PDA

View Full Version : Different playstyles in a gaming group



WarKitty
2010-09-20, 08:29 AM
I've seen a lot of threads around the board on different playstyles. A lot of people seem to take a "majority rule" type approach - if 8/10 people are having fun, and the remaining 2 aren't, well we can't change the game for just 2 people.

At the same time, well, many of us play as friend groups. And tbh continuing to do something as a group when one member clearly isn't having fun seems a bit, well, jerkish. Especially if no one even tries to make it fun for everyone.

So how do you accommodate different concepts of what is fun within your groups?

valadil
2010-09-20, 09:02 AM
We patiently take turns, just like in kindergarten. A couple years ago we had a game that was very explicitly set up in this way. Most of the players just wanted to fight and loot. I had a secret identity and was all about the roleplay. Basically I got the GM during his smoke breaks. The other players waited for those and then we'd do another combat. Ideally the GM would also give out loot right before a smoke break, so they'd have something to work out while we were outside.

Psyx
2010-09-20, 10:03 AM
So how do you accommodate different concepts of what is fun within your groups?

With difficulty at times, but mostly by having a stable group who share similar goals. I don't think I could run with an even mix of power-gamers and hardcore roleplayers. Some group dynamics just don't work, in the same way that having two natural leaders at the table can sometimes cause conflict. Where I've had groups that didn't gel, people have tended to leave after a few months. It's doesn't stop us all being friends: Just some people don't game well together. One friend in particular is a massive pain to GM for: He's a powergamer who loves being secretive, sulks when he doesn't get his way, needs to be better than everyone else and argues. Fortunately, he dropped out of my group when he realised that he wasn't going to bully me into letting him run wild.

Once you've got a group who can mesh together, it's a matter of balance.
Nobody objects to fights, so those are safe ground. Long investigations can render some of the group disinterested, so I try to keep those parts of the investigation either fairly short, or ensure that others have something to do.

For roleplaying sections, I have to really think about engaging the more 'me thump' players. Recently, the most 'thumpy' character was best suited to go and talk to an ex-army bar owner so was forced front and centre, and really rose to the challenge and enjoyed it.

Overly secretive players need to be given little secrets and sneaky things to do that don't involve or hamper the party. It doesn't need to be big, just so long as it meets their needs.

Win-driven powergamers need to be reined in by careful GMing. It's simply not fair on players to be overshadowed by a rules lawyer constantly. There's a lot to be said for writing your own rules system in order to cut down on that aspect of things. Another way of doing it is to make the power more about simply being good in a fight. Invent new hurdles to jump and this type of player will aim at them. Have a complex system of courtly favour and they'll want to compete and get to the top. Make a reputation system and they'll want to be seen as the best in the kingdom. Point the powergamers at areas of the game that aren't going to break stuff!

'Just kill' players are a bit of a chore, because as soon as anything happens that's not a fight, they switch off. If they do just that, it's not tooooo bad. The problem is when they turn into a disruptive player by wanting to turn everything into a fight. Fortunately, I have a mature group and even if they aren't personally interested in a specific puzzle/whatever they are selfless enough to leave it to the others.

big teej
2010-09-20, 10:33 AM
With difficulty at times, but mostly by having a stable group who share similar goals. I don't think I could run with an even mix of power-gamers and hardcore roleplayers. Some group dynamics just don't work, in the same way that having two natural leaders at the table can sometimes cause conflict. Where I've had groups that didn't gel, people have tended to leave after a few months. It's doesn't stop us all being friends: Just some people don't game well together. One friend in particular is a massive pain to GM for: He's a powergamer who loves being secretive, sulks when he doesn't get his way, needs to be better than everyone else and argues. Fortunately, he dropped out of my group when he realised that he wasn't going to bully me into letting him run wild.

Once you've got a group who can mesh together, it's a matter of balance.
Nobody objects to fights, so those are safe ground. Long investigations can render some of the group disinterested, so I try to keep those parts of the investigation either fairly short, or ensure that others have something to do.

For roleplaying sections, I have to really think about engaging the more 'me thump' players. Recently, the most 'thumpy' character was best suited to go and talk to an ex-army bar owner so was forced front and centre, and really rose to the challenge and enjoyed it.

Overly secretive players need to be given little secrets and sneaky things to do that don't involve or hamper the party. It doesn't need to be big, just so long as it meets their needs.

