Some people wanted to know how things went with my group with regard to what was going on in this thread.

So, we had the big talk I wanted to have last night. Except for two nasty incidents -- both of which were really facets of the same problem, I think -- it went well. More on that later. First, let's concentrate on what went right.

Two of the players -- we'll call them X and Y -- made new characters to to integreate with another player's character -- we'll call that player G. Also present was S, whose character's actions sort of precipated the whole incident. One of the players has been sick for a while and wasn't present, unfortunately -- but it went smoothly without him.

We talked about the sort of game I was trying to run, and what we were trying to do. We agreed that we needed to operate as an OOC team, and we got a sign-on from everyone to help everyone out in tough situations by suggesting OOC how to better handle a situation, to make more use of Author Stance and to try to remain interested -- by suggesting things -- in what other PCs were doing if if one's own PCs wasn't present. We agreed to try to stop interrupting each other by instituting "raise your hand" rule for when someone wants to speak. We agreed that EVERYONE is responsible for EVERYONE's fun.

We also discussed some more specific issues, such as a tension in the group between those who like to plan ahead and those who would rather move forward and act, with an eye twoard pacing those issues a little better. We also discussed the fact that S doesn't really seem to enjoy the game, and is usually bored, and discussed posible solutions -- we're going to continue on a trial basis, but the irony here is playing Unsung and Pretender seems to have ruined her for D&D, which is a wonderful complement to my games (and to the indie designers who inspired them) but ain't so good for the D&D game. But we decided to soldier on.

As a GM, I signed on to try to keep better track of the pace of things (the whole bass player thing) and to allow more OOC commentary to keep people interested and infromed -- I used to try to stop conflicts by telling people "you're not there" and keeping them stickly IC, and this was obviously disfunctional and so we've abandoned it.

After all this, we dealt this some administrivia and did a short play session, to try to integrate the new characters.

The two related problem incidents were these:

1) While discussing the social contract issues, I tried to keep people from getting into recriminations and pointing fingers. The idea was to discuss the social situation, not justify what was or wasn't done. Well, during this discussion X and G got into just that sort of discussion, and would not let go, arguing and arguing and arguing. Things got so sidetracked that I ended up shouting them down to get them to stop -- it was the only way I could think of to get their attention. Not functional, perhaps, but it worked.

2) At the end of the game, X and G got into an OOC discussion about certain facts of the game universe. Again, they argued and argued and argued and would not let go. I got involved, since this was about the game world, coming down somewhat (only somewhat) on X's side, hoping that an official GM ruling about the game would end the argument. It didn't. (This discussion, BTW, was an outgrowth of an IC discussion between their characters.)

The reason these problems popped up involves the personalties involved. X has admitted, on several occasions, that she likes to discuss things. IN fact, other people have asserted that she likes stirring up trouble -- I think that's harsh, but it's certainly true she'll keep going at an argument if you'll let her.

G also likes to discuss things. The problem is, his usual tactic, rather than to find agreement, is to continue the discussion by always taking the opposing position, even if he has areas of agreement with the person he's talking to. However, when he and X get into it, he tends to get defensive, and gets angry because he thinks X is making incorrect assumptions about him and his character -- but he never actually says this, his arguments (which are actually immaterial to the social thing going on) only get more heated -- and when I tried to step in last night, that only added fuel to the fire.

As an additional complication to this, there is how everyone reacts to X and G getting into it. Y is not the most patient person on the best of days, and when one of these endless arguments start, he starts to get more and more impatient, and angrier and angrier -- last night, he has to leave the room during the second argument to avoid doing something melodramatic like quitting the game, just to end the argument. Similarly, I don't think these arguments interest S at all, which contributes to her boredom problem.

(The missing player, BTW, when he is present, either reacts like Y, like S, or acts somewhat as a moderator -- but he's not consistent in any of those roles.)

Myself, looking back on similar incidents in the past, have found myself to be an unconcious facilitator. See, the things G and X argue about usually involve the game and are interesting to me. So, I tend to like to sit back and listen -- which stamps an "implicit GM approval" thing on the situation. Not good and totally my fault.

