Okay, I've slept on it and I've noticed that there are some people who play games - who are following "Other social agendas" but who do play as opposed to merely asking for the bowl of chips. This player may be a bored spouse, significant other etc. They are not power playing in game terms so how can it be world wrecking in a gamist sense. They may do some story telling but not to move the story but instead to mess with the players at hand. This could be a creative agenda - but not a game one - it uses the game to push an "Other social agenda" that wrecks games and violates the social contract.

When I ran a game club twenty years ago I called such players barbarians. They needed to be driven out lest they spoil the broth.

In the Big Model such players might be called "Obstructionists."

Can this fit in the model?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Could you give some specific examples of what this person might do? I'm not quite grokking what this type of play/player is about.

I'll take a stab, and Chris can correct me if I've misinterpreted.

Mary plays Janet Jones, head adventure-archaeologist of the Frisk Bureau. She is in an on-again, off-again romance with Thaddeus Crow, a researcher played by her husband, Jeff.

Jeff is playing a subtle diplomacy scene with Chang Li, the Dragon Lady, asian mistress of mystery, to find out where the Jade Buddha has been taken. They are on the verge of substantially advancing the plot, so long as things are handled very delicately.

Mary narrates that Janet Jones storms into the room when Crow and the Dragon Lady are leaning close. Jones immediately takes this as a romantic encounter, and elaborates the Stakes of the conflict to include Janet's opinion and the romantic relationship. This may or may not swamp the original Stakes of "Find the Jade Buddha." Whether it does so is a matter of supreme irrelevance to Mary.

Chris: Solid example, or utter mis-step?

This would be a player who is messing up the story which could be obstructionist. This player is pretty engaged with the story though so they might be seen as gamist(?) since they are trying to use the rules to get what they want.

Here is another example. This time of someone who is playing but is not so involved.

Chris has convinced/browbeatten his wife into playing Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Lets say she is running Willow. This should be fun, the other players are into it but Terri is obviously angry. Maybe Chris left the toilet seat up...again! Terri makes Willow do some real mean stuff to Chris' character (Xander). Chris trys to keep on with the game. Terri then tells the vampires where Xander lives and how to get Uncle Rory to let them in. The game master does not follow up on this obvious opening to kill a major PC. Terri then has Willow pick a fight with Buffy who refrains from killing her. Then Terri makes Willow walk into the vampire lair to get eaten. The others try to save her even thought this is absolutely not what the story was suppose to be about.

Terri is clearly playing a game, but it is not role playing. She has brought her "Other social agenda" namely anger at Chris, into the game. She is using the game as a language to passive-aggressively gig Chris.

I'd call that Obstructionist.

Does that grok?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

PS: My wife Terri is actually a very good role player, she was one of the original play testers of the first Star Trek RPG and the FASA Dr Who game. But force her into a game, or bore here by the game and expect bad things to start happening! She just doesn't put up with bad game mastering.

Okay. I think I see it now.

It's like a group of guys getting together to shoot hoops every week but Bob is mad (upset) at Dave over something else. When the game starts Bob won't pass to Dave or only passes to him when he's sure to get hammered. Or if they are on opposite teams, Bob is constantly throwing elbows under the basket if Dave guards him. Bob isn't normally like this but now he's using the game to "make a statement" about something that is outside the game... and generally being an ass at the same time.

I can see Obstructionist as a label for that, as what they are doing is obstructing everyone from playing the game that the group wants to play but consistently forcing their own agenda (not CA) on the group.

Am I on the right wavelength here?

Provisional Glossary wrote: Creative Agenda: The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing.

Hiya,

Total Social Contract.

Social Contract is defined as any and all social interactions which surround (and include) the "we role-play together" activity.

The role-playing (SIS stuff) is within it, and it includes many other things. There is no set "importance" of the role-playing within the Social Contract; that will vary by person and by group.

Chris, it seems to me as if you're still struggling with this concept a little. Perhaps it would help if you were to set aside role-playing and think of any social leisure activity. Say "bowling."

It's not hard to imagine that any number of folks bowl together within the context of a bunch of interactive/social reasons. And that if anyone (or even everyone) has a specific "bowling agenda," whether to take the league championship or to perfect the right technique or whatever, that will only functionally occur within that set of interactive/social relationships.

