308vas - Dealing With Problem Players

Dealing with Problem Players Jim Vassilakos ([email protected]) http://members.aol.com/jimvassila Using graduated degrees of persuasion to modify problem behaviors Theory: As the deadline for #308 has been approaching, I’ve been thinking some more on the topic of Ostracism & Politeness. To be honest, it has only been in recent years that I’ve been tasked with some truly challenging players (see my article in #305). Prior to that, I used to consider myself a sort of laissez-faire GM... a blind adjudicator who would try not to overtly take sides in inter-player disputes. Much better to just let things evolve naturally. To me the purity of the campaign (purity from GM bias) outweighed any consideration of player-fun. In fact, I believed that player-fun could be maximized by this extreme hands-off approach. Then I met a few players who had an unusual set of problems, and my other players were no longer so tolerant. Professional employment, wife, kids, and the mortgage had created a situation where gaming-time was decided limited, and so why spend it with problem-gamers? In #307, I mainly replied to comments on the previous article and tossed up a great deal of idle speculation, so much so that it felt like I was overflowing with questions but destitute for any viable solutions. Here I will attempt to formulate a possible solution to the dilemma of what to do about problem players. My idea evolves from the concept of “degrees of force” as taught to police trainees. The basic idea is that in a conflict situation, the officer is authorized to control the subject though escalating degree of force (verbal warning, mace, baton, etc). The reason for all this is that society doesn’t want the officer starting with the gun as his first line of contact. Better to resolve the situation through the minimum necessary use of force. Granted, this places added responsibility, not to mention personal risk, on the individual

officer, but society seems to feel it’s all for the best. One of my friends back in college got pulled over by a cop who drew her gun right at the outset (perhaps he resembled somebody they were looking for), and it left a bad taste in his mouth for law enforcement. Hence, cops are now trained to start with minimal force and proceed through each stage only as necessitated by the subject. This idea of graduated degrees of force is an important concept, and I think that looking back on my past examples, I could have used the same general concept to deal with each of the problems in my own gaming group. Here’s a rough outline of the overall process which I’m proposing:

1. The Statement/Setup: The GM or

2.

3.

4. 5.

Host makes a statement which is intended for the “problem player” w/o necessarily being directed at this person. It should be done in an offhand way, either with the rest of the group present or not. The Request: The GM or Host makes a request of the problem player to alter whatever the problem behavior is without discussing consequences. The Group Request: The entire group makes the same request, again without discussing consequences. The Group Demand: The entire group fortifies the request with the threat of ostracism. Exile/Ostracism: The problem

player is disinvited. We assume that the group (minus the problem player) has already discussed the problem prior to reaching stage one. This initial step is an unseemly task in itself, as it singles out an individual behind his back and creates an us/him mentality. Hence, the problem, whatever it is, had better be pretty obvious & annoying to everyone before this step is taken. I can only assume that not everyone will feel it politic to discuss a friend’s shortcoming behind his back and develop a strategy toward dealing with them (friends don’t prey on their friend’s faults). Nonetheless, in most gaming groups I’ve been in, if there is a serious problem going on, it can’t be swept under the rug forever. It will be discussed at some point, and the desire to find out how everyone else feels about such situations seems to be a basic element of human nature. In any case, regardless of the logistics or ethics regarding how this step is reached, I begin by assuming that the group has discussed the problem and has resolved that something needs to be done, and while they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, they agree that the problem is serious enough that some sort of resolution must be reached. They tentatively decide to proceed with graduated degrees of persuasion in the hopes that their friend will get the message early, and they won’t have to proceed to the later stages. Nonetheless, if they really want change, they must be determined. The group realizes that each stage should be conducted on a separate

occasion. They don’t intend to proceed down the ladder all at once. The individual they’re trying to change will need time to digest and accept what he’s being told. That’s why this whole process has to proceed slowly but

3. The Group Request “What the heck is that smell?” “I’ll give you a hint. It starts with a Z.” “Aw... c’mon guys...” “If

inexorably in the direction the group wants it to move.

you’re going to smell like that, just do me a favor and sit on the other end of the table, okay?”

