PDA

View Full Version : The social meta-game - a hypothetical



Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 11:46 AM
Names, genders, perspectives and time-frames have been changed to protect the innocent, but this is sort of a meta-narrative that I've noticed at several gaming tables. I'm going to reify into a single narrative, so that we can get context.

So, we have someone playing your typical Bard/diplomat/social-fu character, named Carl. In D&D terms, they've got a Charisma of 22 and somewhere around +10 to Bluff, because they've learned that in this game, social interaction wins far better than fighting. In a fight, they get their ass handed to them even if they're playing an optimized Fighter.

The problem is, it doesn't matter. They can't convince the other players to follow their advice, because no matter how well they roll to convince the character, the player just isn't that convincing.

Now, the Cha-3, Int-5 Barbarian is played by a very convincing person named Billy, who is constantly throwing out hilariously bad ideas that occasionally get the party killed. Usually, they just get the bard killed, but everyone finds that even funnier.

The problem is, Carl has an annoying voice and slightly awkward mannerisms, and doesn't pick up very well on social cues. And, God help us, he's just fun to mess with. We wish he wasn't, but when Billy starts scheming and demogoguing, it's damned hard to realize what we're doing until after we're done and everyone's had a good laugh. (Well, almost everyone.)

The thing is, Billy brings fun to the table. They make it enjoyable to go along with whatever they want, no matter how destructive or distracting or ultimately counter-productive their ideas are. And Carl is just no fun, no matter how bad we feel about the fact that he's no fun. And you know, if we keep coddling him and trying to include him, he'll just keep feeling picked-on. But if we don't, then he'll just keep feeling left-out - it's not like anyone else wants to put up with him, either. It also doesn't help that Billy is a highly successful businessman who can afford to buy the group all its supplements, dice, tables, miniatures, paint and gorgeous three-story play-space, AND can convince other interesting (and often attractive and successful) people to come along and play, while Carl alternates between being homeless and living in his parents' basement.

So, we keep a socially toxic group together, because ultimately it leads to all of us (even Carl) having the best experience we can have - after all, for Carl being abused is better than being utterly alone, and for the rest of us, having Carl means Billy has someone to bat around that's amusing to us, and none of us have to risk Billy deciding to pick a new omega. And it's just so damned fun. And it seems the best way for everyone to deal with it is to say "what's the problem? We're doing Carl a favor!", and to attack anyone who points out that things might not exactly be healthy or fair - because disrupting the status-quo means risking losing access to Billy, and Billy is awesome.

Humans are scary.

Eloel
2011-03-16, 11:53 AM
Humans are scary.
Very scary.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 12:05 PM
Another aspect of the problem:

Carl decides he's tired of being the brunt of all the jokes, so he builds an optimized Tier-1 Wizard. Now he's a munchkin, and people refuse to deal with him. So he tries to play a plucky gnomish Bard, and becomes even MORE the brunt of merciless "Carl is useless" jokes. Meanwhile, Billy's optimized Tier-1 Wizard isn't even legal, and everyone knows Billy fudges his dice-rolls - especially when trying to screw over Carl.

Carl has realized a fundamental truth:



Carl's characters, rated by effectiveness:
[0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10]
[Useless][-Useless AND Munchkin-][-Munchkin]




Billy's characters, rated by effectiveness:
[0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10]
[Hilarious----][---Good---][--------Awesome]


So no matter where Carl goes on the "power" scale, he gets **** on by the other players for not "playing right". And no matter where Billy goes on the power scale, he gets rewarded with praise and social reaffirmation.

So what's the point of Carl?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-16, 12:37 PM
So... Carl is the guy the group keeps around to dump on? :smallconfused:

Honestly, this doesn't sound fair to Carl nor healthy for the other people at the table. It's bad enough to see this sort of group with teenagers but it sounds like y'all are well past that point by now. And Billy certainly sounds like the worst of you.

I probably shouldn't throw stones across the Internet like this but... what's up with this thread? Is the argument seriously being made that "being abused is better than being alone?"

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 12:40 PM
So... Carl is the guy the group keeps around to dump on? :smallconfused:

Honestly, this doesn't sound fair to Carl nor healthy for the other people at the table. It's bad enough to see this sort of group with teenagers but it sounds like y'all are well past that point by now. And Billy certainly sounds like the worst of you.

As I mentioned before, this is a compilation of several experiences into a single narrative. I've been Billy before. I've been Carl before. I've been everyone in between. And often times, the easiest way to deal with it is to pretend like it's not what we're doing.


I probably shouldn't throw stones across the Internet like this but... what's up with this thread? Is the argument seriously being made that "being abused is better than being alone?"

Well, it's seriously being made non-verbally by Carl, every time he decides to show up - isn't it?

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-16, 12:45 PM
Well, it's seriously being made non-verbally by Carl, every time he decides to show up - isn't it?
Implicitly, of course, but is that really the sort of "bargain" you want to support? :smallconfused:

I'm sure a quick survey of the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) will show eerie parallels with the group you've described. I'm not going to waste a lot of digital ink talking about this situation (which is, IMHO, plain awful) but I have a sick curiosity as to why you decided to share this story at all?

WarKitty
2011-03-16, 12:46 PM
A serious solution that our group came up with:

We instituted what are called "pause times." It's essentially a hand signal that says "I'm thinking." During this time, other players are allowed to make suggestions for how the character in question would handle the situation. So, in the original situation, Billy can give suggestions to Carl for how Carl's character might react.

Granted, the biggest issue with this is it requires all the players to recognize that some people aren't as good at any particular aspect of roleplaying as others at the table are. And everyone has to be ok with that.

Jornophelanthas
2011-03-16, 12:48 PM
Names, genders, perspectives and time-frames have been changed to protect the innocent, but this is sort of a meta-narrative that I've noticed at several gaming tables. I'm going to reify into a single narrative, so that we can get context.

So you've given a narrative and a context. But what is your intent for providing it?

Are you asking for people's opinions opinions the situation described?
Are you asking for advice for Carl on how to deal with this situation?
Are you asking for advice for Billy on how to deal with this situation?
Are you asking for advice for one of the other players on how to deal with this situation?
Are you just venting and not particularly interested in any replies that may come?
Or is there perhaps another reason for why you raise this (hypothetical) issue?

Without an actual question, I wouldn't know how to respond.