That applies to any and all human social leisure activities. There seems to be, however, a historical resistance to this idea applying to role-playing.

Best,
Ron

Gaerik wrote:
I can see Obstructionist as a label for that, as what they are doing is obstructing everyone from playing the game that the group wants to play but consistently forcing their own agenda (not CA) on the group.

TonyLB wrote:

Provisional Glossary wrote: Creative Agenda: The aesthetic priorities and any matters of imaginative interest regarding role-playing.

I'm having a hard time seeing the "socially manipulate Chris" priorities as being aesthetic in nature.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hiya,

Total Social Contract.

Chris, it seems to me as if you're still struggling with this concept a little.

Chris --

Let me see if I'm on the same page with you -- what you are talking about would be called in MMORPG terms a grief player or griefer: someone whose sole enjoyment of the game is brought about through ruining other people's fun. Is this correct?

I've been thinking about that a lot recently.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben Lehman wrote: in MMORPG terms a grief player or griefer: someone whose sole enjoyment of the game is brought about through ruining other people's fun. Is this correct?

I've been thinking about that a lot recently.

yrs--
--Ben

MatrixGamer wrote: Then Terri makes Willow walk into the vampire lair to get eaten. The others try to save her even thought this is absolutely not what the story was suppose to be about.

Terri is clearly playing a game, but it is not role playing. She has brought her "Other social agenda" namely anger at Chris, into the game. She is using the game as a language to passive-aggressively gig Chris.

I'd call that Obstructionist.

MatrixGamer wrote:
Glad to hear someone else see this too. It is real.

Hi,

I think it might be worthwhile to take careful note that many instances that could be seen as "obstructionist" might come from different causes-

- CA Incoherence amongst the group- the group is "talking past each other" with regards to their assumptions of what CA is in effect, and see each other as being problematic and obstructionist

-Passive Aggressive action- as in Chris' example. A common behavior amongst people in general, in & out of gaming. Though this kind of stuff happens, it's a reaction to a situation- not the original intent for play("Hey, I'm going to play D&D with this guy, and treat him like crap though play!")

-Griefers- as in online play, or trolls in discussion boards. They get their kicks in ruining whatever fun others are having- regardless of what kind of fun that may be.

Of the groups, only the third can really be considered as coming to the table with the intent to wreck things, but even then, I would have a hard time calling it a CA of any sort. It'd be rather like asking "What do you call an artist who does everything to prevent art from being produced?" "You don't call them an artist- that's someone who doesn't like art." You could replace the words with cooks & food, musicians & music, carvers & woodwork, etc. but the point is that obstructionism goes completely against the very basic Social Contract of "We're here to play" with "I'm here to stop you FROM playing, in ANY fashion that you might find fun."

The CA would be what kind of art, food, music, is being produced, but if the problem is whether ANY kind ought to be produced in the first place, it's above CA.

Chris

John Kim wrote: I have a bad reaction to this for two reasons: your phrase "what the story was supposed to be about" and "other social agenda". The former implies that unexpected actions which radically change the story are bad. The latter implies that the game is supposed to have a particular social agenda.

Ben Lehman wrote: Has anyone here disagreed with you about its existence? I think the disagreement is about whether or not it is a Creative Agenda.

Bankuei wrote: "obstructionist" might come from different causes-

- CA Incoherence amongst the group- the group is "talking past each other"

-Passive Aggressive action- ("Hey, I'm going to play D&D with this guy, and treat him like crap though play!")

-Griefers- ruining whatever fun others are having- regardless of what kind of fun that may be. [/qoute]


Now these all seem like logical points that can be compaired to the big model to see how it addresses them. I'm certain talking past one another and confusion over what agenda a game will follow are well covered. I would see that as being in the social contract where peoplle can have open honest discussions about what the agenda is. The second two approaches to play are inherently dishonest positions. If the person was asked what they were doing I can easily see them lie. They might say "I'm here to play." Their actions say otherwise.


[quote+"Bankuei] the point is that obstructionism goes completely against the very basic Social Contract of "We're here to play" with "I'm here to stop you FROM playing, in ANY fashion that you might find fun."

