At the end everyone would be happy except maybe you but a GM must do some concessions for the game sometimes.

There has to be a balance. Going to either extreme simply doesn’t work.

If, as GM, he’s feeling like these problematic players are seriously disrupting the balance of the game, then he’s got to decide how he’s going to handle that. Something will have to give, somewhere.

Ideally, a compromise would be able to be reached where both parties get what they need and at least the majority of what they want, although neither party may be 100% satisfied.

If a compromise can’t be reached, then both parties have to decide how they’re going to handle that.

I think the details of the various options have already been well explored.

But one way or the other, there has to be some sort of balance.

Sorry to tell you that truth but in this hobby, a GM without players is nothing more than a fanfiction writer. You can act as a god like GM if you want but if the players dont like it, they just dont play anymore. It's not your game, it's the one of everyone at the table.

To the OP: if these "problematic players" are your friends, then be a good friend and let them play like how they want to play. At the end everyone would be happy except maybe you but a GM must do some concessions for the game sometimes.

And a bunch of players without a GM are just a group of bored folks sitting at a table wishing they had something to do. Your tone behind this is a bit crass and demeaning of GMs. When you add to that your final line of 'everyone would be happy except maybe you' that again shows complete and total disrespect to the role of the GM.

Yes, the GM needs players. No, the GM need not bend over backwards and make all concessions to keep the players happy. BOTH sides need to have some give. The players as a group are dumping the lion's share of the work and responsibility on the GM. The players should acknowledge this and do their best to work within the guidelines the GM as set out as what makes this work worth it to him or her. If they do feel something is particularly unfair or makes the game particularly unfun for them then, sure, talk it out and try to come to some kind of middle ground that EVERYONE can be happy with.

But, I am sorry, the idea that the GM should accept being unhappy to keep the players happy is just baffling. In a group of 5 players only one of them is taking on the role that is expecting him or her to put in numerous hours outside of the game sessions to provide an evening of fun and adventure for the entire group.. that 1 person shouldn't also be the one making the sacrifice of their fun and enjoyment of that event.

To the OP. All I have to say is this: We do this hobby to have fun. If you are not having fun then why are you doing this? If these guys that you are gaming with are not playing the game the way you want to play the game, is it silly of you to ask them to play it the way you want?

I want to play basketball. I have the basketball and court. you want to play soccer, but don't have any of the equipment... guess what we are playing then...

I'm sorry, but in this hobby, there are many ways to play these games, and none are the right or wrong way. There are only the mass agreed ways that the table agrees on. Some people love the heavy acting theatrical style, others want more of an RP tactile combat style. You have to find that balance for your group. It sounds like you can't find that balance. As the GM, you ultimately need to be the one that is happy. I know I would rather not game at all than game with a group where I am not having fun. I'm not saying I am a dictator at my table, I try to find a happy balance, but when it comes down to it, if I'm not happy, how can I make the group happy? If the players take their characters into an unexpected path and start acting in a way that was unforeseen and that i don't really like, like for example, we agreed to play basically good guys, but then after a few sessions they all go super evil killing everything and murder **** happy, or something else I don't want to run or tell stories about, what should I do? just bow down to the group? Let them do what they want? No. It's still my game. No, I'm old and I'm stubborn and crotchety.

It's your game, you run it how you want to. If they want to try to broaden their horizons great, if not, great. Some people just want to sit there and roll dice. If that is all they want to do, then let them sit this one out. I hear there are some games out there that use dice with twenty sides on them.

Sorry to tell you that truth but in this hobby, a GM without players is nothing more than a fanfiction writer. You can act as a god like GM if you want but if the players dont like it, they just dont play anymore. It's not your game, it's the one of everyone at the table.

To the OP: if these "problematic players" are your friends, then be a good friend and let them play like how they want to play. At the end everyone would be happy except maybe you but a GM must do some concessions for the game sometimes.

Sorry dude, you missed my point entirely. My point was that the GM and the players should work together to bring about a game and story that everyone should want to play and tell. But at the end of the day it is really up to the GM. If the GM is not having fun, then by default, the group won't have fun. Yes, without players a GM is fan fic writer, what an "astute" observation (yes snide comment), with players, we are still fan fic writers!

If the players are good friends to the GM, they should be good friends and play the type of game the GM wants to play once in while too! See, your argument is cyclic here. Who is right and who is wrong? The GM or the Player? Well, I normally go with the majority when it it comes to gaming groups. It seems the OP here has the majority that will play the game he wants to which is high RP. Two people don't seem to want this. So four out six total like this idea? But you say this is bad??? I think your logic is flawed here. The GM is not playing "GOD" and handing down a final judgment. He has played some games with them in other styles and is ready for a change. I don't think it is wrong to ask for that change. If people don't like it and want to leave, I don't think there is anything wrong with that either. You shouldn't condemn people because they like different things and want to do different things.