Part of the problem is I have no idea how to deal with the situation.

And there have been incidents like this other than last night. With perhaps one exception, every tense arguement (and there have been several) in the game has had a strong component where G is on one side and X is on the other. And in a lot of cases, these arguements had bad OOC fallout in terms of hurt feelings on both sides -- or at least that's the impression I gathered from talking to people.

And the second of last night's incidents proved it's not X and G's characters -- X designed her character to work with G -- but it's the players themselves. Y sometimes gets involved in such arguments, too, if he isn't too angry -- but to a lesser degree, because he usually loses patience with the argument, IC and OOC, and does something sudden and melodramatic IC and/or OOC. (This isn't helped along by the fact that S likes to throw a monkeywrench into the game when she gets bored, but I think we've at least discussed that issue at length already as a group.)

So, I was too tired last night (the second argument lasted until after midnight) to go into this, but I think this is the final issue that needs to be resolved -- X and G's tendency to argue, in and out of character.

Y thinks ultimately that X and G don't like each other, and that's why they argue, but I don't think that's the case -- or, at least, I hope that isn't the case, because it probably means they absolutely shouldn't game with each other. Regardless, I am looking for the opinions of disinterested third parties as to how to handle this situation.

I want to sit X and G down to talk about it, but G lives far away and X lives nearby and visits me often, so I'm afraid of a certain unequality in terms of people actually getting to be able to air their views.

I do honestly think this is the last big obstacle we need to overcome -- and we need to prevent ourselves from falling into old patterns.

To me the one thing X & G do not get is that: No one has fun or enjkoys the gme when you argue

Certianly I have been in the past one of these people who feels that passionately laying out everything as loudly as possible will get all issues out on the table. Yeah well I also learned how dysfunctional that can be. Its also disruptive and I would suggest that maybe reminding them "Hey its EVERYONEs responsibility for EVERYONE's fun" whenever they got at it. Especially since Y & S are having issues with how X&G handle themselves.


Sean

Hi there,

Is G committed to everyone else's fun? Really?

This person doesn't live near the group, and I'm getting the idea that he or she doesn't socialize with anyone in the group except to game. Is that the case?

Best,
Ron

Before I begin this statement, let me say that I am "Y" in the orignal post. Yes, I am melodramatic and I storm off. But I digress.

G does in fact socialize outside of gaming with us on occassion dispite his distance. Though because of said distance, he does not do so often. However, the large difficulty with G & X is this:

X sees social discourse such as what happened as intellectual and a kind of friendly style of debate. She also loves feeling like she's right and will continue a debate until either you give up and admit she's right or do something dramatic and storm off. (Natch)

G sees social discourse such as what happened as a personal attack. He feels like someone is challenging his authority, his knowledge of the game and most of all his character and what he can do with it. G is very much the style of player that wants his characters to do "cool things" and wants a character that he has control over. He really hates feeling like he's not in control. He is very meticulous with his characters because of this. He sees his characters as "his space" and doesn't want other people attempting to muscle in on it.

So the debate rages because X enjoys the discussion and wants to prove her point, while G remains consistantly on the defensive in an attempt to validate both his character and his character's methods. X does not back off because she does not realize she is upseting G and she believes he is buying into her methodology of debate. In fact he is getting very frustrated and very very defensive. He gets defensive, she tries to make a new point. X makes a new point, G gets defensive. Endless cycle.

I, personally, get really really frustrated by this. X is my girlfriend, so I'm obviously more patient with her. G is a completely different style of gamer than I am, so we have trouble relating. I also have difficulty with his tendency to get defensive. I had to storm off from the session because I was getting very, very hot-tempered. I do that alot. I felt the debates were going on pointlessly, and neither of them is willing to let go and admit that is, after all, just a game.

As for S, I think she's going to quit when she goes back to school anyway so I'm not terribly worried about it.

To be honest, I still have very strong concerns about this game disipite reassurances from Xiombarg. However, he is a wonderful GM and I will gladly continue down the trail set before us.

