Goodness of fit in gaming
The best example of "goodness of fit" personified was in Pacific Rim (yes, I know, contain the eyeroll). The idea of synchonization that allows people to pilot big, unruly machines and fight giant monsters basically sums up goodness of fit. It's how well you work with someone, or how much someone "gets" you. When a relationship seems to just click, that's goodness of fit. I talk about it a lot in the context of therapy and supportive relationships but I've been thinking about it more in the context of gaming. Also how goodness of fit changes depending on if I am GMing or playing. Goodness of fit in a group comes up when we discuss group therapy, and I think it's easy to generalize that to gaming. It can take a game or two to figure out if someone is a good fit for your game. Yalom talks about stages of group, with attention to the norming and storming process. I firmly believe gaming groups also deal with this as they work out their dynamics (don't get me started on my combination Gaming and Social Skills group!). But being a school psychologist I tend to break down the components of goodness of fit into sub-areas.
The first is GM goodness of fit. As a player I tend to like GMs who are understanding, consistent, and have a story focus. I don't mind more rules heavy games, because of the two parts, understanding is what I require because of my math computation issues. I think often the things we like about GMs share similarities with things we like in teachers or support figures. If we fit well with a GM, there's a sense of peace even when they disagree with us. We may be throwing Doritos at them, but we ultimately know it's fine. There's a trust that develops, even if it includes joking that she's out to kill you all, when a GM is a good fit for their players. If you're not fitting with your GM, it could be any number of factors, including that their leadership style doesn't resonate with you, and that's fine! The great thing about approaching group composition from a goodness of fit position is that it doesn't have to be anyone's fault if it doesn't workout (unless the person opens their mouth and removes all doubt that they are the worst. If a player makes a transphobic statement or joke at my game, it's on them that they don't work out with me.)
The second component is player goodness of fit. As a GM I work best with players who are not giant rules lawyers, since I'm not. I value players with a good knowledge of the rules, but it's often balanced with an understanding of my narrativeist style. This not only speaks to a player-GM fit, but a player-player fit. I've been in games where there's been a mismatch in fit between players and it really makes the game suffer. If you have multiple players who NEED to be the center of attention then they may not be great fits as players. If they want these deep, meaningful character interactions and to marry the farmers daughter but their partymate wants to go to the Worlds Longest Dungeon and named their character Gary McCheeseballs, may not be a good fit. Freaks and Geeks teaches us though that we can't judge a party member by his reputation or character name (Shout out to Carlos the Dwarf!). If you're playing with a group who normally hangs together, which is admittedly more common in my adult gaming life, then usually the players already fit well together. It can be jarring to get into a game with your good friend and realize that you have entirely different approaches to gaming or even just that game. Or, because people are not perfectly consistent robots, personal changes and conflicts come to the table and a once well oiled machine is now cannibalizing itself. Once again, amazing that it doesn't have to be anyone's fault!
The third component is culture goodness of fit. This may be easiest to think about in the contexts of LARPs but I think it makes sense in even one-shots. Generally if there's a good fit between the players and GM, there will be a good cultural fit. However, conflict or interpersonal dynamics that aren't clear at jump can create a bad fit culturally. It could be a schedule goodness of fit/compatibility. If everyone but Daniel Desario can play on Saturdays and he can only play on Fridays, the day that half the group can never make it, he may not be a fit at this moment. Or it can be the game your running. Trying to run a cooperative game with a bunch of PVP loving players is not going to breed a good cultural fit. On this end I'm a big fan of discussing expectations up front and being open to players being honest. When I GM, I give every player a list with the following categories and 100 points to distribute between them "Combat, Mystery, Intrigue, Romanticism, and Exploration". That way I know what each player wants as well as group themes. I do this during character gen so that I get a feel for what themes I can bring to a game. Some GMs prefer to go in more set, and that's fine too but I still think expectations should be up front (but again, may be the school psychologist in me). I'm more fluid with my story based expectations but I am rigid in others, like making transphobic remarks or rape jokes is a quick way to get kicked out of any of my games because I think that creates a toxic culture in a game. Once again, goodness of fit and if you're looking for a game where you can make those jokes and have everyone yuck it up, you can go find that but it won't be at my gaming table!
