Abused Player Syndrome

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Grant,

Moderator speaking. In my estimation, that was not the reply Chris deserves for his post. The reply he should get from you is very much like, "Thanks for the reply, Chris. That's exactly what I needed to know, and I appreciate you taking the time."

The post's content illustrates, I think, that Chris understood your inquiry. Asking him whether he understands carries a status-charge that isn't something I want to see here.

I've posted this publicly as an object lesson to all the new folks at the Forge lately. This site is predicated on dialogue, not on challenge, and the first assumption to make is that the other person will go the extra mile in order to see where you're coming from. I'm also illustrating that being moderated is not being smacked down - the intellectual exchange of the last two posts is stellar, and I cite Grant and Chris as two of the most valuable ideas-discussion people we have here.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

I stand moderated.

Best,
Grant

Edit: edited because my apology was considered to be offensive. I think Chris raises a valid point and do not wish to offend. Please, go back to the conversation at hand. Nothing is gained by fighting over a game.

[Dr. Velocity]

Since I'm somehow able, I'd like to add my contribution to this idea.

I recently posted the outcome of my Munchkin Navy SEAL forum game - there's something I forgot to mention in that post.

I asked him, to start off the Debate of Doom, if he had ever PLAYED a role-playing game before - I naturally assumed he hadn't or not for a long, long time. Turns out he had - D&D naturally, but also homemade games he and his friends had come up with, some military - they even made their own Star Trek game (instead of buying one), so I had to give him points there. I got into rpg discussion a bit with him and the stuff he started telling me just abso-freaking-lutely FLOORED me.

When they first started playing, his group was probably what you'd expect of school-age gamers, some rowdy, some kinda crazy, probably a lot of stealing each other's stuff, the usual goof-offs. The thing was the referee seemed to STAY the ref, through it all, and would pretty much fit every "GM fiat" and "railroading" term I've seen described here or on other sites. Everything from killing off player character NPCs (family, etc), destroying homes, vehicles, etc and doing the painfully stupid GM Cruel God things like "oops, you were't paying attention, there's a crack in the sidewalk, ROLL - *roll* Oh no! You tripped, broke your ankle and fell on your face. Roll 2D6 for damage." out of the blue.

Their group, apparently having gone for years like this, came to a "creative" solution (according to the SEAL) - they effectively democratized the gaming, and were able to overrule the referee, if they felt strongly enough that something he did was out of line. This immediately made me cringe but I kept on to see if I was missing something - I wasn't. He would pull crap like that ALL the time.

The last one was, one way or another, the SEAL's Trek character's ship had been walloped and was losing life support, no hope for it. So he decided to go out with a bang and set a collision course for the enemy ship - the ref had him roll, checked a table or something and was like, "ahh, too bad. nothing. You're dead but the explosion did little structural damage." I mean, yah that COULD happen, but that would suck, and the SEAL argued to me about ramming the 'port nacelle Trieman's tubes' or something totally out of my league, which apparently would be a catastrophically good place to ram your ship to cause massive damage to the enemy. I say there are times when a good story, a good ending, a good bit of heroics and some good planning goes a LONG way to getting  ref to fudge or use fiat for the powers of good, instead of all the time making you accidentally step into busy streets and crap.

I expressed my horror to him that his group was FORCED to basically BIND the referee, via mutual concensus, to keep him from doing some REALLY bad things to their characters. Normally it would sound like a Storyteller cooperative narration idea - but from this background, I would say its FAR from that. I asked him WHY in the WORLD would they not get a NEW ref - one of them try it out, SOMETHING - this guy wasn't fit to referee a turtle race, let alone an rpg. He just kinda virtually shrugged and said, "Dunno, we've always done it this way - it works".

This made me HATE their ref. HE *RUINED* probably 4 potentially GOOD players, and at least partially turned the SEAL player into who he is, expecting ME, the referee, to be the BAD guy, to ALWAYS be trying to pull some unreasonable, totally malicious crap, JUST because I could - which makes me give the SEAL even MORE credit for being able to talk to me and realize that was NOT my intention - I can understand why his posts and playing style was SO 'eventuality-rich' - he had guns, armor, everything you would ever need, his posts were finite and definite and very commanding like there was no question the AIR STRIKE would happen - there was no WAY he wanted to turn over even a LITTLE control to a referee - he's SEEN what  an unfettered ref will do. THAT IS HORRIBLE! I let him have his air strike, eventually, as a sort of compromise on my part to him, at the end of the game - these kinds of abused players ARE very hard to deal with, I've found - their playing style is very neurotic, almost simulating a more abstract example of REAL personal trauma. Its very, very strange.

