Stunning display of honesty - a tale of dysfunctional gamers?

[Darren Hill]

This isn't so much an Actual Play, as a Dysfunction Between Play tale. Something happened recently which left me feeling stunned and a bit betrayed. You tell me if this reaction is justified.

Here's the story.
I've recently become a convert to many forge games, and I have been introducing them to my current group. On the whole, the reaction has been good. We've played four, and of them, one was pretty much a disaster - me and one other player liked it, but the other four didn't. All of the other three games were enjoyed by all the other players except one, who disliked them all. For reasons of maniacal self-importance, let's call this player Brutus.

Now, me and three other friends - one of whom is Brutus - go back a long ways, and we get together infrequently to roleplay. I'm always the GM, and the other players have always been eager to try out whatever I suggest. I'd been suggesting we get together to play some of these forge games, and the two players who aren't involved in the regular game seemed unusually reluctant. So no game was happening.

Now, Brutus games regularly with these two players, and this week, told me something which made my jaw drop, metaphorically. In passing, he mentioned he'd been telling them about the games I'd been trying lately, and had been describing them as if they were even worse than he thought they were, just because he didn't like them.

I was speechless. It hadn't occurred to me that he'd sabotage my efforts to try out the odd game with them, innocent as I am in the ways of other humans. I would have expected him to tell them, "I don't particularly enjoy these games, here's why. But also, here are some things that people who like those games consider good. And from what I know of you, you might like this particular element." That's what I've done when I've been in that situation, and had to describe, say, D&D.

Of course, this is no big thing - it's just a game, right? But let's be honest - for the four of us, gaming is our number one hobby and recreational pastime, something we spend a lot of time doing and thinking about.  It's not the end of the world, but it's not nothing.

Here's an analogy. You're an amateur rock musician, and after a hiatus, you've put together a new band, and written some new songs. You're taking a new musical direction, and you know some of your fans might not be impressed, but you think its the best work you've done in years.
You play your stuff to Brutus, and he doesn't care for it, and is honest enough to tell you that he prefers your old stuff. Fair enough, you think - you know this
new stuff won't be to everyone's tastes. While you would like your friends to like the same stuff you like, you know that's just not realistic, and think no more
of it.
Then you put together a concert, and invite all your old friends. Few of them show up, which surprises you. You feel a bit hurt that they haven't trusted in you
enough to at least listen one, after all the entertainment you've given them in the past.
Then Brutus tells you that since he didn't like it, he'd gone around telling everyone it's crap, and they shouldn't bother turning up.

I think that's a pretty close analogy, actually (since I have a friend who is an amateur rock musician). Am I overreacting? How would you react to something like this.
In case you're worried, I do still consider Brutus a friend, but my trust in him has been shaken.

[Judd]

We need actual play examples for this to make more sense.

What happened when you played these games?

Which ones did you play? 

How did the group respond to each?

When you normally game with Brutus what kind of role does he play, not in the fictional, what kind of character does he play sense but what is his role at the table among the players?

[Darren Hill]

Hi, Paka. I'll try to answer your questions as I can, though I'm not clear about their relavance. I'm not trying to understand the player, I understand him well. I'm trying to understand myself and my reaction - and to find out if other people would have felt a trust had been violated. In other words, am I taking this too seriously? Am I dysfunctional?

The games we have played were Dogs In The Vineyard, Dust Devils, Primetime Adventures, and Polaris.
When you ask, "What happened," can you be more specific?

Polaris is the game that didn't go down too well; Dogs, PTA, and Dust Devils went down well (all three of those games gained a single sale from different players). One of the players isn't as comfortable with these games, because he finds it hard to handle breaks in his immersion, but this is getting easier, he is enjoying them and is happy to try others. He found Dogs particularly hard initially, but likes it now.
All the other players except Brutus responded well to all three games. We did have teething troubles with PTA, but it's now the favourite of nearly all of them.

Brutus, as mentioned, didn't like any of them - but he wasn't disruptive during play. He tried his best. His displeasure was very evident during after-session discussions, and if I'd been less determined after the first couple of sessions, I'd have given up the games thinking that the group didn't enjoy them - because he was so ardent in his dislike that the others weren't too keen to give opposing views. But they got over that and started to speak their minds after a couple of sessions.
When he plays, he either plays strong warriors, or competent social types - whichever gives him the best chance of success in the game. He does try to direct the group, when they are getting involved in their own distracting subplots.
In the games he runs, he's very much an illusionist GM - or at least he was last time I played with him which is a few years ago now. In our discussions - we see each other more than we see any of the other players - we recognised that he preferred games which had the players discovering the GMs plot. But I thought he'd found peace with the idea that narrativist, player-directed games were never going to be high on his taste list, but he was going to make the best of them. Because to his credit, during play, he wasn't disruptive and did try. In fact, he was one of the quickest to figure out how to play these games, he just didn't like them.
But in the after session discussions recently, he's started to make a lot of passive-aggressive comments to show his displeasure. For example, "bring back Paranoia," said in such a way to make clear that he thinks Paranoia is one of the worst games out there. (His dislike of that game is well known.) It's hard to discuss things openly when one person is doing his best to shut down that conversation.

