The Gaming Den

PhoneLobster wrote:

Q: So... is there such a thing as a bad player?
The short answer is NO.

The long answer is Yes, but you have to be pretty damn unlucky to have a genuinely bad player at the table.

As a general rule when you are GM you are better off following the motto "There is no such as a bad player, only bad GMs".

This is not precisely the most technically correct motto, there ARE exceptions out there, but it is the most USEFUL motto because it impresses upon you two important lessons.

1) Most people just aren't THAT stupid, mean or nasty. They are NOT here to make you or anyone else have a bad time, they DO want to help you provide them with a good time, they do NOT mind if you and the others have a good time, if anything they ALSO want you and the others to have a good time, they ARE reasonable and open to reason. You CAN solve most if not all problems that arise between you and them if you are reasonable and fair.

2) It IS ultimately YOUR duty to fix problems with the game. If for no other reason than the fact that if it isn't YOU who fixes the problem player (or the player's problem) then who will?. And really what IS the alternative to taking responsibility for the situation and ensuring it is fixed? Leaving it unfixed? Expelling players and ostracizing friends? Having arguments? Ruining the entire campaign for everyone? Throwing chairs? At some point someone has to do something and as GM you are that someone. So man up and solve your groups problems amicably before everyone gets utterly pissed.

So yeah sometimes there are players who have problems, but there are almost never actual problem players and the people who CONSTANTLY go around blaming players for the failures of their campaign, their gaming and their social group typically are also the ones who have encountered those failures due to using and promoting authoritarian suck my cock style GMing techniques.

As evidenced by how the guys whining on about problem players here are largely using these mythical beasts as a straw man to support their argument that players should just be fucking grateful and kneel down and suck their god damn cocks.

But all things aside there CAN be situations where a player has a problem and you may want to know how to deal with that problem.

Q: So my player is an aggressive basket weaver, what do I do?
OK so you have someone who says "the rules don't matter man!" and then tries to use "real roleplay" or some such thing to dominate the universe and complains that you are "rules lawyering" them if you ever dare oppose them? (and in addition to that this is specifically a PLAYER not the GM)

OK first up bullshit. That is probably an exaggerated and unreasonable scenario. You might be unlucky, you might be the one in a million that gets the one actually guy out there that does all that, but it is unlikely.

More likely you are mistaking or exaggerating one of several other situations.

Problem 1) You have a common or garden variety Basket Weaver, they dislike rules and disagree with your style and philosophy.

But fortunately they believe in the GM is God personality cult so failing anything else they will actually just surrender to the authority they imagine you have. And that's just grand because the basket weaver philosophy is a false one, and even if the player never realises it, and never accepts it, they will benefit from your superior play style and they will co-operate and participate in it. And they will do so increasingly with experience as ANY player does.

And even if they are "narrative" wankers, guess what, following the sorts of GMing advised here you will support story wanking better than actual story wankers do. Especially if you ensure that you maintain PC survival rates (with your mighty rules fu) and compromise your godly control freaking with extensive player input and feedback. All of which have already been advised.

In no time your basket weaver will be spreading stories of the totally awesome baskets he his weaving in your campaigns and how you made baskets an integral part of the setting and it's history.

Problem 2) Actually it's all just the fact this guy is really crap with the rules.

This "problem player"'s only real problem is that they just don't know the rules. But hey they played the game before and were told it was totally fine!

This breaks down to two main problems, one may be that their former experience was too brief or their former, apparently basket weaving, GM was totally crap enough that they learned little or nothing useful about the rules of the game and if anything learned only a few of the worse cultural attitudes from certain groups of gamers.

In that case they are basically just the same as a beginning player (many of whom may also have a few strange ideas about role playing games). Treat them like a beginner, have someone help them with the rules and dice rolls and such, if no one else will that's your god damn job as GM. Inform them of available options as they come up, how they work, how likely they are to succeed. You know, all the hand holding you do with any beginner. That hand holding is, functionally, identical to the entire GMing philosophy of the "no rules, GM is god" crowd anyway. The difference is while you are doing this you introduce the player to rules and genuine co-operative story telling and they WILL learn, even if they don't mean to.

