|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 9, 2016 7:14:38 GMT
So, my D&D group is having a bit of difficulty communicating at the table. I've been hoping we could just smooth things out as we play, but things are actually escalating to the point where one player has agreed to come for one more night, and if things don't approve, he'll be leaving the game. I'm not sure what all the issues are, but it boils down to personality conflicts. All I really have to go on though is anecdotes.
In one session, J was playing a roguish character. He went in for melee against an enemy, got badly hurt, and told R (the cleric) to heal him. R, who wants to be a cleric but doesn't always want to use his spells on healing, said no. This turned into an argument where R kept insisting, more or less, that J did something he shouldn't have done in going into melee, whereas J had felt that was the best call for his character. J didn't argue with R very much, but R was persistent in not dropping the issue for some time. After the session, R brought it up with me, I guess in an attempt to explain himself. I proposed getting the group to go in on a healing wand, which R agreed was a good idea. When this later came up, J was opposed to the idea, thinking that the wand wouldn't remain useful long enough and that the cost was too high for the party at the time. At this point, I stepped in and said it was my idea, and J finally went along with it. Shortly afterward J even rolled a new character to be more in line with the party's behavior.
I haven't yet mentioned that this group tends to be chaotic, alignment-wise, and that there is another problematic player, M. I can't pinpoint exactly where the issues are with him, other than he always seems angry, so when a disagreement happens at the table, it feels as though he is escalating it just by weighing in. M, a chaotic neutral fighter, tends to disagree with the group and not be as inclined to participate in plot-related activities. I'm not saying he should be trying to make my as a DM easy, but in our last session, for example, the party was planning a rescue of some captives (including a party member) and he didn't want to do it for free. I had NPCs offer an award of 100gp per person (at level 2 in a 3.5 game, mind you, so that's a lot of money), and he still wouldn't commit. Granted the odds of this mission succeeding aren't great, tactically speaking, but he's a fighter being offered a reward to do some fighting and rescue a friend. In my opinion, he should have been willing to go.
There was another situation in the last game, where the party was stuck for ideas on what to do next, so J just decided to go ahead and do something, expecting R and M to follow him. They didn't. In fact, R accused J of meta-gaming, even though in my opinion he was fully justified (there was a suspicious cave on the edge of an enemy camp, the rogue had sneaked away to investigate the cave and not returned, there was commotion coming from that general direction). Another player, A, was meta-gaming here (he ran "to the rescue" before any commotion had even begun), but otherwise he hasn't been an issue.
After writing it all out like this, it seems like J and R both have a problem of wanting to be in charge. R talked to me afterward and told me that he doesn't have a problem with J wanting to instigate and do things his way, but he's not necessarily going to follow as he likes to have his own ideas. J later contacted me and said he's thinking of leaving the group, but he cited M as the reason. He's frustrated because he even created a new character just to fit in more with characters like M's, and he still doesn't feel like he's being accepted or respected by the group.
Now I'm on the sidelines trying to keep this game together. If I had to pick a person to leave the game, in all honesty, it would be M. But I can't justify doing that, really. I like the game we're playing, but if these issues don't get worked out, I feel like it's going to fall apart.
So...does anyone have any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 11, 2016 5:35:52 GMT
It's always tricky giving what amounts to interpersonal advice regarding a group of people one doesn't know, but I will weigh in here. Keep in mind that I am only speaking from my experiences and from what little I can glean of the personalities at your table. You know these folks and should use your own judgement.
My sense is that if you don't do something drastic and soon, your group is going to fall apart. What it comes down to, sadly, is player motivations (as opposed to character motivations). Your players are playing off each other, rather than playing their characters. I'm basing this off a few statements, such as, "M, a chaotic neutral fighter, tends to disagree with the group and not be as inclined to participate in plot-related activities" and "R, who wants to be a cleric but doesn't always want to use his spells on healing". These are both questions of metagaming. A cleric, at least a good aligned cleric, would heal a comrade. Even a CN fighter would have investment in the group's interactions with others, if only to be a part of the negotiations.
My analysis is that the fighter is the problem. Whenever you have a player trying to stymie an adventure hook, that's a problem for everyone at the table. If you're not there to run adventures, why are you playing the game? It sounds like you have a few players trolling one another.
