On adapting to others.

[Strangelet]

Hiya!

There is a person (bonk) in my group who have some quite severe restrictions on bonk's ability to enjoy the roleplay, to achieve immersion bonk needs the experience to be absolutely free from metagaming, the others players need to be totally secure in acting out their characters and bonk may never be interrupted even in character. If these are not satisfied bonk goes into a really bad mood and completely holds up the game and starts ranting out a lot of bad feelings toward the other players.

The other players, and me as a GM, have restrictions of our own; I am lazy with writing notes and other things that can help immersion and I'm generally intolerant toward people who are not flexible in their playing style in order for the game to progress, and several of the players assume that information gained by one character will always be shared with the others or have restrictions on their willingness to act out in character.

So you can guess what happened. Anyway, the questions are:

1. How far you as players and GMs prepared to change your styles in order to accomodate the other people in the group?

And

2. On which end of the axis from "My duty" to "Our duty" to "Their duty" do you place yourself when it comes to see who it is that should change to make things work in a group?

Of course question two may be circumvented by saying that "it all depends on who is actually factually right", but try for this case to specifically think of cases where it's primarily a matter of preference in gaming style rather than a conflict over which set of rules actually works or not or something else more determinable.

Edit: Hej Bonk! Om du hittar dig hit och läser denna tråden efter att jag tipsat om RPPR, försök att inte bli helt sinnessjukt förbannat, det här är mest en ögonblicksbild av uppdämd irritation efter första WoD-mötet. Visserligen har du varit ganska så jobbig även efter detta, men nu är det på en hanterbar nivå, och nu senast var du superbt integrerad i gruppen utan ett enda utbrott.

Anledningen till att jag inte bara tar bort texten är att jag är öppen för udda konsekvenser av handlingar som kan ge krydda åt tillvaron.

[Patrick]

I think the "mob" rules when it comes to gaming...

It sounds like "bonk" is the problem and not your other players. Immersion is a two way street and you have to have players that can buy-in at the drop of a hat.

If "bonk" has gamed for any amount of time, he should know that humor and meta-gaming is part of the RPG experience and should be present at every table where games are played. I think there is a certain amount of levity required to participate in a truly memorable and enjoyable RPG session or campaign. No level-headed gamer should take themselves too seriously and if you find that happening, perhaps its time to step away from the hobby for a bit...

While "bonk" may have a point about staying "in-character" during RP heavy moments in the game, being verbally abusive, grumpy and sulking should not be tolerated.

Just as rudeness is frowned upon in a polite society; so should rudeness be frowned upon at the gaming table!

I think the unofficial RPPR mantra is: No gaming is better than BAD gaming!

Sounds like you've got a real buzzkill in "bonk"...

Maybe you should ask the other members of your group about "bonk" and his behavior and come to a consensus. If everyone agrees that its time to bounce "bonk", well then, you know what to do...

Good luck

[AmishNinja]

Admittedly, as a GM I have yet to run into this problem, at least on a level that wasn't easily manageable. But I have witnessed it as a player. It sounds like Bonk is an individualist style player. They can be frustrating to work with, but if you have an entire party of individualists (prefer to remain in character at all times, oft-chanted mantra of "it's what MY character would do", etc) then things *can* work out better. However it really depends on just how individualist those players are with their characters; I had a rather miserable experience in a game of D&D due in part to this playstyle. These players had no concept of the social contract and would dick each other over in-character. Not only that, but they all had these secrets that they just HAD to keep away from the other players because OOC = cardinal sin to them. SECRETS ARE DUMB AND NO FUN FOR ANYONE.

