Obstructionists in games - is it a creative agenda?

[MatrixGamer]

Hum...interesting. I can see the logic of saying that obstructionism starts before the game begins (ie outside of the social contract of the game) and that the answer to it is most likely found outside of game play (in the social contract box of the model).

I can imagine an obstructionist/5%er player walking into the club and the club organizer frowning at them till they leave. I used to do that in the IU Wargame club 20 years ago. It was outside of game play. If such a person was playing, I can imagine players frowning at the person till they shaped up or went away. This would be outside of game play.

In game though I can imagine a game master allowing a person to drive off a cliff real fast so they can turn to the other players and say "So what was I saying? Oh yes! We were just about to do..." The obstructionist is out so the game can go on.

Could the Big Model include something about inclusion and rejection? The obstructionist is there and is eventually excluded. Kind of like Joseph Campbell's heroes who reject the quest (in  Hero with a thousand faces).

This gets back to Ron's point of saying "It's all social contract" but explains the logic behind why that is so.

Mind you I'm still interested in how obstructionist play, before they get booted out, and how rules can be made to facilitate their leaving.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

In your recent posts you suggest that obstructionist behavior can be lessened or eliminated ...

... by either adjusting/specifying the Creative Agenda, or through "rules" in some unspecified fashion.

And in both cases, you are 100%, screamingly wrong. This is very important and illustrates why the behaviors you describe can only be understood and dealt with effectively in Big Model terms.

As several of us have been saying, most recently Alan, Exploration and the rest of play are inside Social Contract. That means that if someone cannot functional socially with the group - i.e., disrupts their aims - then their negative effects will affect all the aspects of play.

This problem is a one-way flow, from the biggest category into the smaller/included ones. It cannot go the other way.

Perhaps it will help if I analogize to sports. There may be a rule that says, "Go outside the boundaries, and the play ceases; that's how far you got." But there cannot be a rule that says "People who ignore this and other rules will stop playing." Such a rule is useless - to obey it relies on respecting the rules, yet it is somehow supposed to apply to those who do not respect them.

That's why appealing to the rules in an RPG text has no effect whatsoever on dysfunctional play. It's also why painstakingly detailed rules to account for "arguments" are always useless - socially-based arguments occur between rules-claims, and the more rules, then the more "rules-borders" exist to have arguments about.

Social interactions are bigger than standards for negotiating about and obeying rules. Those standards are themselves social interactions, among many others in action at the same time.

Do not look deeper inside the Big Model for solutions about extreme social problems like obstructionist behavior. You won't find it there. Such things are resolved only through direct social interaction, at the same "power" level as the undesirable actions themselves.

Bob keeps obstructing the game? Then quit inviting Bob to play. That's how it works in sports, in movie-going, in getting together for dinner, in all human social activity. You can't change the internal and procedural rules for any of those things in a way which will keep Bob from being a dick.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I'm going to agree with Ron, but then lessen his "Screaming Wrong" point a bit.

Its completely true that obstructionism is a problem that exists at the social contract level and can only be solved at the social contract level.

I do think, however, that it is possible to have rules in a game whose purpose is to help facilitate social interaction.  In that sense the model does go both ways.

By this I mean that often times the biggest hurdle to dealing with a social issue at the social level is that the social level is often an uncomfortable place to be.  Its awkward to tell someone that their breath stinks, or they've drunk a little too much and shouldn't drive home.  For some people that awkwardness makes it very difficult to deal with social issues.  

Rules can help facilitate this by creating areas where its easier to address the social problem.  This functions in the same way that ubiquitous advertisement and encouragement of "Designated Drivers" and "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" make it easier to have that discussion with your friend.  They don't solve the social problem...but they do make it easier to open up communications on the social level which can solve the problem.

Universalis does this very explicitly with Challenge and Fine rules.  If a player's play is disruptive and not enjoyable this is a social problem.  The solution can only be found at the social level between the players themselves.  BUT it can be very awkward and difficult to have THAT TALK with that player.  Universalis, however, makes it easier to go there.  If you Challenge one of that player's disruptive elements and all other players unanimously support you, you've used the game rules to send a social message.  If you propose a Fine and all of the other players unanimously agree to levee it against that player, you've used the game rules to send a social message.  I would argue that it can be (for some) much easier to send a social message wrapped in the appearance of a game rule than it is to send a social message by direct critical social interaction.

So, to the extent that the obstructionist behavior is not malicious and can be solved by social interaction short of ostracization, and to the extent that game mechanics can help make that social interaction easier by taking some of the direct personal critical edge off, then I would accept the proposition that properly crafted game rules can lessen or eliminate obstructionist behavior (in those situations).

[MatrixGamer]

you are 100%, screamingly wrong.  There may be a rule that says, "Go outside the boundaries, and the play ceases; that's how far you got." But there cannot be a rule that says "People who ignore this and other rules will stop playing."

This proof has logic to it. The first rule sets a boundry, the second rules says people who violate the boundry shouldn't do that. But the second rule also gives a social consequence that the first rule doesn't. It expells people from play.

