TheRPGSite

I play an offline game with a lot of IRL friends, and it is mostly a social gathering.

There are a lot of off-base behaviors, like side-convos, or even going up from the table to go sleep on the couch when you're bored and so forth, or being on your phone for like 2 hours of the game, sometimes for the rest of the night. Normally I ignore this since what do you expect when people are just hanging out? But the last game it got out of control and now I am cracking down on it.

The question is, how rare is this sort of thing? Is this something most people just put up with or if such a person showed up at your group would they be seen as ridiculous?

When my group gets together to play...we play. That's why we're all there...to play. You pay attention to the game, the GM, and what's going on around the table. Period. Nobody wanders off or goes to sleep or plays on their phones. That's not getting together to play D&D (or whatever game). That's just hanging out. If I was ever invited to a game group and saw that, I'd walk out then and there.

My former group constantly played together for almost 2 decades, but then came the time we barely met outside our RP sessions, so we also began to chat a lot OOC and yes, it can hurt the current GM and group too if not kept in check. I suggest at start of your next sesson/meeting that you discuss this problem but stay understanding, maybe agree on coming earlier together or staying longer from now on to just hang out and chat isntead of doing it during the game.

PS: Perhaps not being an ass to Saber and Archer would also help ;)

Quote from: joriandrake;1012707My former group constantly played together for almost 2 decades, but then came the time we barely met outside our RP sessions, so we also began to chat a lot OOC and yes, it can hurt the current GM and group too if not kept in check. I suggest at start of your next sesson/meeting that you discuss this problem but stay understanding, maybe agree on coming earlier together or staying longer from now on to just hang out and chat isntead of doing it during the game.

Yeah, this is kind of what we have going on. However, because of everyone's tight schedules, they can't meet earlier than the game, and they can't stay much later afterwards. We DO often go out to eat together beforehand, but that doesn't include everyone. People also filter in at different times, so we often have to stop and get up and let them in an sit them down and catch them up on what is happening. When it's once it is fine but sometimes it is basically a straight hour of letting someone in, catching them up, chit chat, then someone else arriving, and so forth. Maybe I should just give up on the idea of having any semblance of order and let it become "hanging out." But it is frustrating.

QuotePS: Perhaps not being an ass to Saber and Archer would also help ;)

The King rules all.

I can't even comprehend behavior like this. You get together to game, so game. If you want to hangout, chat, sleep, eat and other bullshit, do it another time

You might want to consider, and discuss, to have every second or third session be ONLY game. So you're still okay with having a more casual session now and then, but also a focused game oriented meeting at agreed upon times.

This isn't perfect, and it highly depends on if the other players agree and follow this rule, but if they DO follow it you can say you handled the issue well. The best chance to get them agree to it is if you don't say 'every second week', but say 'every time/second time I'm the GM' because if you're the GM players will be more likely to listen when youdecide over your own time.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012714I can't even comprehend behavior like this. You get together to game, so game. If you want to hangout, chat, sleep, eat and other bullshit, do it another time

I understand where you're coming from, but some people just don't have "another time" to meet up. I know, I've been there with my own group.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012698I play an offline game with a lot of IRL friends, and it is mostly a social gathering.

There are a lot of off-base behaviors, like side-convos, or even going up from the table to go sleep on the couch when you're bored and so forth, or being on your phone for like 2 hours of the game, sometimes for the rest of the night. Normally I ignore this since what do you expect when people are just hanging out? But the last game it got out of control and now I am cracking down on it.

The question is, how rare is this sort of thing? Is this something most people just put up with or if such a person showed up at your group would they be seen as ridiculous?

It is very common. Some people just accept it and carry on, other people get really annoyed by it.

My view is that, as a GM, whatever makes the players happy is fine, as long as it doesn't annoy other players,

We have a player who gets sidetracked very easily, which has annoyed other players, so we have several rules in the game now:

• No mobiles when playing (Suggested by other players)
• No outside game conversations, or at least limit them to one an hour (General rule)

Another player tends to dominate the game, for the right reasons, so we have asked him to tone it down a bit. He writes the game up in a notepad, so we pointed out that the writeups read like Shan Agar (his character) and her mates, or "What Shan Agar and her friends did", so the new chronicle is subtitled "The Chronicle of the Arganauts".

