Hi folks,

I ran an IRC/Yahoo Chat Riddle of Steel demo game* for someone recently, and wanted to talk about some abused player syndrome actions I witnessed and open it up for discussion.

So, here’s the basic gist of play: The player is playing Grey, a roguish sort, who’s been seeing Aleesha on the downlow. Aleesha has claimed secrecy was because her father was an old world tough guy and heavy handed, but she reveals that in fact she is married to Marsaille, a local smuggler and made man. She reveals this now, because she just discovered that Marsaille has been dealing in(with, delving into?) books of forbidden magic. Being the sorcery-fearing sort, she’s decided to run to authorities(the Church) on this one. She, of course, is bringing the Arcanus Destine as the proof.(Grey happens to be an aspiring sorcerer on the side, and has interest in this).

Ok, so you’ve got gangsters, a hot book and a girl, the Church, and an old world father. Ripe for good drama and all that.

Ok, so onto actual play: The player of Grey is a fairly proactive sort, so things are good on that part. What was uncool, was the absolute fear that I was attempting to manipulate the situation so as to part Grey and Aleesha for her to be kidnapped. Second, he went as far as to scope out Father Demetrius to see if he was, indeed, a trustworthy contact.

Now, certainly, the player hasn’t ever met me, or played with me before, I’m sure there’s need to build trust. But, the actions were a clear sign of expectations based on previous play, the “Trust no one, trust nothing” player style.

Where this gets interesting for me, to note, is that he was completely anticipating every sort of “GM Fiat” way of me railroading events and stealing away his ability to have an input into what happens. To use the Ball analogy, he was used to having only Character as his method of getting the Ball, and wanted to make sure I didn’t seperate his character from Aleesha. In other words, he’s used to having to wrestle and connive for the Ball.

I realized a couple of things during this;

First, that the idea of kidnapping the girl without the player character present seemed boring and uninteresting to me in the same fashion declaring the player characters got hit by a meteorite in the middle of the night would be. I mean, I could imagine other play instances where someone being kidnapped without the PCs being present could provide for some interesting play, but here, is absolutely seemed pointless and stupid. Plus, if Marsaille is after the girl and the book, seperating Grey from both would seem to take him out of the loop.

Second, that as a GM, I found the idea of Aleesha’s decision to leave her husband and turn him in to really be the crux of the conflict; the GM provided Kicker if you will. Having her be kidnapped(while certainly a threat) would seem to be a Bang that would shift the focus of “what the conflict is about”. It seems like the style of play would move from “Grab the money, grab the girl and run!” heist/crime drama sort of thing into the classic, “Beat up bad guy for his +5 Wife” deal. Granted, the player doesn’t know that, but just the same, its kinda sad how “standardized” the roleplaying experience has become for a lot of folks.

Anyway, all in all, I realized how far from “standard” gaming I had gotten, simply because this guy’s abused player syndrome reactions really felt alien to me. It makes me think of having to check every 5’ for traps and listen at each and every door, and make sure you have 2 folks awake to guard camp at night...

So, opening the floor for discussion, I'm going to venture that the Abused Player Syndrome stems directly from having the ball snatched out of their hands(along with player input via character) through abusive use of GM power and fiats. Anyone have some comments, questions or observations about this?

Chris

*TROS is very easy to explain face to face. It is also very fun and easy to run face to face. IRC almost demands “dice-light” gaming. TROS is much harder to explain and play on IRC. I would not consider using it for more than 2 players, and can’t even begin to comprehend how folks play stuff like D&D or Rifts online.

Tangent 1: I think D&D and such online works primarily because people aren't being introduced to system with it--they tend to be familiar going in.

Tangent 2: Even with point 1, I'd still like to see a TROS game in in the indierpgs IRC at some point. Not a demo, but get folks who have the book, etc.

The Ball analogy is a really nice one. I've been noticing its effects more and more in the increasingly-irregular meetings of the tabletop group I play in and sometimes GM for. Railroading really does shape player expectations and actions.

A lot of it comes down to unspoken social contracts, I suppose, but there is some hope. In the past couple years, the group's largely broken our D20 GM of his love of ambushes, and for the most part, I think everyone has done so unconsciously. We'd simply chat about how the characters were arranged, and pre-established some general reaction-patterns to perform when communication started getting broken up during things. Things like "the next town's, what, seven hours away? All right, let's figure we budget a day for it instead. Figure we'll need X potions to recover from the ambush along the way, so we'll get that and Y more as overhead for the ambush in the town when we reach that..."

Cruel, but ultimately effective. It's been probably nearly a year since we really had a combat we didn't walk into intentionally. Railroad lines are still present, unfortunately.

Hi there,

Solid stuff, in every way.

Is anyone familiar with the following?