Examples: Problem A: Ziggy stinks (a fact to which he seems happily oblivious) 1. The Statement/Setup “Anybody going to Polycon this year?” “When it is?” “Coming up pretty soon, I think.” “Dude... last convention I was at, I practically suffocated.” “Oh yeah?” “It was like walking into a freaking locker room. Oh my gawd, I practically passed out.” “Lot of stinky gamers, huh?” “Too many in one room. I’d rather play with friends. At least you can tell friends to take a shower before they show up to the game.” (words of agreement) 2. The Request “Hey, Zig... man, were you working out before you got here?” “Uh... no, why?” “Well, to be honest, you kinda reek. I dunno if anyone else has noticed, but next time make sure you take a shower, okay? Remember what Brian said about stinky gamers. You don’t want to be one of them, do ya?”

“Yeah, Zig... what are you trying to do? Stink us out?” “Don’t even think of sitting next to me.” “Where else am I supposed to sit?” “Okay, you can sit here, but just shower next time, okay?” 4. The Group Demand “Not again... for chrissake, what’s the matter with you? Haven’t you ever heard of deodorant?” “I don’t stink that bad, do it?” “Yes... you do. Either shower next time, and use deodorant, or don’t come.” “Ditto.” “Sorry Zig... we like ya, we just don’t like to smell ya.” 5. Ostracism “No... you’re not coming in. Go home and take a shower. Come back when you’re clean.” Yes, it’s mean, and yes, you’re actually doing him a favor. Proceeding from step 1 to step 5 w/o the intervening steps, however, would be too much at once.

This way, at least he’s getting fair warning at each step in the process. That was actually an easy one. The problem was out-of-character, and everyone agreed to deal with it as a group. But what happens when the problem is in-character? Three of the most common problem players are the player who uses his character to hog the limelight, the player who consistently goes against the will of the group, and the player who is just plain greedy (and will cheat his own party). Different people have different takes on each of these behaviors, and if conducted narrowly and individually, they are often tolerated. Some might even argue that a little bit of intra-party conflict is a good thing. However, some players exhibit all three of these behaviors in unrestrained abundance. In such cases, other players tend to get understandably angry. The first step, as always, is to determine whether or not the behavior is really a problem. In one campaign I ran, two of the players formed a “lets save the world” powerbloc while the other two formed a “lets see what we can get away with” powerbloc, and the fifth player was left in the middle, basically holding both sides together. In such a fragmented party, inter-character dynamics may be highly chaotic but fun nonetheless. The problem really occurs when everyone agrees that one player is consistently stepping over the line and that this is causing a problem for the game as a whole. If some of the group is fine with it, and only one or two players are angry about it (i.e. localized complaints), the GM’s best option may be to stay out of it and let the players resolve the situation naturally through intra-party conflict (at least, that would be my first instinct). However, if everyone agrees the situation is a problem that needs fixing, that’s the time to introduce the process of graduated degrees of persuasion. Note, I have never actually tried doing this as a pre-planned process, so I can only imagine the possible pitfalls. Nonetheless, here is an example of how I could foresee such a process developing.

Problem B: Ziggy’s character is an annoying twit 1. Statement/Setup

The GM starts things off my inviting an open out-ofcharacter discussion: “So just out of curiosity, what does everyone think about the way the campaign’s been going?” “It’s been fun so far. Only problem is that we’re at each other’s throats a little too much for my own taste.” “I’ve just been playing my character,” Ziggy intones the classic defense, all too aware of where this conversion is likely to lead. “He’s chaotic-neutral, ya know.” At which point everyone needs to avoid jumping down his throat or taking pot-shots. In order for this work, persuasion has to be graduated... done in stages. Too much too soon and he’ll feel like he’s under personal attack. Instead, focus the comments toward the GM, knowing they are being overheard by Ziggy. “Yeah, well, I will admit, I was originally hoping this would turn into the sort of campaign I played in when I was back in college.” “What was that like?” “The GM set it up so that we really had to pull together to survive.” “Oh great... so you’re telling him to throw bigger monsters at us. Don’t listen to him, Jim.” “No, I’m not saying that. All I’m saying is that there was a certain camaraderie in that game. We all looked out for each other. I would like to have that in this campaign.” Now for the peace-offering: “Well, Arnor is willing to bury the hatchet if everyone else is.” General agreement should follow. Everyone should have no illusions about the problem being solved this easily, but it is the first step, serving to set the stage for everything that follows. 2. The Request

