She very much preffers games like White Wolf over d20. As a GM, Emily is particularly skilled at political and personal games, though she has difficulty with confidence and does not believe in her ability as a storyteller despite when her players tell her otherwise.

Janet (Em & I's room mate): She preffers combat and crunchiness. She takes out her frustrations in life at the gaming table, and has a real bloodlust. She doesn't like to play good, and preffers to play neutral and would probably jump at the chance to play evil. She has difficult having faith in the Game Master and is always paranoid about "getting screwed" and because of this often does rash things that actually end up screwing her over in the first place. She does not believe in party unity and will easily go off and do her own thing, regardless of what the party is doing. Though interested in certain settings, she refuses to take the time to read the settings she likes. This can be particularly frustrating when it comes to her ability as a GM.

Paul: This gentleman does not role-play. He is interested in the rules and mechanics, but he is not a rules lawyer. He wants to try out different combinations and methods to explore the mechanic. He does not develop character concepts beyond "alignment" and "nature/demeanor", and even then - only at lip service. He always plays 'whatever the party needs,' and has a minor problem with "getting screwed," though he clearly has more faith in the game master than Janet. As a GM, Paul is very uncreative. He runs modules as they are written and writes his own games as if they were modules. He does not do well with particularly creative player ideas or when you go "off the map."

Kendall: The youngest member of the SGS, this young man never played RPGs before joining us. His exposure to RPGs came through Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, and similar games. He is young, very energetic, and precotious. He is very interested in his character and not a whole lot else. He is always trying to draw GM attention to show you "what he's doing," even when it is sitting in a chair doing nothing. He clearly wants to be the center of attention. Though ego-centric, he's not a particularly proficient role-player and always does "what his character would do," and though its not his intent to be a pain-in-the-ass, this sometimes does happen. He has yet to GM.

So basically there are five people who expect and enjoy, for the most part, completely different things at the gaming table. Most people would say "find new gamers," but its not that easy. I live in a small town and most of the gamers outside of the SGS are very focused on D&D and crunchiness specifically, with almost no interest in RPing.

I feel like each of these players wants something different from gaming, and that a common ground can't be reached. At least one person is always left out in the cold, playing in a game they're not particularly interested in.

I'm particularly frustrated with Janet, who doesn't respect GM/Player trust. This came through in two instances. I was once GMing a Star Wars game, set during the Clone Wars with all the PCs as Jedi classes. Janet, knowing this was a game that focused on all the PCs being Light Side Jedi and their conflict with the Seperatists. Janet intentionally went to the Dark Side of the Force and then asked for an oppirtunity to confront the PCs. I gave her this, thinking it might present a good RP scene. When the Jedi PCs did not kill her, but instead captured her and tried to save her, she got very very angry and soon-after quit the game. She later told me "I knew I was going to go Dark Side from the moment I got in the game. I didn't want to tell you, because I knew you'd get p-ed off."

In another incident she was running a Mage: The Ascension game when the PCs had cornered a character who was clearly a Nephandi that we had been persuing for six weeks. When the Nephandi was cornered and one of the PCs attempted to use magick to kill the body that the demon was inhabiting. We knew, by the GMs own word, that this person was possesed. When we killed the host to destroy the demon, she says, "Oh, that wasn't it." and later admitted that she didn't want the PCs to kill 'her NPC.'

This is the most difficult player in the bunch, but let me get to the others.

Kendall is a good guy. He's a fun guy. He's entertaining. But he also enjoys entertaining. He wants to be the center of attention. Often, sometimes regularly, at the expense of the other players who aren't so forth-coming with their desires for attention or their character actions. He also creates characters who, while interesting, do whatever he believes his character would do because I think the young man sees his character as "the main character" of a story, and therefore its natural that the plot would follow him.

Paul will play any game, but will not role-play. Even when told that a game is RP intensive and not oriented to stats, he'll join and then become frustrated by questions like "how does your character feel about that" or "why does your character do X?". I don't know how to confront the issue, because several times in the past when I've tried to bring it up he dodges the subject or claims that he "does role-play," when in fact he does not.