I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but my opinion is that collectivist players are better to work with. They allow certain redundant actions to be assumed (like sharing party information, i.e. "PC Hive Mind"), which allows you as a GM to get to the meat of the adventure sooner. The more you devote energy and thought to pointless things like keeping secrets from one another, or having to repeat information to other characters the worse off you are. I can't emphasize this 'secrets' thing enough; If your character's secret is really cool, then why wouldn't you share it? If it's not, why have it? It only leads to talking to the GM in the other room for 5 minutes while the rest of the group twiddles their thumbs. This happened multiple times per session in that miserable D&D game I mentioned. I could go on about that game for its other flaws, as it was easily my worst gaming experience, but the talking in the other room thing is one of the problems that can arise from a group of individualist players who don't trust each other to keep OOC information OOC.

Back on topic: My suggestion to you would be to sit down with Bonk and talk to him. Just explain that sometimes, the social contract needs to be observed and some things need to be let go even if they aren't 100% in-character. At the same time, I would ask him why he gets so frustrated so easily. Just cut to the core of it if you can. Compromise is good, but you still have to get Bonk to realize that some degree of meta-gaming is actually good. Good players can use out of game knowledge to make the game better, and constant immersion doesn't automatically make for a good game.

Edit: ^ I agree with Patrick; If Bonk continues to be a problem after talking it through with him, then it might be best to explain that your group's playstyle doesn't mesh well with his and agree to part ways. Bottom line: It sounds like Bonk is being a dick, and he's in the minority.

[Strangelet]

Thank you for answering Patrick!

In this situation it's sadly a bit too complicated for me to be able to excert any much pressure on bonk, since the two of rest of the group is very strongly friends with bonk and the other two are much more friends with those two than with me or bonk. I am a relatively new addition to this group. So in this case kicking bonk out will only result in me being left on square zero without a group again.

I fear that the only way to salvage this is for me to adapt completely to bonk's position since bonk is self incapable of adapting and only throws a fit while the others stare at the ground whenever bonk is critizised or overruled  

So that would mean imposing a strict regimen against metagaming or things that may lead to metagaming, it would mean training me and all the others to not interrupt bonk, ever, and it would mean none ever coming out as relatively uninterested in characterization or immersion. Otherwise the group will probably fall apart. Of course one idea is to split the group... Hm. I'll have to try that.

Hello AmishNinja!

I think your points about individualist and collectivist players are quite applicable to this. Bonk definitely plays like an individualist character but has one major difference one might not expect. Instead of like the kobolts being unable to take in information in character and therefore respect the character/player divide, bonk is unable to take in information as a player without also taking it in as a character; knowing secrets or information before hand ruins the experience for bonk.

It's like in some amateur theatre groups where the actors don't learns to act emotions convincingly but actually learn to aquire the emotions themselves instead.

Extra complicating this is that the last session broke up because bonk got too angry at the rest of the group for assuming that bonk would tell them a piece of absolutely vital plot information that bonk has no reason to hide from them but wants to anyway because otherwise bonks character is made obselete in some way. Well, now at least I know not to put bonk in that situation anymore.

Aside:

What do you think about ways to transmit secret information, like passing notes or talking in the other room, can it be done in such a way that it doesn't end up in the kind of who knows what games that AmishNinja mentioned?

[AmishNinja]

Hello AmishNinja!

HI

Bonk definitely plays like an individualist character but has one major difference one might not expect. Instead of like the kobolts being unable to take in information in character and therefore respect the character/player divide, bonk is unable to take in information as a player without also taking it in as a character; knowing secrets or information before hand ruins the experience for bonk.

It's like in some amateur theatre groups where the actors don't learns to act emotions convincingly but actually learn to aquire the emotions themselves instead.

That sounds frustrating to deal with. I guess I would again, talk to him and find out exactly why he feels the need to force this division. Patrick hit the nail on the head here, too: there's no need to take yourself too seriously when gaming. Bonk's need to method act comes off as less of an eccentricity and more of a personal issue, at least from where I'm standing. But you know him better than I ever could.

Extra complicating this is that the last session broke up because bonk got too angry at the rest of the group for assuming that bonk would tell them a piece of absolutely vital plot information that bonk has no reason to hide from them but wants to anyway because otherwise bonks character is made obselete in some way. Well, now at least I know not to put bonk in that situation anymore.

