Abused Player Syndrome

[jdagna]

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

I've had some experience with abused players and a little bit of success in trying to "rehabilitate" them.  However, not all can be rehabilitated - some really like that style (as has been discussed in this thread) and they'll be paranoid just because they're hoping they'll need to be.

First step in rehabilitation: do lots of talking "out of character."  When a character goes into unreasable paranoid mode, be willing to say "You know, that's not necessary.  I'll just say your character has a hunch that he can trust this guy, because he really is trustworthy."  

Likewise, when the guy refuses plot hooks or avoids pro-active decisions, step out from behind the screen and say "Well, if you don't want to do that, what is it you want to do for the next three hours?"  Take whatever he gives you and go with it.

One technique I developed in Jr High helped quiet the paranoid types.  I started at a point where the players spent an hour with their characters pondering a door.  They listened, scanned, watched, waited, speculated and everything else but opening the darn thing.  As GM, I knew it was just a broom closet, but I was 14 and didn't feel like I could just tell them that.  Anyway, I declared it "idea day" - anything they thought was in there really was and I assured them it would be bad.  So if they said "Hey, there's 100 soldiers" then there were.  I only had to kill one group to convince them I was serious.  If they said "Hey, there's a million dollars!" then there were... along with whatever makes sense.  It's actually the principle Donjon seems based on - players introduce facts and the GM screws them over with them.

Eventually the players learned to name interesting but non-lethal complications ("There's a dozen hostages!")... and after a while, the paranoid behavior (mostly) disappeared and I stopped having to declare idea days to get them moving.  They remained cautious, but it got to a point where we were all having more fun.

There are other steps, but most are somewhat specific to your desired play style or preferred stance.  The key to the rest of the process is that, having reduced the bad behaviors, you work to teach and reinforce desirable behaviors.

Question:
Has anyone tried pointing an abused player type to the Forge?  I'm curious to see if the GNS (and other) articles help in practice as much as they do in theory.

[hyphz]

Has anyone tried pointing an abused player type to the Forge?  I'm curious to see if the GNS (and other) articles help in practice as much as they do in theory.

I did try this once with some of the more paranoid players I've encountered.

I got an e-mail response saying "that place is so hardcore it made my head spin; I couldn't understand anything".

Make of that what you will...

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Dr. V, that was brilliant. You absolutely nailed what Paul Czege calls "'My Guy' Syndrome." I've played with dozens of people who fit this profile, and I consider it to be a syndrome resulting from many years of busted Social/GNS play, not a preference at all.

I wish I could have channeled you for a section in the Simulationist essay, 'cause this stuff certainly belongs in it.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi Dr. V,

Exactly the kind of stuff I'm looking for here.  A good look into what makes the abused player tick.  I pretty much agree on every point about the "reactionary" nature of the abused player.  I mean, what we're talking about here is defense mechanisms getting out of hand and creating neurotic play.

Justin,

I'm right with you on the OOC aspect of rehab.  I personally told the player I dealt with, "I'm not going to kidnap her, honest."  I think part of it was necessary to establish, "what this game is about" because he had been conditioned to a singular style of play.  As far as the "Idea day" or hour long door watching, I'd rather not waste that level of time to get into fun play.  I'd hope that through a few sessions, folks would become better about non-paranoid play.

On note of throwing such folks to the Forge, well... I agree with hyphz, but in that most folks who haven't taken time to recognize their play issues probably won't be able to recognize dysfunction in play, much less conceive of GNS or functional play.  My reasons are better detailed in the psychology thread:

http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6673

Chris

[jdagna]

I did try this once with some of the more paranoid players I've encountered.

I got an e-mail response saying "that place is so hardcore it made my head spin; I couldn't understand anything".

Make of that what you will...

That seems to be a fairly common reaction, unfortunately.

It seems like we need a 'GNS for Dummies' article that gets to the meat faster and in simpler language, with more emphasis on putting the rubber to the road.

[clehrich]

Another possibility with a player like this, i.e. who has been abused in this fashion and has reacted in this way, is to think about what the player actually does well, then toss useful stuff in that direction, in effect baiting the player to come out and play with everyone else.