DeadManSleeping
2011-03-16, 12:59 PM
I've been Carl before. It's not good. Yes, you're getting social interaction, but it's social interaction that makes you hate yourself. It is not better than the alternative.

Now that I've figured out how not to be Carl, I try to stop myself from being Billy. Even if the group has an omega, I try not to assert my position, despite being either the most or second-most dynamic player at the table. Putting other people down may be funny, but it's not healthy. And there are much better ways of having fun.

As a simple suggestion, try to see if you can have some funny times by going along with Carl's ideas. Let's be honest: letting the social character work his magic is often the most hilarious outcome possible. Seriously, just look at every Bluff check made in the entirety of OotS. Comedy. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html) Gold. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html)

Fineous Orlon
2011-03-16, 12:59 PM
So what's the point of Carl?

What Carl needs is a friend, but he sounds like he doesn't know how to be one.

Billy knows how to collect people, but doesn't know much, or act as if he knows much, about being a friend.

Tough.

Also, it sounds exactly as if many know the solution, but no one will impliment it.

A subtle or clever solution that addresses the twin motives of helping Carl some without unduly risking Billy's attention or ire might make it easier to act.

I make no particular claim to cleverness or subtly; I will, however, try to start rolling that boulder:

A few ideas, if the group stays together:

a] someone should help Carl be a party buffer or party enabler [other than a Bard] with a side of survivability, or get get some effective advice on being a bard.
b] someone and Carl should decide outside of the game how many effective tricks is non-munchkinish, and work those up into a decent character.
c] someone should catch a bullet, metaphorically, for Carl from time to time, or act in Carl's character's general interest more frequently. It might really help if Carl and his characters could legitimately feel as if someone else has his back.

Basically, it would help if someone intelligent and obnoxious [well, strong-willed] acted as if Carl was a valuable friend consistently. Additional ideas to implement this would be valuable.

Lastly, if this applies, the group, or even one person, should move towards OPEN and FAIR dice rolling. Also, Otto the Bugbear's character generation method should be used, to make everyone start on an equal footing.

Now, you have said several things about how generic this situation is, as in it has happened more than once, and you have been both Carl and Billy. [It took me a while to compose. Serves me right].

So, to get a friend, be a friend, at least in that gaming context. Also, stand up for the underdog at the table, be his friend, have his back.

After all, you're roleplaying heroes, right?

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 01:04 PM
So you've given a narrative and a context. But what is your intent for providing it?

Are you asking for people's opinions opinions the situation described?
Are you asking for advice for Carl on how to deal with this situation?
Are you asking for advice for Billy on how to deal with this situation?
Are you asking for advice for one of the other players on how to deal with this situation?
Are you just venting and not particularly interested in any replies that may come?
Or is there perhaps another reason for why you raise this (hypothetical) issue?

Without an actual question, I wouldn't know how to respond.

I guess my question is, "why are people like this to each other?"

Someone else mentioned the Stanford Prison Experiment - which I am already familiar with, and which I have mentioned several times at the table when these sorts of dynamics start developing. And there are definitely things that can be done to help Carl not suck, or to help Billy not be an ass. But nobody does them. And nobody wants to even acknowledge what's happening.

So why are people like this to each other, and why are people so willing to acknowledge in the abstract that people are like this to each other, but so unwilling in the concrete to acknowledge that they are like this to each other, and then do something simple and obvious about it?


What Carl needs is a friend, but he sounds like he doesn't know how to be one.

Very true.


Billy knows how to collect people, but doesn't know much, or act as if he knows much, about being a friend.

Also true, but Billy knows how to get what he wants. All the time. In any situation. And you're on his side, or in his way.


Tough.

Very tough - for Carl, and for anyone else who might side with Carl. Luckily, everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on.


Also, it sounds exactly as if many know the solution, but no one will impliment it.

Exactly. Why is that?


After all, you're roleplaying heroes, right?

Yes. Key word: roleplaying. Actually being a hero tends to not work out very well.



As a simple suggestion, try to see if you can have some funny times by going along with Carl's ideas. Let's be honest: letting the social character work his magic is often the most hilarious outcome possible. Seriously, just look at every Bluff check made in the entirety of OotS. Comedy. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html) Gold. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html)

The problem is, that would involve explicitly acknowledging Carl as a person, instead of as a social punching-bag. At this point, doing so would develop too much cognitive dissonance - it would call into question all the previous **** that's been heaped on Carl, and would make everyone feel bad for what they've already done. So why would anyone ever want to do that? Isn't it far easier to come up with a narrative that says that Carl deserves it?

Saph
2011-03-16, 01:09 PM
I guess my question is, "why are people like this to each other?"

Not all people are.

The ones that do . . . well, the short answer is, because they don't really care enough to do anything about it.

But in the end, which category you fall into is up to you.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 01:11 PM
Not all people are.

The ones that do . . . well, the short answer is, because they don't really care enough to do anything about it.

But at the end of the day, which category you fall into is up to you.

Yes, but I'm afraid that by not falling into the category of "Billy" or "Billy's minions", most people consistently wind up as "Carl". And it takes Billy's level of skill to not wind up as Carl if you refuse to be Billy's minions, and if you have Billy's level of skill, why not be Billy?

Yuki Akuma
2011-03-16, 01:14 PM
Because you're not an ******* and don't want to be Billy?

Some people are just jerks.

Saph
2011-03-16, 01:15 PM
Yes, but I'm afraid that by not falling into the category of "Billy" or "Billy's minions", most people consistently wind up as "Carl". And it takes Billy's level of skill to not wind up as Carl if you refuse to be Billy's minions, and if you have Billy's level of skill, why not be Billy?

*shrug* Because you don't want to be? It comes down to what your priorities are.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-16, 01:16 PM
I guess my question is, "why are people like this to each other?"

Someone else mentioned the Stanford Prison Experiment - which I am already familiar with, and which I have mentioned several times at the table when these sorts of dynamics start developing. And there are definitely things that can be done to help Carl not suck, or to help Billy not be an ass. But nobody does them. And nobody wants to even acknowledge what's happening.

So why are people like this to each other, and why are people so willing to acknowledge in the abstract that people are like this to each other, but so unwilling in the concrete to acknowledge that they are like this to each other, and then do something simple and obvious about it?
There are no easy answers to that question; one could argue that most religion and philosophy has been devoted to figuring it out.