Win-driven powergamers need to be reined in by careful GMing. It's simply not fair on players to be overshadowed by a rules lawyer constantly. There's a lot to be said for writing your own rules system in order to cut down on that aspect of things. Another way of doing it is to make the power more about simply being good in a fight. Invent new hurdles to jump and this type of player will aim at them. Have a complex system of courtly favour and they'll want to compete and get to the top. Make a reputation system and they'll want to be seen as the best in the kingdom. Point the powergamers at areas of the game that aren't going to break stuff!

'Just kill' players are a bit of a chore, because as soon as anything happens that's not a fight, they switch off. If they do just that, it's not tooooo bad. The problem is when they turn into a disruptive player by wanting to turn everything into a fight. Fortunately, I have a mature group and even if they aren't personally interested in a specific puzzle/whatever they are selfless enough to leave it to the others.

what would you do with a "just kill" player who not only switches off as soon as the last enemy is downed. but becomes something of a drain on the rest of the group?

one who once they switch OFF, dozing/sleeping, or even just sitting their lookin bored, and slowly but inevitabley draining the energy of the group.

how would ye deal with that?

Tyndmyr
2010-09-20, 10:55 AM
what would you do with a "just kill" player who not only switches off as soon as the last enemy is downed. but becomes something of a drain on the rest of the group?

one who once they switch OFF, dozing/sleeping, or even just sitting their lookin bored, and slowly but inevitabley draining the energy of the group.

how would ye deal with that?

Well, I have a solution, involving ranged touch attacks and a DMG.

Iferus
2010-09-20, 10:56 AM
what would you do with a "just kill" player who not only switches off as soon as the last enemy is downed. but becomes something of a drain on the rest of the group?

one who once they switch OFF, dozing/sleeping, or even just sitting their lookin bored, and slowly but inevitabley draining the energy of the group.

how would ye deal with that?

I'd ask him to shape up or leave the game. Demand him to have some patience and allow his friends to have their fun too. If he is really that uninterested, perhaps he shouldn't be playing role-playing games.

Psyx
2010-09-20, 11:28 AM
what would you do with a "just kill" player who not only switches off as soon as the last enemy is downed. but becomes something of a drain on the rest of the group?
one who once they switch OFF, dozing/sleeping, or even just sitting their lookin bored, and slowly but inevitabley draining the energy of the group.
how would ye deal with that?

Dear reader... :smallwink:

To be honest, I tend to manage to avoid this kind of player. When I last set up a regular game group, I thought VERY carefully about who to invite. I asked people who game with potential invitees what their player style was like. I gamed with a couple of them in other groups. I avoided inviting people with a history of friction. I pretty much did everything to prevent these problems before they started. I built a 'dream team', essentially. When a slot comes up, I ask for recommendations and talk it through with players.

If you have a player who isn't suited to the game and very much in the minority, they tend to often drift off fairly quickly. I don't go hugely out of my way to change my game for a single disruptive player, but I do at least try to consider why they are being disruptive and aim personal challenges at them.

I kinda ban displacement activities at the table: No fiddling with phones, playing puzzles or knitting! If anyone actually slept I'd call them up on it, because that's horrifically rude - I'm running a game: Participate in it, or let someone else join instead who will. If this means that 'hulk smash' players are bored senseless between combats, it's essentially tough luck, and good reason for them to either seize the roleplaying, planning and puzzle-solving straws that are constantly thrown in the direction of players, or to realise that they'd rather be playing Counterstrike and leave. I don't actually ask players to leave, but they end up with the choice of either participating more or being very, very bored. Then they can make the call.

Trying to engage bad players is one thing. Ruining everyone else's evening for them is another. There's only so much you can do. Hopefully they'll grab onto something interesting and get more involved.

My most 'me hit' player often has NPCs involving themselves in his life that only he can deal with. In one game, his character's mother is an interfering busy-body, intent on marrying him off, and no matter what he does, it never seems to really be good enough. In another game I've deliberately put him in the position of being (due to quirk of background) the only person capable of negotiating a problem, or with an NPC. I'm not giving him 'more' to deal with than anyone else, or an unfair share of the limelight: I'm giving him the same screen-time as everyone else, but making sure that he can't shirk out of it.