One aspect of the My Guy syndrome described here that caught my eye was the fanatical attention to detail.  Seems to me you could spin that by encouraging the player to formulate such detail more or less on the fly.  For example, suppose you were running a game along the lines of the Pool or Theatrix, by which I simply mean a game in which players have a clearly formulated opportunity to make stuff up overtly.  Why not encourage this player to do such things effectively?  I mean, if you're running a modern game, for example, and this guy has swotted up insane amounts of detail about weaponry, encourage him to do things like this:

"Hmm.  I see from the size of the hole in this person's forehead, as well as the height of the pockmark on the wall behind him, that he must have been shot at at least 400 yards range, with a weapon on the order of a sniper rifle, probably an Arglebargle 75 [note: I don't know names of such rifles, insert a real one here]."

If he does this, he gets to (1) show off his knowledge, validating his vast research; (2) create an interesting and valuable detail for the game; and (3) establish a fact in the game-world that the GM simply does not railroad over.

Now admittedly this involves moving the player from defense to offense, as it were, but you might be able to do that by simply asking him point-blank.  Imagine that the previous statement were preceded by:

Player 1 (not this guy): "Dead body, huh?  Um, what do we notice about the bullet wound?"

GM: "Er... " [turns to Player 2, the guy in question] "Your character is a SEAL, right?  What do they notice?"

If Player 2 now responds with the above description, you're good to go.

So long as this sort of behavior keeps being rewarded socially and in-game, and constant defensiveness is not rewarded only insofar as it doesn't produce much of a response, I'd think the player would naturally gravitate toward using his knowledge to make creative contributions without perhaps ever realizing that his whole play mode has transformed.

That's a little naive, of course, but my basic point is that the best thing you can do with an abused player is look for what he does well and reward it early and often.

The only reason I'd think this works best with games in which such assertion of reality is explicit is that my sense of the My Guy syndrome is that the player wants to be scrupulous about the rules -- he doesn't want to be overruled because he's made a rules mistake.

I should also note that my own Shadows in the Fog includes some comments about what to do when the player in this fashion asserts something radically contrary to what you, the GM, had in mind -- which boils down to "suck it up."  The game also has mechanics specifically intended to facilitate the player who likes to "beat" the GM by knowing more, what's been called the Cluemaster player.  I'd just rather see a Cluemaster who's being constructive than a defensive My Guy type, since the former can readily be finessed into a challenging and stimulating player who helps the whole game go smoothly.

Chris

[hyphz]

Perhaps someone can give me a backreference here (I tried to search for one, but couldn't find one) - why is this type of player called "My Guy"?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

"My Guy" refers to the common phrasing that comes up during disputes in play with Abused Players - "My Guy wouldn't do that." "My Guy says nothing." "My Guy attacks." The implication being that the power issue in the group is always that someone completely has all of it, and therefore the player is claiming his God-given 100% power rights insofar as he thinks he is allowed - the three-dimensional (imaginary) space occupied by the character.

The phrase "My Guy" usually hides its meaning, which is essentially, "You're not the boss of me."

Here's the relevant thread which I think takes it all the way back to the beginning:

GM control of character concept across G/N/S (boy, you can tell that's an old thread by the presence of the slashes)

Best,
Ron

[Emmett]

I whip my dogs frequenly. I like a good paranoid player. Actually, my players are so whipped that it annoys me. I have this nagging reputation of killing everybody. You see in my younger years, it wasn't "we might get killed". My players would say "Wow, two of us survived that one". Although they kept coming back. It was kind of like call of cthulu (however you spell it) without the cthulu. I was tired of the "what you killed my character!?!" reaction. So I made it plainly obvious that they would die unless they were exeptionally clever.

Those days are over. I usually only kill a PC every other session now adays. But my players take so long to DO anything. There has to be plains on stratigys on preperations. There are endless discussions on how to do things to remove any uncertanty. Mind you this isn't the "is there a trap here? How about here?" kind of game. It's usually you have to sneak into this city, how do you do it? This is a map of everything you can servail from a distance. So I do give them the ball its just they're often too afraid to do anything with it until they've done multiple recons and such.

So yeah I'm the evil GM that beats on players until they're parinoid but they keep coming back. Everybody knows that I'm a PC killer and thats what they're signing up for when they join. I give them the time to nurse their paranoia and then whack them over the head.