Honestly, rather than looking at the "why" here you should be figuring out what to do about it yourself.
If you're brave, you can try to focus on Carl - be his friend, give him positive social interaction and the like. But that's a hard road to walk and one that requires a lot of personal sacrifice to do.

The easier course is to walk away from the table. Tell everyone there (or even just everyone but Carl) that you're sick of the atmosphere at that table - particularly in how they treat Carl - and say you don't want to be a party to it anymore. Privately tell Carl that you can't stand to see how he's being treated by his so-called friends and that you'd rather not be in that situation anymore.

In the best case scenario, the others (if not Billy) will take this as an opportunity to re-examine their treatment of Carl and what goes on at Billy's table. More likely they won't, but at least you will no longer be a party to the abusive relationship.
What you have here is not a gaming problem, but a social one. There's nothing that can be done within the rules of the game to stop Billy & Co. from treating Carl so badly. You could use in-game pressure (e.g. XP penalties) to stop this activity but I've never been a fan of using in-game mechanics to solve out-of-game problems. Better to engage with the people as people rather than hide behind the game.

Vladislav
2011-03-16, 01:22 PM
Ok, I'm very sorry to say that, but you are all nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies picking on some poor guy. You haven't really grown past that stage.


So, we keep a socially toxic group together, because ultimately it leads to all of us (even Carl) having the best experience we can have - after all, for Carl being abused is better than being utterly alone

Oh yes, the typical bully excuse. "He's my friend! He likes it when I do this to him!"

The first step to solving this problem is to realize who you are. To reiterate, you are a schoolyard bully. Good luck with the next steps.


Humans are scary.Not only that, but some of them outright disgust me.

Fineous Orlon
2011-03-16, 01:25 PM
Yes. Key word: roleplaying. Actually being a hero tends to not work out very well.


Yes. I understood this explicitly, hence:



A subtle or clever solution that addresses the twin motives of helping Carl some without unduly risking Billy's attention or ire might make it easier to act.



Two things help in this situation. People being willing to stand up, period.

Also, people sort of willing to stand up discovering a method that partly covers or avoids, or makes acceptable some of the costs of standing up.

Sine
2011-03-16, 01:26 PM
So why are people like this to each other, and why are people so willing to acknowledge in the abstract that people are like this to each other, but so unwilling in the concrete to acknowledge that they are like this to each other, and then do something simple and obvious about it?
It's the herd instinct. It's not only easier to let Billy abuse Carl, it feels natural. Every herd has a stag, and that's how we survive[d ten thousand years ago when we lived in the jungle].

Why don't kinder people stick up for Carl? It's hard to fight instinct. I've been in the position to help Carl, but when the moment actually arrives, instinct jumps out of the id and tries to shank kindness.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 01:28 PM
Ok, I'm very sorry to say that, but you are all nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies picking on some poor guy. You haven't really grown past that stage.

That would be the point that I'm trying to make, yes.


Oh yes, the typical bully excuse. "He's my friend! He likes it when I do this to him!"

Precisely. And it's disgusting and harmful to everyone involved, but - as I've reiterated throughout the story - it keeps happening anyway. And when I get fed up and disgusted and rage-quit the table in disgust, I eventually move on to another table - where I see the same thing, just with new names and new faces. Sometimes it's a lot more subtle; sometimes it's a lot more blatant. But refusing to put up with it doesn't stop it, it just changes the way it gets played out, and occasionally causes everyone to play musical chairs and pick a new Billy or a new Carl.

Britter
2011-03-16, 01:32 PM
Honestly, this is why I only game with my actual friends. I have no interest in this sort of toxic table environment. As a young man I was often on the receiving end of the abuse, and even then I didn't want to end up being a fawning boot-licker towards the "alpha" of the group.

This behavior is something I have rarely seen amongst gamers in my age bracket (early 30s), and if I did see it I would immediately vacate the table and the group. High school, and it's associated methods of social interaction, ended for me 15 years ago. I have no interest in repeating it.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 01:34 PM
Honestly, this is why I only game with my actual friends. I have no interest in this sort of toxic table environment. As a young man I was often on the receiving end of the abuse, and even then I didn't want to end up being a fawning boot-licker towards the "alpha" of the group.

This behavior is something I have rarely seen amongst gamers in my age bracket (early 30s), and if I did see it I would immediately vacate the table and the group. High school, and it's associated methods of social interaction, ended for me 15 years ago. I have no interest in repeating it.

Interesting. I think that's the primary difference - for me, there's no difference between high school and adult behavior, especially not in terms of intent. There's only more resources available, and somewhat more sophisticated strategies, borne out of more experience.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-16, 01:34 PM
Precisely. And it's disgusting and harmful to everyone involved, but - as I've reiterated throughout the story - it keeps happening anyway. And when I get fed up and disgusted and rage-quit the table in disgust, I eventually move on to another table - where I see the same thing, just with new names and new faces. Sometimes it's a lot more subtle; sometimes it's a lot more blatant. But refusing to put up with it doesn't stop it, it just changes the way it gets played out, and occasionally causes everyone to play musical chairs and pick a new Billy or a new Carl.
:eek:

You need to find groups with a healthier dynamic! This is not the case universally, and it's more than a little disturbing to hear that you constantly end up in this situation.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 01:37 PM
:eek:

You need to find groups with a healthier dynamic! This is not the case universally, and it's more than a little disturbing to hear that you constantly end up in this situation.

Well, there's the theory that I'm somewhat socially damaged (i.e., a Carl) - and thus, any social groups where people are actually consistently nice to each other boot me quickly for being toxic to the environment. Thus, I can only manage to find my way into groups that are toxic, because I'm not sufficiently mature and drama-free to be worth including in the groups that don't have the Billy/Carl dynamic.

A subset of this is the idea that when you grow up in the Billy/Carl dynamic, after awhile you get trained to it to the point that you can't function well outside it, which means you'll continue to find yourself back in it - because at least you understand it.

Fineous Orlon
2011-03-16, 01:40 PM
... it's disgusting and harmful to everyone involved, but - as I've reiterated throughout the story - it keeps happening anyway. And when I get fed up and disgusted and rage-quit the table in disgust, I eventually move on to another table - where I see the same thing, just with new names and new faces. Sometimes it's a lot more subtle; sometimes it's a lot more blatant. But refusing to put up with it doesn't stop it, it just changes the way it gets played out, and occasionally causes everyone to play musical chairs and pick a new Billy or a new Carl.