Does this help?

[Judd]

Darren,

I don't think there is anything dysfunctional about you.  I don't understand what you have done wrong.

How would I react to this?  I wouldn't game with Brutus anymore.

Here are my clues as to what is on Brutus' mind:

- because he was so ardent in his dislike that the others weren't too keen to give opposing views.

I am going to guess that Brutus is a forceful personality who gets by in his gaming by his charisma.  Enter Dogs and PTA, systems where the system says how well your character will do socially.  Suddenly, he can't steamroll over people anymore.  Suddenly, his charisma and his ability to get gamers to go his way doesn't mean shit because the system directs the story.

I have friends like this too and I just wouldn't play those particular games with them after they reacted negatively to them. 

What would I do?

I'd continue playing the games that the rest of the group liked and I'd exclude Brutus from those games.  I'd make sure that we all did things that we did all enjoy with Brutus.

I'd expect the worst; I'd expect future passive-aggressive bullshit temper tantrums from Brutus.

That's what I would do.

Hope that helps.

Good luck.

[Darren Hill]

I've done the same as you. I have told him that I won't be inviting him to those games. I will still be running other games (there's a lengthy fairly traditional campaign I have promised to finish this year, and a couple of trad games - Savage Worlds and Godlike - I plan to try) and I've told him he's welcome to play these.
I wouldn't be completely surprised if he decided not to play, and spurned me, but I'm hoping that won't be the case.
I hadn't really thought about his liking for bossing people around no longer being supported by the systems we are playing at the moment. Hmm. He does have that element certainly - it was very obvious in the games I've played with him in the past with other groups. It's not as obvious in the current group, because all but one of the other players are almost as vocal, so I'd forgotten about it.
(Mind you, he's not nearly as bad as another player I know who I don't GM for anymore except in two player groups, where he is well-behaved - no-one to boss around).
Yes, I think the love of sim-style discovery is a big part of his interest in games, but it was distracting me from this element.
Thanks, clearly I spoke too soon earlier - I didn't understand him as well as I thought.

[Bankuei]

Hi Darren,

It's probably also worth keeping in mind that this fellow might be in a hyper-defensive mode and projecting that you are putting down his style of gaming or "taking away his friends".  Silly?  Sure, but not unusual for gamer behavior.  But that would also explain the attempt to "turn the group against you" as if this was some kind of political arena.

I'd do like Judd says, but keep in mind that the odds are pretty good that sometime in the future that this issue will reach a critical mass- probably because folks like that don't tend to subscribe to the "I'm ok, you're ok" theory of gaming.  You might see him get more extreme in behavior, but then again- that's really his problem, not yours.  Hopefully it will be clear to your friends that his reactionary behavior isn't too rational and the air can be cleared.

Chris

[Josh Roby]

You do not need to play all your games with all your friends.

That's all.  Read it again if you feel gypped.

[Chris Peterson]

This is not about games. This is an interpersonal issue. Your friend "Brutus" was not acting above board. That's not cool.

But, like Joshua says: you don't have to play all your games with all your friends. Maybe you can play those games Brutus dislikes without him. (And maybe he'll suddenly become interested when he's invited to fewer game sessions??)

[Frank T]

Did you confront Brutus about this? If so, what did he say?

Of course I can't really judge the situation. But here is some observations: He did try to adjust to the style of play promoted by the games you brought to the table. He contrained his frustration until after play. But obviously, he was very frustrated because he didn't have fun. If you other guys keep playing those new funky games, and stop inviting him, he won't be playing the games he used to enjoy with you any more. Or at least much less often.

So he was probably pretty pissed. Maybe it's his way to take such things personal and strike back on the same level, if so, that's a bad habit. But maybe he was just relieving some tension. Since his dislike of the games you were offering was not shared by the rest of your group, maybe he just had to talk to some other gamers. Since gamers would be the only persons to understand this, right?

Did he actively tell the other players to stay away from you and your games? Or did he just talk to them about how he felt about the games? If so, how did the other players react? Did they in some way indicate that they might not share Brutus' dislike? Did he know, when he was talking to them, that you had invited them to play with you?

- Frank

[Elindryn]

Having seen this scenario with players before, I can give some insight, however I do not know 'Brutus', so take this with a grain of salt.  Brutus' style of gaming clearly differs from yours.  He may have been trying to openly give your games a chance.  You mention that he openly dislikes narativist systems.  I would say he was trying to be polite upfront and go along with the group.