I really do let them run with the ball more than I do anything in most games (I have to railroad sometimes but not often). And maybe the thing that really bring them back is they've leveled several cities on they're way out. (And there was the time when they gave everybody diarea by dumping a few tons of laxitive into the drinking supply.) So I give them a good reward at the end.

So am I bad for making players parinoid? Or am I good for making open ended games that the players can have the ball once the story is established?

[C. Edwards]

Hey Emmett,

(I have to railroad sometimes but not often)

Or am I good for making open ended games that the players can have the ball once the story is established?

Does this mean that you railroad the players until they've picked up the scent of your pre-approved plot and then you cease railroading? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the those statements.

At any rate, if your players keep coming back with enthusiasm I'd say you're not doing too bad of a job. They may like that feeling of paranoia when they play, they make like the tactical challenge, whatever. If they keep playing in your game and seem happy about it then kudos.

-Chris

[Bankuei]

Hi Emmett,

[quote
I whip my dogs frequenly. I like a good paranoid player. Actually, my players are so whipped that it annoys me

(SNIP)

But my players take so long to DO anything. There has to be plains on stratigys on preperations. There are endless discussions on how to do things to remove any uncertanty. Mind you this isn't the "is there a trap here? How about here?" kind of game.
[/quote]

I share your complaints about these types of players, although you haven't really explained what the "pros" vs. the "cons" are in this situation.  I personally don't enjoy watching the players take 20 minutes to plan to open a door, vs. the 20 minutes spent running around hiding, fighting or whatever after they find out what's behind the door...but that's my personal preference.  Can you give some examples of what is "good" about a paranoid player in your view?

I really do let them run with the ball more than I do anything in most games (I have to railroad sometimes but not often). And maybe the thing that really bring them back is they've leveled several cities on they're way out. (And there was the time when they gave everybody diarea by dumping a few tons of laxitive into the drinking supply.) So I give them a good reward at the end.

So am I bad for making players parinoid? Or am I good for making open ended games that the players can have the ball once the story is established?

This here is a whole seperate issue, and if you want to discuss it further, I'd say let's take this to another thread.  But, to put my two cents in, I have high suspicions that any game where "story is established" via GM, railroading occassionally happens, and a character is killed every other session that the players AREN'T getting the Ball(in my sense) in any fashion.  Again, if you want to go further, let's go to a new thread.

All in all, the few games where I can see a justification of character death that often is Paranoia, CoC, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, and Aliens.  And that's about it.  

I tend to think of characters like pets, and like pets, you know how much emotional attachment to put into it when you get the pet.  You know goldfish only live X amount of years, so when they die, you feel sad, but not that sad, whereas when your dog of 20 years dies, you feel terrible.  Again, the aforementioned games, you expect character death, and don't feel so bad about it, but most other games, particularly ones based around campaign play, have characters that are big investments to create.

Just my hypothesis, but:

-IF your players are trying everything to keep their characters alive, then odds are fair that they may want them to live, and may in fact, be expecting it(despite experience with your style)

-IF your players take 20 minutes to plan things, it may also be an attempt to keep their characters alive 20 more minutes(stealing the ball from you)

I don't know, just my perceptions here.

Chris

[Emmett]

I think the pros of a parinoid player is that they have more of a realisitc viewpoint in the game. Would you storm a fortified city with only five people? It's really kind of insane if you think about it. How many games involve the player characters taking on litterally small armies on their own. In the The old Warhammer RPG I had a character that could take on thirty combatants a turn, and most of them would be dead or disabled at the end of the turn. What I'm getting at is, a paranoid player is acting more (but definately not completely) like a normal person would.

It's really not an issue of taking 20 minutes opening doors. It's more of setting up battle plans. What the best way to stay undetected is, what to do if they encounter opposition, etc. And it's not like they're having the conversation with me. Most times they tell me to leave the room so they can suprise me with their plan. I do like the suprises.

I guess the real advantage of a paranoid player is that they expect real threats, they don't whine when things get hard. You get honest to goodness fear reactions out of them, they're adrenalin pumps and they really chew on the problems you give them.