It's so frustrating because one of the problems is you. At least some of my greatest frustrations are with myself.

An additional role is needed at the tables you frequent, the role of the guy who helps make gaming enjoyable for everyone by being involved mostly positively.

Be that guy.

You have a firm grasp of some big table dynamics and you want to game [haven't quit the hobby in spite of repetitively negative situations].

These two qualities give you a strength.

Be that guy. You'll be happier, and so will many of the people around you.

All you need is to work on the how. Like I said: A discovered method makes standing up easier.

In the long run, that practice makes standing up without a method easier also.

Lotta good brains around here, keep the conversation rolling, some fertile ideas will spring up.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-16, 01:43 PM
It's so frustrating because one of the problems is you. At least some of my greatest frustrations are with myself.

An additional role is needed at the tables you frequent, the role of the guy who helps make gaming enjoyable for everyone by being involved mostly positively.

Be that guy.

You have a firm grasp of some big table dynamics and you want to game [haven't quit the hobby in spite of repetitively negative situations]. These two qualities give you a strength.

Be that guy. You'll be happier, and so will many of the people around you.

All you need is to work on the how. Like I said: A discovered method makes standing up easier.

In the long run, that practice makes standing up without a method easier also.

Lotta good brains around here, keep the conversation rolling, some fertile ideas will spring up.

Well, the problem is, for the past 20 years, that's been precisely what I've been trying to do. The problem is, being that guy frequently means being the new Carl. And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that Carl can't stand up for himself - it takes someone else standing up for Carl to fix the problem. And when people are clever enough to identify someone who's standing up for Carl, and make that guy the new Carl... well, it accomplishes two things:

One, it ensures that no one actually has to re-think their behavior.

Two, it teaches the new Carl that he REALLY should have kept his goddamned mouth shut.


That said, it's been 20 years, and I'm still at it. But I am a bitter, depressed, paranoid little Carl, now.

Britter
2011-03-16, 01:45 PM
Interesting. I think that's the primary difference - for me, there's no difference between high school and adult behavior, especially not in terms of intent. There's only more resources available, and somewhat more sophisticated strategies, borne out of more experience.

I repspectfully disagree with you.

In my opinion, a great deal of high school and young adult development is about understanding oneself and sorting out your palce in the world. All the picayune details of who likes who, who is popular, who has money, who has a car, etc cease to be relevant in a world where you and your peers bust tail 40+ hours a week to pay the mortgage. It no longer matters where you stand in the social pecking order when you have to put food on the table, pay your bills, and keep a household running. Once you have voluntarily taken on those responsibilities, I simply cannot see how you would be able to continue to view the world through a teenagers eyes.

You, and only you, are responsible for your behavior and how you choose to treat or mistreat others. (I mean this in the general, not in the specific "you", i.e. I am addressing all readers, not Ialdabaoth in particular)

Frankly I feel that the only reason people hold on to highschool social models is that they have fundamentally failed to make the leap from the childs world to the adult world. There is a difference. I believe that our current Western society has stretched the maturation process out by about 10-15 addtional years, meaning people don't really figure out how to be fully human till they are nearly 40. By then, the damage has already been done.

As this applies to gaming, or any niche hobby, the simple fact of a shared interest has proven, for me, to be enough to over come much of the inital difficulties in getting to know someone. Once I can view someone as a person, and not as an outsider or an unknown "other" regardless of their tone of voice, apperance, etc (seriously, how someone SOUNDS is still a factor for you? I don't understand that at all), I have no problems accepting them for who they are, interacting with them as equals, and choosing to spend time with them, or not, as our interests and attitudes continue to line up and create a pleasant interaction.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-16, 01:47 PM
Well, there's the theory that I'm somewhat socially damaged (i.e., a Carl) - and thus, any social groups where people are actually consistently nice to each other boot me quickly for being toxic to the environment. Thus, I can only manage to find my way into groups that are toxic, because I'm not sufficiently mature and drama-free to be worth including in the groups that don't have the Billy/Carl dynamic.

A subset of this is the idea that when you grow up in the Billy/Carl dynamic, after awhile you get trained to it to the point that you can't function well outside it, which means you'll continue to find yourself back in it - because at least you understand it.
Well... I guess nobody can know that but you. It is true, however, that if you often find yourself in similar situations then it is possible that these situations arise because of choices you make.

That said, it is possible to change. Not change any given group, mind you, but change yourself. Unfortunately, the only way to change is to do it yourself; nobody can tell you how to do it.

Good luck :smallsmile:

Fineous Orlon
2011-03-16, 02:00 PM
The rage-quit and other dynamics of frustration are cathartic for the quitter, but they also are a payoff for someone else.

They pay off Billy. He must be metaphorically 'right,' because he is still there.

Don't pay off Billy.

1] Don't be Billy, ever. Or if you slip up, make sure you revert to positive inclusion immediately.

2] In DanD terms, "Being that guy" that helps make gaming enjoyable for everyone is a stance, always active, not a skill trick, to be used once per encounter. You can, however, START with it as a skill trick. If you habituate to 'the stance', you will become known as a good person to game with, and that in itself will affect table dynamics.

To begin with, when things are slipping, promote the party, buff the party, enable the party; or if you must buff/enable an individual, enable beta through omega. Do not lick alpha boot.

Fineous Orlon
2011-03-16, 02:05 PM
That said, it is possible to change. Not change any given group, mind you, but change yourself. Unfortunately, the only way to change is to do it yourself; nobody can tell you how to do it.

Good luck :smallsmile:

Not strictly true. Intelligent people can converse and exchange good ideas.

Meaning, someone else CAN tell him how to do it, show him the way, light the path, etc.

No one else can do it all for him, however.

Also, Good Luck, Do Well.
:smallcool:

Jornophelanthas
2011-03-16, 02:10 PM
Yes, but I'm afraid that by not falling into the category of "Billy" or "Billy's minions", most people consistently wind up as "Carl".
No, that's not a general truth. Rather, it's a subconscious fear most people have if they consider not complying with Billy's social dominance, which then moves them to comply. It's otherwise known as "peer pressure".


