I Need More Feedback from My Players

[Sydney Freedberg]

The other problem is wich I think is important: there is not such a choice not to show up. If they want to roleplay at all, they have to play with me or try to find another GM. They wouldn't do the latter because social reasons (not to stab me in the back and such things).

Do you know that giving feedback is like risking stabbing you in the back? Any time they say they don't like something, it's saying 'I'd rather not play with a GM who has to have that'. The risk is, you might have to have the thing they dislike. There's a risk you can't change on that issue. And then your both staring at each other, knowing the roleplaying relationship can't go on, and that everything would have been okay if the player had kept his mouth shut. So they keep their mouths shut.

In the situation you've ended up in, I think your left at blindly stabbing for what might work.

Callan, either I'm misunderstanding you badly, or this is terrible advice -- for couples or for roleplaying groups or any group of people. Talking about problems doesn't always solve them, but not talking about them almost always makes things worse.

For example, the problem of too much table chatter -- people cracking jokes out of character and so on, not paying attention, and generally spoiling the mood/focus. Algi solved this, it sounds like, not by putting out different options and letting people choose or not choose, but by making it clear there was something he really didn't like and people should stop.

Now, here's an important distinction: I don't think the -1XP penalty for talking disruptively did a damn bit of good. It's one lousy XP! What I think made the difference was the social statement, that Algi made it clear this kind of behavior was not acceptable at the game table. The in-character punishment is just a little symbolic flag, and probably not an important one. What made a difference was not punishing the characters (who don't really exist!) for the sins of the players (who do); what made a difference was Algi, as a real person, saying to his players, as real people, "cut that out, I'm serious."

(Question: Algi, did you actually say, "Okay, now you're going to lose 1 XP" in the middle of a game session, or did you just mark it down quietly and tell people afterwards? The former is a lot more effective).

You may have a lot of trouble getting your players to be equally frank with you about what they like and don't like. But I don't think that means you're "stuck" or forced to blunder around in the dark poking things with a stick. Here are two bits of advice:

1) When a player says something they like or don't like, engage with them. Talk with them, ask them questions about what they mean -- and be willing to do it right in the middle of a session, with everybody able to listen and contribute, not just afterwards one-on-one. Being willing to put the game on "pause" for a while so you can talk about something is the ultimate signal that you, as GM, are serious about that something.

2) When your players get really excited and engaged by what's happening in play, make a note to yourself: That worked. When they seem bored or bothered, make a note: That didn't work. Even if they're unwilling to talk about this openly, they'll show what they enjoy and don't enjoy on their faces, and you can change what you deliver accordingly.

[Callan S.]

Hi Sydney,

It wasn't advice, that's the situation. Once the participants associate any exit from the relationship with betrayal, so to any talk which should prompt an exit from the relationship is classed as betrayal. I'm not advising anyone to think it as betrayal, but if anyone does I'm just drawing a link between it and talk.

I actually had perhaps a minor episode like this, where I had joined a roleplay group (who actually got together to roleplay fairly regularly) and a long time friend of mine asked "Why do you play with them?" with the unspoken subtext of  "when you could just play with us". It only came up once, but it really surprised me - much as I think roleplay games are hot shit, another groups just another group - my friend plays sports with other people and even has chummy drinking sessions with them without inviting me, and that's just him broadening his social horizon. But with roleplay games, yeah, there seemed to be something else there - and no, I don't advise it. With this thread I'm just dealing with the situation that's there.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Okay, got it. I'm still dubious about trying to deal with people's dissatisfaction by changing or proposing to change the mechanics, though (your bit about getting players to choose one of three versions of the mechanics); I think it works a lot better to ask people directly what they want and don't want.

Likewise, I see what you mean about feelings of betrayal, but this bit

Later we tried many-many other RPGs, like Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Star Wars, Mutant Chronicles, etc....every time we played only one session and made new characters next time.

suggests that the group is willing to try new games, so it should be possible to say something like, "Okay, every other week we're going to run our regular game, but on alternating weeks I'm going to try something different, like [whatever] -- anyone who's interested can come, nobody has to."