As James mentioned, G can and does socialize with us out-of-game, when it is possible to do so. A couple Saturdays ago he and I hung out and watched anime, and while gaming was discussed, it wasn't really the primary agenda.

I've talked with X and G since this post and made is clear that the arguing needs to stop. Both have agreed to this. I'm going to take a "wait and see" attitude.

That said, I think that now that I know it's a problem, I can do what I can as GM to head it off when it happens, instead of implicitly facilitating the arguments, as I have in the past.

But does G hang out with X?

This is what I think Ron is talking about. I think he's guessing that these two aren't socially compatible. This would be an example of the social principle in action. That is, it's been said that one should not play with anyone that they would not hang out with to begin with. That gaming isn't enough of a reason itself to get people together. They need to like being with each other to start.

OTOH, if it's only during gaming that they argue, and are amicable otherwise, then the problem is probably with playstyle I'm guessing (the whole "validating his characters methods" thing. In which case you still have a substantial problem.

Mike

We have sort of hung out as a group, but not very often. G has hung out with me the most, but I think that is more due to schedule than due to preference, tho I could be wrong.

Dunno if X and G would hang with each other given the chance. X spends most of her time with Y. As I said, Y thinks X and G don't like each other, and things are probably doomed from the start if that's true. I'm not so sure it's true, however -- only time will tell. I'll note that G made the trip to Salisbury recently specifically to apologize to X for what happened last game (and to look for a job, but I suspect that was a secondary concern, as he's told me in the past he doesn't want to commute to Salisbury for a job).

I'll note that these two players never get into this problem in the Dragonstar game run by the player who couldn't make it last session. However, in that game G plays a character that doesn't really seem to care what's going on, and X doesn't particularly care for science fiction, so the irony might be that there's no problem because neither of them are as invested in the Dragonstar game as they are in my game. (Or that might just be my ego talking. The more humble explaination might be that there's more to argue about in the Scarred Lands setting, which has a lot of philosphical stuff going on in it.)

Regardless, there could be play style issues. The game I'm aiming for, as it's been set up, is very much a vanilla Narrativist/Gamist hybrid (it is D&D after all, tough to leave that Gamism 100% behind), but G has been showing very Simulationist leanings as of late -- he actually requested wandering monsters while the PCs go through the marshes because it's more "realistic", something no one else in the group wants. In contrast, the guiding principle has been that all encounters -- and all combats -- must have something to do with the plot. Story first. (It's notable that part of the reason I think G isn't invested in the Dragonstar game is because he's told me, on several occasions, that the setting annoys him -- he thinks it doesn't "make sense".)

However, I've explained to G that that is not the kind of game I'm running. My orientation is toward the plot, not toward simulating the world. I don't want to violate willing suspension of disbelief, but the model we're working with is more a novel than a "world".

On the other hand, G makes the most Gamist decisions of the group, so he's very in-sync with that aspect of the game -- in fact, he could be an asset to the other players in that respect. And, as evidenced by the apology thing above, I don't think he dislikes X.

Now, wheter X likes him is another issue entirely, and it's a tough call to make -- she's generally very shy and it's not easy to discern her actual opinion about someone, as she's very concerned to be nice and polite.

I've asked X and G not to continue such arguments, and now that I'm aware of the problem I can keep an eye on it as well. Right now everyone is in "wait and see" mode.

Dunno if X and G would hang with each other given the chance. X spends most of her time with Y. As I said, Y thinks X and G don't like each other, and things are probably doomed from the start if that's true. I'm not so sure it's true, however -- only time will tell. I'll note that G made the trip to Salisbury recently specifically to apologize to X for what happened last game

Mike Holmes wrote: As far as the GNS issue, do you think that your explanations of your game's mode is being understood and agreed upon? Have you thought about putting in some rules like Spiritual Attributes from TROS to make the Gamism and Narrativisim more congruent in play?

Maybe. But discussion at some point starts to sound like preaching. And I've always been of the opinion that mechanics are the big stick as far as getting people to play your way...

But whatever works for your group. Despite the arguing, they sound pretty sensible.

Mike