[b_bankhead]

When they first started playing, his group was probably what you'd expect of school-age gamers, some rowdy, some kinda crazy, probably a lot of stealing each other's stuff, the usual goof-offs. The thing was the referee seemed to STAY the ref, through it all, and would pretty much fit every "GM fiat" and "railroading" term I've seen described here or on other sites. Everything from killing off player character NPCs (family, etc), destroying homes, vehicles, etc and doing the painfully stupid GM Cruel God things like "oops, you were't paying attention, there's a crack in the sidewalk, ROLL - *roll* Oh no! You tripped, broke your ankle and fell on your face. Roll 2D6 for damage." out of the blue.


I can understand why his posts and playing style was SO 'eventuality-rich' - he had guns, armor, everything you would ever need, his posts were finite and definite and very commanding like there was no question the AIR STRIKE would happen - there was no WAY he wanted to turn over even a LITTLE control to a referee - he's SEEN what  an unfettered ref will do. THAT IS HORRIBLE! I let him have his air strike, eventually, as a sort of compromise on my part to him, at the end of the game - these kinds of abused players ARE very hard to deal with, I've found - their playing style is very neurotic, almost simulating a more abstract example of REAL personal trauma. Its very, very strange.

Oh yes I have seen plenty of GMs of this type particularly D&D, the whole 'probe every ten foot square witha ten foot pole, search every freeking door for traps,search every chest for traps, search every blasted thing for traps, players vs. DM play style that almost drove ME out of the hobby until I swore off D&D once and for all.

 Unfortunately one of my favorite rpgs, (Call of Cthulhu) is particularly attractive to GMs of this type.  The game has survived no thanks to gamemasters who think that the whole point of the player's prescence is to provide victims on which to prove how clever they are (although I now know that COC is woefully designed to support the kind of play its supposed to create.....).

It is a tribute to how obstinately people can adhere to a particular gaming situation with so many unsatisfactory elements and have so little urge to make any real change.  Your 'Seal's' placid acceptance of the inevitability of their plight is truly jaw-dropping.  It gives a wonderful clue as to how one game has managed to dominate this field for so long. With a crowd THIS stolid a game doesnt HAVE to be fun to stay on top..,....

[Nev the Deranged]

Sheesh.  

With the preface that I understand where you're coming from here, I'm going to do a little devil's advocation based on my own experiences.

To wit,

The style of gaming this guy was weaned on is totally valid.

Yep, that's right.  The GM is the enemy.  Or more accurately, it's the GM's job to run your characters (and you) through your paces, to give you a rigorous mental workout.  Maybe the GM in question here went overboard by fudging against players, which is wrong in any style of gaming, of course.  But the overall idea that the players' job is to accomplish their characters' goals in spite of the GM, and the GM's job is to oppose those goals, both by USING THE TOOLS OF THE GAME.  

Tools like logic, attention to detail, descriptiveness, healthy paranoia, and narrative sense; and of course whatever stats and dice the game uses.

We used to freeform this way on the playground at school, and it was a blast.

/advocation

 Now, that said, it does sound like this guy is salvageable, which means he's NOT, as you suggest, "ruined".  Best of luck!

 Oh, and if you start up another game and need a player, I'm available =>

[Paganini]

Hey Nev, while I agree with your overall point - that hardcore GM vs. Player is an acceptable play style given a social agreement to that fact - I want to point out that your blanket characterization of fudging as "always wrong" is a bit dangerous. *Cheating* is wrong, sure, by definition, but fudging is presented as a usful GM-ing technique in certain styles, and many game-texts actively encourage it.

[Jack Aidley]

The style of gaming this guy was weaned on is totally valid.

Sorry Nev, I have to disagree - the style of play this guy was weaned on is pathological. Player vs. GM gamism is one thing, what is described above is another. Arbitary rulings (oops, you trip, take 2d6), pointlessly cruel resolution (no real damage done, you're dead) and eventually having to introduce group overrules are not acceptable in any form of play.

Now a bit of an aside, illustrating the opposite. I recently acquired the old HeroQuest board game off eBay, it's basically a board game interpretation of Gamist play. The GM is replaced by the 'Evil Wizard' player (me) who runs the monsters and sets things up. So used are my players to Simulationist actions on the monster's part that they repeatadly failed to be able to deal with tactical play on my part (running away from the Barbarian to kill the Wizard, and so forth). I guess I ruined them players too...

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I was sure this thread had died...oh well.  On note of the example given, we're talking about a breakdown in social contract, which is not cool.  "Trip and break your ankle" is not fun gamism.  "Fight these orcs on a rope bridge that's on fire in high wind", that's fun gamism.  