“Hey,” Ziggy takes off his coat, “before the others get here, I’ve got something my character wants to do.” “While the party is still in camp?” “Right. But first, what color are potions of feather fall?” “Uh... clear.” “What do they taste like?” “Um... no taste. Just water.” “Good. Since I’ve got the last watch, while the rest of the party is asleep, I quietly grab the potion of feather fall out of Arnor’s pack. I carefully pour it into one of my extra flasks and then step quietly to the stream and fill his flask with water.” “And may I ask why you’re doing this?” “Because, as far as my character is concerned, it should have been his.” “You guys diced for it.” “But my character thinks he cheated.” “On what basis?” “I’m chaotic neutral. I assume everyone is cheating.” “You realize that by doing this, you may end up killing him.” “And the beauty of it is that he’ll never even know.” “Look,” the gamemaster gulps down hard, “I can’t stop you from doing this if you’re really dead set on it, but talking out-of-GM mode for just a minute, I would really prefer to run a game where this sort of thing doesn’t happen. Remember what Bob was taking about a few weeks ago... about how his former gaming group where everyone supported each other?” “Yeah... that would be great, wouldn’t it. But Bob wasn’t exactly supportive of my character when he threatened to gut me.” “You mean right after you poisoned his wardog?” “Well he shouldn’t have threatened to sic it on me.” “Because you’d picked his pocket.” “What would you prefer? That somebody pick your pocket or somebody threaten you with bodily harm?” “You didn’t have to pick his pocket.” “I’m chaotic neutral, and I’m a thief. It’s what my character does. Now are you going to let me do this or not?”

“I can’t stop you as a GM, but as a friend, I am asking you not to do it. The group agreed to bury the hatchet. I’m asking you as a friend to stick to that.” Ziggy lets out a heavy sigh, “Okay. Fine. But if he does anything against my character, I’m going to do this the next chance I get.” “I understand. But in the meantime, I want you to promise me that you’ll stick to the cease fire... for the good of the group.” “Fine.” At this point, the GM doesn’t need to tell the group any of the particulars of their conversation, but he should have some way to initiate the next stage (the group request) if the need should arise. 3. The Group Request “As you come to the base of the volcano, you can see steam rising from the caldera. You can also see the orc den. The cave entrance is about two hundred feet away. Fortunately, you’re still obscured by the trees, so it’s unlikely they can see you.” “Are there any guards?” “Not that you can see, but it is dark in there. Someone could be just in the shadows and you wouldn’t be able to see them.” “Is the entrance flush with the mountain face, or is there some way to get on top of it without being seen?” “There’s not much of a foothold up there. Definitely not enough to stage an attack.” “What about to toss a flask of oil?” “Yeah, if you could get up there.” “How’s this guys?” Ziggy grins, “I’ll do a climb walls from the side to get up there, then another one to climb over. Then I’ll carefully brace myself against any outcroppings of rock, carefully light two flasks, and then throw them inside. In the confusion, you can bum-rush the orcs.” “It’ll make too much noise. We’ll have the whole place on us.” Therein commences a discussion of various other plans which drags on for a full fifteen minutes. “Screw it,” Ziggy pouts. “I’m tossing a flask of oil.” “What?!” “No! If I see him lighting a flask, I would stop him.” “I wouldn’t light it out in the open, dumbshit! I step behind a tree, light it