Emily is a sociology/anthropology student who is very judgmental of many fantasy RPGs because the societies are "not very realistic." This leads to a dismissive nature of many games she might otherwise enjoy, or a nit-picking of games. This can sometimes grow into a nit-picking. Also, Emily grows frustrated when she does things to carry the plot that she knows her character wouldn't do. Kind of the opposite of Kendall if you know what I mean.

Finally, there is me. My huge problem is the fact that my ideas and focus in gaming changes quickly. I typically am unable to keep interest in a chronicle for more than five sessions, though when I do my players tell me that I run great games. Despite this praise, I still can't focus. This causes my players to lose faith in me and therefore not create characters that they get into or develop an attachment to, for fear of not playing the character more than a few times. And as a GM who wants character-focused games, this is counter-productive to what I want to do as a GM.

So yeah, this is my dysfunctional RPG group and I'm going insane. Any advice, help, opinions?

[Bankuei]

Hi James,

Hmm.  At least you recognize that its not the system that's the problem here :)  Let me preface this whole thing by saying that since I don't know you, or anyone you're gaming with, I can only take some guesses based on what you're saying, so I might be unaware of some key issues...

First question:

I'm a big believer in working together to create a story, and often have control issues.

Can you clarify that?  Does that mean you have control issues as in you tend to need to control things? That would be pretty counteractive to the idea of "working together to create a story"... I would think.

Second question:

What does "working together to create a story" mean to you?  Does that mean you have a plot mostly laid out and the players need to work with you to fulfill it, not ignoring obvious plot hooks and such?  Does that mean that a player could say, "No, I'd rather do this!" and you'd adapt and roll with it(cheerfully, not "Ugh, this again...").

Third question:

Are there other resentment/control issues floating around the house between Janet, you and/or Emily?

Fourth question:

You mention that Janet knew "you'd get p-d off".  Have you gotten upset with her in regards to gaming before?  How did you express that?  Linked in to that, how do you express issues with her outside of gaming?  

Chris

[The_Confessor]

Can you clarify that? Does that mean you have control issues as in you tend to need to control things?

Basically when I prep for a game I tend to say "THIS IS THE GAME I AM RUNNING in a very lordly manner. Very specific, very precise.

What does "working together to create a story" mean to you?

Basically every game has a theme and a tone to it, and when I talk about the games I want to run before I run them, I generally give an idea of the story I'm running. "This is a Ravenloft game about attempting to deal with the redemption of a vampire," and imply a tone and a mood with that. Not an out-and-out story. Many of my players ignore this tone and mood.

Are there other resentment/control issues floating around the house between Janet, you and/or Emily?

Yes. But the gaming issues existed long before we were roommates.

Have you gotten upset with her in regards to gaming before? How did you express that? Linked in to that, how do you express issues with her outside of gaming?

No, but Janet knew the tone I was going for and the mood I'd established. She knows how important Star Wars in particular is to me. She also knew that this chronicle had been building for months.

I try to defuse problems (out of game) w/ Janet by cracking a joke. Janet does not deal well with conflict in any capcity and will often (literally) run away or blow it off by saying something vaguely defusing like "Eh, it's just me."

Ironnically, I address gaming issues from a much more "sit down and talk" serious type of conversation. I try to ask the player what they want, what I can do to make it better, and make sure they understand what I want out of a game. Basically, I try to get both sides.

[Bankuei]

Hi James,

I try to defuse problems (out of game) w/ Janet by cracking a joke. Janet does not deal well with conflict in any capcity and will often (literally) run away or blow it off by saying something vaguely defusing like "Eh, it's just me."

Does defusing the problem actually address what's going on?  Or does it shut down discussion of it?  If she doesn't do well with discussing it(which can seem confrontational, since it means facing up to real emotions), has it ever been really, discussed?

I mean, imagine this- you're playing Star Wars, and Janet decides to do an action that is clearly going to take her down the Dark Side.  You stop play, and you genuinely ask, "So exactly what do you want from this idea?  Where are you going with it?  How does this fit in with our idea of all playing Light side Jedi?"  

If you can't have a reasonable discussion based on something like that, you're pretty much stuck.  Roleplaying is imagination by means of communication... No communication = big problems.  

Now, from what you've described(as I said, there may be other factors I'm not aware of), there are two plausible things I could see happening:

1)  If you happen to be breaking trust via control issues, etc, with Janet, then her reaction would be a result of that.  From your description, I don't think that's happening, but I recognize that your description might be biased :)  If this is the case, examining your style and methods might help the situation...