This definitely needs to be addressed ASAP. Better to nip the problem in the bud than to let your players continue to feel alienated by Bonk (or vice-versa, this is just bad all around for a good gaming environment. obviously). If you can talk it out with Bonk and get it resolved before your next session, do so. Otherwise you might be looking at splitting up your group (if it's large). Maybe Bonk's insistence on keeping things strictly in-character is a manifestation of not getting along with certain other players? I know gamers have their quirks, but I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone in my gaming past who had such an obstinate view of player-character interaction when in a group they enjoy playing with.

What do you think about ways to transmit secret information, like passing notes or talking in the other room, can it be done in such a way that it doesn't end up in the kind of who knows what games that AmishNinja mentioned?

In rare cases it can be appropriate to pass a note, but I would be careful. Let me elaborate, and from now on I'm going to use "pass notes" in a proverbial sense, i.e. that involves any obvious attempt to keep information private: For a game like D&D or just about any other non-horror game, passing notes is bad. If you have players that don't abuse OOC information, then there should be no need to keep a secret from them since you can trust them to play their characters properly. If the players are the types who DO abuse OOC information, then you still have a problem because a note was just passed and this tips them off to shenanigans that they will do their damnedest to uncover. In other words, it's a catch-22.

Now, in horror type games? Passing notes can be an effective way to keep the players on their toes and expand the horror feel of the game if done properly. If you planned out a scene in advance with a player ahead of time and want to signal them to start it up, a note can help there too. But those are exceptions and not the rule.

Edit: I would actually even be so radical as to suggest that revealing secrets/betrayals/other private things publicly can make the game more interesting. If the players know what's up before their characters are supposed to, they might think of more dramatically appropriate reactions, or even consider actions that they wouldn't have thought of it the secret was sprung on them at the last second.

[Strangelet]

It's practically impossible to reach bonk any other way than by mail. So I used mail, email. Assured I mean no accusation.

Wrote that bonk should decide what to do with the information and to inform me so I can plan accordingly, that we'll have a general talk next time about interruptions and how to avoid them between players and how to accept/cause them between characters, that I can try not to use open communication when bonk recieve or don't recieve information that someone else isn't or is but that I wont use this for the whole group or for all situations. I hope bonk will take it at least somewhat level headedly.
 
The reason I use bonk instead of a gender or a name is because I want to keep it at least relatively anonymous, plus avoid any gender or name related preconceptions. Plus at least lower the risk bonk would some day come to see this and recognize it, since that'd mean the end of my tenure here in this group. Bonk is as far as I know not a swedish name. Of course I could have chosen a more intelligent sounding name on second though. Hm, gosh dangit, excuse my censoring.

[clockworkjoe]

1. If Bonk can't stand being interrupted does that mean he never interrupts anyone? Because if not, then he's a huge asshole.

2. Secrets in games can be fun if all the players can handle them. The New World Campaign is nothing BUT secrets and lies yet everyone has a good time. We are all friends that can separate game from reality.

3. I remain flexible as a GM and player but I will not adapt to fit dysfunctional gamers.

[Strangelet]

1. Bonk is much more sensitive to it than the others yeah, but on the other hand is also on the passive end of the axis of the varying interruption-behaviours exhibited in the group. We'll have a general talk about that next time, how it's ok in game but not off, cause there are a pair of players who are notorious for interrupting others more. Plus, bonk is being a bit of an ass yeah.

2. Thing is that in this game bonk is the only one interested in having secrets, and can't handle the pc/player divide; so it poses as an either or situation. But bonk responded seemingly accepting to my message. But in another game we played, where secrets were a main theme, bonk was genial.

3. Ok, thanks for answering.

[Zeriken]

3. I remain flexible as a GM and player but I will not adapt to fit dysfunctional gamers.

<Insert mind control diplomacy v.s. PC joke here with the punchline of you being a terrible GM>

[Robot Master]

1. If Bonk can't stand being interrupted does that mean he never interrupts anyone? Because if not, then he's a huge asshole.