One of the other players is often late to a game, so we wait for him, or start without him. Even if we play at his, he has to help put his daughter to bed, or has to eat, meaning he is just as late. We put up with this. His girlfriend is a player and joins after putting their daughter to bed and is sometimes so tired that she only takes a minor part in the game. Again, this is fine as it is the level of commitment that she can give.

I dont have the time or patience for behaviour like that.
I make it very clear before the game: either play or leave the room.
If you argue, I´ll throw you out and lock the door.
Yes, that means no phones - drop your phone now and dont touch it again... or fight me for it here and now, and if you win I´ll leave.

I just remembered, we had for a while a VERY chatty fellow with us, I handled that by making everything spoken at the table also spoken ingame. It was the most drastic measure i took.

This resulted in hilarity as the thief tried to sneak while speaking with the ranger about some TV show, or arguing before the city guards at the gate how they should trick the guards or knock them out to get in there. (don't do the second one as that was a bit too much on my part) I was usually lenient but that guy made the hair on my back stand up.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012698I play an offline game with a lot of IRL friends, and it is mostly a social gathering.

There are a lot of off-base behaviors, like side-convos, or even going up from the table to go sleep on the couch when you're bored and so forth, or being on your phone for like 2 hours of the game, sometimes for the rest of the night. Normally I ignore this since what do you expect when people are just hanging out? But the last game it got out of control and now I am cracking down on it.

The question is, how rare is this sort of thing? Is this something most people just put up with or if such a person showed up at your group would they be seen as ridiculous?

Going to sleep on couch, or 2 hours on phone, would likely result in a ban from my game - usually.

If one of my NHS nurse players turned up absolutely exhausted, then half way through apologised and went to sleep on the couch for the rest of the afternoon, I'd put a rug on her and roll with it. :)

If a player was in the habit of taking phone calls at the table I would tell them to stop, then dump them if they persisted. If they apologised and left the table to take an emergency call, ok, life happens.

Generally, my rule of thumb is that a game session was sucessful if not one player looked at their phone once during the 3-5 hours of the game. Recently I've had 100% on this, but I recall running high level 4e D&D there used to be a fair bit of surreptitious phone viewing.

Quote from: S'mon;1012728Going to sleep on couch, or 2 hours on phone, would likely result in a ban from my game - usually.

If one of my NHS nurse players turned up absolutely exhausted, then half way through apologised and went to sleep on the couch for the rest of the afternoon, I'd put a rug on her and roll with it. :)

If a player was in the habit of taking phone calls at the table I would tell them to stop, then dump them if they persisted. If they apologised and left the table to take an emergency call, ok, life happens.

Generally, my rule of thumb is that a game session was sucessful if not one player looked at their phone once during the 3-5 hours of the game. Recently I've had 100% on this, but I recall running high level 4e D&D there used to be a fair bit of surreptitious phone viewing.

I think, for sure, that part of it is on me -- D&D combat can be boring sometimes and that means people will get bored and be tempted to look at their phones. That means I need to improve my game. But I don't think that's an excuse still because there are other players in the same game who maintain 100% proper behavior.

The people who go sleep on the couch tend to be people with busy work schedules. But we ALL have busy work schedules. And it happens every time. So I dunno, it may be a necessary fact of life to have their participation, but on the other hand, I already have a more loose game with tons of people and with a more social attitude (though the same problems are present there).

I specifically made this game with a cap of 4 people and to be more focused on actual D&D, out of the same group of players.

Life is too short to put up with bullshit.

There is an old saying, "Are you here to talk or play cards."  Tell all the players to rate this on a scale, with 1 being "all talk"  and 100 being "all play cards."

Then decide your own rating.

Then disinvite anybody more than 10% off your rating.

We have a board game group.  When my work schedule lines up we meet a a pub twice a month, dinner out, beer and board games, 8 - 15 people are common.  Often I will play something qwick and then just chat afterwards.  Sometimes I won't play anything.  But in that situation the chaters don't prevent gamers from gaming.  

If you have 4 players, and one of them often racks out for half the game, he needs to go.  He clearly doesn't have time.  If someone says "sorry guys I'm beat I need to crash" I can roll with that.  And as I said before we have a guy in out Mystery on the Orient Express that falls asleep quietly in his chair every game.  But he's not disruptive, he catches back up immediately, not once have we ever had to explain to him what was happening.  And the rest of us are active, engaged, and focused on the game.  

