Wednesday, September 21, 2011

How Not to Rise to the Challenge

For a long time we had a guy in our group who could be generously described as a sociopath. Actually, he mentioned his therapist had called him that. He was younger that most of the group, so people cut him some slack...for a while. We’ll call him Dryan. Dryan had many delightful personality quirks- most significant of which was his mastery of whining. He could whine out the unfairness of any situation, describe things had conspired against him, and sulk that the world hadn’t just given him what he wanted.

My favorite story, of many, was the night that he was playing in a Rolemaster campaign. The other players had managed to enjoy themselves despite Dryan’s level-best efforts. In any case, their group enters a cave, and the GM describes that there are largish spiders, the size of a football, and they have a bluish glow to them. Dryan immediately begins bitching- "Geez, Scott- Lightning Spiders- my god, how unfair can you be? I’ve read about those, I can’t believe you’re throwing those at us..." on and on about how he knew about these things and Scott was awful for having done this.

Of course, these weren’t monsters from the book or anything. They were just something Scott the GM had come up with on the spot for a little challenge. They were just differently colored spiders. The problem was Dryan, like a number of other gamers, had a social script- one which often worked for him. I’m seen it done in more- and in less- sophisticated ways. Like the "Defer & Naysay" approach, it survives and thrives because it works. We’ll call this approach "Challenge Bitching."

This script can take a number of forms. The easiest one I mentioned above, complaining about the unfairness and difficulty of the challenge presented. Some of that can be in good fun. I had a Champions game where the players would go on after a fight about how tough the opposition had been and questioning the bad guys' abilities and points...which would inevitably lead to me exploding with "But you guys won!" in fury. At that point they’d laugh since I’d fallen for their trap again. That’s fun, and part of the game. But when that turns chronic- with comments about points, challenge ratings, and the decks being stacked against them, it becomes a problem. Some players immediately engage in complaints and rules-riffs the moment a conflict begins. Now, if a group complains, that’s a different matter. That ought to be a sign. But here I’m speaking about the player who starts out any encounter in this mode.

That script offers a certain amount of camouflage for the Challenge Bitcher. He’s addressing the system and mechanics. They blend it with other kinds of genial bitching. It includes an approach I’ll call "Sideways Bitching," where the Bitcher complains that he’s unable to do "anything" (or a specific thing) because the GM’s created deliberate obstacles to that. Where described, these obstacles take the form of Powerful NPCs, Omnipotent Enemies, or Impossible to Break Structures. They may be more generically presented as "he just won’t let me...". Again, these criticisms may not be invalid- but the difference here is that the Bitcher hasn’t actually tested any of these things. They’d decided that the situation is beyond them. That allows them to avoid responsibility in the group, give them an excuse for lack of forward progress, and a sense of martyrdom. This script’s presented to avoid criticism from fellow players for the most part. Good GM’s presented with this will try to find a solution- which isn’t what the Bitcher wants.

Another script/tactic used by the Challenge Bitcher is to react to any challenge presented to them as yet another affront. Challenges- from combat, to social interactions, to just having to roll for something- demonstrate how the GM is picking on the player. The Bitcher may do this at the table- or away in commentary afterward. As opposed to a joshing comment, he uses this as a passive-aggressive reproach to the GM. The message conveyed is that the GM should be picking on other players or offering the player a 'buy' in this situation. This script plays on the GM’s desire to both be fair and to be perceived as fair. That makes handling it at the table more difficult- the GM has to assess the validity of the point. And if the comment isn’t valid, pushing too far can make the situation adversarial. That’s part of the reaction the Bitcher counts on.

Another approach is in body language- where the player becomes visibly angry, pouts or sulks at the table. To be fair, people can get angry at the table- can find themselves showing that more than they intend. The difference comes with players who do this consistently, as a means of expressing displeasure or making the mood uncomfortable so that they get their way. Asking the player at the table about this usually makes the situation worse- entering into a strange "Thanksgiving with the Family" mode. The player can turn the query back on the GM, that the comment’s an attempt to make them angry or call them out in front of friends. They may also take the opportunity to bring another player into the situation, hiding behind their skirts and pointing to the GM’s behavior as antagonistic. Again, the point of the tactic is to reshape the behavior of others- to force them to hesitate, to moderate the difficulty of the situation, or to simply offer the Bitcher what they want.

So what’s the problem? Stated as above, these issues would seem easy to spot and to deal with. But, of course, they’re not. They’re bound up in social interactions, tied to other parts of the social contract. In my experience, players who do this kind of thing at the table also do this away from the table. They interact with family and significant others through this passive-aggressive and guilt manipulating approach. And they’ve learned that this script is effective. Even if they don’t get 100% of what they want, they get a portion of it. They make the GM, other players or any source of authority hesitant to interact with them in anything but a positive way. They make the rest of the table have to second-guess their own actions.