I keep highlighting that goodness of fit is a no-fault explanation for why someone doesn't want to keep playing in a game or why you don't want someone to play in your game. How you broach the topic is up to you. This came up for me more in my college years, since now I know most of my friends well enough to know who will work well together. I've found being upfront about my strengths and weaknesses as a GM helps. I give people outs if they need it. I think a one-on-one sit down is how I would do it. Depending on the goodness of fit issue, I may offer them a spot in another of my games. Thankfully a lot of my friends are very self-insightful and are already having their own thoughts that it's not working out. We live in a society that functions on blame and shame, so carrying this message of "We're just not fitting together" can be taken as chiding but I don't think it's meant to be. Everyone wants to get their gaming needs met, and better they look for games where than can than be stuck in a game where they are struggling. Games are, after all, fun!
The first is GM goodness of fit. As a player I tend to like GMs who are understanding, consistent, and have a story focus. I don't mind more rules heavy games, because of the two parts, understanding is what I require because of my math computation issues. I think often the things we like about GMs share similarities with things we like in teachers or support figures. If we fit well with a GM, there's a sense of peace even when they disagree with us. We may be throwing Doritos at them, but we ultimately know it's fine. There's a trust that develops, even if it includes joking that she's out to kill you all, when a GM is a good fit for their players. If you're not fitting with your GM, it could be any number of factors, including that their leadership style doesn't resonate with you, and that's fine! The great thing about approaching group composition from a goodness of fit position is that it doesn't have to be anyone's fault if it doesn't workout (unless the person opens their mouth and removes all doubt that they are the worst. If a player makes a transphobic statement or joke at my game, it's on them that they don't work out with me.)
The second component is player goodness of fit. As a GM I work best with players who are not giant rules lawyers, since I'm not. I value players with a good knowledge of the rules, but it's often balanced with an understanding of my narrativeist style. This not only speaks to a player-GM fit, but a player-player fit. I've been in games where there's been a mismatch in fit between players and it really makes the game suffer. If you have multiple players who NEED to be the center of attention then they may not be great fits as players. If they want these deep, meaningful character interactions and to marry the farmers daughter but their partymate wants to go to the Worlds Longest Dungeon and named their character Gary McCheeseballs, may not be a good fit. Freaks and Geeks teaches us though that we can't judge a party member by his reputation or character name (Shout out to Carlos the Dwarf!). If you're playing with a group who normally hangs together, which is admittedly more common in my adult gaming life, then usually the players already fit well together. It can be jarring to get into a game with your good friend and realize that you have entirely different approaches to gaming or even just that game. Or, because people are not perfectly consistent robots, personal changes and conflicts come to the table and a once well oiled machine is now cannibalizing itself. Once again, amazing that it doesn't have to be anyone's fault!
The third component is culture goodness of fit. This may be easiest to think about in the contexts of LARPs but I think it makes sense in even one-shots. Generally if there's a good fit between the players and GM, there will be a good cultural fit. However, conflict or interpersonal dynamics that aren't clear at jump can create a bad fit culturally. It could be a schedule goodness of fit/compatibility. If everyone but Daniel Desario can play on Saturdays and he can only play on Fridays, the day that half the group can never make it, he may not be a fit at this moment. Or it can be the game your running. Trying to run a cooperative game with a bunch of PVP loving players is not going to breed a good cultural fit. On this end I'm a big fan of discussing expectations up front and being open to players being honest. When I GM, I give every player a list with the following categories and 100 points to distribute between them "Combat, Mystery, Intrigue, Romanticism, and Exploration". That way I know what each player wants as well as group themes. I do this during character gen so that I get a feel for what themes I can bring to a game. Some GMs prefer to go in more set, and that's fine too but I still think expectations should be up front (but again, may be the school psychologist in me). I'm more fluid with my story based expectations but I am rigid in others, like making transphobic remarks or rape jokes is a quick way to get kicked out of any of my games because I think that creates a toxic culture in a game. Once again, goodness of fit and if you're looking for a game where you can make those jokes and have everyone yuck it up, you can go find that but it won't be at my gaming table!
I keep highlighting that goodness of fit is a no-fault explanation for why someone doesn't want to keep playing in a game or why you don't want someone to play in your game. How you broach the topic is up to you. This came up for me more in my college years, since now I know most of my friends well enough to know who will work well together. I've found being upfront about my strengths and weaknesses as a GM helps. I give people outs if they need it. I think a one-on-one sit down is how I would do it. Depending on the goodness of fit issue, I may offer them a spot in another of my games. Thankfully a lot of my friends are very self-insightful and are already having their own thoughts that it's not working out. We live in a society that functions on blame and shame, so carrying this message of "We're just not fitting together" can be taken as chiding but I don't think it's meant to be. Everyone wants to get their gaming needs met, and better they look for games where than can than be stuck in a game where they are struggling. Games are, after all, fun!