As for why the players like it, it's exiting to be in danger. The sucesses they have are real successes and not just "i'm level 40 billion!" its "We saved our comrads dispite overwhelming odds!". My players never talk about how tough their characters are. They know I can pull out something bigger to kill them. (That's not what I do purposefully, I'm just saying they know they arn't unstoppable.) They do talk about the things they've accomplished. I talk to them about the reputation they are building. I like a story oriented player and I accomplish that by making the problem too big to solve with guns but solveable with a careful approach.

Do my players care for their characters like pets? Yes they do. There are some that have come very far. Some die, some the players retire rather than risking it.

The problem with a non-parinoid player is that they expect to win. I don't play PC games because I expect to win. I will eventually win, and I think that thats a let down. Now if there were a game that was so tough that some people eventually win it and others just have fun with it, that, I would play. I don't like it when players expect to win. I don't expect to win in life. Granted this is a game and is intended to be fun whereas every day life tends not to be. But when you do win in life the reward is all the sweeter.

My players are trying to keep their characters alive, but they are also trying to accomplish goals. You can't accomplish a goal if you're dead (bar the supernatural that is). However, just the other day I spared a PC's life by not using an attack that the NPC had. It was weird, the Player sat there and looked at me like he was jipped out of something, dispite being very attached to his character. That really threw me off. It's like our games social contract says that if the GM goes easy on you your not worthy. To me that is a little screwed up.

-IF your players take 20 minutes to plan things, it may also be an attempt to keep their characters alive 20 more minutes(stealing the ball from you)

I guess I don't understand your definition of the ball. I would define the ball as whoever is driving the action. If I build a setting (the setting is defined by the goal of the particular session), and allow the players to move around that setting freely, and enguage at their own will, then they are driving the plot. You can drive the plot and still die. "I am going to try stopping this train with my car". Did the train drive the plot because it ran over the PC? I wouldn't think so. The train is a prop. A very large prop that was going it's way no matter what the PC does. The train does not vear to hit the PC, the PC decided that the train would hit them. The PC is driving the plot. Therefore If the setting is deturmined, and the resolution is open, then the PC has the ball the entire time. They at most points could simply walk away. They have in some cases to build up and re-approach. When the PC controls how and when the interaction occurs, they have the ball.

This is an important point because up until now we have been discussing a GM that does things to spite the characters, to subjugate them. I contend that you can develop a parinoid player and not do so. Basicly I am looking at high stakes gaming. My social contract with my players says that if they bite off more than they can chew, they'll choke. To do any less in my oppinion would be pandering.

I also have offered the role of GM to the other players (acctually I want them to GM I want to play too) but they have rarely taken the offer. Mainly I think because no matter what the game we play, I reflexivly memorize the rules. Because I do that the other players think they have to also. I keep telling them they don't and I'll help them if they need it, but so far there have been few takers. Realistically this may be because they don't want to go through all the effort of setting up a game.

[Bankuei]

Hi Emmett,

I think we're mixing issues here.  "Reality", "Plausibility", "Good planning and tactics" etc, are personal play preferences(many of which I share with you), but have nothing to do with Abused or Paranoid players.  Abused and Paranoid players are the result of power abuse within the Social Contract, not a result of play with high casuality in effect.

If we're talking about a game that has consistent causality, then its possible to learn "how the world works" whether we're talking "reality" or "superheroes".  The key point is consistancy, and it allows you to learn, adapt, and eventually develop successful strategies.  If this is the case, players should see their characters living longer and longer, as they improve in their ability to assess and plan to the game casuality....

But, if there is inconsistant causality, it is impossible to plan to the game, impossible to rely on anything.  Yes, you have to check to see if the fire door is trapped with a bomb, and no, it doesn't make sense, but then the players have gotten used to things "not making sense".  

Do you see?  When you cannot rely on some form of consistancy in the game, whether we're talking Setting, Character Ability("Why can I climb this wall, and not that one, even though they're the same material?"), or System itself, you become paranoid.  Consider how you would act if you were trapped in a horror movie.  That's the same stuff you see from play of Abused Players.

What this is, is an abuse on a social contract level.  Nothing can be relied on, so the game is pretty much "GM says, and you submit/suffer".  This can be the Stick that keeps players railroaded "for the good of the story" or out and out punishment for being too clever, thinking originally, stepping  on the GM's ego, being a smartass, or any other excuse*.  