- Player makes up character who owns a bar or other establishment.
- Major event during the first session: bar gets blown up by GM fiat.

The positive version of these events (which is practically non-existent) is that we're talking about a Bang, in Sorcerer terms.

The negative version (1) is we're talking about a GM who doesn't frigging want a bar story, he wants a find-the-wumpus story, and the first thing to do is to get that character out of the bar. Easiest solution: remove the bar from around his ears.

The negative version (2) is we're talking about a player who doesn't frigging want to find the wumpus, and has honed that preference to not wanting to do anything at all, and hence won't stir from the bar unless it gets blown up.

Combine #1 and #2, and the "My World" vs. "My Guy" struggle for control has begun.

Best,
Ron

Hi Drastic,

You raise a very interesting issue, part of which has to do with "what kind" of game you're playing, but to use your ambush example, let's ask the question of why its happening-

1) The GM rolls wandering monsters, and ambushes happen via that(cool)
2) The GM thinks an ambush would be fun at certain points(garbage monster in Star Wars), again, cool
3) The GM thinks it would be fun for HIM(not necessarily you) to have an ambush(not cool, possible given your group's attitude regarding ambushes)
4) The GM has ambushes, "just because"(not cool, what to call this? Neurotic GM Syndrome?)

See the difference? In #1, its supported by system, and really is part of the potential Social Contract of D&D("There be wandering monsters here"). In #2, it makes for exciting play(Bangs, momentum with the ball, etc.). In #3, breakdown of the Social Contract...power tripping, etc. The players are being subjected to the GM's power trip here for HIS or HER entertainment. #4 is also a breakdown of the social contract, but since even the GM isn't getting kicks from this, no one's having fun.

Any thoughts?

Chris

Ron Edwards wrote: The negative version (1) is we're talking about a GM who doesn't frigging want a bar story, he wants a find-the-wumpus story, and the first thing to do is to get that character out of the bar. Easiest solution: remove the bar from around his ears.

Ron Edwards wrote: Is anyone familiar with the following?

- Player makes up character who owns a bar or other establishment.
- Major event during the first session: bar gets blown up by GM fiat.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for summarising and clarifying the issue so well.

What's rather interesting for me to note, is that all forms of Bangs are a GM's fiat, but they're functional because after the Bang is set up, the ball is passed over to the players. I suppose the difference is that the Bang is player empowering, whereas the typical railroad is completely the opposite. The Bang opens possibilities for "What can happen next?" while the railroad closes them.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: I suppose the difference is that the Bang is player empowering, whereas the typical railroad is completely the opposite. The Bang opens possibilities for "What can happen next?" while the railroad closes them.

The negative version (1) is we're talking about a GM who doesn't frigging want a bar story, he wants a find-the-wumpus story, and the first thing to do is to get that character out of the bar. Easiest solution: remove the bar from around his ears.

The negative version (2) is we're talking about a player who doesn't frigging want to find the wumpus, and has honed that preference to not wanting to do anything at all, and hence won't stir from the bar unless it gets blown up.

Hi Matt,

Right. That's a Bang, or rather, one way to produce a Bang (lots of ways to do it).

Best,
Ron

(cross posted, w/Matt and Ron):

Hi Jack,

Right on, but I think the other thing is really the unstated difference between a Kicker and a Bang. A Kicker becomes the focus of what conflict is about, and its the player's domain, hence, no problem feeling stepped on. A Bang is a twist or complication in regards to that conflict.

So consider this-
#1
Kicker- I woke up a different gender!
Bang- Your Mom shows up at your apartment!

#2
Kicker- My demon ran away and is eating people!
Bang- You wake up a different gender!

See how #1, the Bang plays off of what the player has established, or at least doesn't invalidate its importance or shift the focus? #2 on the other hand, presents a very real problem at least equal to if not more problematic than the Kicker.

Here, we're really talking about "Who gets the Ball?" for what purposes. There is a very good reason I mentioned that the ball is about "What happens next?" The next part is all about opening or closing those possibilities of what can happen in play, and the overall theme of what play is about.

Coming back to the bar idea, you can see how blowing up the bar can either be the GM snatching the ball away from the player, or setting up the player(with the player, "grr. Revenge" being the return set up). Definitely a lot of social contract stuff going on here, especially walking that thin line between providing conflict and stepping on character concepts.

The other important factor is what happens after the bar blows up? Does the GM really hand the ball over to the player? Or does the GM then proceed to use more force to keep pushing the player to play the way he or she wants?

Chris

Bankuei wrote: (See how #1, the Bang plays off of what the player has established, or at least doesn't invalidate its importance or shift the focus?