Sounds like your players are not.  I would find that disrespectful.  I put in a lot if prep before hand and a ton of concentration during.  I do that for the players.  If the players don't care, I won't do that.

I would recommend a conversation.  Tell them you want to game not hang out.  Phones are disrespectful in every social situation.  If he's that tired don't come.  If he's that tiered every night he needs to examine his life style.  

And hey, if people are more interested in hanging out then role play, play a board game instead.  You don't have to prep, and you don't have to concentrate any more than any one else.  Turns come faster so there's no reaching for your phone.  

If people do want to role play set some rules.  No phones at the table, if you need to make a call, get up leave the room and make it.  Everyone works on cross talk.  Cut it way back.  Set aside a half hour at the start for catching up. Deal with the couch crasher.  Set a time to start, have people RSVP, if they have to be late, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for 1 and only 1 of the players to catch them up.  If you want to start at 8 and one person can't show up til 9 and the next at 10, don't start til 9.  Or missing half your players do something else.  

If people won't RSVP or are seriously later than they said, thats disrespectful, probably not intentionally, probably they just can't get their shit together, but eventually they stop getting invited.  

These are just my ideas for a code of conduct.  Obviously your group will need its own, everyone needs to buy in, and everyone needs to help, not enforcing them, but remibding people, getting them back on track.  

You also have to be strick with the rules on yourself.  Especially with table talk and punctuality.

Quote from: Headless;1012788I would find that disrespectful. ... thats disrespectful,

You are 100% correct.  Once again, why do people put up with shit in gaming that would not be tolerated in any other leisure activity?  Try this fuckery in a bowling league, for instance, and you'd be out in a week.

I ask again... are gamers so fucking pathetically desperate for attention that they tolerate shit no sane adult would endure for ten minutes?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012714I can't even comprehend behavior like this. You get together to game, so game. If you want to hangout, chat, sleep, eat and other bullshit, do it another time

Agreed. But some players have shorter attention spans than others. And some really fucking shouldnt be playing any game at all.

Im used to some players fidgeting during planning stages. But I point out to them that when they have the limelight someone else is likely fidgeting while they plan.

Overall though everyone more or less pays attention and contributes at my table when Im DMing.

So theres times players come over to chat and not game. But when I've been asked to run something they sure as hell better be there to game and not chit-chat with eachother instead of gaming.

addendum: I did for a while have one player who had their computer on hand during sessions and would not stop texting with people online and it got to the point where I said turn it off or stop playing because you arent really playing. After that they made an effort to close down or just ignore till session end the chats.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012698I play an offline game with a lot of IRL friends, and it is mostly a social gathering.

It sounds like the game session isn't very engaging.

My personal tolerance is pretty high, as long as everyone is enjoying themselves. My only expectation is when I talk in my GM voice is that my players listen. Gathering is a social activity for me and the game's competitive seriousness is non-existent for me. For that there's Org Play and Cons, and those don't interest me. I can slip into immersiveness quickly as necessary.

It's also one reason I don't play boardgames or CCGs too easily, especially with "serious people who came to seriously game!" Most games are ridiculously easy to manipulate the players to get your desired result and ignore the game's mechanics. So the less serious and competitive the table is, the more I can get into the pleasure of RPG immersion.

It's not the wolf I want to feed. I got enough of that from my video game and CCG years, particularly from tournaments. It is one of the reasons I also try to explore suboptimal strategies, and go with the flow of random generation. I'd rather be personally challenged at most, pleasantly engaged at best.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012698The question is, how rare is this sort of thing?

Not as rare as I would like it to be. I think that it is easier for people to tune out, nod off, or distract themselves with a device when

• people are not gaming in person i.e. via text, chat, or video
• one or more players spend a long time waiting for their next action or turn in the game
• a lot of planning occurs (where "a lot" just means more than one or more players enjoy).

To put nodding off in context, I've seen highly paid execs nod off in work meetings either just after lunch (food coma) or during late night, time-zone shifted video conferences.

It could be 3am after a buffet meal and the execs wouldn't nod off if they were negotiating their bonus for this year.

If the topic is engaging for you, you pay attention. Thus, if your players aren't engaged enough for you, make things more engaging. Likewise if the player is unhappy with how engaging the game is, they should try to do more interesting things, and be more interesting.