[Will Grzanich]

Hey guys,

I actually had perhaps a minor episode like this, where I had joined a roleplay group (who actually got together to roleplay fairly regularly) and a long time friend of mine asked "Why do you play with them?" with the unspoken subtext of  "when you could just play with us". It only came up once, but it really surprised me - much as I think roleplay games are hot shit, another groups just another group - my friend plays sports with other people and even has chummy drinking sessions with them without inviting me, and that's just him broadening his social horizon. But with roleplay games, yeah, there seemed to be something else there - and no, I don't advise it. With this thread I'm just dealing with the situation that's there.

I seem to remember someone -- Chris Chinn, maybe? -- comparing many gaming groups to street gangs, in terms of the twisted sense of loyalty that can often be involved.  It was frighteningly accurate, IMO.  Wish I could find a link.

-Will

[algi]

Hi Everybody!

I really wouldn't want to go into deep analyzing how roleplaying groups work if it can be avoided. I can't do anything with such generic informations. I believe more like in actual, practical, directed action.

Sydney,

I tried to make it rather obvious for the players what the -1 XP penalty is for. One of the player (the passive, inexeperienced one) did it more times in a row, and I really didn't told him explicitly by saying "For this you get a -1 XP penalty", but I made it obvious by sighing theatrically and things like that. (Everything would've fallen apart if I'd told this mantra after each and every word of it.) And it had a wondrous effect on every other player. Although I think, he still didn't enjoy it as much as it could be, because he doesn't know what should be enjoyed in a game like this.

Your advices were useful, too. I think I'm going to use this next time instead of the Bad Karma - Good Karma thing, because I'm still a bit afraid of such in-your-face usage of metagame mechanics. Depending on its effects I will begin using it later.

I think you missed some points in Callan's post if I understand it right. The choosing among mechanics wouldn't be a mechanical solution, it would be only a mechanical tool for social solution, as you said about my -1 XP method. And I think I will use Callan's advice, because I already made another combat mechanics wich requires somewhat more player decisions. I think it's just fair to ask the players about using the new mechanic, and I wouldn't lose anything, because I liked the original, too, but I think this would be more exciting. (It has some rules about which player narrates the combat round, and things like that.)

The other thing is where I wasn't clear enough: the party with more games was my former party. In those days it was natural to try more games and I think it had to do something with the dessatisfaction of the players. They found satisfaction playing a CCG, I didn't, thathswhy I parted. My new party is one of the newer breeds. One attribute is of the new breed, that they only play one or two games most. D&D or the Hungarian equivalent of it, Magus, with the possible second game being Vampire, as the "real roleplaying" instead of D&D.

And thanks for the insight wich was really useful even in spite of the aforementioned misunderstandings.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Glad to be of help. And I think I understand Callan's idea better, and like it more, now that you've put it in your own words.

Also, apropos of very little, I think Hungary is awesome. I've visited Budapest and Szeged and read a lot of the history of the region with great delight.

[algi]

Hi All!

Now, this was interesting. When I arrived at 11 am one of the players told me that one of the other players is available only until 12.45 pm. The former sessions were short, too, but this was a bit much for me. That would mean 1 hour net playtime. I didn't have any time to use any of the new ideas, except the old one wich worked finely.

Well, every player said that this session was too short, wich I think is a good sign. The other good thing is that I enjoyed almost the whole session as much as the end of the former session. I will be happy if this level of enjoyment would stay forever, but I know that this is like realizing for a woman that there can even be an orgasm while having sex.

It was very exciting, because I was planning some nifty thing for one of the players with some sexuality and it needed to be intimate. I think it's a great endeavour that I could GM that, because I decided that I won't try it, unless I see that the players are somewhat serious about it. Well, this meant that I actually had to switch to GM the other players when I saw that they wasn't serious enough. And they had such an idea while playing that blow my head off. I thought they read things in the book, but no: they figured things out only by thinking about it and some brainstorming.

It was great, and I think the passive players had their moments, too. I think it became even more important, because one of the passive players was introduced to RPG by his girlfriend who is another player and they broke up. I hope this won't mean that this player will fade out and leave the gaming group.

I really enjoyed that much this session that I would like to write up the exact happenings as I remember. I think I'm going to start a whole new thread for that not to get confusing.