To give you a concrete example, I play miniatures and I play board games. In each case I have at least one person I’ve played against a few times who uses this approach- often in a deliberate way. When things goes against them at the table- they slow things down; they get quiet and visibly angry or upset; they go to the rulebook and begin to question every move their opponent has made; they complain about a minor detail they ‘misunderstood’ and imply that the game should be done again or is invalid; they check and recheck their actions in a CCG. They create a singular thought in their opponent’s mind: is it worth it? Is winning worth the experience? And maybe the Dryan or the more articulate versions of Dryan won’t win- but that seed will be planted for next time- that hesitation about making a rules call, about taking advantage, about keeping the game going to victory or letting them win. Now for a board, miniatures or card games- you can usually choose to not play them or play with them infrequently. But over long-term social interactions- such as an rpg table- you have constrained choices. Calling them on it might work- these scripts rely on a "victim" stance. It is difficult to extricate players from this without taking the ‘bad guy’ role. Often these players have grown used to these approaches- with their friends and with their family. They’re expert with them, leaving you with few choices besides walking on eggshells or cutting them out.

And I’ll admit I’ve been guilty of bending to players who have used this pressure at the table. Table management's vital to being a GM. I want things to run smoothly- so when players visibly show upset at the table, I try to figure out how to get around that. So I’ve bowed to that kind of blackmail in the past. Part of me wonders if the player realizes that everyone at the table can tell they’re angry. I used to be more charitable in my interpretation of this, but now I’m fairly sure it is an approach they’ve integrated into their lives with success. So I try to make sure that the whiny player gets taken care of- the squeaky wheel gets the oil...

...which of course isn’t fair. At a table with one or more of these tantrum players, good players can get the short end of the stick. Increasingly, I’ve tried a compartmentalized approach- offering the players rewards, plots and details they want- but not ones connected with the main plot. As well these should be in realms fairly isolated from the interests of their fellow players. It can work, putting them in a pen- but not always. Sometimes the whiner will see over the fence into another player’s yard- and see something shiny, where they’ll rush over and step on others' toes. I have to admit that handling these kinds of problems feels like the weakest part of my GMing skill-set. But the first step to fixing these kinds of problems is to recognize them when they happen at the table. If I can identify that kind of pressure and manipulation in play- directed at me or another player- then perhaps I can figure out a way to redirect it.

Again, I want to stress I’m not saying criticism of a GM isn’t or can’t be valid. Constructive and tactful criticism would be ideal. But we’re human, so GMs often have to filter through the comments and reactions of people at the table to make things better. What I’m talking about here isn’t commentary aimed at making the game better. Instead this is player behavior aims to get what they want. They’re willing to throw the socially-acceptable version of a tantrum to "win." Winning in the game can mean acknowledged superiority in rules-lawyering, letting their character be the best, controlling what happens at the table, or simply being able to exert power over the group. These tactics and scripts aren’t about improvement of play, but gaining control. They’re selfish and isolated- often at odds with both GM and fellow players. A good GM has to filter these out from legitimate problems and address the latter. The GM has to be especially aware when a problem isn’t a lone voice, but instead expresses complaint or unhappiness from the group. The GM has to manage a table despite players who run away from challenges crying.

And here’s the thing- challenges are what makes the game. My solid players rise to the challenge. They’ll complain, react, and express shock at the challenges to come- but when it comes to it, they pick up they’re tools, march forward and deal with it. They work together, they plan and they deal with problems- from the small to the unbeatable with equal panache. They don’t assume I’m out to get them- or at least if I’m out to get them then I have a higher purpose- a better story in mind. The vast majority of my players fall into this category- embracing play, taking on challenges, and pressing forward. It is that, maybe, which makes the bad players stand out so strongly in my memory. I’m writing this as an exorcism, from the ghosts of gaming past. My present groups take on anything thrown at them- offering me a freedom as a GM I’ve never had before.

And that’s pretty cool.


  1. Heh. I see a lot of the traits you mention at work as much as the gaming table!

  2. My wife was applying the ideas to her workplace when she was telling me how her day went today.

  3. Not to excuse "Dryan's" behavior, but perhaps he had, or rather has as there is no cure, Asperger Syndrome. I suspect a significant number of fans of the hobby posses the condition. I do though I usually manage better than Dryan does.

  4. I can understand putting up with a Dryan for a little while until you figure out it's not just a bad day but a permanent mode of interacting with people, but I don't get why you'd continue to game with him after that. Game groups can kick people out. Generally I think dealing with personal issues by changing stuff in the game is a bad idea; it can be hard enough to deal with issues even when you're talking openly about them, but concealing it under a layer of guessing what the problem is and guessing what might make it better makes it that much harder and is likely to screw up the game for everybody else. And rewarding them for their misbehavior just encourages more of it.