Step on up, or step on out.

Depends.

Is this a Friend Group with some gaming or a Gaming Group with some friends?

If its a Gaming Group, then make the Gaming the priority.

If its a Friend Group, then make the Friend social stuff the priority.

But either way, the phones stay in pockets.

That generally doesn't happen with the people I game with. If they're too tired, boring, or distracted to play, they probably shouldn't be playing, at least not in a way that their participation is required.

I do have ways to make use of occasional input from people who aren't regularly participating, but I get them away from the game when they're not, and they aren't used for anything necessary for play to continue. Like, they could roleplay a character when they're around if detailed explanations aren't necessary. Or they could add flavor to NPC or adversary behavior when they are around.

I'm pretty easygoing. Most of my players tend to want to pay attention during the game, even in moments where their PCs aren't present. But I don't care if they don't pay attention, so long as whatever they're doing doesn't become so disruptive that it gets in the way of the people who are currently playing.

Same rules as everything else. There's no wrong way to game except to disrupt other people's fun. If this is a group where people are there to shoot the breeze and don't mind getting sidetracked, then it is fine. If people want to get on with the game, then don't be disruptive. If the group is genuinely split, then it needs to address this difference in expectations.

Like much of this whole adult-ing business, it really just boils down to 'don't be a jerk.'

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013671Same rules as everything else. There's no wrong way to game except to disrupt other people's fun. If this is a group where people are there to shoot the breeze and don't mind getting sidetracked, then it is fine. If people want to get on with the game, then don't be disruptive. If the group is genuinely split, then it needs to address this difference in expectations.

Like much of this whole adult-ing business, it really just boils down to 'don't be a jerk.'

In this case, we have a core of friends playing the game who are there to play.

Then we have 3-4 friends who are playing because they want to hang out with everyone else. I let them play because they're my friends and I like having them around, the more the merrier. So normally, there's a mix of both "focused gaming" and "hanging out." The problem is when their hanging out disrupts the game, which it has gotten to recently.

8 people?  No wonder.

When gaming.
1is a thief or assisan.
2 or 3 is a strike team
4 is a party
5 is a mob
And 6 is a shit show.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013679The problem is when their hanging out disrupts the game, which it has gotten to recently.

Pretty much what I suspected when I read the original post. Not much we can really say though. That's where the "address this difference in expectations" comes in, and that's just a calm, reasonable, adult conversation.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013679In this case, we have a core of friends playing the game who are there to play.

Then we have 3-4 friends who are playing because they want to hang out with everyone else. I let them play because they're my friends and I like having them around, the more the merrier. So normally, there's a mix of both "focused gaming" and "hanging out." The problem is when their hanging out disrupts the game, which it has gotten to recently.

I've dealt with that mix often.  What we eventually decided was that there was game time and there was hangout time.  We made sure to have some of each, and the group agreed roughly what it would be.  We aren't complete sticklers.  If everyone is into the game heavy and time is precious, we'll focus more.  If we surprisingly get done earlier than we thought, hey more time to shoot the breeze.  So that only leaves two problems for me to manage, which are doable under that framework:

A. Keeping an eye on things. See if we need a social break.  Make sure when we on game, we have something worth being on game with.

B. Managing the transitions.  You can't always say, "Bzzt, the clock chimes the hour, time to switch."  Generally, I'll give players 5 minutes to make the transition themselves.  If they don't, I'll start gently pulling them around.  On the few occasions where even that doesn't take, I'll put on the Viking Hat for a few seconds.  

It also doesn't hurt to give the more social players something social to do within the game.  That tends to make them more engaged.  Try to cultivate situations and characters such that the PCs are engaged in discussion in character.  It's a good idea for a large group, in any case.  For example, let some rivalries and intra-party friction develop.  To compensate, make some of the challenges a little less tough, so that the party need not be a well-honed machine to survive.  Don't merely do that.  Discuss with the players that you are going to do it, and exactly why you are going to do it.  In a mixed gamer/social group, this is the activity that everyone will enjoy to some extent.

They already do have lots of discussion. That part, everyone enjoys. The problem there is that (as I've discussed in threads here before), some people never want to move on and discuss decisions forever, while others want to just settle on something and move on. Or someone who is outnumbered will never stop arguing their case, and everyone is just stuck. Then that's when people start getting bored and tuning out.