That aside, I'd like folks to take the Abusive Player syndrome to another thread if you want to discuss it, I'm more interested in the Abused Player, rather than the Abuser.  While I understand that both develop from habits of broken contract play, I think the dynamics of "reforming" either one is very different.  Both need to learn to trust the GM, but one is unable to restrain their actions to fit the contract, the other is unable to fully use the power given to them to fit the contract.  

While a compare and contrast might be kinda nifty, I think we've all heard and dealt with more Abusive Players(or at least they're more notorious) than the Abused ones.  

I mean, obviously the Abusive guy needs to be pulled aside before game, and seriously talked to about the social contract, and that's if this person is even open to change.  Several in game cues will need to be established to inform this person about what is and isn't acceptable.  With no intent of making light of this, it would be very similar to having to care for a mentally handicapped person in terms of explaining social cues to them.

The Abused gamer, on the other hand, has been told, "This is a game where you can be a hero!  Imagine anything!  Do anything!" only to get smacked down when attempting to do any such thing.  The words and the actions never matched, so the Abused  player doesn't trust words anymore.  The Abused player needs to be given time and effort to build trust, and its a hard thing, especially when we're talking about folks who have anywhere from 5-20 years of conditioning along those lines.

I suppose the classic issue of gaming is whether the GM proves to be a benevolent dictator or not, and the non-benevolent ones spawn either a caste of rebels(Abusive players) or a fearful populace(Abused players).

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Huh, it occurs to me that a little Roleplaying as in the theraputic sort can work wonders here. That is, play out scenes for the player that demonstrate players and GMs acting dysfunctionally and then others that show how it's supposed to go.

Or just have them watch a session without playing if they're willing, and ask them to note the playstyle. In fact that wouldn't be a bad thing to do to introduce any new player to a group that has an established mode of play.

Mike

[b_bankhead]

Sheesh.  

With the preface that I understand where you're coming from here, I'm going to do a little devil's advocation based on my own experiences.

To wit,

The style of gaming this guy was weaned on is totally valid.

Yep, that's right.  The GM is the enemy.  =>

 I'm sorry guy I have come to the conclusion that the model of player vs. GM is ALWAYS dysfunctional.   Why?

BECAUSE THE PLAYERS CAN'T BEAT THE GM

Your arms are to short to box with God, baby, that's all there is to it.  A person playing in a player vs. GM mode winds up as a punching bag.
As far as the 'tools of the game' go, ANYTHING a GM wants to do is pretty much justifiable as part of the tools of the game. From anal rententive rules lawyering, to freeform fiat, to bringing in rules from other games,so you find no help there.

Since you CAN'T WIN against the GM whats the value in playing against him?  And how can he truly fairly play against you?  

You know, the idea of GM-less play is considered pretty radical in TRPG circles but considering the number of really BAD GMs out there I wonder why we are having trouble with the idea of giving him up....

[Ron Edwards]

Hey b_,

Take the intensity down a notch, OK? It really is all right if you and Nev disagree. Using great big fonts and all that is like shouting to get your way, and it ain't happening here.

Both of you have stated your case. Now let the reader choose. This site cannot be about who dominates whom.

Best,
Ron

[efindel]

\[...\] I have come to the conclusion that the model of player vs. GM is ALWAYS dysfunctional.   Why?

BECAUSE THE PLAYERS CAN'T BEAT THE GM

Your arms are to short to box with God, baby, that's all there is to it.

But I'm not playing against God -- I'm playing against the GM.

It's a matter of social contract, and game rules.  There are groups that play with "the GM is God", sure -- but there are also groups that don't play that way.

The GM has whatever level of power the gaming group gives him/her.  My first gaming group had about five core players, and another dozen or so who came and went over the years I played with them.  We played on Friday and Saturday nights, two games a night.  Anyone who wanted to could try to GM -- all you had to do was get the group to agree to play what you wanted, and negotiate which of those four "slots" you were going to run it in.

All the regulars GMed at least some of the time.  Several of the irregulars did as well.  We had a few folks who tried to GM, and ran railroad sessions, or went psycho "I'm God and I'm going to destroy you".  Generally these were folks who were new to the group, and hadn't played much with us.  When that happened, we'd generally play through to the end, then be honest with them about the game.  If they kept it up, we'd simply stop letting them run games.

Is that "winning", to no longer have anyone who wants to play in your game?  Well... to some, it might be.  But not to most.

A person playing in a player vs. GM mode winds up as a punching bag.
As far as the 'tools of the game' go, ANYTHING a GM wants to do is pretty much justifiable as part of the tools of the game. From anal rententive rules lawyering, to freeform fiat, to bringing in rules from other games,so you find no help there.