2)  Janet has other issues that she's bringing to the table.  These issues may be real world issues she has with you, or not with you but you get to enjoy them just the same.  The behavior you describe is similar to when a child throws a fit- they act out of pocket for a reason, but that reason is not at all related to what the activity is, or what they "claim" is the reason(although just as often they'll refuse to produce a reason...).  This usually revolves around resentment(of anything), need for attention, need for power, etc. etc.

I don't know you, I don't know Janet, and I don't know your relationship, but as I've said, that seems to be the biggest dysfunction in regards to what you've described.  Everyone else seems like they could have decent play together, without too much effort.  

As far as your concerns about staying focused... I don't think anyone can really help you with that.  I'd recommend getting a second game group going(with some different people, as a player or as a GM) and that'll help you get your fix for different stuff.

Thoughts?

Chris

[Mandacaru]

Hi.

My view is that you may have some pretty good players hidden in there waiting to get out.

But I would question a couple of assumptions which I think are implicit in how you have written this. Warning: I've written this in a confrontational style. I don't mean to offend, there are just some things which jump out at me, and I think anyone who starts off by saying they are likely in the wrong deserves much credit for doing so. Okay? :)

To summarize interpretations of the cast, just in case any of it strikes you as true (apologies for inevitable clumsiness):

James likes a good story and good characters but likely decides in advance what the players should be doing. Since he plays with his SO and his flatmate, he really doesn't like the idea that the PC's should have squabbles - might end up taking it home. He wants a grand story but sometimes the players mess it up. He is yet to realize that he can bring in the fact that all characters, be they the real-life man in the corner shop or an RPG character, are a mixture of good things and less good things. He jumps about between games because he always finds the one he's in frustrating for these reasons.

Emily (live in SO)...is just great. Only things are that she is a bit scared of conflict in game with the people she lives with as it might come home with them and is a bit underconfident. Minor stuff. Unfortunately she has to contend with the notion that moving the plot along is more important  than playing her character.

Janet (Em & James' room mate)...has issues which she brings into the game. When she tries to play an interesting character (one who is not a saint), she gets slapped down for it and this has escalated somewhat to the point that she registers her discontent by playing in a way which she knows is game-breaking for the others, and by setting things up so the others can slap her down again, so she can feel aggrieved all over again. She doesn't buy into the multi-legged party monster idea which is assumed by some of the other players as the correct way to do things but just seems unrealistic to her. She doesn't really care about the background but is interested in the drama.

Paul...is not liked by James, as is evident in the latter's referring to him as "This gentleman". He is not a roleplayer, or at least, has yet to find roleplaying interesting. He either needs to have someone twig his interest in characters or else needs to do something else with his time, like go play with the other more gamist folk in town.

Kendall...is excellent. He wants to be involved because he's enthusiastic but he tends to overdo it sometimes. But hey he's young (and male). Unfortunately, he is playing with someone who says: "...he's not a particularly proficient role-player and always does 'what his character would do'" but doesn't realize that doing what the character would do is...ummm...roleplaying.

***

So James, it seems to me you need to look at some of your assumptions about roleplaying. You have three players who are interested in character and one who isn't. Paul, I have no suggestions, but then you might have painted an artificially gloomy picture.

But the others sound just fine, there are just a few different ideas about what is interesting and these ideas are not getting across to the others.

One person wants characters who might not be motivated by being good - my suggestion is to think of characterisation not as LoTR (utterly good, but might have the slightest charming chip on their shoulder about, say elves) but as Song of Ice and Fire or whatever the GRR Martin books are called- now there's a fantastic mess of conflicting motivations.

She also wants to split the party uup - well let her! Just read around about how that might work.

Another one wants to play out what their character would do but is enforced into a strait jacket of doing what is best for the party or something.

James...you know what, I think you've got a fine group. I don't think it's truly dysfunctional. Look at this thing you said:

"Emily grows frustrated when she does things to carry the plot that she knows her character wouldn't do."