That or someone kicks the door down and starts a fight to move things on, but the decision isn't settled and the instant there's a chance to contest it again, the whole thing restarts.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013710They already do have lots of discussion. That part, everyone enjoys. The problem there is that (as I've discussed in threads here before), some people never want to move on and discuss decisions forever, while others want to just settle on something and move on. Or someone who is outnumbered will never stop arguing their case, and everyone is just stuck. Then that's when people start getting bored and tuning out.

That or someone kicks the door down and starts a fight to move things on, but the decision isn't settled and the instant there's a chance to contest it again, the whole thing restarts.

Not all discussions are created equal.  There are discussions that are moving things along, creating an interesting picture, and so forth.  Then there are discussions that are just hashing the same old thing.  When the are socializing out of character, do they get into long-winded discussions that feature an hour of, "I'm right", "No, I'm right"?  Of do they move things along?  I the former, and the people involved actually like that kind of thing, boot them from the gaming sessions.  They can't even socialize right, so why would casual gaming work for them?  If they have their characters constantly do things that they as people wouldn't tolerate in a social situation, call them on it.

"I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" is pretty much what it is, though for us it's not disruptive, in a sense, since it's how the people in question are outside of the game with each other too. It's like those situations where you have people who always end up arguing with each other in every situation no matter what, eternal opponents. Except now it's in the game. We find it rather funny and enjoy their antics, normally, but the problem is when it stalls the game since neither side will give up.

Or they're forced to move on because the group ignores them, but then they drag their feet or point out every setback that follows is because "you didn't listen to me," etc.

I've tried implementing an out of game voting system I enforced, to force a vote and move things along as well, and it worked decently, but it didn't stop people from trying to undermine the eventual decision in more subtle ways.

You just have too many people.  If you want to get any gaming done you need a smaller group.  Some people can game with 8.  But they have specific structures.  And specific people.   From the sounds of it many of your players won't succeed in a group that size.  They won't invest the discipline required.

What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Things that help:

- Simpler systems, though that isn't absolutely required, I think some of the MIT SGS Champions games had more than 8 players in a session...

- People who are willing to be non-disruptive when they don't have the spotlight, pay attention if it's important, and if not important, pay enough attention that they can pop out of their navel gazing and immediately pay attention or respond as necessary (they old "Fred, wake up, roll a d20 to attack" has worked in the past).

- Longer than 4 hour game sessions (with a 4 hour game session each of 8 players must average 30 minutes of spotlight time that is shared between their dialogue and taking action and the GM).

- Players who are happy to be Fred whose major contribution is rolling dice when it's his turn to swing (so he commands at most a few minutes of spotlight time out of each hour of play. Believe it or not, such players existed back in those days. These days, those folks may be content with computer games.

- We didn't have cell phones back then...

My first session outside my small circle of friends was at one of MIT's Summercons. My friend who had invited me had lined up 16 players to play in my game by the time I got registered, assigned a table, and made my way to my table. Somehow I pulled it off, everyone had fun, and a couple of the MIT SGS members took me aside at the end, complimented me on how I ran things, and invited me to join the club (as a 16 year old). I also had a college Fantasy Hero campaign that hit 10+ players in a session regularly until I split it.

Now there were also large campaigns that had way more than 8 players, but they didn't all play in the same session. Some of the MIT SGS D&D campaigns had probably 20 players circulating among them.

Frank

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Well, those huge OD&D groups had a Caller, have you considered that option?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013728Well, those huge OD&D groups had a Caller, have you considered that option?

Yes I have, though I don't really understand how it works, because: 1) people still have to debate, 2) how do you reconcile a player deciding OOC with their PC not necessarily being someone the other PCs would follow and squaring it with the game fiction, 3) what happens when the caller says X, but 30% of the group wants Z? Do they just have to go along with it? It kind of feels metagamey then like they're being forced to go along just because it is a game. But on the other hand, you gotta do what you gotta do. It is not that different than everyone voting and then the majority getting its way; the problems that arise are that the people who got overruled only unenthusiastically go along with it. Like, let's say a Fighter didn't want to fight these orcs, but now they're fighting them. Instead of doing his job and holding the front lines he might just be the first to run away when something goes bad and ensure everyone else gets swarmed.