  5. @Grumpy Celt: That's a really good observation. having been a gamer, worked gaming conventions, and spent my years in gaming retail, I'd agree that I've seen a significant population fall into that category (as well as the ADD, paranoid, schitzophrenic, manic-depressive, and bi-polar customers). Now, I can't speak as an expert- I can only assess this anecdotally, so take that what it is worth. Based on my experience, I wouldn't say that Dryan had Aspergers. He perhaps had ADD. Not to go too much into the crunch of it, Dryan's behavior was rather more selfish, deliberately manipulative and focused on avoiding responsibility. I think he came from a household with little discipline and structure, had been raised by parents with some serious dysfunctions, had been spoiled in terms of stuff, and had been ignored on more emotional needs. And I think awareness and understanding has to be given to people suffering from Asperger Syndrome, but I would say that he did not have that condition.

  6. @Joshua: That's a valid point. Circumstances and the social contract made that more difficult. He fell into our circle when he was fairly young- late teens, in a group made up of people ten years older than that. We gave him a great deal of slack because of his age. Most of us had been mentored or brought into gaming by older players who had overlooked our youth or general stupidity- and had helped make us better players and persons. In particular in our area we had a circle of older grognards who made it a point to offer miniature, role-playing and board games aimed at younger gamers for the local conventions. These people had immense tolerance- a number were teachers.

    So Dryan took time before he started to use up people's ill-will. In a group as large as ours, he also knew well enough to burn only certain bridges at a time and to turn people's anger to his benefit by complaining to others about his ill-treatment. And of course, once a person has been in the group for a long period of time, it becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle from them with cutting off other people. The social network becomes its own enemy.

    I'd say as a direct result of Dryan, we're more careful about that, but we still get burnt- but usually more quickly. There are exceptions- we had a smarter, more articulate version of Dryan who managed to cause a lot of damage in the group, plus several others over the last ten years.

    Yes- you're right, in an ideal situation we should be able to cut those people out. And we have moved to a more cautious approach to bringing people in- and I worry about the cost of that.

  7. I'm with the "cut those people out, regardless of cost" solution. Too many times I have seen people talking about issues with certain GAMES that are in actuality issues with certain GAMERS and I wonder every time, "Why is anyone gaming with these people?"

    I have a limited amount of free time to enjoy my hobbies, and I am not going to spend it in the company of people who suck. If other people are offended by this, they probably aren't awesome enough to overcome the suckiness of the people they are defending.

    Besides which, if you have such people in your group they can easily drive away new people who might turn out to be great. So you're not just putting up with them, you're losing out on potential people who could be much better.

  8. @Swordgleam: I think our group has moved closer to that position in recent years. We have been lucky to have a fairly large group of players. However in recent cases where we have lost a bad player or that bad player has moved on, we've also lost an additional significant other player who was much better. So we've lost 2 for 1.

    The real hesitation I have is that we do have and have had people in the group today who are excellent players- but they weren't excellent to start. They were problematic, they were disruptive, they were manipulative- but by mentoring, modelling good play and being gracious, they became solid and enjoyable contributors. I think that gets harder as we get older- the older the player, the more set in their ways they are. And the age gap between ourselves and incoming players grows.

  9. Buat para pemula untuk mengawali bermain game online agar mudah, main aja di situs Dewapoker777 terpercaya.
    Dewapoker777 juga menyiapkan berbagai tipe bonus yang sangat besar juga tentunya.
    Caranya sangat gampang banget lho , cukup 1 ID saja kalian sudah bisa main dengan puas.
    Mainkan Slot Online, Togel Online, Fishing & Live Casino
    Situs Dewapoker777 juga menyiapkan jackpot dengan pasaran yang terpercaya.

    - Pasaran Malaysia
    - Pasaran Macau

    - Pasaran Sidney
    - Pasaran Singapore
    - Pasaran Singapore 45
    - Pasaran Qatar
    - Pasaran Malaysia Siang
    - Pasaran HK Singa
    - dan Pasaran Geylang

    Minimal Betting Togel 500 Rupiah.
    Tersedia Promo :

    - Bonus New Member 30%
    - CashBack Kekalahan Live Casino Up To 10%
    - Bonus TurnOver Slot & Tempat Ikan Up To 0.8%
    - Promo Menarik Setiap Bulannya
    - Diskon Togel Terbesar [ 4D : 66% , 3D : 59% , 2D : 29% ] Bebas Invest
    - Tersedia Grup Lomba Togel

    Contact :
    Line : Dewapoker777
    Link : Dewapoker777 . Online
    Link IP :

    Menang Berapapun Pasti Kami Bayar Langsung !!!