And it takes Billy's level of skill to not wind up as Carl if you refuse to be Billy's minions, and if you have Billy's level of skill, why not be Billy?
No, these are two different skills. Billy's talent is charisma, or the ability to entice others to be his followers. The larger the group of followers, the greater the strength with which dissenters may be pressed into the "Carl corner". However, possessing charisma does not imply using it to this end. Being Billy also stems from a need for (constant) attention.
The opposite talent is willpower, or the ability to resist peer pressure. This means not only to not be swept away by Billy's charisma, but also to not be turned into Carl. The very worst that could happen to someone with strong willpower is walking away of his/her own choice.

So in order to be Billy, you would need both good charisma and a desire/need for attention (power). If you lack one or both, you're not Billy.

Carl really has two weaknesses: he lacks the willpower to resist the peer pressure by Billy and his followers, and he also lacks the charisma to attract his own followers (who may deter Billy).

Fineous Orlon
2011-03-16, 02:15 PM
Honestly, this is why I only game with my actual friends. I have no interest in this sort of toxic table environment. As a young man I was often on the receiving end of the abuse, and even then I didn't want to end up being a fawning boot-licker towards the "alpha" of the group.

This behavior is something I have rarely seen amongst gamers in my age bracket (early 30s), and if I did see it I would immediately vacate the table and the group. High school, and it's associated methods of social interaction, ended for me 15 years ago. I have no interest in repeating it.

Quoted for inherent truth. Not being a part of the problem is not solved only by trying to be positive at the table. Britter also holds the keys.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-16, 02:16 PM
This conversation makes me want to give carl a hug.

I am a snarker at the table and when I am playing I find I am not as nice a person as I like to think I am, this is one of the reasons I primarily GM. But, I have a solution, and it's going to seem strange at first, but hear me out.

Increased jerkishness as opposed to reduced. Everyone in the group needs to be a little snarkier. This is not an ideal fix, this is a functional fix and easier than the actual solution. The actual solution is something about peace, love and hugging trees and some strange concept about respecting your fellow man (I heard about it from some hippy), but I doubt that solution will be usefull to you in the immediate term.

Infact you can implement this yourself. Just make some witty (but not too cutting) remarks about someone other than Billy and Carl (We'll say Jim). Talk to Jim before a session and get him on board and snark each other back and forth. Billy will see this and want to get in on it, when he does return the favor. By the end of the session you will all be snidely hurling sarcasm all over each other. This won't draw all the fire from Carl, but it reduces it, and makes it more fair. Some of the best friendships I have ever had have been based on sniping each other back and forth with witty repartee. You don't have to coddle Carl, you don't have to admonish Billy (even though he needs it), and things even out. The risk is that you could all end up hating each other, and if Billy is a social glass cannon it gets even worse. But assuming you are all adults on more levels than just age it should work. Heck it could even bring Carl out of his shell and knock Billy down a peg.

Severus
2011-03-16, 02:19 PM
You are some seriously twisted people.

You know Carl is going to snap one day and stab you all to death, don't you?

Grizzy
2011-03-16, 02:21 PM
I'm going to have to second the advice of only gaming with actual friends; there's much less motivation to screw over the guy across the table.

I've known some Billys and I've been a Carl before... I find that my life goes a lot better in general when I just stay away from the Billy personality type. Some people are just toxic.

Indon
2011-03-16, 02:30 PM
So... Carl is the guy the group keeps around to dump on? :smallconfused:

Honestly, this doesn't sound fair to Carl nor healthy for the other people at the table. It's bad enough to see this sort of group with teenagers but it sounds like y'all are well past that point by now. And Billy certainly sounds like the worst of you.

I probably shouldn't throw stones across the Internet like this but... what's up with this thread? Is the argument seriously being made that "being abused is better than being alone?"

All of this.

I thought this thread was going to be about the problems of players who have wildly distinct intellectual capabilities than their characters, and that bleeding over.

On that topic, I'm a "billy" (but not the 'being a jerk' part, I hope) - my personal intellectual and social capabilities are high enough that unless I'm playing a smart or socially-oriented character, I have to watch myself closely to ensure that I'm not being disproportionately charismatic or intelligent. with practice, I've limited it to doing plot-vital stuff like figuring out essential puzzles, and I feel guilty when I do it and particularly guilty when I'm doing it and nobody's calling me out on it.


That said, it's been 20 years, and I'm still at it. But I am a bitter, depressed, paranoid little Carl, now.

Suggestion: Kick Billy out of the group, at the active risk of tearing the group apart. Billy thrives on attention, and this deprives him. It's a strategy I've seen that has actively improved people's behavior, and thus actually saved friendships.

WarKitty
2011-03-16, 02:38 PM
Also: It is possible to leave a group and make it clear why you are leaving a group, without going into ragequit mode. It's like anything really - state briefly and calmly that you are leaving, and why. If people ask questions, answer them politely. If people yell or make fun of you, just get up. Tell everyone that you are very sorry to leave but you feel the atmosphere is not conducive to one where everyone can enjoy themselves.

Jornophelanthas
2011-03-16, 02:38 PM
Frankly I feel that the only reason people hold on to highschool social models is that they have fundamentally failed to make the leap from the childs world to the adult world. There is a difference. I believe that our current Western society has stretched the maturation process out by about 10-15 addtional years, meaning people don't really figure out how to be fully human till they are nearly 40. By then, the damage has already been done.

On this topic, I recommend Richard Sennett's 1970 book "The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life", specifically the earlier chapters on personal identity.
Sennett advocates that people cannot be good citizens if they are psychologically adolescent, i.e. unable or unwilling to compromise their own comfort zones, and enforcing one's own comfort zone on others through sheer force (like Billy), or failing time and again to do so, but throwing oneself head-on into the fray without hope of succeeding anyway (like Carl).

Xefas
2011-03-16, 02:47 PM
This thread reminded me of that episode of Community where they play AD&D.

My reaction is the same as when I saw that episode. "People hang out with other people who aren't totally awesome? Why?" Seriously, if you cannot find anyone awesome to hang out with, just be independent. Do things by yourself - write a novel, take a cooking class (and look for friends there), go to geekery conventions (and look for friends there), do volunteer work (and look for friends there), something.

If someone causes drama or is a tool, just don't hang out with them. If you cycle through enough people, you'll eventually find someone awesome who's worth hanging out with. And eventually eventually, you might have enough for some RPGs.

