Quote from: S'mon;1014052I love being the player in a #2 group, with a friend GMing who all of us like and trust. Conversely #1s with a GM more Viking Hatted than I can be scary :eek: - I recall one ex-military (RAF I think) NCO type guy running Primeval Thule, who kinda terrified the rest of us geeks... He was keen on Political Correctness, and tore a strip off me when my male barbarian PC said "Woman!" to a female Fighter PC he was exasperated with.
Then the GM's house burned down. :\

Spontaneously?

Yeah, a pure "respect my authoritah" or aggressive DM is no fun, and not what I'm thinking of with #1.  Like and trust are key to either #1 or #2.  But in those hopefully rare situations where the group norms aren't being followed, either the DM has to be able to enforce them or have a group that's self-regulating.   Conflict-avoiding players looking towards a conflict-avoiding DM for help just doesn't work.

Quote from: EOTB;1014081Yeah, a pure "respect my authoritah" or aggressive DM is no fun, and not what I'm thinking of with #1.  Like and trust are key to either #1 or #2.  But in those hopefully rare situations where the group norms aren't being followed, either the DM has to be able to enforce them or have a group that's self-regulating.   Conflict-avoiding players looking towards a conflict-avoiding DM for help just doesn't work.

Yes, I agree with your point - either the GM needs an authoritative style, or the more forceful players have to help out the GM. If the most forceful person is a player, and they use their personality to override the GM, it does not work.

I think this may be one reason we see relatively few female GMs even when a majority of players are female; IME it's relatively rare for a woman to be the most forceful personality in a mixed group. So most mixed groups with a female GM are your #2 type.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013943Or have the PLAYERS fight to the death!

Then loot the bodies!

Quote from: S'mon;1013984No need to be an asshole about it. IME just rolling the wandering monster die every real 10-20 minutes as per (Pre-3e) D&D standard is enough - SOME players will see the die being rolled, understand the significance, and force the others to get moving.

Players shit themselves when dice clatter behind the screen.

It's a great way to shake up a group.

Quote from: S'mon;1014094Yes, I agree with your point - either the GM needs an authoritative style, or the more forceful players have to help out the GM. If the most forceful person is a player, and they use their personality to override the GM, it does not work.

I agree with you and EOTB.

The other problem with forceful personality players is how they can dominate decision making for the party.

I have to bite my tongue as a player, otherwise I will just run roughshod over most groups.

Another reason I prefer to GM.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1014111The other problem with forceful personality players is how they can dominate decision making for the party.

I have to bite my tongue as a player, otherwise I will just run roughshod over most groups.

Another reason I prefer to GM.

I have that same issue as a player.  It's why all my PCs get played as if they were laid-back NPCs--compensating to make sure it stays under control.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1014111Players shit themselves when dice clatter behind the screen.

I NEVER use a screen.
I don't want any players thinking "Oh, he's only kidding". If that d6 comes up 6 everyone knows it's too late, there IS an an encounter, SOMETHING has found them.
I often choose rather than roll what it is though - sailing past the Blackarrow pirate base, it was obviously Blackarrow pirates*. In the Stonehell dungeon last time, it was obviously the same manifestation of the Nixthisis that they'd encountered previously.

*Who then perma-killed a PC, in fact.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1014111The other problem with forceful personality players is how they can dominate decision making for the party.

I have to bite my tongue as a player, otherwise I will just run roughshod over most groups.

Another reason I prefer to GM.

Same.  Although usually in an otherwise rudderless group.  I'm not the type to be patient with a bunch of people all saying "what do we do know?" and plodding slowly towards a path forward.  I default to forward momentum so have to bite my tongue if a player.

In my experience, in most groups, there's one or two players who like to be leaders.  There's a couple who like to have a say in things but are happy to let someone else be leader. And there's a bunch who are perfectly happy not really deciding anything and letting someone else decide everything until it's time to kill monsters.