I don't think that a real 'hulk smash' character would put up with my games for long, though. Some combats are multi-session massacres and battles, but then we've regularly gone half-a-dozen sessions without a weapon being drawn, too.

big teej
2010-09-20, 03:45 PM
Dear reader... :smallwink:

To be honest, I tend to manage to avoid this kind of player. When I last set up a regular game group, I thought VERY carefully about who to invite. I asked people who game with potential invitees what their player style was like. I gamed with a couple of them in other groups. I avoided inviting people with a history of friction. I pretty much did everything to prevent these problems before they started. I built a 'dream team', essentially. When a slot comes up, I ask for recommendations and talk it through with players.

If you have a player who isn't suited to the game and very much in the minority, they tend to often drift off fairly quickly. I don't go hugely out of my way to change my game for a single disruptive player, but I do at least try to consider why they are being disruptive and aim personal challenges at them.

I kinda ban displacement activities at the table: No fiddling with phones, playing puzzles or knitting! If anyone actually slept I'd call them up on it, because that's horrifically rude - I'm running a game: Participate in it, or let someone else join instead who will. If this means that 'hulk smash' players are bored senseless between combats, it's essentially tough luck, and good reason for them to either seize the roleplaying, planning and puzzle-solving straws that are constantly thrown in the direction of players, or to realise that they'd rather be playing Counterstrike and leave. I don't actually ask players to leave, but they end up with the choice of either participating more or being very, very bored. Then they can make the call.

Trying to engage bad players is one thing. Ruining everyone else's evening for them is another. There's only so much you can do. Hopefully they'll grab onto something interesting and get more involved.

My most 'me hit' player often has NPCs involving themselves in his life that only he can deal with. In one game, his character's mother is an interfering busy-body, intent on marrying him off, and no matter what he does, it never seems to really be good enough. In another game I've deliberately put him in the position of being (due to quirk of background) the only person capable of negotiating a problem, or with an NPC. I'm not giving him 'more' to deal with than anyone else, or an unfair share of the limelight: I'm giving him the same screen-time as everyone else, but making sure that he can't shirk out of it.

I don't think that a real 'hulk smash' character would put up with my games for long, though. Some combats are multi-session massacres and battles, but then we've regularly gone half-a-dozen sessions without a weapon being drawn, too.

sounds wild......
I now want to run a dnd version of the battle for helms deep.... or something
but that may be because I read DM of the rings in one night.....

anyways, I digress
I very rarely had to DM this player, but I was always extremely embarressed to go over to -oldest player-'s house and have him switch off out of combat. the DM is married and is taking time out of his life to run us through -module that I have yet to name on the forums for fear of spoilers- so it really ticks me off.

I also find it irritating when he does this to the rest of our group's player/DMs which consist of me and -buddy1- and for a while -buddy2- but -buddy2- has left us for...... possibly ever. but I digress
it drives me up the wall....

but I don't have to play with him anymore cause I'm off at college.
roxxor




Well, I have a solution, involving ranged touch attacks and a DMG.

would if I could....

1/3 of the time we were at his house, so I couldn't haul off and smack the guy (even if I do have full BAB)

1/3 of the time I wasn't DMing(so it wasn't quite my place)

and

1/3 of the time, no hardbacked DM guide was handy...

these three typically overlapped....

that said, your idea is being filed away for college level play.
(though since we have a larper in our group I'm slightly more inclined to buy a LARP warhammer and use that)


I'd ask him to shape up or leave the game. Demand him to have some patience and allow his friends to have their fun too. If he is really that uninterested, perhaps he shouldn't be playing role-playing games.

as mentioned above, typically we met at his house, or I wasn't dming, so it wasn't my place to call him on it. and I don't think anyone else in the group felt QUITE as strong about it as I did.....

anyways... uhm..... /rant
sorry guys :smallfrown::smalltongue::smallredface:

Shenanigans
2010-09-20, 03:59 PM
I think one thing that leads to disparate play style problems is players coming up with character ideas in a vacuum. If I have a fun idea for an armor-bound, sword and board tactical fighter, but the group is playing a campaign based on intrigue and espionage, then naturally I'm going to feel out of place, useless, and probably be an absolute pill. Then again, if the DM, other players, and I, discuss ahead of time what we'll be doing, I could instead come up with some rakish rapier-based fighter to fulfill the same basic roll and still get my combat jollies.

