|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 15, 2016 18:33:17 GMT
You know, what, you're right? I mean, I'm fairly sure that this ultimately will end with M leaving, but I think a talk around the table needs to happen first. I need to talk to everyone about respect, and that I feel as though I'm not always respected at the table, and that players don't always respect each other. I feel like this is hindering the fun of everyone at the table. I want to keep things fun for everyone, so I need a level of respect that I haven't been getting so far, for both me and the players. And I want to hear about it if other people feel disrespected by myself or other players.
The question is, do I point fingers? Do I invite others to air specific grievances? I don't want to say "this is all so-and-so's fault" or "so-and-so did this wrong," but without doing that, people (such as M) might not realize that their behaviour is problematic.
|
|
Samuel Wise
Demigod
Ready to Help...
Posts: 989
Favorite D&D Class: Warlock
Favorite D&D Race: Mousefolk
|
Post by Samuel Wise on Jan 15, 2016 18:48:26 GMT
Do I invite others to air specific grievances? Since I have worked with small business groups I can inform you that this would ultimately be a bad idea. I had a small group completely collapse after people began to "voice their grievances". After I analyzed the situation I realized how all that could be avoided. The group leader (a close friend of mine) continued to point fingers at others in the group and taking attacks on himself personally. The terrible collapse could have been avoided if the group leader just admitted that he had made mistakes and that he wanted to work with the group to fix conflicts between them. Now, I am not saying that you are at fault or that you should take the blame for what others have done. I am giving an example of what I have experienced and why pointing fingers will, in the end, blow up the situation.
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 15, 2016 18:53:39 GMT
I see your point for sure, but without making players own the fact that their behavior is causing problems for other players (not sure if you saw, but M accused me of LYING when I told him there are complaints) nothing will improve. I'll talk about respect, and the people who are causing problems (such as M) will sit back thinking that it's not their problem, they're not doing anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 15, 2016 18:53:50 GMT
The question is, do I point fingers? Do I invite others to air specific grievances? I don't want to say "this is all so-and-so's fault" or "so-and-so did this wrong," but without doing that, people (such as M) might not realize that their behaviour is problematic. Yes, but be diplomatic. Instead of pointing fingers, call out the dynamics as you see them. Don't say, "And M, you were totally disrespecting my DM style in our text exchange." Instead, say something like, "So M, in our message exchange, it seemed like you were unhappy with how I'm running the game. Here's how I want to run things: X,Y,Z, etc. If that's not a game you want to be a part of, or you don't agree with those priorities, than we have an unresolved conflict there." Stick to your guns when expressing what you want. Be open to reasonable critique, but you don't have to take flack from anyone either. Same goes for any other problems. Don't call out people who are the problem, instead you should call out people who seem to have a problem or are suffering the brunt of a problem. People have expressed problems directly to you. Problems have come up in game. They are there. The important part is speaking frankly and honestly about the problems, without calling anyone the problem. Edit: Just saw Tea's post. Notice the issue there was the moderator (group leader) taking things personally. That's important on all sides! Make sure the conversation is about the game, not about any person or people. And try to stay calm in the face of any personal attacks against you. Keep to the high ground.
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 15, 2016 18:57:41 GMT
Great advice. Thanks. I'm going to probably work out some talking points and share those here before Thursday. Depending on how this goes, I'm not 100% sure there's going to be a game. We may just hash this out and decide what to do about our issues.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 15, 2016 18:59:15 GMT
Great advice. Thanks. I'm going to probably work out some talking points and share those here before Thursday. Depending on how this goes, I'm not 100% sure there's going to be a game. We may just hash this out and decide what to do about our issues. Make this convo the priority of the session. Otherwise, there may not be many more sessions at all. There still may not be after all this, but its important to air it all out.
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 17, 2016 0:58:45 GMT
So, here are the talking points I wrote up. They address the issues I've mentioned to you guys, as well as some that occurred to me as I worked. I figured if we were having a difficult talk, we might as well get as much out as possible.
Am I taking the right approach? I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible, and I know that this is going to be stickier than it looks on paper,but my goal is to not disrespect anyone, and highlight that is our responsibility as a group to make the game fun and to be respectful, not that there are currently "good guys" or "bad guys" at the table, even if I do feel that some people's behaviour is more problematic than others.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Jan 18, 2016 14:10:16 GMT
I've been following this from the beginning but haven't chimed in yet because it's not really my forte and you've been getting solid advice.
The one thing I wanted to point out from an outside perspective, and keeping in mind that I'm not seeing the games so only what you've written. It's clear to me now that M has some issues that you guys need to resolve. However, when I first read your first 2 posts that wasn't clear to me, and I came away thinking that R was controlling and causing some issues. I know not all clerics want to be heal bots, but I can't imagine not healing your party members unless youv'e told them ahead of time you weren't going too unless you're an evil cleric. It's just not realistic to think that a priest that isn't evil sees an ally in front of him dripping blood and wounded and the priest says "shouldn't have helped us fight". Maybe if it happened every time, but not without warning....To me it comes across as controlling and withholding and poorly RPed. The other examples of R supported this.
I'm not bringing this up to harp on R. I don't know any of these people. I'm bringing it up because a lot of the focus recently has been towards problems with M, but I think you have more going on than that and just wanted to step back the perspective since you've just come out of that frustrating (and rude) conversation with M. Honestly, it sounds like J (was it J?) has some legit complaints that the team doesn't work together at all, and is controlled by 2 people's whims.