So the only problem happens when you have two alpha-types who can't make some kind of power-sharing deal.  That, or no alpha-types at all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014495So the only problem happens when you have two alpha-types who can't make some kind of power-sharing deal.  That, or no alpha-types at all.

Worst case is when there's one Alpha, she (always a she recently IMCs) misses the session, and the group have no idea what to do. :\
I think if there was never an Alpha, the group will still generally function, looking to the GM for what to do. But when they become reliant on a particular player the passivity can be much worse. Sandbox games tend to fail at that point.

The Alpha player in my Wilderlands - Stonehell campaign just played her last session yesterday, she's moving to Australia. So it'll be interesting to see if others will now step on up to motivate the group.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014062We're all 30, been friends since we were like 3.

I didn't say the lone player was right because his ideas worked, he was just right that charging in blindly was suicide, even though his own ideas are often crazy.

Think it really has nothing to do with the game ideas being crazy or not.  It's the interpersonal interaction.  Know each other since 3 and it takes 4+ hours to make a decision in what is supposed to be a cooperative game?   You are playing a game, it's just not the RPG in front of you but a social-interpersonal one.   That and/or the play-styles are just too different.   I really don't see why you just don't split the party.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014495In my experience, in most groups, there's one or two players who like to be leaders.  There's a couple who like to have a say in things but are happy to let someone else be leader. And there's a bunch who are perfectly happy not really deciding anything and letting someone else decide everything until it's time to kill monsters.

So the only problem happens when you have two alpha-types who can't make some kind of power-sharing deal.  That, or no alpha-types at all.

When you put it that way, we do have a two alpha situation, combined with passive others. What do you do with two alphas?

Thunderdome.

Quote from: Headless;1014674Thunderdome.

Naw, ime they usually cooperate fine. It's when you have a disruptive pseudo-Alpha attention hog that you get trouble. Real Alphas negotiate a bit, allocate roles (& dominance hierarchy status) at the table, and get on with it. Eg my Alpha players Keelia & Judith had no trouble deciding who would run the 5e initiative tracker (though I can't recall which it was!), who would normally do the session accounts (Keelia) and they got along very well, with mutual Alpha respect. It was interesting because I had GM'd for them both previously - Judith for many years, Keelia for a few months, and with them both so dominant, I do remember right before the two groups merged, worrying that there would be friction when they met. But I just wasn't sufficiently clued in to True Alpha relationship dynamics. :cool:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014638When you put it that way, we do have a two alpha situation, combined with passive others. What do you do with two alphas?

Meet with just the three of you and hash it out.  Throw the responsibility into their laps, and tell them as the "alphas" in the group, you expect them to come up with a workable compromise.

"Alpha" to me implies wanting to be the leader. Seems to me I've seen quite a few players who are quite active but aren't necessarily wanting to lead the group. Seems much more common to me than players I would think to refer to as alpha (thankfully, or there might be much more Thunderdome).

Quote from: Skarg;1014736"Alpha" to me implies wanting to be the leader. Seems to me I've seen quite a few players who are quite active but aren't necessarily wanting to lead the group. Seems much more common to me than players I would think to refer to as alpha (thankfully, or there might be much more Thunderdome).

Well, they both want things to be done the way they think is right -- they don't necessarily need to be the leader, but it naturally ends up that way when you try to seize the direction to push it the way you think is best.

This thread made me realize these two players just love arguing with each other in general, it's like their hobby. They do it about other stuff all the time. So them doing it in D&D is just an extension of their out of game relationship.

As for why I never just split them up, I never wanted to because they are the two most dedicated players to the game and bring all of the energy to it. It would be sorely missed. (Especially since the remaining players basically sit around twiddling their thumbs whenever those two aren't there.) And having them clash is often a source of good drama... but it's true that it can get out of control and needs to be reined in.

So I'll probably talk to them or try some other methods to get them to move along like harsher encounters or something.