I just had an idea. Obstructionism, it seems to me, is an agenda at the highest social contract level -- ie to be contrary or annoy one or more other players. The normal social contract says "We're all here to have individual fun and support each other's fun using a set of rules." The obstructionist rejects the fun part.

Creative Agenda comes in when the group agrees what environment they want to create in which to have their fun. This is subsidiary to the basic "we're here to play the game."

It seems to me that obstructionism would operate independant of CA - they can mess up any CA the group chooses.

Hi Alan,

Right, I mean, we could put this social agenda right up there with, "I show up at the LARP cause I'm trying to hook up with this cute girl" or any other social agenda which could conceivably be in play- some of which will support a given Creative Agenda, and others which wouldn't.

Chris,

Right, the dysfunction comes first from the fact that the person is directly counter to the goals of the group, and the purpose of the group activity altogether. You can't put two different people with the agenda to bake a cake and another with the agenda to stop any cakes from being baked together and expect things to run smoothly.

It might be worthwhile to take a close examination of the social dynamics that allow this stuff to keep cropping up. Although all activities have their share of dysfunction, roleplaying is one of the few where the majority of people continually have a hard time removing people from the activity who are counter to it.

I mean, if you tried to sabotage a baseball team, you'd get kicked off the team real quick. If you showed up at a Jazz club and played techno, you'd get thrown off stage real quick. If you showed up at Poker night and ripped up the cards, you'd be removed as well.

With roleplaying, I think a few different things allow obstructionists to hang around and keep causing trouble:

-Geek Fallacy "Because we have the same interests we're automatically friends."
-Loser Fallacy "I can't NOT play with this person. Then they'll stop being my friend(and I can't make new ones...)"
-Campaign as Marriage "We need to play for 15 years, and we have to stick it through, for the love of the the game."
-Rules as Bible "The Rules will tell us how to deal with this person's misbehaving"
-Abusive Friendship "It doesn't matter that he makes me angry, cry and says hurtful things all the time- he's my friend."(also, bad gaming is better than no gaming fallacy).
-GM as God "I have to be perfect, I HAVE to make sure everyone's having fun, including the guy who ruins everyone's fun. Otherwise I failed, and it's my fault."

Half of these are obviously the same problems you get in many social situations, the other half are encouraged/supported by certain styles of play and text.

Chris

Hiya,

Chris (Matrixgamer), I'm getting a sense of going around in circles. "Its basic purpose is destructive, so how does it fit in?" The only possible answer is, "It doesn't."

I think Alan and Chris (Bankuei) have nailed down the basic answers very clearly.

Q: Is obstructionist play a Creative Agenda?

A: No, it is not.

Q: How does it fit into the Big Model?

A: It is an agenda in the informal sense of the word ("social goal"), operating at the level of Social Contract. As you have defined it, it interferes with Creative Agenda(s).

I think you might be interested in the extensive discussions we've already had at the Forge about this and related issues. Have you seen the Site Discussion sticky thread about the Infamous Five? I recommend taking some time to check out those links and see what happened in those discussions.

Best,
Ron

Alan wrote: The normal social contract says "We're all here to have individual fun and support each other's fun using a set of rules." The obstructionist rejects the fun part.

Bankuei wrote: It might be worthwhile to take a close examination of the social dynamics that allow this stuff to keep cropping up. Although all activities have their share of dysfunction, roleplaying is one of the few where the majority of people continually have a hard time removing people from the activity who are counter to it.

Ron Edwards wrote:
I think you might be interested in the extensive discussions we've already had at the Forge about this and related issues. Have you seen the Site Discussion sticky thread about the Infamous Five?

Here's the link Chris:
Infamous Five in the Site Discussion Forum

Thanks!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Okay, I've read through the threads. First I boiled them down to seven pages of notes and then to the four I'm posting here. Please note that the actual threads are not this precise and that no complete agreement was reached in them. People did state their positions. The ones that seemed to reach a consensus are what I've put here.

THE INFAMOUS FIVE SHORT FORM SYNOPSIS

#1 PUBLISHING

MAINSTREAM: A REVISION
TSR fantasy/superheroes are not the mainstream, science fiction, fantasy/surrealism, sex, biography, humor, horror and drama/soap opera are. Stores should feature these in nicely made books to attract a wider game audience.