My recommendation is to take the start of the next session and call everyone to floor. Make the session about the group dynamic. Talk it out. Emphasize that you are all there to play a game together and that some of the dynamics at the table are making that hard. Call out the problems and call them out as out of game table dynamic problems. Start a dialog about what sort of game everyone wants to play. Each person at your table has an idea of what they want out of the game, even if they haven't articulated it to themselves. Make sure to talk about what sort of game you want. You are a player at the table too and your fun is just as important as everyone else's.
In the end, I suspect you're going to have to have a one-on-one with your fighter player regarding his table manners and play style. If he continues to be a disruptive force at your table, you may have to bite the bullet and lay down a "change or leave" ultimatum. I think your "rogue vs. cleric" issue has a lot to do with expectations. Your rogue player has certain expectations for what your cleric player should be doing. I am emphasizing that this is an issue of player expectations, not PC expectations. Would a rogue PC pull some crazy stunt expecting the cleric to bail him out when the cleric has never done so? You are likely going to have to talk to these players about this dynamic as well.
I wish you luck and hope everything works out for you! Hopefully everyone just needs the reminder that you're all there to play a game together and that nobody's fun is more important than the group's fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jan 11, 2016 8:32:40 GMT
I want to echo Friar's points, in that this is definitely a player level issue that you have and it has to be addressed at that level. I think that the issues presented from J and R pale in comparison to those of M. Their player expectations seem different, and R seems to have a more tactical approach where as J seems to have a more RP slant, but that might be too much inferring on my part. I think their issues could be easily handled through the well defined discussion that Friar laid out.
I know a bit about Friar's games, and can say that telling your piece, and desire, in it all is very important to how things progress going forward. You need to ask yourself what kind of game you really want to run. Is it tons of RP and theater of the mind fighting, is it grid based tactical fight that would make Alexander the Great's head spin, or is it a beautiful mix of both? Whatever it is make sure that your players know that that is the kind of game that excites you as a DM and the person who is working hard behind the scene to make sure it can continue happening for your players.
As for M, well that sounds like no fun at all. It could possibly be another case of different expectations, but feels a lot more like someone that wants to watch the world burn, or rather doesn't interact well with others in this format. I think that is going to be a hard conversation that has to happen one on one, and will likely lead to an ultimatum based conclusion, as Friar mentioned.
I do not envy you, and hope that this turns out for the better no matter what happens next for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 11, 2016 14:22:18 GMT
I know a bit about Friar's games, and can say that telling your piece, and desire, in it all is very important to how things progress going forward. You need to ask yourself what kind of game you really want to run. Is it tons of RP and theater of the mind fighting, is it grid based tactical fight that would make Alexander the Great's head spin, or is it a beautiful mix of both? Whatever it is make sure that your players know that that is the kind of game that excites you as a DM and the person who is working hard behind the scene to make sure it can continue happening for your players. Joatmoniac you are such a dark hinter! Always making these veiled references to your well of secret dark knowledge. LOL. Joat is referencing a similar conflict I had at my table. I posted about it here and got a lot of good feedback from folks, but Joat, Almarianknight and I have a long running PM thread through which I've shared recordings of my games and gotten more "personal" advice on how to handle situations. So when I brought up the issues I was having, Joat and Almarian were able to give me more specific feedback as they were familiar with the personalities involved through the recordings. You can check out the open forum thread here if you're interested. I had my own issues with "table personality conflicts", player motivations and metagaming. Again, good luck! Let us know how things pan out. |
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 14, 2016 5:09:34 GMT
What follows is a transcript of a conversation that just took place between me and M. Things are escalating quite seriously...I apologize for the length, but I wanted to be complete.
At this point I'm realizing that this conversation is going to force me to address the situation head-on. Clearly, this problem is getting even more out of hand than I had thought. As I'm trying to think of what to say next, he tosses this out.
He doesn't respond for some time after that, so I add the following.
And then he just explodes on me.
I think what he's referring to there is that he's in a group with one other member from the game. Anyway...I really don't know how to approach this situation now. It's either gotten worse or it's become clear that my problem player is unwilling to admit there's a problem.
We play again in a week, and I'm not willing to let him drag the game down. I need to resolve this by next Thursday. Are there any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jan 14, 2016 7:54:43 GMT
First up, I want to commend you on being willing to try and get in front of this issue. It is most certainly not the brighter side of being a DM.