In the worst case version of the guy who knows no rules however you have the guy who just CANNOT learn the rules well enough.

Effectively you have a beginner who is NEVER going to pick up the rules of the game at some level, possibly an early one. Such people, especially the extremes, are rare. I mean sure many people will never learn the rules well enough to GM, but it's pretty rare to have someone who can't learn enough to be an at least semi competent player.

But if it happens what you basically have on your hands is a beginner who will always be a beginner at least as far as using the game rules.

That is not a huge problem, you can baby sit them forever just as you baby sit a regular player while they learn the game.

The only issue there is work load. Can you handle it? Do you have too many players needing baby sitting already? Is it worth it? Is whatever social loss from kicking them out worth the reduction in work load? Etc...

Problem 3) The player wants to control the game and is trying to take over!
Again. A rarity. Tyically a GM who complains this is suffering from subjective bias and is observing a player who is just trying to do you know stuff as being an evil rebel out to get them.

And again, the GMs most likely to have this problem and perception are, again, GM is god types, because for them ANY player action/attempt at contribution could well be treason.

But. As a more reasonable version of the scenario there COULD be a player who is just a BIT too pushy.

But if it important to divorce the pushy player "problem" from the basket weaver/rules don't matter man player "problem".

A player who wants to take "more than their fair share" of control of the game (whatever the hell "their fair share" may mean) will NOT limit themselves automatically to using basket weaver "real role player" arguments and methodologies to do it.

They can use rules, cheating, blackmail, sexual manipulation of other players (shout out to the Count there) and what ever the hell method they think might succeed.

Once in a blue moon one of these guys is that almost mythical but genuine and rather extreme "problem player". And yes, there is little you can do. Most of the time it's only a minor issue and just god damn talking about it is a workable and effective solution.

Q: What about players feel entitled to build utter weakling characters that will totally die and ruin everything?
Again, a rarity, again if you are seeing this in any significant amount ESPECIALLY with players that have prior experience with you as a GM this is PROBABLY a form of rebellion against you because of some past failings of YOURS.

However there are times players just REALLY want to play a Bard or a Monk or what have you.

And that is not automatically indicative of a "Bad" player.

The belief that a cool and setting appropriate character concept should be enough to justify choices about their character is NOT an entirely incorrect belief.

Cool and appropriate character concepts are in and of themselves RIGHT. The 3.x D&D Monk is not a bad concept.

The problem here is NOT with the player it IS with the rules and it IS your responsibility as GM to so SOMETHING.

Why? Well again, because no one else will.

So you need to sit down and show the player why the rules screw them and HELP the player find something else they will enjoy as a character concept that might actually work.

Or better yet you should sit down and help the fix their character build so that it works while still representing their character concept. Whether that means fishing around for weird splat book build components, giving them silly "Artefact of Monk Not Sucking" items, writing a bunch of house rules or entirely rewriting the monk class.

So again, players with a non viable character class or some similar problem aren't problem players, they are players with a problem, and they look to YOU for the answer. And they will be glad, and eager for you to provide it and will actively HELP you provide it. But didn't I cover something similar to this already?

If they ARE actively building suicide characters on purpose and "suicide character" is their character concept, man up and ask them what the hell is wrong. They either hate your game (and WILL have reasons, reasons you might be able to deal with if you ask about them), or they maybe have some weird character or story arch idea and maybe you can help them out with that.

Q: What if they expect to win automatically no matter what? What then hey? Huh? Huh?
This is largely a straw man commonly constructed by GMs trying to defend occasions when they needlessly screwed their players.

Players DO expect to win. And they are right, it IS your job to lose. But they don't except to win EVERYTHING EVER AUTOMATICALLY. They to win over all and eventually they expect to come out of the game generally feeling more "winny" and less "losey". They expect you not to go around "chrono-crossing" all their wins, etc...