Sure you can.  You can enforce rules on the GM -- if the GM won't play by them, just stop playing with that GM.  There are games which give the GM "points" with which to set things up -- e.g., Rune.  If the GM runs out of points, then the GM can't throw any more stuff at the characters.  If the GM tries to, the players can walk out on him/her for cheating.

Since you CAN'T WIN against the GM whats the value in playing against him?  And how can he truly fairly play against you?  

To me, this feels like the old "you play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go home."  If the other players will let the ball owner get away with it, then it works.  If they won't, then the ball owner either realizes that it's no fun to play with a ball by him/herself, or the other players find another ball, or they play something else.

The GM is another player -- a player given a special role, to be sure, but no more irreplaceable than "the guy who owns the ball" is.

--Travis

[DP]

What I picked up from his side is we're talking a the stylish thief/Bond sorts, who does things with flair, not the paranoid, double check everything Memento guy.

I can see him fishing out a piece of parchment with a crude drawing on it and a caption that says, "This is my horse..."

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

Let's agree that GM vs. player competition can be done functionally(Rune) or dysfunctionally("oops, critical fumble, stabbed yourself in the eye with your fork!").  Let's take that subject to a new thread if you want to keep on it.

Returning to thread topic:

Does anyone have some observations about Abused Player Syndrome, either in action, or in rehabilitation?

Chris

[Dr. Velocity]

First off, Bankuei, I apologize, if it was my post which unintentionally hijacked your thread - I can't tell if it was or not but I get the feeling it was and that wasn't my intention. You are correct of course, the AbusIVE player (GM) isn't the issue, its what to do WITH the AbusED player.

After reading your thread, which was really eye-opening, I worked on playing in another forum game  WITH the Seal, his character is - yep, a SEAL - I took an Arabic Jackie Chan detective type. Talking to the SEAL player on AIM, partially due to some difficulties in compromising my playing style with his,  I found some of his quirks (possibly some universal to abused players?) to be:

- Simulationist. Now, while I don't put forth the idea that only Simulationists are abused, this guy IS a DIE-HARD Simulationist - he wants to know the weight of his hand grenades and who scrimshawed his broadsword. He is absolutely perfectly prodigal - I didn't even think this pure 'Gamer Type' existed. While talking to him about his gaming style of needing detailed reality (which was like talking to an alien about the merits of a comfy pair of loafers), I couldn't shake this idea, and this may apply to many abused players...

- Defense. Now it may be just me misreading him, buy my abused player seems to have ... retreated, perhaps, INTO Simulationist behavior, as a defensive reflex. I know this may not be a popular idea, as people generally develop likes and dislikes naturally, but it just fits that someone who feels totally out of control, unable to rely on anything, especially in a game world with an untrustworthy GM, will naturally fall into the minutae of detailed bookeeping, so he will know EXACTLY how many shells are left in his rifle, how far he travelled, how long ago he ate, or how big his cargo bay is (this guy has fixed, permanent measurements for his cargo bay, no matter what forum rp session his trek character is in - it might as well be carved in marble). This is his way of keeping...

Control. If you have all this worked out - if you have this infallible, inarguable invoice of just exactly what percent body fat your character has, the referee will be unable to 'realistically'  announce 'you clumsily stumbled off the side of the mountain'. Sad, but I think a lot, perhaps even MOST people's dominant preferred playing style may indeed come about as a REACTION to games they've played. Some people may go with Narrative or Freeform if they keep 'getting screwed' because "it doesn't matter", and "yah sure, I always jump from rooftop to rooftop" - they go the opposite way to avoid being pinned down, they leave everything open to 'guard' against a perceived threat which they come to expect. If you are SO in control of your character, know so much about him and all his skills, that even the ref can't argue, how can you possible lose? You are GOD of your own realm, even if thats just your OWN character - nothing is unknown or questionable about him - if there is, its irrelevant and crosses the boundary of personal player creative freedom and you can refuse a quirk or background or personal info on those grounds.

- Trust and Faith. Likely this goes without saying, but an abused player has little or NO trust or faith in an authority - in placing the potential well-being or realm of action for his character, within the hands of someone to whom he voluntarily submits some of his control. As mentioned, the results of unfettered referees have been seen - they weren't pretty. I would not possibly want to attempt to guess someone's personal makeup or psychology, but I would think this faith issue probably carries over, possibly noticably, in everyday life. Now I'm not necessarily talking religious faith here, though thats quite possible, I feel. I'm talking about...