I've had players in the past that refused to compromise at all to go with the party. Some independence is absolutely not a bad thing, but if everyone is always just like "Yeah the group is doing that but I don't want to so I won't" it becomes incredibly unhealthy for a game. Every player in the game has to make some effort to keep it a team sport, regardless of RP reasons. I'm personally of the opinion that if you create a character that can't co-exist with the group then you've created the wrong character for that game. It's not all up to the DM to make it work - it's everyone's game.
I remember once as a young DM, I started the characters as prisoners and had them go through an escape. One guy afterwards just started walking in the opposite direction of the group. He said his character didn't know or trust these people and wouldn't have anything to do with them. The players tried everything and his character refused to talk to them and kept walking away. I tried talking to him out of character. Nothing worked and the game died early. I was inexperienced and didn't know how to handle it, but that was on that player and I should have just removed him after he refused all attempts to work with him.
I've probably rambled too long. The main point was that I think you have a few different issues at the table, and in keeping that in mind as you approach this it might help it seem less finger pointing directly at M, but make sure there is enough for him to realize there is indeed a problem, and the game is going to end if you guys can't resolve all of that.
Overall, it seems as if you've handled this situation very tactfully and appropriately. Ultimately, there is only so much you can do to create group chemistry, and it just doesn't always work unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 18, 2016 14:25:54 GMT
I'm fully prepared for the fact that this discussion may just mean the end of our games. I figure it will either move us towards resolving the issues, or reveal that they can't be resolved. In the latter case, I will be disappointed, but it's kind of what I'm expecting. I've also got another game nearly ready to be played with my wife and some friends of ours...so if this one falls apart that just means this other game gets more of my time and attention.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 18, 2016 15:24:58 GMT
I know not all clerics want to be heal bots, but I can't imagine not healing your party members unless youv'e told them ahead of time you weren't going too unless you're an evil cleric. It's just not realistic to think that a priest that isn't evil sees an ally in front of him dripping blood and wounded and the priest says "shouldn't have helped us fight". Maybe if it happened every time, but not without warning....To me it comes across as controlling and withholding and poorly RPed. The other examples of R supported this. I'm not bringing this up to harp on R. I don't know any of these people. I'm bringing it up because a lot of the focus recently has been towards problems with M, but I think you have more going on than that and just wanted to step back the perspective since you've just come out of that frustrating (and rude) conversation with M. Honestly, it sounds like J (was it J?) has some legit complaints that the team doesn't work together at all, and is controlled by 2 people's whims. . To your first point Vulash: As I understood the scenario, the rogue was not "helping in a fight", but rather taking crazy risks and putting himself in danger with the assumption that the Cleric would save him. As a player who loves pulling crazy Jack Moves, I'll never expect any member of the party to wipe my butt afterwards. If you're going to be the "crazy stunt rogue", you shouldn't assume the rest of the party is going to back you. For me, that's the fun of playing such a character. To your second point: 100% agree. No one player is the problem here. M is getting a lot of attention, and I think his attitude is a problem. But there are other issues at the table. LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil): I think your talking points are good and I like the respectful tone you're adopting. If you come in swinging, everyone's going to swing back. Taking a "lets fix the problem" approach is great. My one word of caution is to not rely on this list too much. Just as a DM can never 100% predict which way a player is going to go, you can't predict how this conversation will go. Use your talking points as guides and reminders, but let the conversation happen naturally. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 18, 2016 15:32:32 GMT
Those are good points. I should definitely approach this like a game session. Ideally, I'll hit all of these points because I feel they are all important, but I should let the conversation evolve naturally.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Jan 18, 2016 15:41:36 GMT
Those are good points. I should definitely approach this like a game session. Ideally, I'll hit all of these points because I feel they are all important, but I should let the conversation evolve naturally. Everything I know about running a business meeting, I learned at the game table. GMing is great training for managing a group of people trying to accomplish a collaborative goal.
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 22, 2016 5:16:15 GMT
Well, that's interesting.
M didn't show up, and another DM at the store we played at (also one of the owners) told me that he's played with M before and he can be problematic. He also told me that in a situation like this, there was a good chance M wouldn't be there. He was right, so when I got home I took his advice and told M that since he failed to show up and gave no warning, I was filling his spot with another interested player. As I was sending this message, I discovered that M had also already unfriended me on facebook. So...he's gone, at least. Though the other DM has expressed some concern that there might still be fallout.
R was unable to make the session, which sucked, but I established with J what I had already established with R, that it was more of a matter of different play styles and inter-character conflict. I don't think this situation is completely resolved, but nobody seems to be taking things personally. The three players who were present were quite receptive to the rest of my talking points, with J even apologizing for some of the behaviour I listed that he recognized as his own.
Plus we do have a new player joining the game (a friend of J's), so it sure seems like the group is holding together. After the talk we played Boss Monster and Epic Spell Wars, and we got to know each other a bit better. I think the group is really starting to click.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Jan 22, 2016 6:10:34 GMT
Hard to ask for a better outcome than that so far. Not only is the main problem gone, but you were justified in your thought process by another person who had a similar experience. J taking ownership of some of their own personality conflicts is awesome for moving forward especially with the addition of their friend, so I would think the overall buy in to your game by J should increase. Hadn't thought about playing other games til you mentioned it, but that could be a great way to get the group more connected. Play short board games together, so as to have interactions just as themselves rather than tied to their characters and the game all the time. Again, glad to hear that things seem to be on the road to a better group and experience for you!!
|
|
|
Post by LegendOfZia (formerly DM Phil) on Jan 22, 2016 12:03:07 GMT
Yeah, overall the outcome was fantastic so far. Plus I got some very positive feedback from the players who were there. Turns out they like my DM style and the story/game I'm running. Who knew?
|
|