But you sit down and ask them, and they want a challenge, they want a story, they want adversity to overcome, they want a feeling of risk and a sense that (even if ULTIMATELY it isn't there) that there is some sort of potential for some sort of failure.

And we have seriously covered this already. It IS OK to have bandits score a (hopefully not entirely fatal) TPK, take the PCs stuff and tie them to a tree. PCs DON'T have to win everything, they just have to be allowed to get their shit back, get bigger and better and ultimately deliver the rightful comeuppance to their hated enemies.

This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

So the only REAL dispute you are actually LIKELY to encounter on this issue is the much more likely disputes of either "GM who screws the players vs Players who dislike that" and the one even good GMs may encounter "GM thinks the players win a little too much vs Players think they lose a little too much".

One of those scenarios is your fault for being a bad GM while the minor difference of opinion scenario is only a minor problem and NOT a justification for the GM is god bullshit that it is exaggerated to support.

But a minor problem IS still a problem and you should try and fix it. And it works JUST like the advice already provided for a player who is failing a lot or the whole "Chrono crossing is bad" answer.

If players think they should win more either.
1) The dice just screwed them a bit, it should get better by itself, though you COULD help it a little.
2) They are right and you have perhaps been slightly too harsh on them, and you should fix that.
3) Right or wrong they need reminding and reinforcing of their wins, their wins need to be more winny, they need more fans and rewards or just reminders and name dropping and such. "I killed a dragon and all I got was this lousy +1 T-shirt", players will often be more impressed with the princess or the repeated recognition of awe-struck NPCs or something than getting that lousy +1 shirt. Hell. Give them both, it's only a lousy +1 shirt and some fluffy role play remarks by the odd NPC.
4) Maybe they suck a bit at the game and you need to either start adjusting the difficulty of your encounters or adjusting the competence of your players. As usual the little talk may be the most productive option ever.

And yet again, OK, so one or more players believe their characters and gaming experience is to "fail flavored" or whatever. Right or Wrong, what are YOU going to do about it as GM. Because even if it isn't your fault it is YOUR responsibility to fix it, and odds are good no one else will.

They sure as hell won't if you refuse to talk to them about it and TRY SOMETHING.

Q: My player's character's are fighting! They are bad for fighting each other GRRR! It justifies me being god to stop them right?
You know what we DID the "PCs are fighting help!" question already.

The answer is still the same.

But lets throw in some extra.

Players set their PCs at each other's throats for three reasons.

1) You are a crappy GM and they intend to punish you. This is your fault so suck on it or fix it. Your choice.
2) They think it might be cool. Talk to them about how it is not cool, or talk to them about finding a way to make it be cool.
3) They are testing boundaries and learning what they can or should be doing. Help them learn, if all else fails let them learn through experience as already discussed LAST time I answered this.

Q: What about players who can't hold together to fight my uber 'leet challenges that I totally warned them about in advance, fair is fair, they signed up for me to fucking screw them!
You play with what you get not what you wish (or even ask) for.

If your players are not up to your "super hard" adventure you painstakingly planned to be a challenge to super competent super dudes like yourself even if you aren't to blame for the arising problems, and you might well be at fault, but even if you aren't...

...YOU still have to deal with the results.

If they CAN'T handle your difficulty level then once again you need to talk to them, you need to lower your difficulty level, or you need to help them raise their competence and cohesion.

You do NOT get to just throw up your hands and demand Godhood and that they respect your Authoritaaaaay. You do NOT get to complain that they "signed up for this", you do NOT get to throw blame on your players.

Because none of that will help you fix your problem. What WILL help you fix your problem is adaptive and co-operative communication with your players.

And as GM is is YOUR role to initiate that sort of thing. Because if you don't then maybe no one else will.

And what are the consequences of no one stepping up and fixing it? Hurt feelings and failed games. And you DON'T want that.