And if you have some circumstance or social disorder keeping you from doing that, then you should probably be working through that instead of spending your time hanging out with douchenozzles.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-16, 03:21 PM
The problem with the suggestion of just quitting the group is simple: Gamer gotta game. Gamers will hang out with toxic jerks and play systems they hate just to get some die rolling in. If they don't get a regular fix, the withdrawl is terrible. This behavior is not unlike that of the garden variety crack head. Both WILL hang out with people with no redeeming qualities simply to get at their high of choice. Now I like to think roleplaying has more redeeming factors than hard drugs, but the diffence matters little on this particular point. Not saying everyone, but some.

only1doug
2011-03-16, 03:55 PM
Our usual group recently started a new campaign (shadowrun if it matters) and a new player joined (new to the group but known to us all).

His favorite playstyle is backstab and blackmail (which doesn't suit any of our existing group) so we agreed between us and informed him before the first session that we wouldn't tolerate it. He hasn't yet (4 sessions in) started any of his usual shenanigans and as a result we haven't mentioned it again.

In the wider group there are 2 players who are known for their manipulative ways, I normally avoid joining any games they are playing and would of dropped out of this game if new player hadn't agreed that he would avoid them this time (NB: if I said I was dropping out its very likely that the entire group would drop and reform without new player).

Who is the Billy and who is the Carl in this situation?

Am I wrong to manipulate new player into playing in a different style than he normally prefers?

Who is the more guilty of manipulation, new player who does it in game, using Roleplaying tools or me doing it outside the game using social pressure?

Ronan
2011-03-16, 04:25 PM
Simple. I didn't get the names so I'll call top dog and underdog. The obvious solution is the underdog quits, finds a group that doesn't mock him. The top dog will mock another in the group. That's it.

Number 2) The other players can say to him: Dude(Top dog), stop picking on him. You gotta talk. He gets pretty frustrated, you know. Especially if he's socially awkward, meaning he can't communicate well. You said he doesn't get what you say. He may be unable to speak his feelings as well.



This thread got my blood boiling, but I'm trying to use reason and I'm *not* trying to start a flame war.

erikun
2011-03-16, 04:49 PM
There is a big difference between being Carl and being the guy getting joked on. I've been in dozens of games over ten years and through several states, and I've never once seen the kinds of abuse discussed in the first post. I have seen people picking and joking on one individual, sometimes myself. What happened? Either someone said something, and we stopped, or the "Carl" said something, and we stopped, or there was some visible tension in the group and we talked about it, and we stopped.

In some of the better groups, we had a more experienced player who was able to redirect the good-natured joking around the table, so that everyone got some, and that made a point of including Carl in the fun or interesting parts of the game. If everyone is insulting Carl about everything he does, then there is something going on in the group well beyond the game itself.

I typically only play with friends, or friends-of-friends, and that also helps a lot. Most people don't want to annoy their friend's friend, even if they aren't directly familiar with them.

stainboy
2011-03-16, 05:24 PM
I think my preferred solution is to play a system without "social" mechanics, but I haven't seen a game like that since the 90s.

If it's possible to build social characters, there's always going to be a big divide between which players are most persuasive and which characters. It makes group interaction feel unnatural. No matter who plays the diplomancer you can't expect him or her to have the most fun/most persuasive idea all the time.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 09:48 AM
Huh, I'm Billy. I know exactly who the Carl in the group is, too. Everyone knows.

Thing is, the group doesn't always have a Carl. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The group has included a fair amount of people, with a pretty fair amount of persistence. Sometimes someone leaves for a while and comes back. If more than one carl-type is playing, only one of them is actually Carl. If Carl leaves, the next most Carl-like becomes Carl until we run out of them. Then there's no Carl.

Personally, I'd like to solve the problem by just kicking out the Carl. Most everyone in the group doesn't kick him out because...he has no other friends. There is a reason for this. He's dysfunctional as hell. Sometimes he'll just start yelling loud words, or randomly throwing things, or stamping on the floor. He doesn't get what being an adult is. Except for drinking and owning guns. He understands those. And now we come to the real reason why nobody wants to kick him out. I figure that kicking him out now lessens the odds we'll be around when he snaps, but eh, I'm not gonna force it on the group.

The Big Dice
2011-03-17, 09:57 AM
I'd kick Billy out of the group. I've been in the position of watching someone be Billy until they drove their target away, then this person would pick a new Carl. I also game with Carl. He's a little socially inept and never ever does anything he's not invited to. But he's a good guy and, unlike Billy, he hasn't got a malicious bone in his body.

Because what Billy is doing is pure malice. It's bullying and making yourself look good at the expense of someone you should be treating as a friend. A socially inept gaming buddy is still a buddy.

And belittling someone else isn't big, it isn't cool and you should have grown out of it around the same time as you stopped thinking the opposite gender was icky.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 10:00 AM
I suspect that different people are framing fairly different types of people as Billys and Carls.

In my experience, if someone is almost entirely unable to have friends, there are reasons for this. Merely being quiet is insufficient. Plenty of quiet people have good friends.

The Big Dice
2011-03-17, 10:19 AM
In my experience, if someone is almost entirely unable to have friends, there are reasons for this. Merely being quiet is insufficient. Plenty of quiet people have good friends.

That doesn't excuse singling out a person in your immediate social circle to victimise. Nothing excuses acting like you're still 14 when you are in fact a decade or more past that uncomfortable milestone of life.

And that's what Billy is doing.

He thinks he's being an alpha male, when what he's really doing is acting like an idiot because nobody else in the group is willing to rock the boat by saying "Dude, that's not cool."

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 10:45 AM
Well, I can't possibly know about every possible instance, so I'll use my situation as an example.

Carl's a bit of an idiot. He doesn't read things, and doesn't pay attention to what other people say. So, he doesn't generally know whats going on, and any of his plans are invariably doomed to failure. He does not normally tell us what his plan is before putting it into action. Things like giving away all the parties loot to an NPC that happened to smile at him, without consulting the people who's stuff he was donating. This is not merely an in-game issue, though even if it were, in character conflict can be expected from that. From throwing open the door and accusing the pizza guy of being gay(in terms I'd rather not use here) to deciding to drink an entire bottle of hard liquor without stopping for air, to bringing actual handguns despite being told not to, he does things that are...not wise.