-Social Contract. Yes, this deadly phrase which I had never heard of but now know WAY more about than I ever thought I would. Abused Players either do not understand the idea (intentionally or unintentionally) or they consider it... not really optional, but more of an illusion - sort of like sweepstakes entries. Yah, sure, millions of winners. Who's THAT naive? - you toss the entry in the trash. Same with the whole Social Contract issue - yah maybe the Abused Player recongizes this unofficial, non-verbal agreement between players and referee, the referee will use his power responsibly, will provide avenues of opportunity, the players will provide role-playing and personal detail and help tell the story, and will submit to some GM dominance and trust him to reward him with new experiences or items... but that never happens anyway, so screw that, and so he winds up being a pretty fanatical one-track-mind player who solves ALL problems the exact same way (with variation).

-Justification. He can support his obsessiveness and one-foot-in-front-of-the-other mindset with (in the case of a Simulationist) tons of real-world statistics and probabilities of success, leaving no room for even player-to-player debate. He will typically use 'player knowledge' in a very roundabout fashion, dancing on the edge of 'social contract' to blow up half the world to eliminate a disease that started in the sewers of London, or to kill everyone in the small Romanian town because he KNOWS why the hell everybody is all pasty white. He reads or is told the basic plot of theme of a game(Infiltrate the prison, bust So-And-So out of jail), and immediately falls back on his finely-honed, time-proven justifications for whatever his playing style is, to assemble a direct, conflictless assault directly into the heart of the plot, bypassing any side-stories, subplots, interaction and other irrelevant considerations, because he STILL wants to eliminate as much as possible, the opportunity for the referee or the story, to somehow 'thwart' him - no time for talking, I'm about to go stab the King's advisor in the back. No no, sorry, I can't possibly concern myself with your missing child, I have a magic ring to destroy; yes I *could* steal the guard's key, but there are NO RISKS if I simply kill him and stick him in the trunk. It boils down to...

Minimization OF PLAY. Of all things. He likes role-playing, as a hobby, as an interaction, as a creative endeavor, as a fantasy. He liked social interaction with other people, he probably even likes the rich storytelling style or clever ideas or plots that the referee comes up with, or sometimes, interesting characters - however, he says, let's keep things in perspective. I'm here to do a job. Point A, to Point B. Now, since these are known points, I will firstly arrive at them in as obtuse a manner as possible, since this won't be prepared for by the ref or the story, therefore 'winging it' on their part is necessary, and it would be bad form to kill me or impede me seriously, as this is creative thinking I'm doing and I'll know anything really dibilitating they come up with wasn't prepared beforehand, so its a personal attack against me. Having insured this 'clear path' of game-warping, which allows you to actually move THROUGH one side of the game to the other by binding the referee to a code of honor, you are able to proceed to the next phase, which should also be executed totally unexpectedly and accomplish the goal with as little 'expected' activity as possible, to downplay any 'triggered' consequences. I call this the 'Shoot The Hostage' solution.

Independence and Ego-Gratification. Hand-in-hand, with control, this allows the abused player to revel in a strange sense of satisfaction of taking his character out of the 'normal' rules of the game, and engaging in his *own* story, making himself the main character, who occasionally will acknowledge suggestions by the referee, who is reluctant to tread on the risky territory of character development. Following the above formula, the more strict adherence to your own personal method of play, the more tightly your method cinches up its armor, because you have essentially created a meta-game "shell" of non-referee-intervention, which just happens to also cover the path to, AND the ACTUAL solution - nothing is left for the ref to do as you 'play' the game and advance along your own independent storyline and play arc, until such a time as you allow the referee to end the game and reward you.

Some of this may or may not apply to different abused players - this is based on the Navy SEAL I played with, as well as some of my other normal Warhammer group, so its not a whole cross-section, but I feel to one extent or another, at least glimpses of each of these methods or earmarks can be seen in the play of an Abused Player at one time or another; I am also sure there are MANY more facets.

===

Sorry for so long posts, but I hopefully added something, my take, to the consideration of the Abused Player and some of his possible reasonings and behaviors. As for what to DO about, or with, an Abused Player? Do you treat them with kid gloves, as I did in my playtest, and more or less give them the stage so they feel important and not "screwed with"? I think the obvious answer is no, not to the extent they would want, certainly, though I grant its possible you *might* have to treat their character with a bit more 'flair' than others - but this won't HELP them, I don't feel. I also think there are 'salvagable' abused players, who can recover, and I think some really wind up, either from repeated abuse or because of being coddled, permanently ruined - as bad as it sounds, I think you simply CANNOT successfully interlace some truly dysfunctional players with an otherwise fairly 'normal' gaming session.