Easy - chuck the plot out of the window, and with it your assumptions about party-play, following the plot, characters being "good" and liking one another. Then Emily can do something her character would do (not follow the big pointy plot arrows), Kendall can...erm...do what his character would do (roleplay) and Janet can...erm... do what her character would do (not be nice all the time, maybe go do something on her own).

I think you'll be just fine if you can sit down and look at what you're all doing. You can read up on different ways of playing - look at Chris' articles for a start. Maybe be radical and ask Emily or Kendall to GM. Maybe run a one-session inter-PC bloodbath as catharsis.

If you are unable to focus for long on a game, don't worry about that. If you run great short games, do that and don't feel guilty about it. It could be if you allow the players to follow their own whims more that it holds your interest for longer.

I hope this helps, James, rather than being seen as unfriendly which I fear it could. It's just a few reactions to things as I see them.

Good luck with it.

Sam.

[John Burdick]

James,

My first thought on reading that you frequently change games and genres is to wonder whether you play them all the same way. If you're looking for a different experience, changing rules texts or settings might fail to deliver real change. Also, knowing that you don't stay with the same game, do you continue to approach games as if you were going to play for a long time?

Has Emily encountered a game that uses mechanics to support political and personal play? Putting dice and mechanics in the same sentence with combat like you did makes me wonder if she just dislikes the mechanics in the games she has encountered.

In your game, my play style would probably be inbetween Janet and Paul, so I will refrain from projecting onto them.

For Kendall, is he open to guidance on shaping his character to be interesting for the group? In trying to draw attention, is he just eager? If both of those are true, all he needs to do is play a character that really does interest you. Or maybe you could clarify what character and story mean to you.

Standard question: Give an example from real play where you got what you wanted from an entire game session.

John

[Callan S.]

Hi James,

First off, be careful of the idea 'I have to play with these guys'. Even if it seems totally true, try not to think of it that way. Otherwise these guys become a means to the end of roleplaying, rather than playing with them the desired end in itself (And RP a means to that end).

Second off, this is all my opinion, not a text book analysis. Note: Look for simulationism and narrativism in the articles section, for more info. It'll be worth it in the long run to read these long articles, if you really want to help your group.

I'm going to suggest a number of experimental situations that you can e-mail them, and explain why I suggest it here.

Janet: Wow, I just don't agree with everyone else's opinion of her. I just see her looking for difficult situations, so she can show how her character answers that situation. Then she gets screwed out of the opportunity to do so. She's seeking narrativist play.

Try e-mailing her this situation and ask her what she thinks of it.

~~~
You're playing a character who is a pretty rough person, so your left wide open to choosing nasty or nice choices. You come across a town and your down on your luck and dead poor. The town is suffering from diseases, but you have come across one of their medical supply vans unguarded! You could drive this off and sell it for a pretty penny! But this would leave the town to really suffer...people might even die because of this loss. Then again, what do you owe them? They wont even know you passed up the chance to steal it, if you don't. What do you do?
~~~

After she e-mails you with the response, ask her if she liked making this sort of choice. PS, if she tries to work out some sort of middle ground response where she leaves some supplies but takes the van/the rest to sell, try stating to her that that is a valid tactic but it wont tell us about her character if she doesn't have to make a difficult choice. Would she prefer the tactic, or making the difficult choice? If she prefers the tactic, I'm wrong, she isn't narrativist. If it suddenly clicks with her and she firmly gives her answer, then she's nar inclined.

The most important thing with this style of play is that SHE decides what makes a good story. Not you. This may be really hard to give up, but if you make the choice about what makes the best story here, you'll be making the narrativist decision, not her. If you want to play with her, she has to make it. The reason she doesn't trust the GM is because she's deathly afraid the whole reason she roleplays, to make this decision and be seen by others to do so, will instead be made by an over zelous GM out to make a 'good story'. You may have done this to her already and trust me, it leaves a long lasting bruise.

Emily and Paul: They are both playing the same way. Sorry, Paul is roleplaying. He's actually more in the game world than anyone else at the table. He is exploring what it's like to be there. Asking him what his character feels is like asking a race driver what he feels as he's racing "For gods sake, I'm concentrating on the road here, shuddup!". Here, it's like Paul is imagining he's in the driver of that race car, or a man with a sword in a dangerous fantasy world. Why are you distracting him with the wrong sort of questions?