That or people not being able to agree who should be in charge since they might not trust either of the two big arguers as leading them, but meanwhile everyone else is too passive to command everyone.

Ahh...

1. The players all have to be on board with making a large group work.  The first rule of large groups is that, "Thou shall not waste time."  It's up to the group as a whole to decide what is worth spending time upon, and what is not--but then stick to that decision, or if it isn't working, change the decision.  If everyone is having fun doing X or talking about Y or shopping for Z, then by definition in a game, it isn't wasting time.  If some people are not having fun with the activities happening, then at least their time is being wasted.  

2. A key issue is how you avoid wasting time.  You don't entirely avoid things that at least some people enjoy, but if it bores others at the table, get on with it.  There is no reason why many in game discussions need take more than a few minutes.  Frequently, five minutes will do.  If it turns into a fun discussion with everyone or nearly everyone involved, sure go on for 30 minutes or even an hour or more.  Someone really wants to shop?  OK, you've got 3 minutes to interact with the store owner about buying that new whetstone.  If something more engaging arises out of the conversation, that's not part of the limit.  At a fundamental level, this is simple courtesy, the same way a person should not button-hole a stranger at a game store talking about their character for 15 minutes.  (Oh wait, I think I see part of the problem here. :) )

3. There needs to be some small amount of "control time" spent on managing and analyzing things, so that issues that are wasting time are nipped in the bud.  This is the job of everyone in the room, not just the GM.  Given the current problems in your group, I'd spend 5 minutes per session just on that.  Once it gets under control, 2 minutes a month might be enough.    

4. Develop a system for telling people when to get on with it, that must be honored and enforced.  You'll have to experiment, because unfortunately, one size most definitely does not fit all.  Ideally, it is something that can't be ignored, but also doesn't break off the current activity immediately.  I like an egg timer flipped over to give 3 minutes to finish whatever is currently happening.  Once the timer is flipped, someone in the party has to take charge and move on, or the GM does whatever is necessary to advance the action.  If the party can't agree who is in charge or what to do, hit them easy the first time then escalate sharply each time in a session the problem repeats.  This should be all explained in advance.  You can use any method that works to manage the notice/timer, but there should be a delay between the notice and the action.  Once the group agrees on how this will work, you can't back down.  If they waste time repeatedly, all options are on the table, including assaults from random monsters of overwhelming force that send them running for their lives or cut down where they stand.  If the group is unhappy with how this is working, it's up to them to suggest modifications to the procedure that work but they find more satisfactory.  Random monsters is just the start.  I put this under the heading of, "And then something bad happens."  That can be weather, NPC initiated events, anything you can think up.  They need not be immediate, either, though it's nicer to a group working out the kinks in the process to use immediate ones at first.  But don't underestimate the sheer threat of uncertainty.  The timer beeps as it expires.  "Oh, well I guess that's started then.  OK, so what do you do now?"  

5. Things like the "caller", the "mapper", rotating "leaders", and other ways of successfully managing a group should be decided upon by the players and enforced collectively by them on each other.  Your job as GM is to advise and assist in this process.  Your stick is that they must communicate a decision to you in some way that is timely and accurate--you don't really care how they go about it as long as it works.  If, for example, they decide on "caller", but then several players constantly argue with the caller on minor decisions, their process is not working.  Players are always free to go against the caller.  That's necessary for the concept to work.  They are not free to do so on ever minor thing with no consequences.  It's up to the players to find another way, or police their own ranks.  

6. Be patient while you work all this out.  You need some time to experiment to find what works, and that means mistakes.  Have a "time out" option when things are not working, to step out of the game, and either come up with a quick work-around or get agreement to push through with the current system for now, even though some players are chafing.  Don't let these time outs go very long.  Again, 5 minutes should usually be more than enough time for everyone to get heard, and a snap work-around selected.  It's up to you to recognize the rare exceptions when stopping everything and hashing things out for an hour is the best course.  Pick wisely.  If you need to do this more than once or twice a year, your basic system is untenable.

Also, same kind of idea from another angle:  It works to say, "We are all here to game.  Anyone that isn't, can stop coming."  Why does that work?  Well, it's a clear line.  It cuts out people that won't honor the line.  