up, and then bombs away. What happens?” “First roll for a successful hide. Then do a dexterity check to see if you can get it in the cave from this distance.” Dice are rolled. “Not a problem.” The GM sighs, rolling some damage dice for the burning oil, “It goes into the cave. Almost instantly you hear what sounds like the gonging of a loud bell.” “Oh shit...” Ziggy laughs. “I start booking in the other direction.” “What is everyone else doing?” “Can we outrun them?” “I can,” Ziggy laughs. “I’ve got running and endurance. I’m so out of there it’s not even funny.” “Zig can get out of there. As for the rest of you, you see about three dozen orcs pour out from the cave entrance along with about a dozen dire wolves. The only person in the group who can outrun the wolves in already gone.” “Yee-hah!” Ziggy grins from ear to ear. Carnage ensues. Most of the party manage to (barely) escape with their lives by killing the wolves and then disengaging from the orcs as one of them sacrifices himself to buy time for the others to retreat. “So what do you guys think of the session?” “I don’t know about you guys, but I’m getting sick of this shit. Zig, you didn’t have to throw that flask.” “Ain’t my fault you guys are so slow.” “Is that what you character says? Cause if it is, I’m going to put my sword if your gut.” “Naw... I wouldn’t say that out loud, but that’s what he’s thinking. When I see you guys, I could just say that I thought that’s what we’d decided. Simple misunderstanding.” “And I’d say that’s bullshit!” “Okay... you want to play it out? Here’s what I say. While you guys were so busy making plans, one of the orcs poked his head out, and I could tell he was looking directly at us. I figured they were about to bum-rush us, so I just panicked and threw the flask and then took off. I was hoping everyone

would make it out alive because of my distraction, but I guess not.” “That is not the way it happened.” “Yeah, but your character doesn’t know that. You were all too busy talking. I was the only one paying attention to the cave.” At this point they all look toward the GM for justice. Unfortunately, if the GM is to remain impartial he has to do just that... remain impartial. “Whether or not you guys believe that load of crap (cough)... excuse me... that amazingly reasonable explanation... is entirely up to your own characters.” “I’m swinging.” “Naw...” Ziggy gets wideeyed, “if he pulls a sword on me, I’m calling for immediate alignment change. Arnor doesn’t know shit. I’m innocent, nobody saw me do it, and nobody can prove a damn thing!” “Perhaps we should discuss this outof-character... as a group of friends,” the GM intones, secretly sending the message that it’s high time for stage-3. “Out-of-character, I am sick and tired of playing in this kind of group. You see what happens when you fly off and do your own thing. We all get screwed over. John’s character is dead because of you, Zig.” “I didn’t know that was going to happen.” “But you could have waited for the group to make a decision instead of just throwing us to the wolves (no pun intended). All I’m saying is that this isn’t fun anymore.” “It isn’t fun for any of us, Zig.” “Yeah, this blows.” “Why can’t you just act normal?”

At this point, the group needs to somehow coerce a promise from Ziggy, out-of-character, that he will try harder to “act normal” (to be a team player or whatever you want to call it). Nobody is threatening to kick him out of the group, but he knows that everyone wants and expects him to drastically redefine his character. Ziggy will whine and make excuses and hide behind his alignment and all sorts of other tactics, but if the group is truly together on this, then it would behoove them to be firm in getting a promise for improvement. I’m not going to bother with stage four and five of this one, but you can see where things are going. Either Ziggy will improve, or he won’t. Ultimately, it’s his decision. Of course, the other alternative would be to allow the party to butcher him incharacter (which has always been my usual modus operandi in past campaigns), but the problem with that tactic is that he may just come back with a new character and an agenda to get even (or simply come back as the same character with a new name). Ultimately, it may be that nothing is solved by the usual in-character solution. However, if everyone comes down on him together with the same graduating degree of persuasion out-of-character, he’ll hopefully see that he’s the problem, and he’ll change. Some players, however, will designate themselves as “the victim” and will decide that the group is singling them out unfairly (which is arguably a legitimate perspective). But this ultimately comes down to personal choice on their part, and the determining factor will be whether or not they have the wherewithal to bend their own will to that of the group’s. Ultimately, if gaming with them isn’t fun, and they are unwilling to fix the problem when provided with the proper warning signals, then it seems the only real solution is to not game with them. In any case, if you confront such a situation and find yourself at looseends, I’d suggest trying this process to see what sort of mileage you get out of

it. It seems pretty obvious in theory, even if somewhat annoying to implement. Keep in mind, I don’t suggest it for every minor inconvenience that pops up, but only for those persistent and extreme players which do confront us from time to time. Also, if anyone does try this process in their own groups during the next couple of years, I’d be curious to hear whether or not they find it successful.