Now you and me may not be talking about the same thing.  If you're talking about players who are thinking tactically, then yeah, that's cool.  And if that's the case, characters should die less and less often as the players adapt.  If there's no consistancy to learn from, then there's no way the players can adapt, and the death rate should stay the same, no matter how smart they play.

I guess I don't understand your definition of the ball. I would define the ball as whoever is driving the action.  If I build a setting (the setting is defined by the goal of the particular session), and allow the players to move around that setting freely, and enguage at their own will, then they are driving the plot. You can drive the plot and still die.

SNIP

The train does not vear to hit the PC, the PC decided that the train would hit them. The PC is driving the plot. Therefore If the setting is deturmined, and the resolution is open, then the PC has the ball the entire time.

No, no, and no.  The Ball is the right to say "What happens next", and in fact, is almost tantamount to defining what the next immediate goal is about.  So, if the player decides to stop the train, but nothing they do, ever, ever, ever, could stop the train(Bulldoze the tracks? Bulldozer breaks down...etc.), then they do not, DO NOT, have the Ball.

A Paranoid player is not the same as a Paranoid Character.  A Paranoid player is not abused by in game events but by People At the Table.  I have played this "High Stakes" stuff, in crazy lethal games like TROS, and even the little heard of Albedo, and not developed paranoid players.   I am not blaming the GM as the sole cause of the abuse, but I am saying that it is real world people screwing with the Social Contract that creates Abused Players.

Please take some time, seperate the issues.  Otherwise all we'll be doing is talking past each other at this point.

Chris

*Example in point-
Rifts game, friend and I as players developed a simple tactic.  One PC controlled gravity, the other controlled Earth.  One dropped enemies to the ground, the other engulfed them.  Fight over.  GM was upset his uber monsters were constantly being beaten, and therefore decided to 1) Starve our characters, and 2) present the only food source as poisoned(poisoned deer that do megadamage, uh-huh).  Somebody tell me abuse wasn't going on.

[Emmett]

Okay I agree that an inconsistant game world would be a valid no-no. But I disagree that the "ball" is defining what happens next. I guess I would very rarely give the player the ball. I do allow the players to define their actions and do my best to be realisitc about how their actions would effect the world.

For example, which is better. Player "I am going to kill SuperBadGuy! I shoot him in the head and he dies!" - OR - Player "I am going to shoot at SuperBadGuy! I am going to aim at his head" And then the GM resolves that action based on the games criteria.

I would choose the latter. In the first, the player defines what happens next. The latter is the player defining their actions. It is up to the GM to then use the rules of the game to deturmine the outcome. (I'm gameist can't you tell.)

Another example. Player "I'm going into the bar" GM "before you are able to walk in, two participants in an already in proccess brawl come flying out the door straight at you!" Player " No that doesn't happen I walk into the bar and order a drink."

That would be an example of the players defining the action.

However the bulldozer breaking down for no reason is an abuse of power, and I would constitute that as an inconsistant world. Now if there was a premeditated reason why the player wouldn't know how (or didn't have the keys) to start the bulldozer, then that is acceptable.

I think your Rifts example could be done correctly with the right amount of backstory, but a melicious action is unreasonable.

[Bankuei]

Hi Emmett,

I think we're getting clearer with what's going on here.  

Please don't confuse the Ball with Director stance, you can have the Ball, and only be able to control your character.  But for this to happen, the GM cannot railroad the player's decisions.  So, yeah, the PC can aim for Superbadguy's head, and dice get rolled.  The question is, does the GM then fudge the dice to keep Superbadguy alive?  Does he "suddenly" have a special force field, a body double, or a clone(when it wouldn't make sense)?  Does the gun miraculously jam or fall apart?  

Having the Ball is this simple, "No, we don't take the job from the mysterious stranger in the tavern."  "I don't want to try to fight the alien menace, I go home."  Granted, this is pretty wack ways to use the ball, but even still, its the player's option to use it as such.  When railroading occurs, the player doesn't have the ball.

Bringing this back to point, Abused players have to steal the ball, and do stuff like this, because its the only time they'll ever have it.  They have to decide to spend an hour planning, because its the only time they'll be "free" to do what they will, even if that isn't necessarily fun for them.

Chris