Ormur
2010-09-20, 04:56 PM
In my case there's a sort of extended roleplaying group so when a campaign is started only those presumed interested in the concept are invited/ask to join. However I don't think the differences among the playstyles of people I play with are so great that they can't be reconciled quite easily. There are those that are more concerned about roleplaying but they don't exactly shun combat and vice versa. One of the former joined my group that's a bit higher on the optimization scale than he's used to but he quite enjoyed the effectiveness of the build suggested to him based on his preferences.

I think the appropriate mix of combat and roleplaying to satisfy everyone is about a single challenging encounter per session. Out of combat is tricky but not so much because some people don't like it, more that it has to be pretty tight and engaging to please anyone. There's also the issue of not letting a single player dominate the session because he's a more confident roleplayer. You have to throw opportunities at the others if they don't create them themselves, because they probably also like the spotlight.

Dr.Epic
2010-09-20, 04:59 PM
I've seen a lot of threads around the board on different playstyles. A lot of people seem to take a "majority rule" type approach - if 8/10 people are having fun, and the remaining 2 aren't, well we can't change the game for just 2 people.

Is this "majority rule" just for table top games or is it for everything in life? I'm just wondering because I've never heard it and 10 people in on gaming group is a lot.


So how do you accommodate different concepts of what is fun within your groups?

Meh, so long as my character gets to do something and no one is (a) arguing with someone else or (b) doing something that may lead to us or myself getting killed I don't care how others play. And when I DM I don't really care how others play so long as their not stupid with their roleplaying,

WarKitty
2010-09-20, 05:05 PM
Is this "majority rule" just for table top games or is it for everything in life? I'm just wondering because I've never heard it and 10 people in on gaming group is a lot.



Meh, so long as my character gets to do something and no one is (a) arguing with someone else or (b) doing something that may lead to us or myself getting killed I don't care how others play. And when I DM I don't really care how others play so long as their not stupid with their roleplaying,

To be fair I just made that number up out of my head. Our usual gaming group has 8 players though. I've been on both sides of the issue - as a DM trying to make the game fun for some very different styles of play, and as a player trying to get a fun time without infringing on someone else's play.

Psyx
2010-09-21, 05:56 AM
In a large group, it can possibly be a godsend to have half the table go into 'standby mode' when the combat stops!

I like about 5-6 in a group. Enough for everyone to have a share of the limelight, enough for a varied group of characters, and enough to carry on playing if someone can't make the game. It also means everyone has elbow room at the table.

We actually discussed it a bit last night, and my players informed me that 6 was the minimum number of players I could run for to allow one of them to play a 'non combat' character. In smaller groups, they daren't play anyone who can't at least hold something gribbly off for half a fight.

arrowhen
2010-09-21, 08:47 AM
as mentioned above, typically we met at his house, or I wasn't dming, so it wasn't my place to call him on it. and I don't think anyone else in the group felt QUITE as strong about it as I did.....

The way I see it, fun isn't the DM's responsibility, it's everyone's. If another player's behavior (or lack of behavior in this case!) impinges on your enjoyment of the game, don't wait for the DM to fix it for you -- they've got other stuff to do!

You don't have to -- and shouldn't -- turn it into a huge confrontation, but you should let your concerns be known. Maybe he's just having a hard time engaging with the fiction and switches off because he doesn't want to or doesn't know how to ask for help. If you bring it up to him, the two of you might be able to help each other out. A little bit of side RP between your characters -- a friendly rivalry or something, maybe -- might help him get more involved out of combat even if he doesn't feel like he has anything to contribute to the main storyline.

bokodasu
2010-09-21, 10:49 AM
My group just split over this, which I guess is one answer to the problem but oh my goodness please try to do it without being a bunch of drama queens, if I have to hear one of the instigators going "I can't play with that guy" one more time I'm going to hulk(ing hurler) out.

For smaller groups, I think "majority rules" tends to lead to "minority leaves", which is fine if you're a group of people who just game together; nothing wrong with everyone finding a game that works for them.

But if you're all friends, taking turns works better. I'm pretty thing-hitting oriented, but I've also sat on the heads* of people who want to be disruptively bored when it's not time to roll dice, and they've gotten better. If you can get the middle-of-the-road people to actively work towards balancing your other two extremes, you're definitely doing something right.

*Not literally.