Q: What about the conflicts that arise even between close friends the only solution then is they suck my GM is god cock right?
Conflicts CAN arise between friends, and you want to minimise those conflicts and deal with them with the minimum fuss and angst.

Panicking and demanding your are GM God man and they need to suck your cock isn't going to help.

Following the basic advice here, starting with the advice, not to do that WILL.

FrankTrollman wrote:I found my interest petering out trying to read that PL wall-o-text. Could not make it through. I'd offer point by point rebuttals to the parts I could slog through, but maybe he admits he was trolling two thirds of the way through and I'd look like a jackass. It's just bad form to nit pick an argument you haven't read in full, and there is no fucking way I am going to slog all the way through that thing.

The Basketweaver contingent are the people who use the fact that their characters are suboptimal as a shibboleth. The ones who act as if flaws in the rules and their characters marks some sort of moral virtue. The kinds of people who fap to the groupthink at TheRPGSite or Paizo's forums.

I don't think you even need a word for players who roll up a Monk simply because they don't know any better. But I think the word is "Timmy", if you really care.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:The Basketweaver contingent are the people who use the fact that their characters are suboptimal as a shibboleth. The ones who act as if flaws in the rules and their characters marks some sort of moral virtue. The kinds of people who fap to the groupthink at TheRPGSite or Paizo's forums.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:The Basketweaver contingent are the people who use the fact that their characters are suboptimal as a shibboleth. The ones who act as if flaws in the rules and their characters marks some sort of moral virtue. The kinds of people who fap to the groupthink at TheRPGSite or Paizo's forums.

What do you think is the overlap between basket weavers and austerity advocates? It seems to me that people who both attach a moral purity to suffering and frame completely irrelevant tasks or activities in terms of a morality play won't just restrict this framing to a tiny collection of weird activities.

Fuchs wrote:I think you need to understand that people can want good rules without wanting to play a mandatory charop game. I've got nothing against improved rules - but I don't think a game is improved if it enforces "MMORPG-style" optimization.

The main advantage of a real life GM is that he or she can adjust a game to the taste of the players, and does not have to force them to make characters they don't want to play just so they survive.

Anyone who tries to tell me that a hardcore player who can optimize and knows how to play a character with the most efficiency cannot kill any group he faces as a DM given his advantages of a) perfect knowledge about their character's strength and weakness and b) full availability of any and all character and gear options in the campaign and (often) c) control of where and (often) d) when the battle takes place is an idiot who has no clue about DMing.

Mr. GC wrote:I actually did read that rage rant eventually. It was detailing every single type of bad player and then blaming the DM for it. So my initial assessment was entirely accurate.

Mr. GC wrote:
Because all enemies, everywhere instantly and automatically know exactly how to counter characters they've never met. And this isn't something that never happens unless:

1: You have a easily countered, and thus terrible character and so are countered frequently by sheer happenstance.
2: You have a grog DM that believes screwing the players over because Giant Frog is a good idea. In which case fuck that loser.

FrankTrollman wrote: I don't think you even need a word for players who roll up a Monk simply because they don't know any better. But I think the word is "Timmy", if you really care.

-Username17

Fuchs wrote:

Mr. GC wrote:
Because all enemies, everywhere instantly and automatically know exactly how to counter characters they've never met. And this isn't something that never happens unless:

1: You have a easily countered, and thus terrible character and so are countered frequently by sheer happenstance.
2: You have a grog DM that believes screwing the players over because Giant Frog is a good idea. In which case fuck that loser.

Ah, so the DM is not supposed to play all-out. His casters don't use divination/scrying

his villains don't have spies (and never actually talks or sings about the heroes),

his NPCs don't make tactical decisions based on game mechanics.

He is actually supposed to consider what his characters would know and do based on the characters background, not the most effective builds and tactics? Sounds like your defintion of basket weaving to me, playing with the hand brakes on.