I come from Bloomington Indiana - the former stomping ground of Bobby Knight (Mr. Anger Control Problem). Sports have rules to expell people for bad behavior - and penalties for people who violate norms a little (hockey for instance). Coach Knight's bad behavior eventually got him fired. He tested the limits of what was allowed and found that choaking a student was too far.

I don't think that rules can prevent a pathological obstructionist from being themselves but rules can help steer people away from certain behaviors. In thw wider world one of the effects of increased enforcement of drinking driving laws has been to push the average age people stop drinking from the late 30's to the mid 20's. RPGs are not therapy and we should never expect them to be, but they are a mild form of social control which can be used to good.

Ron, I see that over the years your posts have advocated not sticking around dysfunctional gamers. You don't suffered fools lightly and I agree with you. My life is more valuable than that. I also don't want to be an unpaid therapist to the more immature members of a club, so I don't go. When I did though, we always wanted new members - we accepted all comers worts and all. I would try to fend off the pathological obstructionists but the socially awkward I kept and defended from the large middle population of the club who wanted to kick them out. Not all bad play deserves expulsion.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

Universalis does this very explicitly with Challenge and Fine rules.  If a player's play is disruptive and not enjoyable this is a social problem.  The solution can only be found at the social level between the players themselves.  BUT it can be very awkward and difficult to have THAT TALK with that player.  Universalis, however, makes it easier to go there.

This is a good example of how rules might deal with disruptive/obstructive behavior. It is awkward to go to this place. We all prefer to avoid confrontation if possible. Life experience makes it easier to do (repeted practice makes perfect) but not clean.

I like how Universalis has built into its very structure a way to cope with obstruction. It doesn't add a new rule or give total power to correct over to the offending player. A rule like "The palyer breaking the rules will follow the rules" obviously won't work. Instead it structures the communication of the players so that they can edit one another. This may be difficult for RPGs to do. Universalis and Matrix Games are in this regard not RPGs at all.

My earlier example of the Buffy player walking Willow into certain death. They are following the letter of the law of role playing. They say what their character does and wait for the game master to respond. They may even play act Willow tweaking the nose of the Master. It is just the spirit of the game they are not following. I admit I don't know an RPG rule change that would prevent this short of changing one of the most central unwritten rules/system that players have total control to say what their character does. Universalis and Matrix Games have made that step, other games would have to seriously rewrite their social contract to do this becuase it drastically shifts the division of power.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[MatrixGamer]

Does anyone have any ideas on how to reconcile the player who follows the letter of the rules - and is ostensibly playing - who walks their character off a cliff or otherwise acts to disrupt the game.

Just saying it is part of the social contract (of which it is an obvious breech) does not explore this type of play itself. Could it be seen as pseudo play - it looks like play but infact isn't? This would suggest a person had not left the social contract box and delved into exploration but were instead following their own agenda (aka the 5%ers mentioned in the Infamous Five thread)and not honestly entering into the game.

I imagine that an obstructionist pseudo player would not change their play no matter what the other players or the game master did. This might be an outward behavioral marker that we could use to identify such play. The person is at best parralell playing rather than engaging the others in the game.

Got any other ideas?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Bankuei]

Hi Chris,

By the idea that the player has said, "I'm walking my character off the cliff" they are already engaged in exploration.  A disruptive player can be engaged in exploration, but still disruptive.  In fact, most try to use exploration("But it COULD happen") or rules as a cover for the BS they are pulling.

I'd say that the cause of this kind of stuff is the same as disruptive folks anywhere- they're taking their issues out on other people in a need for attention and power.  And yeah, you're right, no matter how much you give, they still want more.  You can take a quick glance through any mainstream rpg board on any thread about "problem players" and you'll quickly see situations where people are bending over backwards for downright wrong behavior.

I tell folks the answer is the same as a good band, a good work place, or a good sports team- "This isn't acceptable.  Get with the program or play elsewhere."

The problem is, most of the time, the obstructionist is competing with or dominating the GM in terms of being the dominant personality of the group.  For groups where this isn't a problem, the guy is sent on his un-merry way without much fuss.  For groups where this is a problem, the obstructionist stays around and the group keeps trying to find work arounds when the problem is simple.

Chris

[MatrixGamer]

Thanks Chris for your input.

A strong group leader who can establish and maintain group boundries does shut this kind of play down fast. Hard to distill what makes a leader strong though let alone put it into rules.

BTW I'm not asking people to try to figure out what makes leaders strong - that would be way too far off topic.

Any other ideas?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Bankuei]

Hi Chris,

Well, not just a strong group leader, but simply a strong group.  The problem for groups that keep these people around is that the overall group doesn't have enough strength and cohesion to shut this person down and/or boot them.

I don't think there ARE any other answers- it sums up to: Negotiation(to change behavior) or Take it elsewhere.  It goes back to the basic concept of baking a cake vs. not baking a cake- there's no middle ground.