I had a guy in my group before that wanted to literally to scour over the galaxy map book and look at the star charts to plot the best hyperspace routes, trying to use these other books to maximize the routes for their travels. This game really is designed for that. I'm really not into that. The Group was not into that. I was just "roll your Astrogation skill". He wanted to use these other books from outside FFG. After a few session, he decided to leave the group. It was the best for all involved.

Because people leave a group isn't always a bad thing. If a player just sits there and really doesn't interact and just wants to shoot stuff and roll dice, but you want to tell a heavy immersive story with thick plots and interweaving threads and conspiracies and all this stuff, and the majority of your Group is into it, why should the GM have to bow down to one player acting like a "GOD"?

I have also had the dis-pleasure of GMing for groups so horrible, that I said I am done! I would rather not game at all than game with the likes of you. You have drained the fun out this hobby for me so much that I would rather not do it at all. That you have made GMing feel like such a chore and job that I no longer find it enjoyably or fun. So there are two sides to every token, and yes, there are the horrible god-wanna-be Gm out there that want to take advantage of groups and players and make them feel small and worthless, and then there the players that feel like they should be catered to all the time, and that everything should always go there way, and they are always right, and they know better than the GM, and the GM doesn't know what they are doing. The OP here doesn't seem to be that type. He seems to be trying to get his group to tell a fun story and to get his group to try to do something new and fun, and there are a couple of stick in the muds that don't want to play along. Well, Ender07, it's your game, run it how you want to man. Vilan6, quit being so darn judgmental on people. It is a game! If Ender is trying to run a fun game, that is the most important thing. If one or two people don't want to play along that is their problem not his. Just like I wouldn't bend to one player and spend two hours looking at stupid star charts, discussing hyperspace lanes for one astrogation check. We all have different ideas of fun. What a table agrees on to be fun wins out.

My idea of fun is getting together with a bunch of people drinking some beer and playing monsters and mazes...ooops...sorry, I'm on the wrong forum....

My idea of fun is getting together with a bunch of people drinking some beer and playing

That's what it's all about right there! Rule Zero: Everyone is there to have fun! If one's group doesn't meet this, then nothing else is going to work. Whose job is it? Everyone sitting at the table.

Sorry to tell you that truth but in this hobby, a GM without players is nothing more than a fanfiction writer.

You might be surprised to know that being a GM and being a fanfic writer are pretty different things. Some of the duties may intersect, but fanfic writers don't build gridded maps or props, create volumes of settings and NPCs to respond to where players might go, or buy 10 packs of dice so everyone has some. Conversely, most GMs won't usually put the same detail into characters and plots, nor will they have a 10-page description of a tree (I hope.)

R2builder, on 18 Dec 2015 - 2:53 PM, said:R2builder, on 18 Dec 2015 - 2:53 PM, said:R2builder, on 18 Dec 2015 - 2:53 PM, said:

vilainn6, on 18 Dec 2015 - 01:11 AM, said:vilainn6, on 18 Dec 2015 - 01:11 AM, said:vilainn6, on 18 Dec 2015 - 01:11 AM, said:

R2builder, on 17 Dec 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:R2builder, on 17 Dec 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:R2builder, on 17 Dec 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

To the OP. All I have to say is this: We do this hobby to have fun. If you are not having fun then why are you doing this? If these guys that you are gaming with are not playing the game the way you want to play the game, is it silly of you to ask them to play it the way you want?

I want to play basketball. I have the basketball and court. you want to play soccer, but don't have any of the equipment... guess what we are playing then...

I'm sorry, but in this hobby, there are many ways to play these games, and none are the right or wrong way. There are only the mass agreed ways that the table agrees on. Some people love the heavy acting theatrical style, others want more of an RP tactile combat style. You have to find that balance for your group. It sounds like you can't find that balance. As the GM, you ultimately need to be the one that is happy. I know I would rather not game at all than game with a group where I am not having fun. I'm not saying I am a dictator at my table, I try to find a happy balance, but when it comes down to it, if I'm not happy, how can I make the group happy? If the players take their characters into an unexpected path and start acting in a way that was unforeseen and that i don't really like, like for example, we agreed to play basically good guys, but then after a few sessions they all go super evil killing everything and murder **** happy, or something else I don't want to run or tell stories about, what should I do? just bow down to the group? Let them do what they want? No. It's still my game. No, I'm old and I'm stubborn and crotchety.

It's your game, you run it how you want to. If they want to try to broaden their horizons great, if not, great. Some people just want to sit there and roll dice. If that is all they want to do, then let them sit this one out. I hear there are some games out there that use dice with twenty sides on them.

