Requested post #4 part 2

[ogremarco]

In my last post I talked about heading off potential problem players before they have a chance to be problematic, but I get the feeling the question was more directed at a situation where there were already problems and there was a need to talk to the player at the root of it

Comments

[apostle]

I agree 100% that part of the role of any decent GM is to moderate this and all player interactions to a certain degree, but pardon me if I chime in with a little bit of "let's back this shit up just a minute..."

In the case where Kevin is being an ass-hat to Amy, why isn't Amy taking this up with Kevin directly herself like any reasonable adult ought to be able to do for themselves, and let the two of them handle it before it gets all over the rest of the players?

If personal politics is getting dragged into the game, all the GM or any of the other players should have to do is say "Look, your issues are causing problems with our ability to play and enjoy this game. Go work it out amongst yourselves and get back to us when you are done."

In any situation, no matter how touchy you might think it is, it is the role of the GM to ensure that the game experience is entertaining and engaging for the players. Anyone who screws with said shared experience and entertainment for any reason should be called out for doing so and get a head-check warning for it. If they continue to be a problem without making a good-faith effort to correct the issue, then they are disrespecting all of you and wasting your time and energy.

[kaomera]

Does "who's at fault here?" have to fall to the GM to answer? This is, IMO, one of the main reason having to deal with this kind of shit sucks. There's any number of things that could be going on away from the table that might be triggering Kevin's acting out. As GM you may not know, and you probably don't want to be involved (I certainly don't - I suck at playing social worker). But Kevin is causing you and probably the entire rest of the group a problem at the table. Regardless of what the underlying issues are or are not, it has to stop. It's possible it might be unfair, in light of the larger issues, to put that all on Kevin, but he's the one being a problem at the table.

I like the "It's just a game" thing. Or, rather I don't like it but I like what Ogre wrote about it. I've had issues with a lot of "trad" gamers that they basically don't want to talk about the game, outside of actual play. I kinda wanted to ask a question about that (back when the questions where being asked) but I couldn't get it straight in my head...

[ogremarco]

It's just a funny example, pal. Don't read too much into it. Or do, feel free to asssume that the speaker is a paternalistic control freak and that Amy is a well armed malcontent.

[apostle]

Not trying to read too much into it, just trying to make the point that most of the time that this crap arises is because people don't deal directly with their own problems.

But I am starting to like Amy a little. =)

[thadeusxmachina]

Yeah, I wanna game with you and "Amy". As for "just a game"...yeah, I've gotten that before and it really twists my nut. I mean, if its "just" a game. Why are you here, go do something better with your time. Or are you trying to say that I don't have anything better to do with my time. Wrong-O jackass, I CHOSE to be here...gee ogre, this one really got to me. Way to go.

[melinglor]

Yeah, it's a funny example, Ogre, but it's worth pointing out that dealing with personal issues via proxy can be toxic. Not just because Amy" should real with her own problems; if a person's uncomfortable confronting someone else maybe asking someone else to help is just the thing. Rather, because--and I've got painful personal experience on this one--"how the group feels" can be a cruel club to beat a problematic player over the head with. "We're all pissed off," "You're ruining the game for everyone," "We don't need your attitude". . .all variants on a toxic social formula where one person gets singled out and pressured to change.

If a GM (or player) wants to address someone's behavior, I'd say the healthy way to address it is to stick to your OWN feelings: "I'm frustrated that your actions are screwing up the subplot thing with Amy; we both put a lot of work into exploring that and it's too valuable to me to see it ruined over and over. Please stop."

Notice how I still referenced Amy's role in the matter? If Stabby McLoverkiller has two brain cells to rub together he'll do the math and recognize that Amy's probably pissed too, but this way you're not speaking for her.

You're absolutely right, in any case, that the thing to do is get over our cowardice and frickin' HAVE THE TALK. It may be unpleasant, but it'll be worth it in the end--you either have the respect of your fellow posters or you don't, and either way you'll find out.

Peace,
-Joel

PS. And thus endeth my 2-day commenting blitz on your blog! Damn, you said a lot of interesting stuff in a short span of time!