What I think is very important though- is to hold people accountable- that is, don't let them use "my guy" or "the rules" as excuses- being clear on what is unacceptable and why and get a clear response that they understand what you are saying and are willing to comply IF they want to keep playing.

Chris

[Alan]

Hi Chris (MatrixGamer),

I agree with Bankuei -- there is not other solution.  The only solution is for one or more group members address the obstructionist on an interpersonal level -- outside the social contract.  This is what I meant by it can't be addressed within the realm of the social contract of the game -- you havve to appeal to the social contract(s) beyond the game -- friendships, social groups, etc.

This is normally something we tend to avoid.  I think people in general don't enjoy calling someone on how personal issues are intruding on some social interaction.  We have all these frameworks so we don't have to deal with other people's issues in dramatic detail -- and game players in particular have a tendency to retreat into the framework, rather than deal with issues outside it.  This is why dysfunctional play appears and why it can last for decades.  

Don't take this as total intolerance though -- I think we have to tolerate some frustration with misunderstandings in order for social groups to function - but there's a limit where the frustration becomes unhealthy congestion.  It is that point where we should be taking action.  

Now in the real world, most rpg groups are not so invested in the welfare of any individual member that they are all willing to divert the group's energy for a session -- or many sessions -- into an effective addressment of a member's personal issues.  As we all know, most people don't respond to this anyway.  they have to solve their own problems in their own time.  so rather than waste time waitinig for them to grow, we ask them to go play somewhere else.

[MatrixGamer]

So rather than being a social contract level - as Ron initially thought - this would be a level outside the social contract box. The land of barbarians, where destructive people ride in from to burn Rome.

This would suggest adding that box to the model - not calling it the land of barbarians of course! I think this would be useful to do since obstructionist/griefer/psuedo play/5%er/barbarian/dysfunctional play is very much a part of the gaming experience and can wretch groups and challenge even the best game design.

This added square would not preclude looking at rules methods to minimize the impact of bad play on games but would make clear that when people do engage in such pseudo play that they are raiders riding in from the stepp looking for loot and virgins.

What do you think? Is this a first airing of a possible addition to the model? I'd say the idea needs to rest for a while for people to think about and see how it plays in a few months. If an idea is solid and worthwhile it will come back up.

And I promise not to harp on it. I'll only mention it if I think it is pertinent to whatever subject is being talked about.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

I'm thinking people might make parting comments but I'm satisfied with this thread and am ready to let it drop.

[paulkdad]

Chris, I think that box already exists in the model presented in this article.

They call it the "Shared Space of Imagining".

[EDIT]The first link on that page is the article I'm referencing (The Process Model of Roleplaying). The diagram showing the SSoI is on page two of the pdf.

[Alan]

Hi Chris,

I can't speak for Ron, but I've always assumed that the Big Model exists as a subset of many other supersets we could define, starting with "global society" and going down to "my particular gaming group."  

These areas have been greatly studied by other humanities disciplines and there is a lot of material available on how to build a good group, or how to mediate interpersonal disputes.  Sure, this stuff is relevant to real world play, but how much energy do we want to spend reinventing the wheel?  

Myself, I can't see it.  And I really think I've had my say here.  So, I'll stop challenging your search, if you want to go on.  You might even consider ending this thread, letting the ideas bubble, and starting a new one next week.   Just a suggestion -- I'm not the moderator.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

Just to clarify something very important:  All the people to people discussions IS the Social Contract box on the Big Model.  It is not "above" or "outside" of it.  How we treat each other IS the Social Contract.

It IS above and beyond anything in Exploration, or the elements of exploration, or lower on the Model.  That is, changing the length of the elves' ears ain't gonna stop Tom from being a jerk.  Changing the color of the dice won't fix play.  Fiddling the rules doesn't stop Tammy from throwing a hissy fit.  Etc. etc.

That's why many of us throughout this thread have pointed that personal problems aren't addressable on a Creative Agenda level.  

Chris

[MatrixGamer]

there is a lot of material available on how to build a good group, or how to mediate interpersonal disputes.  

There certainly is, 19 years of running group psychotherapy has drilled that into my mind. There is no need for this group to look at those issues (or at least I'm not interested in doing so. For now I'm planning on letting the matter drop to see what ideas come from letting it simmer on the back burner.

changing the length of the elves' ears ain't gonna stop Tom from being a jerk.  Changing the color of the dice won't fix play.  Fiddling the rules doesn't stop Tammy from throwing a hissy fit.  Etc. etc.

There is a natural tendency to think that obstructionist are always jerks. My experience has been that even anti social murdereds and child molesters (I've treated both - with simulation games no less) are not universally jerks. There are degrees of destructiveness. I'm an optomist and chose to believe that people can and do change but the other side of the coin is equally arguable. Like I said above, I accept the arguments that have been laid out. Obstructionist Psuedo Play is really hitting at social contract levels rather than exploration because as you say - it doesn't matter what the GM or players do - Tammy will still be a jerk.

Anymore final comments as this thread winds down to a conclusion?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press