This is an amazing approach to it, and I don't think I could have done any better myself. From what I can tell from the conversation before this though the player was, meaning to or not, attacking your DM style and criticizing and arguing your decisions even after solid explanations as to your motivations. Also, what pray tell would he have preferred happen to the players? Them to be murdered in the barbarian camp and the then the few players left would have to try and get them? I understand not liking their choices, and being frustrated by potential metagaming, but referring to your setting with "gotta be some sort of common sense to" can't really be taken many other ways than as an attack.
From there implying that you might be just stirring things up, and that they don't believe that there are any issues with other players at the table puts quite the task in front of you. I do not envy you at all at this point, and I'm sorry that you are having to go through this. There are a few ways it can go from here I suppose, and of course these are just guesses, as there is no way of knowing whats really next. M could decide to talk with on to all of the other players directly, and sow whatever chaos make come of that. From there the players could just go along with what he says or the other players could express their concerns as you have done and the larger conversation that needs to happen has already had its foundation laid down.
Maybe they don't talk to the other players, and you could try talking to them again, but I don't think that that will end in anything but a larger argument than the one you have already posted here for us. I would think that the next logical step is to address this as a group one way or another. If it needs to happen outside of the normal gaming night/time/location go ahead and do that, but talking with M directly was the right call imo. From here it would likely be est to have everyone talk about what they want from the game, and just their expectations in general. I'm not sure what other advice I can give on the matter without some of it panning out from here. I hope that M is willing to have more dialogue about these issues, and that your other players are willing to voice their concerns in away that doesn't feel like an attack on M, as they will be outnumbered once the conversation has started.
Hope that this is helpful in some way, you definitely have the most difficult part in all of this, and that this all resolves itself quickly, and you can get back to the fun parts of being a DM!
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 14, 2016 15:05:39 GMT
First off: YIKES! Not an easy situation and I'm sorry you're faced with it! Here's my short answer: I agree with joatmoniac : You're going to need to bring this up at the table. How you do that is of course up to you, but I'll offer my advice in the hope that it is useful for you. I think you were taking the correct tack in your exchange with this player by making the conversation about the fun at the table. In this case, you made it about his fun. I found it interesting that, when he tried to turn that back on you, he never mentioned fun; he talked about how invested he is in the game. Sounds to me though, that he is invested in being right more than anything else. When/if you bring this up at the table: I advise doing so at the start of a normal session. Hit everyone with it blindside. Your table has problems and the fun is dying. Call that out. Don't call out any person or people as the cause of this; but calling out the conflicts that are happening is fair game. Also, remember: YOUR fun matters too! I bolded that because I feel like its something we forget in TTRPGs. Players and GMs forget. The GM needs to be having fun too. In fact, the GM should be having the most fun! The game doesn't happen without a GM! So call out the things that are making the game not fun for you. Call out the places where you see others not having fun. This conversation (speaking of not having fun) is going to be tough. Plow through it. Keep your cool, keep the conversation civil, keep the focus on improving the fun at the table. My prediction is that M is going to get super angry; stay frosty in the face of it. Emphasize above all preserving the fun of the game and improving the interpersonal dynamics at the table. In this situation, you are a Mediator; you're working to call out and resolve conflicts that people can't, won't, or aren't solving themselves. Even when you get attacked (which I think you will), keep that group focus in mind. Good luck! I had to do something similar at my own table once. This was relatively easy, because we are all friends first, game group members second, but it was still tough and awkward. There were a few players giving me a hard time at the table. Mostly passive aggressive stuff: questioning my rule calls; complaining about and making snide comments about loot and XP. I had heard third hand that one of the players was making comments that they could do a better job DMing than me (this person would make a TERRIBLE DM, but I'll never tell him that). In the end, I called it out as a question of fun at the table. Called out the people I thought were having less fun, asked for input on what I could change to make things more fun for them. Then I asked everyone at the table to consider what sort of game they wanted to be playing. I described what sort of game I wanted, they had their say, changes were made on both sides. I have had to adjust my GM style to work with their play styles and give up on having certain games happen at my table. But I still have a great time every week! Anyway, I hope this works out for the better and that your group continues. In the end, whether that end be ugly or civil, consider restarting or rebooting your campaign. Sometimes, after a big upset, a fresh start can clear the slate. |
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 14, 2016 16:15:00 GMT
There's a part of me that's still angry about this conversation, that feels really disrespected by the way he criticized my style and then accused me of trying to "stir things up" when what I'm trying to do is hold the game together. Why he thinks that a DM would go out of his way to sabotage his own game is beyond me.