Hey Chris,

I would like to once more invoke the Donjon principle. How do you know your player did not want the kind of story that involves a paranoid character snooping into other people's business? Did you ask him what he wanted out of the situation, or did you ask that he look the other way while you put your plot into motion? If not, this thread is just speculation. Maybe the player has whipped-dog syndrome, and maybe he does not. We do not know.

What we do know is that you tried to run an end-around mystery plot and got caught half-way. You setup the challenge and it was met. Now fill us in on the details.

Later,
Grant

Hi Grant,

To tackle your points, out of order...

What we do know is that you tried to run an end-around mystery plot and got caught half-way. You setup the challenge and it was met. Now fill us in on the details.

Hey Chris,

That is exactly what I was looking for. Now, we know his play is disfunctional because we know his goals and we can see what he is doing goes against those goals. Moreover, we have an idea where the dysfunction comes from. Hence, a classic case of whipped-dog syndrome.

Do you understand now why I would want these background details?

Later,
Grant

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

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.

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.

Dr. Velocity wrote:
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.

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 =>

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.

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

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

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

Nev the Deranged wrote: 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. =>

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

b_bankhead wrote: \[...\] 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.

b_bankhead wrote: 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.

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

Bankuei wrote: 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.

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

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.

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

jdagna wrote: 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.

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

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

hyphz wrote: 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...

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

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"?

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

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?

Hey Emmett,

Emmett wrote: (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?

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.


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?

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)

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.

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.

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

I would like to add, though I made it fairly clear in my post, unintentionally, I believe, from my experiences so far, and the other posts here, that Abused Player Syndrome and My Guy Syndrome are SYNONYMOUS - they are *one* and the *same*.

This means that after enough abuse or unfair treatment is given to a player, who really enjoys rpgs, or thinks he would - he basically develops a neurosis, a way of seeing things ONLY this ONE way - he is convinced, either consciously or unconsciously, that this is the ONLY way rpgs CAN be played - this is their nature, and so, this is the point where we divide the people who have gamed into "Yah I played D&D a few times but I decided it was stupid" and "Yah you just don't know how great it was when I rolled my natural 01 on 1D1000 and sliced the Seven Headed Dragon God's arm off with my Giant Battleaxe of Deicide, lucky I was wearing my +18 girdle of Titan Strength and 3 Rings of Unlimited Wishes!"

The first type played, got abused, probably time and again, maybe just once, 'saw' there was no other way to play, and realized 'gee, this sucks'.

The other type played, got abused, went back for more, became clever, possibly a rule-book lawyer, and bagan to finally be rewarded for his insistance, for whatever reason - either the ref felt bad for doing all those horrible things to his character for so long, or maybe the ref was that style too, and enjoyed the munchkin aspect of laying waste to everything regardless of plot, etc.

There are as always, exceptions, some people play RPGs with a good ref, good other players and basically just don't enjoy it - thats valid. But for those that have these kinds of volatile, knee-jerk reactions... well, besides the ones that claim D&D originally came with a Ouija board. I think it boils down to Abused Player/My Guy Syndrome - I just can't see ONE instance of these two being seperate enough to point to - though I will gladly admit I'm wrong if it could be presented. I'm not even trying to make a point really, just sort of narrow down and help peg Abused Player mentality.

Hi Dr. V.,

I agree. That's my reading of the situation as well.

Best,
Ron

And lately I've gotten hooked on a comic book series which is about an Abused Player Universe -- you've all heard of it, it's Knights of the Dinner Table. Nothing invokes the old "paradigm shift without a clutch" brain-shear syndrome quite like reading comics on the KODT website and then reading discussions here on the forge. :)

"Hackmaster" as portrayed in KODT seems to be the epitome of deadly serious, mutually distrustful and abusive play. But in the comics, it seems to fill a need for the characters and to reward them for all that it invokes paranoia and fear as well.

When I was reading this thread I kept thinking of the KODT players telling each other "Never trust an NPC!" and the like.

(One thing I have not looked into is the real-world Hackmaster game, which seems to be AD&D+ somebody's house rules... there's no way it can compare to the imaginary Hackmaster game in the comics. Of course, the fact that there are people out there taking it seriously and playing it kinda stuns me.... You're playing a simulation of an imaginary roleplaying game???)

Would you call the DM in KoDT an abused GM?

I don't know, I'd be more likely to call B.A. an abused GM than call Bob or Brian abused players. Those two seem to look at a game as a gauntlet to be run, and if the game seems subpar in the challenge area they will call B.A. on it. Basically, there's no room in 'their game' for a 'weak' GM. Not that they want a 'killer' GM, but they do expect a certain level of challenge. As for B.A., he is almost forced to come up with traps and schemes just to try and keep up with players that will make minced meat out of any 'unworthy' challenge.

-Chris

Remember, in the story, B.A. was originally a player in Brian's game, before "the incident" (never discussed) which caused Brian to quit GMing forever...

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.