Therefore, he gets told that such things are stupid in no uncertain terms. Screams of "Carl, no" are sufficiently common to warrant a "list of gaming rules" being published and handed to new players that say nothing but "Dear God, Carl, no, just no". About an hour into the gaming session, they understand. Now, everyone ribs each other pretty hard, and sarcasm and humor are a routine thing, but he garners a lot more than his fair share, and it occasionally crosses the line into actual ill will...but it absolutely wouldn't happen if we didn't *constantly* do things deserve it. I don't know if he's really that much of an idiot, or if he just plays one because he loves being yelled at, but either of those things are fixable if you care about them at all. He's really the only one to blame for the state of affairs.

I should mention that we've not had another player ever that has been quite so bad. We've had anti-social types before, but most of the group is entirely comfortable knocking off gaming for a night to go to a fancy dinner or event.

Game shops seem to have more of this type in general, though...

The Big Dice
2011-03-17, 11:08 AM
From throwing open the door and accusing the pizza guy of being gay(in terms I'd rather not use here) to deciding to drink an entire bottle of hard liquor without stopping for air, to bringing actual handguns despite being told not to, he does things that are...not wise.
That really has nothing to do with the situation the OP mentioned. In fact, your Carl appears to be the one holding the rest of you hostage to his behaviour. I', assuming there's some kind of reason why you'd put up with a loose cannon of this nature being part of your social group that I don't know about.

The in-game stuff sounds quite amusing, and not like a guy who used to game with us until he moved out of the area. But the real life antics would make this person extremely unwelcome at my gaming table.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 11:17 AM
The original Carl was terrible at social things and lacked alternative friends...I think it still fits the definition.

Of course, there is a fairly wide category of possible personalities and such that can be described by that. I just don't think that you can assume that "quiet and not at fault" can be taken for granted.

And yeah, he's not really permitted to talk in game. Anything he says is immediately overruled, or NPCs are distracted by impromptu antics from someone.

faceroll
2011-03-17, 11:18 AM
Interesting topic. Currently having the same problem at my table, where I'm the Billy and the latest addition to the game is a Carl. I'm kind of a natural bully, and Carl's are used to being victims. I don't know what it is, maybe it's the way they smell, but it definitely brings out some of my worst behavior.

Britter
2011-03-17, 11:19 AM
Respectfully, why the heck do those of you who game and associate with jackholes continue to game and associate with said jackholes?

Time is the only commodity in my life that is truly limited. I can always make more money or buy more food, or somehow improve my material situation. But no amount of effort will give me more time in a day. I don't see the logic to wasting that incredibly limited resource on people that don't make the time I spend with them more enjoyable than it might otherwise be.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 11:26 AM
I know why he's playing with us...someone felt sorry for him. I don't understand this myself, but it seems like common human behavior to have that one dude in the group nobody likes, but that they invite anyway out of pity. It's confusing.

What really confuses/scares me is that my Carl has married and reproduced. I have no idea how this happens, but it should give hope to anyone feeling down about relationships.

Tiki Snakes
2011-03-17, 11:28 AM
Perception affects reality, and assumptions affect your perception.

If you look at a situation with a model like this, expecting to find a Billy and a Carl, you probably will.

But that doesn't mean there actually is and it doesn't mean that the model will in any way help clarify or deal with the situation. In some ways, this thread puts me in mind of the GNS discussions and the way that simply defining the three catagories seemed to shape people's understanding of games in ways that frankly didn't have much to do with how they actually were.

There's only one thing to remember that will help with any of this.
Don't be a douche. :smallsmile:

stainboy
2011-03-17, 12:55 PM
Yeah, I don't think any two people in this thread are talking about the same set of traits.

@Tyndmyr: I wouldn't have a problem with my friends bringing handguns to my house, but if I asked them not to and they did anyway that's ten kinds of unacceptable. If you know about it that means he's also making a show of flouting the rule, which is worse. It sounds like he really wants everyone to know how "dangerous" he is.

He probably won't ever take it far enough to pull a gun on someone but I wouldn't want to take the chance either.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 02:15 PM
If you look at a situation with a model like this, expecting to find a Billy and a Carl, you probably will.

That's an excellent point. In any arbitrary grouping of people, there will be a most and least popular.

@stain: Oh, I've got no problems with handguns, own one myself. But, another persons house, and he didn't want it there. Not that there was any plausible reason to bring a handgun anyhow...it's not like you can roll dice with them...wait *gets awesome idea*

Project_Mayhem
2011-03-17, 02:21 PM
I'm kinda surprised reading this thread. In most of my tabletop rpg experience, I haven't really come across this at all. I started gaming at 18 odd, and my current groups ages range from 21 to 29. Also, we are all friends. These may be factors

My gut instinct is that Billy is a jerk. Carl might be pathetic, but Billy is still a jerk. I would probably avoid inviting either of them to play, but if they both were, I'm pretty sure I'd at best tell Billy to shut up, or at worst just not come back.

The closest I have come to seeing anything like this would be in a Live Roleplay I do every now again. We are with the Isle of Darkness, the official White Wolf live roleplay in the UK, and as such, we cant really turn down players unless they are caught cheating, or are abusive and such. I know at least one player who is annoying, not very socially talented, and playing a social character. Our group (about 16 people) doesn't really have any 'Billys'; however, there is a tendency to treat his OOC flaws as IC. I guess this might be loosely the same. Certainly, his character probably wont get the prestigious title he wants over more likeable players.

Erom
2011-03-17, 02:38 PM
I'd kick Billy out of the group. I've been in the position of watching someone be Billy until they drove their target away, then this person would pick a new Carl. I also game with Carl. He's a little socially inept and never ever does anything he's not invited to. But he's a good guy and, unlike Billy, he hasn't got a malicious bone in his body.

The hardest groups I've ever been in are the ones where Carl isn't a nice guy. He's social inept, constantly picked on, and you feel bad for him, but he's also a vindictive little snot with awkward mannerisms and stupid ideas he thinks are awesome but make everyone else uncomfortable. Those situations are truly hard for me, cause normally I'm a pretty good social moderator (I tend to sacrificial Carlism to take the fire off the real Carl in many situations, cause I know I've got rock solid self esteem and am awesome so I don't care if my RPG group thinks I'm annoying and antisocial) but when the Carl isn't really a good person... man, it's tough. You want to stop Billy but you're terrified of frigging Carl thinking you are his friend. You don't want him to be picked on, sure, but you definetely don't want to be around him when he isn't picked on, cause man what a tool.