However, his comments after the fact sound as if he is trying to influence future games to not be of this style.  Perhaps he was being nonconfrontational and telling the other players to influence what everyone else would want to play next time, in hopes of changing the format of the games.  I have known other players to try this subversion technique. 

This all being said, I would exclude Brutus from these games and any others that are of the narativist flavor in the future.  I would let him know that I would appriciate more honesty in the future.  If he wishes to still 'hang out', then do it on a non-gaming level.  But if you wish to keep him as a friend, let him know what he did was, as Chris said, 'not above board'.  Tell him to grow up.

Maybe he would be a good person for a Gamist campaign, but it sounds like this ideology is leaking over to his personal life and he is trying to 'win' this too.  Not a good way to treat your friends if you ask me.

-Rob

[Judd]

Can we stop calling Brutus a gamist or whatever?  I am going to call it as I see it here:

Brutus is being a passive agressive jerk.  This happens when you play a game that doesn't allow his social bullying to work.  He is stomping his feet and acting the baby.

This is not about gamist, narrativist or simulation-whatever and I'd like to see those terms throw right out of this conversation.  In my experience, this situation gets far worse before it gets better.

The group has had a taste of functional play and the player who was profiting from the dysfunction isn't going to like where things are going.  Furthermore, the group isn't going to take crap in their other games once they get a taste of what functional gaming is like.

This is NOT me saying that nar is good and sim is bad or gamist is bad.  This is me saying passive agressive bullying is bad.

[Darren Hill]

I won't attempt to reply to all responses, but I do appreciate them. I see this kind of thing isn't entirely unknown!
I am fully aware the situation may deteriorate further, and I am prepared to deal with that if it happens. I'm hoping we can discuss things and avoid it.

Frank T asked some good questions. "Did you confront Brutus about this? If so, what did he say?" I haven't yet confronted him about the passive-aggressive stuff occurring at the session, it was only after Judd's posts that I reflected and noticed how serious it was becoming. But I did tell him that I wasn't happy about the undermining me with the other group.
He says he is offended that I'd think he'd do such a thing (despite his open admission), added that they weren't interested anyway (which may be true or not), and suggested we let it drop and put it behind us.

"So he was probably pretty pissed. Maybe it's his way to take such things personal and strike back on the same level, if so, that's a bad habit. But maybe he was just relieving some tension. Since his dislike of the games you were offering was not shared by the rest of your group, maybe he just had to talk to some other gamers. Since gamers would be the only persons to understand this, right?"

I can appreciate that, I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that. After all, I'm doing the same thing right now.

"Did he actively tell the other players to stay away from you and your games? Or did he just talk to them about how he felt about the games?"
I think the latter is more likely.

"If so, how did the other players react?" I haven't seen them since this revelation, and probably won't for some time (we don't get together very often). I doubt they'd mention it, as they are fairly conflict-avoidant and wouldn't want to say anything that might cause a rift.

"Did they in some way indicate that they might not share Brutus' dislike?" It's quite possible that they would not be interested anyway, I know that. But from what I know of the players, I have a strong feeling that at least one of them would take to them well.

"Did he know, when he was talking to them, that you had invited them to play with you?" Yes, he knew this. He knew because I had asked him to mention it to them, since he sees them more frequently than me. That seems to have been a little naive, in retrospect...

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

One thing distinguishes your posting here from his actions toward the other gamers.

It is this: at the Forge, we will not judge him for you. That is your job, to decide whether his actions are tolerable to you, as a friend. You have to decide, terminology aside, history aside, would a friend do this, period.

And then you must decide how you'll act, accordingly. No one here will do this or tell you what you ought to do, or who is right and who is wrong.

That's actually a moderator warning to everyone else.

Why am I posting this? Because this site is not a place for bitch-sessions, or a place one can flee to be petted. It was right to post about the event as an issue. However, Darren, what to do really is your problem. People have been helpful to clarify to you what that the issue might include, but your starting post - "Help me decide if his action is unjustified" - is something you cannot expect from a real, socially functional group of people. That is your call.

My only advice to you is that you must stand up to the task, in reality, away from the screen, and without the cloak of protection that phrases like "the guys at the Forge agree with me" would have provided. There is no such cloak. This is on you.

Best,
Ron

[Darren Hill]

Hello Ron, I'm really glad you posted.

My initial post wasn't "Help me decide if his action is unjustified", but was "Someone has done this, is it normal to feel hurt?" I tried to steer the discussion away from the first point, but then a behavioural observation was made that I hadn't recognised, which has made me view the situation in a different light, and for which I'm grateful.

I've recieved more than enough validation for my first question, and have much to think about in light of that observation and your leading question, "would a friend do this."

I'm happy to put this thread to bed.