Try e-mailing these questions
~~~
How do you carry your sword? How worn are the leather straps that hold it? How worn are your shoes? What does the beer taste like after a long wilderness journey? And sleeping in a real bed after that journey? How does that feel?
~~~
Then ask him if he enjoyed answering those questions. If he does, he likes simulationism. He is thoroughly exploring the game world.

Emily is just the same, except it's relationship based. Next time she's cutting a political deal, try asking her how her PC handles her pen as she writes, or something else like that "For gods sake, I'm concentrating on cutting a deal here, shaddup!" will come out. Not in so many words, of course.

Questions to e-mail her:
~~~
How do you project yourself to other people of note? What do you think their first impression of you is? What does it taste like to complete a political deal after a long negotiation? And enjoying the rewards of that deal, how does that feel?
~~~
I bet she likes to tell you how she feels about those things, because she's been exploring them thoroughly from what I can see. Simulationism again.

Kendal: Really the opposite to Sam's evaluation, this guy isn't roleplaying when he does this but instead hitting 'my guy' syndrome. It's a syndrome where the player hides behind what 'my character does' to justify his own choices as a real person. Sorry, the character does not exist...it's you the player making this decision.

This isn't a problem until it begins spoiling the game in real life, while the player hinds behind this excuse which doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure you yourself recognise the need for meta game recognition of other peoples needs (which I admire), and can already see this for the problem it is.

I don't know what his gaming preference is, since I can only see him wanting real world attention.

James: I see a man who has players who haven't given him any substantive creativity. So he's taken it on, by himself, to ensure that happens. He's become attached to this role, so that even though the players might be now ready to give creatively, now he isn't ready for that. He needs to leave people to play their instruments rather than him playing them, and he needs to get back onto the conducting platform. He needs to stop running over to the child and tying its laces for it, which means it never ties it's laces for itself.

I have no real idea of your gaming preference...perhaps ask yourself some of the questions I listed above?

[The_Confessor]

Let me address each response individually:

Bankuei/Chris
It's a deflection tactic and I think there are larger issues at stake for this girl, not just gaming. I think there's alot of, well frankly, complicated crazy stuff, buried beneath in her psyche that she doesn't want to address directly or indirectly. She's one of my best friends, a girl who I've known for two years, but she definately has a large part of her psyche that seems both pained and hidden. She doesn't reveal it to anyone. Ever. I've been told this has always been the case by her twin sister.

Sam
First of all, no offense taken. I really, really, appreciate the abrupt and honest nature of what you've presented and wish more people were so direct.

Most of your observations are dead on. Most.

Your James observation is pretty much 100% accurate.

Your Emily observation is also accurate, and pointed out a real-life/gaming table comparison of conflict I'd never considered.

Janet: Yes, very accurate. And perhaps part of it is my fault for stressing a "good guys focus" in my games. But not only does she not buy into alot of concepts, she refuses to even attempt to work with some of them and bucks them all as violently as possible, often to the degeneration of everyone's experience.

Paul is where you've got the most inconsistancy. I like Paul alot. I will admit openly however, that I do not respect him. There is a difference. Paul would probably do better with other gamists, but Paul isn't terribly creative so when a gamist who knows the ins-and-outs of the rules better than he does is in a gamist type game with him, he feels outshined.

Kendall is a good role-player, but I feel like when a character's role and playing that role properly begins to negatively impact the entire gaming group then changes need to happen.

Chucking plot out the window is difficult for me as a storyteller. I feel like then the game becomes "directionless," frankly because I don't have alot of faith in my players to create direction.

Burdick
An interesting observation about rules and text changes not being actual changes and therefore not delivering real change.

Emily has not played in a game where mechanics reflect political or personal savvy, perhaps she might do well in that type of mechanic.

Kendall can be given a general guidence, but is generally so enthusiastic that he gets buried in his idea solely and not how it relates to the chronicle.

Standard Question Response: Hasn't Happened Yet.

Noon
Wow. You've really taken some of my points of view and turned them on their heads. You're right about one thing specifically: I really don't have creative faith in my players and that's something I need to work out. I love the ideas you've presented and the teh questions you've offered that I show to my players. Thanks alot.

Thanks alot to everyone, and I hope I continue to get as much insight into gaming and group dynamics as presented here.