I've found these situations come up pretty rarely once you are out of high school and can pick friends from a broader pallet than just the kids who are your age and your rough geographical location.

Ormur
2011-03-17, 02:46 PM
I'm not very surprised that there are groups where a player is bullied because he's unpopular and socially stunted or groups where you've got charismatic people with loose ethics. It's not a good situation but I can see why it's easy to fall into the playground roles of bully/bullied when somebody doesn't fit in.

I'm mostly surprised at the notion that there will always be someone occupying either of those roles, especially that of the bullied one. That's not normal at all if everyone is a reasonably well adjusted individual, or at least equally well adjusted. That must be some kind of a cultural holdover from elementary school or something. I haven't noticed such behaviour since early high school in my peer group and thinking back to it fills me with some shame.

Maybe I'm just blind or the "Carl's" have been successfully ostracised by my group of friends but not every single gathering of people should devolve into a wolf pack with alphas and omegas.

I can't think of many ways to deal with such a culture but mingling with other groups of people and trying to notice what causes such behaviour might help in mitigating it.

Erom
2011-03-17, 02:55 PM
I haven't noticed such behaviour since early high school in my peer group and thinking back to it fills me with some shame.
I see this kind of behavior around the FLGS a lot - one of the reasons I play home games and only enter gaming stores when I absolutely have too.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 03:26 PM
I think it'd be more accurate to say that parties tend to end up with someone assuming the mantle of leader. Even if it's not explicit, you'll get a guy who's willing to throw things out there, and his ideas are decent enough, so people go along with them.

It tends to be a person with high IRL charisma. Perhaps not always, but it certainly goes off OOC traits more than IC ones.

Ialdabaoth
2011-03-17, 03:37 PM
I think it'd be more accurate to say that parties tend to end up with someone assuming the mantle of leader. Even if it's not explicit, you'll get a guy who's willing to throw things out there, and his ideas are decent enough, so people go along with them.

It tends to be a person with high IRL charisma. Perhaps not always, but it certainly goes off OOC traits more than IC ones.

My point is that "if his ideas are decent" has nothing to do with it. Ideas can be crap, and will still seem awesome if the right person expresses them. Ideas can be amazing, and will still seem like crap if the wrong person expresses them.

And the only solution I can figure out is, "don't be that guy".

Tyndmyr
2011-03-17, 03:42 PM
There is certainly a level of that. I'm able to convince people to go along with ideas that even I know are bad. Sometimes even ideas that we ALL know are bad.

Those tend to result in good stories, though, so are they really all that terrible?

Vladislav
2011-03-17, 03:43 PM
My point is that "if his ideas are decent" has nothing to do with it. Ideas can be crap, and will still seem awesome if the right person expresses them. Ideas can be amazing, and will still seem like crap if the wrong person expresses them.
In that case, the problem may very well be within the listener. Maybe it's the wrong person listening to the idea.

Ormur
2011-03-17, 04:01 PM
There is certainly a level of that. I'm able to convince people to go along with ideas that even I know are bad. Sometimes even ideas that we ALL know are bad.

Those tend to result in good stories, though, so are they really all that terrible?

Okay that's not something we've grow out of, but it's not necessarily the most charismatic guy, just the craziest. I've ignored or pointed out the flaws in the zany schemes of that person but it didn't turn me into a Carl, just a momentary spoilsport. The problem people have been pointing out isn't that some are more charismatic than others but that there should always have to be a buttmonkey.

Xanmyral
2011-03-17, 04:18 PM
I've been a Carl a few times, and have witnessed a few Billy's in the act. I don't believe I've ever played a Billy, I don't think I have the charisma for that. I'm no longer a Carl though, but that may be because I've learned to use my skills to either obfuscate, or intimidate the one who antagonizes me into stopping. Amazing what having a black sense of humor, and a morbid fascination for the macabre can do for one... Both aren't innocent however, as I have seen both good, and bad Carl's and Billy's.

A good example with a bad Carl would be the one in my social group. He's usually ribbed at, and so such, but does rib back. I will admit, for a while I was a cohort to our group's Billy, but snapped out of it and tried to be nice to our Carl. Then I found out he was a violent bigot while trying to be friends with him... Yeah, kinda hard to respect someone when they view some people as nothing more then something to hit with a stick, until hospitalization...

While I can't give advice on how to worm one's way out of a Carl and Billy situation, since they are quite subjective. (Almost as varied as people-Oh! :smallamused:) The problem might be with the Billy, might be with the Carl, or might be with both. I can say what not to do though. Having two Billy's compete for the "Alpha position isn't a good thing for the group dynamic. Had that happen once, it fissured a large group of friends into two parties, one hating the other for no more reason then the Alpha tells them to. It is entertaining to watch however...

I personally wouldn't advise my strategy, as it doesn't always work for the best, and can give you quite the bad reputation to all except for friends. That, and intimidation is a rather crass tactic that I'm not to fond of. Self confidence helps, but having to much will lead to ego, which will make one a Billy. So learn how to both build up, and take shots at your own self confidence when needed, is all I can say. But then again, this might not help you since people are varied, and thus all advice is subjective to the situation. Good luck to any in this situation however, assuming you aren't a bad Billy, or a bad Carl.

Callista
2011-03-17, 08:35 PM
I've had issues with my own low Charisma score; but when I was about ten years old I decided I was not going to let others' opinion of me decide what I thought of myself. So I got bullied a lot; I didn't have the social savvy to fight back. But the only thing they ever did was embarrass me temporarily, hurt me physically, or damaged an already rock-bottom reputation; they didn't hurt me, if that makes any sense.

And yes, it is definitely better to be alone than it is to be treated like crap. I have very few friends, but the ones I do consider friends I know very well and trust implicitly.

Bullies often are charismatic; that's how they get away with it. Sociopathic people who don't end up in prison often realize that winning others' approval is key to getting away with running roughshod over their victims. Make your Sense Motive; don't let them do this. It may cause friction; but in the long run, you may literally save someone's life--more than one bully target has become depressed and eventually committed suicide due to the long-term repeated abuse. Just because it's common or just because the bully is funny doesn't mean it's right.