PRODUCTION VALUE
Game products need to be "high class"

PROMOTION
Build web communities. Target the disgruntled role player.

ACTIVE VS PASSIVE ENTERTAINMENT FROM MAINSTREAM: A REVISION
Games are active - comics/video/etc. are passive

THE STORE
Distribution and sales are important but until a big picture is established discussion leads in circles.

WHAT WOULD MAKE A NON-ROLEPLAYER BUY YOUR GAME?
Roleplayers being proud open and inviting will bring new people to the hobby.

THE GAME THAT WOULD SELL TO NON-ROLEPLAYERS
•Simple rules, deep strategy- Chess, Dominoes, Backgammon, Go, Othello
•Social games-Uno, Charades, Balderdash, Scruples, etc.
•Physical tokens to occupy the hands/fiddle with-Barrel of Monkeys, Pick up Stix, Tiddlywinks, Mousetrap
•Clear goals/Winning Conditions/End conditions
•Clear time commitment, ranging from 10 minutes to 2 hours.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY
"In order to sell well people have to be able to play." "Actual play doesn't track the booming sales of a fad in a huge spike."

ACCESSIBLE? TO WHOM?
Complicated detailed rules work for some not others. "Vanilla" rules work for some not others.

#2 ACTUAL PLAY

ACTUAL PLAY IN STORES
Ron sets down rules for running games at stores - which sound fine.. Stores have problems - they push the next big thing.

#3 RPG THEORY

SOCIAL CONTEXT
Social Contract. It's the sum and the internal interactions of how the members of the role-playing group interact as human beings. Social Context of play concerns how one's role-playing relates to all the other socializing in one's life.

GAY CULTURE/GAMER CULTURE [SOCIAL CONTEXT]
Be a gamer and be proud! Gamers are a subculture much like unto Fetishists. When it is more open public acceptance goes up, in theory.

SELF-IMAGE (SPLIT FROM GAY/GAMER)
More gamer pride and self loathing, sort of a self help meeting on line.

CHRISTIAN GAMERS AND SELF ESTEEM
The same discussion this time directed at theological conflicts (Christian vs Anti Religious).

WHAT DOES ROLE PLAYING GAMING ACCOMPLISH?
Nothing, entertainment, education, socialization, etc,

SEXISM AND GAMING (SPLIT)
How to get women to play games. The great untapped market. Are games sexist - some oh yeah! All? No.

#4 GNS MODEL DISCUSSION

VANILLA AND PERVY [THREAD #4 OF THE FIVE]
Vanilla = placing low emphasis on Exploration of System. Few “points of contact” with the rules during play. Vanilla play and design is more accessible to the non-role-player than Pervy play and design.
Pervy = upping the Exploration of System. Many points of contact with the rules during play. Perviness is "normal" within the gaming hobby, "normal" play requires...a developed pre-existing commitment to the hobby
The discussion is influencing people to make their systems more simple.

PERVY IN MY HEAD
"high Exploration of System would be kinky. A pervy gamer would a. only like kinky games or b. like every kinky game, just cuz it's kinky. A pervy game would be one that appeals mostly to pervs. " Strong sexual metaphors.

COMBAT SYSTEMS [PERVY AND VANILLA]
"Combat systems are Pervy!" A combat system is rules that differ from the default system to specifically address combat. Single systems are Vanilla, and therefore more accessible."

CANNOT STAND CUTESIPOO TERMS LIKE "VANILLA" AND ET AL
" The whole "mixing sex with violence" vocabulary does not sit well with me”
"Oh, pish posh poo."

PERVY SIM, POINTS OF CONTACT, ACCESSIBILITY: AN EXAMPLE GAME
Is a game in which the players have to agree to what happens pervy? More points of contact = more pervyness.
[As an aside, the game described here is very similar to “Wargame Developments Mugger Game” which have been played in England since the mid 60’s. Google it.]