But yeah, that angry part of me really wants to just lay out an ultimatum for M and tell him that he needs to start respecting the other players and myself or I'll have to ask him to leave the group. I should note that I didn't know any of these people until a few months ago when I started this group, so it's not like I'd be issuing an ultimatum to a friend, but rather to someone that I'm realizing I don't enjoy spending time with, and he doesn't seem to be enjoying spending time with me.
The problem with waiting until Thursday to talk it over is that J still has his statement that he's giving this game one more session, so if things don't get resolved on Thursday, I've potentially lost two players. And all of these problems are so strongly detracting from my own enjoyment of the game that I am *seriously* considering just saying "screw it" and tossing the whole game out the window.
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 14, 2016 16:28:36 GMT
There's a part of me that's still angry about this conversation, that feels really disrespected by the way he criticized my style and then accused me of trying to "stir things up" when what I'm trying to do is hold the game together. Why he thinks that a DM would go out of his way to sabotage his own game is beyond me. But yeah, that angry part of me really wants to just lay out an ultimatum for M and tell him that he needs to start respecting the other players and myself or I'll have to ask him to leave the group. I should note that I didn't know any of these people until a few months ago when I started this group, so it's not like I'd be issuing an ultimatum to a friend, but rather to someone that I'm realizing I don't enjoy spending time with, and he doesn't seem to be enjoying spending time with me. The problem with waiting until Thursday to talk it over is that J still has his statement that he's giving this game one more session, so if things don't get resolved on Thursday, I've potentially lost two players. And all of these problems are so strongly detracting from my own enjoyment of the game that I am *seriously* considering just saying "screw it" and tossing the whole game out the window. Oh, don't get me wrong, just even reading your exchange boosted my pulse and made that vein on my forehead start throbbing. I understand and I'd be pissed too. Perhaps your last sentence is how you start the conversation. If you really are that dissatisfied, an "are we going to play the game or not?" conversation is worth having. Do you mind if I ask how you all got together, if not as friends? Is this all face to face? Edit: The more I think about this, the more I question whether you should even bother trying to salvage this game. I assumed you knew these people. That they were all more or less friends. But if you don't enjoy spending time with the people at your table, your game is never going to be as much fun as it could (should!) be. How did you all get together? |
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 14, 2016 18:03:13 GMT
I'm a member of some general gaming groups on Facebook. I decided I really wanted to run a 3.5 campaign, so I made a post looking for players. There are definitely people in this group that I enjoy playing with and who seem to mesh with my style, but when there are this many problems, it calls into question whether it's worthwhile. I like the world I'm building and the campaign story, but I can always continue working on that stuff even if I decide to end this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jan 15, 2016 7:41:25 GMT
Yeah, every person doesn't fit with every table. I would be less inclined to work things out knowing that you have only met this person recently. I would certainly try to do so in a way that would retain as much of the group as possible. If nothing else having a tighter knit group you can work more on your world with, and allow a lot of player ownership of your world, or rather let their minds run wild and use what you think would be good for your world. It sounds like M is wanting a very different game from you, and that bridging that gap at this point would be more trouble than it is worth. I hope that everything works out amazingly for you!
|
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 15, 2016 13:10:22 GMT
Here is a draft of the message I'm preparing for M.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 15, 2016 14:27:40 GMT
I'm going to be frank, so please excuse me if I offend.
You better expect fallout from a message like that. It's not going to solve your other table problems and M is going to feel (unreasonable or not) wronged, snubbed and wrongly rejected.
I'll post a bit more later once I've chewed on this a little.
|
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 15, 2016 14:31:31 GMT
I was worried about fallout, but I'm not sure how else to deal with him. My feeling is that if he is unwilling to admit there is a problem, there is no way to solve it other than remove him from the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 15, 2016 15:25:23 GMT
This is a tough situation you're in, especially if you want to preserve the group.
My only advice is to make it about the group, and bring it up with the group. Call a spade a spade, but do it in the open for all to see. If it were me, I'd make it about my own fun, saying there are some table dynamics that are souring the game for me. Then call out M's playstyle and his messages questioning your DM calls, but also call out the other player dynamics you have. M isn't the only issue, you've got another player threatening to quit the game due to interpersonal issues.
As much as possible, make it ABOUT THE GAME, not personal. There still may be some fallout, but with your message above, it will feel to M like a straight up personal attack against him alone.
|
|