Not to mention that no matter what you do, at low levels you don't need any "metagaming" to kill off a party if you can optimize an enemy two levels above them.

Stop deluding yourself, if the GM is not holding back your party is dead, or the GM is inept.

Fuchs wrote:No, my point is that you're a sad little idiot who thinks he plays hardcore and actually has accomplished something objectively difficult when beating a DM in a game where the DM is meant to lose. I hope you do realize that D&D 3.X CR system means an equal CR is a fight the PCs are meant to win, right?

You also don't understand that what you may consider metagaming others consider ic information, and that at least on those forums, divination spells are suposed to work, at least when it comes to wizards and clerics preparing spells, so there's no reason teh enemy wouldn't use them as well.

And you fail to explain why the DM, with all the advantages he has, able to perfeclty build and gear characters, would ever lose in a hard fight - meaning, a fight where he is not supposed to lose. The example of a hard fight you mentioned was pretty much revealed as playing with the gloves on, so to speak, so - did you actually ever play hardcore, or is that the best you got? A bunch of mooks firing spell storing arrows and then letting the Party solve the problem without interference?

Fuchs wrote:I hope you do realize that D&D 3.X CR system means an equal CR is a fight the PCs are meant to win, right?

Mr. GC wrote:Hi Benoist. Why can't you be frozen fast?

Kaelik wrote:

Mr. GC wrote:Hi Benoist. Why can't you be frozen fast?

Find a better insult. Accusing people of being specific people from someplace else (as opposed to accusing them of advocating things largely or completely identical to what people from someplace else advocate) is the kind of stupid thing that no one can tell if you are serious about or not, unless they know you well.

And since you are new, no one knows you well, so we have to consider the possibility that you actually think Fuchs is Benoist, and are therefore dumb as fuck, when we consider your arguments.

PL wrote:OK so you have someone who says "the rules don't matter man!" and then tries to use "real roleplay" or some such thing to dominate the universe and complains that you are "rules lawyering" them if you ever dare oppose them? (and in addition to that this is specifically a PLAYER not the GM)

OK first up bullshit. That is probably an exaggerated and unreasonable scenario. You might be unlucky, you might be the one in a million that gets the one actually guy out there that does all that, but it is unlikely.

Kaelik wrote:

Mr. GC wrote:Hi Benoist. Why can't you be frozen fast?

Find a better insult. Accusing people of being specific people from someplace else (as opposed to accusing them of advocating things largely or completely identical to what people from someplace else advocate) is the kind of stupid thing that no one can tell if you are serious about or not, unless they know you well.

And since you are new, no one knows you well, so we have to consider the possibility that you actually think Fuchs is Benoist, and are therefore dumb as fuck, when we consider your arguments.

Fuchs wrote:Still waiting for an actual example of Mr. GC's GM (or himself) playing hardcore, "beat the players".

Fuchs wrote:Mr. GC - did you somehow miss how your "tough encounter where you counter the dots or die" was taken apart here as a gloves-on coddling encounter? Yeah, if they lack the counter they die. But then, what kind of weaksauce enemies would assume they could not counter the dots?

Your NPCs acted like clichee villains, leaving the hero to die slowly in a deathtrap "he cannot possibly escape, so I can go away without worry". Not exactly hardcore material, to say the least.

Got any better encounter?

Fuchs wrote:You mentioned a couple of enemies you had your party fight. You did not mention their level nor the party level, nor their spell choices and tactics, nor their gear. Nor any defenses other than a bunch of mooks easily countered by a silence spell.

Or it could have been a meat grinder (but if the party survived, it probably wasn't).

Without actual details there's no encounter to judge or ignore - certainly nothing that would pass as a hardcore DM's encounter.

(Melee machines as opposition? From a hardcore DM? Past a certain (low) level that's coddling, unless they at least have a potion of flight. In a world where flying enemies are common, melee machines without flight make no sense as serious opposition, outside very controlled fights in low-ceiling enviroments.)