THE FORGE AS A COMMUNITY (THREAD #5 OF 5)
1) Much of role-playing content mirrors the content of books, movies
2) The current economic structure of "the industry" is, in the main, incapable of providing the social play-experience and promotion that matches people who like role-playing
3) Role-playing is most consistently enjoyable when it is carried out by people who like one another
4) Most role-playing rules content has acquired so many Points of Contact, distributed in incoherent ways, through imitation and habit, that "rules" have come to be a barrier to enjoyment in many cases.
D&D fantasy + tons of irrelevant Points of Contact + store-driven commerce and non-play + inside-out social boxes = way no fun.
The cumulative effect encourages a "loser culture,"
The Forge is a “discourse community.” That discusses RPG design and publishing and the principles underlying those activities. Which will hopefully counteract the above stated problems.

THE FIVE PERCENT
"Five percent" of the Forge's userbase that has a serious problem with it. It's all about agenda. The Forge agenda is the creation and promotion of independent RPGs. These 5%ers put their goals ahead of the group goal.

THE FORGE AND CULTURAL BIAS (SPLIT FROM "FORGE AS COMMUNITY")
People have trouble getting along. Always remember "The Forge" is a privilege. At virtually any time, Clinton can withdraw service or turn off the server and "The Forge" will be no more. So be polite.

OFF THE CUFF FORGE CULTURAL ANALYSIS
The Forge underserves women, African Americans, and Hispanics. If does serve English speakers around the world who have a wide range of interests.

RELATIONSHIPS AT THE FORGE
People on the Forge forums have created relationships.

Alan wrote: I just had an idea. Obstructionism, it seems to me, is an agenda at the highest social contract level -- ie to be contrary or annoy one or more other players. The normal social contract says "We're all here to have individual fun and support each other's fun using a set of rules." The obstructionist rejects the fun part.

The closest thing I found in the "Infamous Five" threads to obstructionism was the post on the 5% of Forge participants who place their goals ahead of those of the group. Their destructive potential on group play was noted. The thread after that carried the warning "Play nice or it all can end." Which would be when the play got so dysfunctional that the group dies.

The 5%ers are "playing" the game of Forge discussion. They might be seen as grumpy spammers, if they write too many posts.

The thread did not bring that idea back into the Big Model.

I didn't read anything in the Imf 5 threads that addressed my question (How does obstructioinism fit in?) so the question remains.

We can say - it's just social contract - which it is - but why stop the exploration there? It is a part of game play that rules can have some effect on.

Pervy games (BTW I don't care much for this term - the sexual baggage it brings gets in the way of communicating the concept) for instance might lead to obstructionist play, especially amongst new players, because they get bored. I used to judge game rules with the suicide test. Which is - "If it takes longer to commit suicide in the game than it does in real life, there is a problem with the rules!" Which touches on the points of contact idea of the Pervy Vanilla thread.

An obstructionist can disrupt at any one of these points of contact.

MatrixGamer wrote:
Can we go a little further though and figure out how this play can be worked with by creative agendas so that it's destructive potential is lessened?

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

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

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).

Ron Edwards wrote: 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."

Valamir wrote:
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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

One thing that rules can do to facilitate the ejection of problem players, is to facilitate the removal of their characters after they go. A group will be more likely to tolerate problem play, if they feel that they have to keep the character.

I haven't seen it happen, but a mechanism for handling NPC's that are on the PC's 'side' (I'm talking mostly about games where the PC's are mostly cooperating against obstacles presented by the GM) fairly would be a help.

That would be helpful. It would come back to the issue of who should have power ofer which PCs and NPCs. I think that touches on who has "credibility" in making changes in the world.

If the GM alone has power to control NPCs they I guess they can divy them out at will but NPCs have histories and a record of likin Character X can't be lightly overlooked.

In Matrix Games this is a non-issue because anyone can make an argument for any character. A player's control of their character and allies is not absolute. It is just another factor that influences the referee's decision on how strong arguments are.

Spreading out control is a big step for D+D like games but not so big a step for this batch of Indie games that are here. Still probably a hard sell to a mass audience but that's another matter.

BTW there is no question here, just comment.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Arrrrghh! Do I have to moderate everything?

This thread limped to a close pages ago. Stop posting to it! Chris, especially, you seem to have a need to post "one more time" or maybe "get in the last word" that has just got to stop.

I'd like to follow up on some points in it, sure - but for me or anyone, the best way to do that is to start new threads.

Best,
Ron