If, for whatever reason, you don't want to draw a line that clear or that strong, the group still needs a line and a way to explain it.  This puts more responsibility on the players.  There must be more give and take.  But not infinite give and take.  The idea of, "We want a mix of gaming and social, that changes focus from hour to hour, person to person," is doable.  But it's also difficult.  You can't enforce the letter of the rules on that one.  So the group must enforce the spirit of it.

I don't worry about people on phones or cracking jokes that aren't disrupting others trying to pay close attention.  My goal in playing RPGs isn't to accomplish something in game, but to have an entertaining time around the table with the players.  If everyone's laughing and having a good time, I don't worry about what progress is or isn't made in the game.

That said, if people are arguing about what to do next and this causes people to tune out because they're put off by the arguing, then it's up to the DM to resolve the situation.  That doesn't mean pick a winner of the argument.  It can be as simple as ignoring those people and taking actions from those who are tuning out, and moving the game forward while leaving arguing characters standing there.  Don't sacrifice a game session to consensus.

I haven't had problems of IRL friends arguing to the point of derailing a D&D session before.  That usually happens between people who have no tie to each other except jointly playing a D&D game, and so is a pissing match.

@ Chaotic.

You have been posting about this enough by now that I atleast know you can't do what you want with the group you have.  

So to answer structures, a leader.  

To answer players- not yours.  


Sorry dude.

Quote from: Headless;1013743@ Chaotic.

You have been posting about this enough by now that I atleast know you can't do what you want with the group you have.  

So to answer structures, a leader.  

To answer players- not yours.  


Sorry dude.

As of last session I threw in the towel on making it work with 8 people and cut the group down to 4. However, I run 2 campaigns with these people, so the other one is still 8.

The first campaign was easy to cut down on since each session was episodic. But the second one has most of the 8 integrated into the plot... it'll be hard to just cut them out and maintain any sort of consistency. I will probably have to wait until the campaign ends and then do it.

By leader, do you mean an OOC leader?

Quotedon't worry about people on phones or cracking jokes that aren't disrupting others trying to pay close attention. My goal in playing RPGs isn't to accomplish something in game, but to have an entertaining time around the table with the players. If everyone's laughing and having a good time, I don't worry about what progress is or isn't made in the game.

I don't normally sweat it either, the problem is when all of the joking and laughing is disrupting the players that are trying to focus on the moment. Sometimes I think, "mAc, why are you making a big deal out of this, everyone is having fun anyway and you're just taking it too seriously," but then I see that some other players clearly are annoyed by it too and they thanked me when I raised it as an issue.

Actually I mean an in character leader.  One that asserts and defends their authority.  Up to the point of executing rebellious player character when they don't obey orders.  

But thats not what your group wants.  So you will not have order.  

Not that ypu need to have order.  But in your case I think you will need to take steps at least that drastic to get it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

A referee with some balls.

"While you were standing around arguing a wandering * roll roll * Spectre showed up.  You are surprised."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013730Yes I have, though I don't really understand how it works, because: 1) people still have to debate, 2) how do you reconcile a player deciding OOC with their PC not necessarily being someone the other PCs would follow and squaring it with the game fiction, 3) what happens when the caller says X, but 30% of the group wants Z? Do they just have to go along with it? .

1) For every ten seconds of debate roll a wandering monster check.  For the second check in a row use two dice.  For the third roll three dice.

2) Play with grownups.

3) See 1.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013752A referee with some balls.

"While you were standing around arguing a wandering * roll roll * Spectre showed up.  You are surprised."

Since at heart this is an out of game problem, it doesn't even require a referee.  One player willing to put a foot down would solve it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013755Since at heart this is an out of game problem, it doesn't even require a referee.  One player willing to put a foot down would solve it.

But the referee has the ability to check for wandering monsters.  After a few times of "While you stand around dithering with your thumbs up your asses, a wandering monster shows up and takes chunks out of you with no reward," either they will start to figure it out, or they are too stupid to bother playing with.

There IS a player willing to put his foot down, who in-character is in the best position to be leader, but he's also the one who the party doesn't want to follow half the time. It usually goes like this:

Party: Hey, we need to defeat this dragon. Let's go to his lair and scope him out.
Lone Player: No, you fools! That'll get us all killed! Let's travel three weeks down south and find the orc tribe, then forge a letter pretending its the dragon threatening the orcs, deliver it to the orcs, convince them the dragon wants them dead, then set the orcs loose on the dragon! Then we'll be safe and everything will work out!
Party: But that's so much more impossible and complicated. Why can't we just go check out the dragon?
Lone Player: No, it's genius! You guys are going to get us all killed.
> 4 hours of arguing later
Lone Player's Rival: Whatever! I'm kicking down the door and we're going in! I don't care if we die! I just want to do something!
Lone Player: Fine! Don't blame me when we all die! I'll come but I want no part of this. I warned you!