2. Secrets in games can be fun if all the players can handle them. The New World Campaign is nothing BUT secrets and lies yet everyone has a good time. We are all friends that can separate game from reality.

3. I remain flexible as a GM and player but I will not adapt to fit dysfunctional gamers.

Ditto. Whenever I run a game I tell people far ahead of time that this is a fun hobby to get together with friends and have a good time. We are not defusing bombs or writing some sort of new governmental constitution, so the moment people start taking themselves WAY too seriously is the moment that I step in. I can cope with stress from work because that's how I get my money. I don't see any point in gaming -and- feeling like shit at the same time. We can have drama, we can have horror, we can have laughs, but the one thing that I won't tolerate as a player or a DM is some asshole treating other people rudely.

I don't know how many of my recent posts you've seen but I've had some pretty harsh "adaptation" experiences ranging from someone trying to hit on my fiancée right in front of me to someone slamming down his books, throwing a dice, leaving the game and ditching one of my friends that was depending on him for a ride simply because he disagreed with the DM that his +2 bonus to biotechnology in Star Wars wasn't enough to grow a biotechnological starship -without- even having tools.

I think that some gamers get too pushy, and start to lose their importance on being polite because real life sucks and sometimes that escape from the real world might be a much needed breath of fresh air. I can relate, I totally understand how people can feel that way. Maybe that's a little bit of the case here?

I'd take a few minutes before the game to discuss it with your group. Just open the topic to kill off any of the passive aggressiveness, you know? People get all kinds of passive aggressive when they don't feel comfortable bringing it up themselves, and as the DM you can bring it up easily as the guy who's there to help the game run smoothly and make sure everyone has fun. Just say something like this...

"Alright before we get started gaming I wanted to bring something up so that we're all on the same page. Bonk isn't complaining at all but one of his favorite things in game is the deep, dramatic roleplay with some secrets and intrigue and some of you guys like to throw in wisecracks and do some of the funny stuff, so..."

Then just use that kind of dialogue to chat about it a little bit and find a happy medium? Maybe I'm way too laid back of a guy but if you brought that up to me like that I'd totally be understanding and lay off some of the wisecracking when it's Bonk's turn to get his roleplay on.

[AmishNinja]

2. Secrets in games can be fun if all the players can handle them. The New World Campaign is nothing BUT secrets and lies yet everyone has a good time. We are all friends that can separate game from reality. 

I meant secrets that are kept between players. In the New World Campaign, when a character goes behind somebody's back, it's done right there at the table. Imagine how it would be if you and said player excused yourselves from the table to talk in private for 10 minutes to play out a scene just to maintain full secrecy. That sucks.

[Robot Master]

I meant secrets that are kept between players. In the New World Campaign, when a character goes behind somebody's back, it's done right there at the table. Imagine how it would be if you and said player excused yourselves from the table to talk in private for 10 minutes to play out a scene just to maintain full secrecy. That sucks.

I shit you not you're a very lucky man that it was only 10 minutes. I'm not a "one-upper" but we (my woman and I) used to game with a group of people in which the DM used "private conversations" as pretty much his main way of running his game. For example, we were playing the Warhammer 40k "Dark Heresy" game, and had all different kinds of characters that had interests in all different kind of factions. So when the up-and-coming Acolyte went off on his own to have a meeting with some sort of crime-lord that we (the rest of the table) weren't invited to, it turned into everyone else hanging out for an HOUR while the DM and ONE GUY were hanging out on my back porch doing their scene. Then, like a doctor's office, the player would come back inside saying something like "oh wow wait till you guys hear this" as the DM called the next person out for their scene.

Why we did this for 8 months I couldn't say, except for maybe that the plots were pretty damn good. Please, if there is/are god or gods...never do this to your players.

[clockworkjoe]

I once played in a mage campaign with a GM that did that every once in a while - that sucks.

I've only done it rarely and then it was extremely short - I would ask them a question or something like that