Sorry to tell you that truth but in this hobby, a GM without players is nothing more than a fanfiction writer. You can act as a god like GM if you want but if the players dont like it, they just dont play anymore. It's not your game, it's the one of everyone at the table.

To the OP: if these "problematic players" are your friends, then be a good friend and let them play like how they want to play. At the end everyone would be happy except maybe you but a GM must do some concessions for the game sometimes.

Sorry dude, you missed my point entirely. My point was that the GM and the players should work together to bring about a game and story that everyone should want to play and tell. But at the end of the day it is really up to the GM. If the GM is not having fun, then by default, the group won't have fun. Yes, without players a GM is fan fic writer, what an "astute" observation (yes snide comment), with players, we are still fan fic writers!

So, for you, it is a sign of working together between GM and players to kick out someone just because he doesn't have the skills or the abilities to roleplay at the level you want him to roleplay in your immersive game? Because at the end¸, this want the OP ask about. His two "problematic" player have just express their concern about them not being capable of entering in the head of their character and act as they were them when they play.

I personnaly has a good friend who play at my table who look like one of the players the OP describe. The kind of non-talkative player that when he talk, it is to tell me what his character want to do or what he want to said. He never talk in-character, he has little social skill in real life and on top of that, he stutters. I try to make him talk in-character like my other players but as you might imagine, it is really hard.

I have an hard time imaginating myself coming one night and say:

Me: Ok guys, tonight we start a new campaign and I want to run a super immersive game. So when we start until the end of the session, you are in-character and you act like you were your character.

My friend: but Alex I am not sure I can do that. You know how I was terrible in drama class at High School.

Me: Yeah I know and it is why you should bow out of the game.

My friend: What? but I want to play in this old republic campaign you tell us about last week.

Me: I know you would like but I am affraid your lack of roleplaying abilities would just break the immersion I want to create. No harsh feeling hein?

I personnaly find that unfair for the player. Of course if the problem of the OP is elsewhere and his "problematic" players are just the kind of disruptive jerks that make games unfun, then yes get rid of them. But if it is just a question of roleplaying skill, then I think GM and players should talk and come to mutual agreement before going to extrem solution like "this is my rules. If you dont like them, you are free to leave the game."

QuoteQuoteQuote

Because people leave a group isn't always a bad thing. If a player just sits there and really doesn't interact and just wants to shoot stuff and roll dice, but you want to tell a heavy immersive story with thick plots

That always depend of how many spare players you have to replace the one who leave. For myself, I don't have tons and I always find game more enjoyable with a party of 5 players that a party of 2 players. That probably why I tend to make concession to keep players as long as they are enjoying themselve and they dont disrupt the party or the game. That my perception and you are free to have your own.

I think one of your issues here was being so Direct and up front about it.

I think you should have eased them into it through the game. Just let the RP flow and try to involve the 2 to get them into it as well.

There are more than two types of roleplayers out there. It is not simply the super immersed roleplayers and the absolutely inactive, there to roll dice rollplayers. Most players I've seen are more than willing to be immersed, but that almost never comes across as being entirely in character at all points and shutting down all non-game talk. This is a social hobby. The players must respect the GM and his time and effort and give an honest effort to engage with their characters in his story, but we also cannot ask players- or even the GM- to remove the social element from this hobby. There are plenty of play by post ways to roleplay where you don't need to even try to act, you just post in character. Super easy! But if I am making the effort to meet up with friends to roleplay or run a game for my friends, I'm doing so because the social aspect of it is vital to the experience. Part of that is the expectation that, yes, there will be out of game talk at times. As long as it doesn't devolve into tangents an they don't drift off, I consider it an additive.

It becomes a problem when people start looking at phones, playing games on their phones, or talking to someone and not responding when you call their name and/or their character's name, That is when you need to clamp down, and that is what I believe you are really looking for: An end to the garbage that slows everything down.

First off I want to thank everyone for all of the suggestions, words of kindness, and criticism from my original post. I have been reading this every day, as well as discussing it further with some of my closer friends and my wife. I decided to take pieces of what everyone suggested and "smooth over" the RP aspect I was going for, but at the same time I let everyone know that I will be expecting more out of them and to keep OOG talk limited.

The two players that didn't want to play the heavy-immersion RP style that the rest of us wanted to try, were able to settle into another form of it instead...like others had said, they can talk "about their character" instead of "as their character" which seemed to really help bring their RP skills out.

I clamped down on using phones and other tech, and I'm having everyone stick to paper only when at the table...so far so good!

I just ran the finale of my Edge of the Empire campaign and asked everyone if they would be up for trying a more RP-heavy style to see how they like it, and if they don't after the first hour, then we would revert back and finish it up how we always have. I am happy to say that everyone thoroughly enjoyed the rules I set down, and they said that they even felt like they had more narrative control of the situation because they were talking and interacting with everything so much more than they were in previous sessions! The two people I was worried about even liked it, and as long as everyone doesn't have to ALWAYS talk in character at the table then it should be a fun campaign ahead.

Thanks again for everyone's input. I greatly appreciate all of you and all that you shared with me. I feel that this will make me a better GM and it probably wouldn't have turned out so well if it wasn't for all of you!

Happy holidays and happy new year everyone!

First off I want to thank everyone for all of the suggestions, words of kindness, and criticism from my original post. I have been reading this every day, as well as discussing it further with some of my closer friends and my wife. I decided to take pieces of what everyone suggested and "smooth over" the RP aspect I was going for, but at the same time I let everyone know that I will be expecting more out of them and to keep OOG talk limited.

The two players that didn't want to play the heavy-immersion RP style that the rest of us wanted to try, were able to settle into another form of it instead...like others had said, they can talk "about their character" instead of "as their character" which seemed to really help bring their RP skills out.

I clamped down on using phones and other tech, and I'm having everyone stick to paper only when at the table...so far so good!

I just ran the finale of my Edge of the Empire campaign and asked everyone if they would be up for trying a more RP-heavy style to see how they like it, and if they don't after the first hour, then we would revert back and finish it up how we always have. I am happy to say that everyone thoroughly enjoyed the rules I set down, and they said that they even felt like they had more narrative control of the situation because they were talking and interacting with everything so much more than they were in previous sessions! The two people I was worried about even liked it, and as long as everyone doesn't have to ALWAYS talk in character at the table then it should be a fun campaign ahead.

Thanks again for everyone's input. I greatly appreciate all of you and all that you shared with me. I feel that this will make me a better GM and it probably wouldn't have turned out so well if it wasn't for all of you!

Happy holidays and happy new year everyone!

Glad to hear it worked out and you were able to come to a compromise that works for everyone. The result you have come to is one I think is quite reasonable. Limiting OOG distractions and conversations is a fair request in my books, it is something I tend to expect myself as it shows respect for the time of everyone at the table by using it for the game which everyone has come for, and more so it shows respect and consideration for the efforts and time the GM has put into preparing the game night for everyone.

And I like your compromise on the RP aspect. As I mentioned, I myself would just not feel comfortable or enjoy a game where I am expected to speak ICly as my character all the time.. but I do enjoy speaking about the character. It still lets me get into the mindset of my character, to think about what he might do and what he might think about any given situation, but doesn't require that I try to act out my character. I'm just not an actor or that kind of roleplayer. I wouldn't suggest someone else SHOULDN'T act out their character and kind of expect the same courtesy from them, let me play out my character in the way that suits me.. as long as we are all focusing on the game and getting into it from a proper character oriented perspective and not leveraging knowledge the character wouldn't have I think that's fair.

And, most importantly, it seems you have managed to address the concerns by speaking with your group about what your goals are, finding out what their goals are and figuring out the path that most closely fits with the entire group. Well done!

From what I have read, from the begining this game is all about YOu and what you want from the game, have youa sked what your players want?

You might as well have you players attend at gun point. I woudl suggest you relax, a lot. Take a step back, release your players from the "Force choke" you have on them and remember what it was like to just have fun.

If your players don't enjoy it they won't play let alone "Stay in character". My players suggested a "More RP" game which I was happy with but so far there has been very little in character Rp lol which I half expected. Staying in character is quite different from staying in the game, I have a table rule that if my players detract into personal chat or styart checking their phones they will recieve a conflict. They are fine with this unless you count the time I awarded a conflict for one of my players suddenly bursting into song and then denying she did lol

Turn from the darkside, remember the light!

From what I have read, from the begining this game is all about YOu and what you want from the game, have youa sked what your players want?

You might as well have you players attend at gun point. I woudl suggest you relax, a lot. Take a step back, release your players from the "Force choke" you have on them and remember what it was like to just have fun.

If your players don't enjoy it they won't play let alone "Stay in character". My players suggested a "More RP" game which I was happy with but so far there has been very little in character Rp lol which I half expected. Staying in character is quite different from staying in the game, I have a table rule that if my players detract into personal chat or styart checking their phones they will recieve a conflict. They are fine with this unless you count the time I awarded a conflict for one of my players suddenly bursting into song and then denying she did lol

Turn from the darkside, remember the light!

I do have certain expectations of my players and I did want them to branch out a bit during this campaign, but I would not describe that I was putting them in a choke hold over it. I don't know if you read all the posts over the past 3 pages, as well as the outcome and resolution post I made on the previous page (post #59), but with the help of the people here on the forums I was able to make everything work out well. Thanks!