As for rolling random encounters, I do that when it seems realistic (ie, the timing I'd normally roll it) but wouldn't it feel unrealistic if monsters magically appear every time they stand around? Maybe I could structure the environment so it makes sense in-game.

But yeah, as you can see, the character who'd be the "in character" leader would be the one they always buck heads with. So if it was an out of character decision instead, then there's the question of how it makes sense in-game.

I think what you guys are telling me is I should me meddling more directly in the game flow as GM, calling for votes, and then when the vote is game forcing the game down that direction. That or pointing to the caller and telling him to announce his decision after X time.

The sad part is, I had a chance to test what the dynamics are one session when said player was not there. Do you know what people did? They decided to wait for him to be back next session and actually did even less because they didn't know where to go or what to do or that it wasn't in-character to take charge.

So despite all of the friction he actually ends up being the one moving things along in the end because he's so stubborn everyone just defaults to his idea after enough arguing.

Your players suck.  Get different players.

What I mean by a player leader here is someone who is willing to tell the group, as fellow players, "this is not working."  That's not the only way to fix it.  Gronan's way will work, too.  I'm just saying that one player willing to take leadership could fix  the issue of the players not being able to function as even a social group of people.

"Until you clowns get your act together I'm not running this game any more because I'm bored and frustrated."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013764"Until you clowns get your act together I'm not running this game any more because I'm bored and frustrated."

Alternately, the DM is boring and frustrating, and that's why the players are being "disruptive."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1013765Alternately, the DM is boring and frustrating, and that's why the players are being "disruptive."

Solution is still the same.

@ Mac

I don't think you can solve your problem from your chair.

The natural leader can try.  He can say, "I'm in charge, this is what we're doing!" and cut down the first person to argue.  But thats not going to work.

Any of the other players can probably solve it.  "He's in charge we're doing what he says." then cut people down

The best person to solve it is the rival.  All he has to do is get out of the way.  If he offered enthusiastic violent support your party would soon be running like a well oiled machine.  

The best you can do is come to a stopping place and give the Gormans ultimatium.

But I have a feeling you are already coming to realise that.

Ah, getting them two to align is good advice. There is in character reasons too since the rival swore the other player into the same faith and is his godfather now.

What is Gorman's ultimatum?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013793What is Gorman's ultimatum?

By "Gorman" he means Gronan.  The ultimatum is:
"Until you clowns get your act together I'm not running this game any more because I'm bored and frustrated."

Let your party naturally split up. Not all personalities, as PCs or players, can play well together. And if their split up falls along the hardcore v. socialite lines, all the better. Take advantage of the natural friction.

Another route is the premeditated, slow-boil version of Gronan's specter showing up:  You announce that you will be gradually but surely ratcheting up the difficulty until it is such that only a reasonably cohesive party can manage.  This will involve difficulty of foes and the response times needed to deal with situations.  Then do it.  Throw something trivial at them, fast.  Let them walk all over it.  Then turn up the heat.  Keep doing that until they learn or you kill the whole party.  It will likely get very painful short of death, such that they try to change.

I've used that exact technique three times, and it was a success every time.  Twice, the slow approach allowed the players to work out the kinks before it was fatal.  The other time, they eventually worked them out with their replacement characters (slow learners).  

If you do this, just remember to back the heat off a little once the lesson is learned, unless you happen to be one of those groups where everyone likes it that hot.  They do exist, but they aren't all that way.

I often run large-ish groups - 6-8 players is common.

My solution is much like Gronan's Spectre. My games all have overarching events in the background. AKA, the various NPCs and villains are doing stuff and while the PCs are playing with their virtual junk, their foes are burning down cities.

I always have ticking time bombs in my game world, and I'm unafraid of letting the nukes fly if the PCs don't save the day.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013760Your players suck.  Get different players.

Or they should try playing a different game.

Maybe Paranoia or other game where inter-party rivalries work better.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012798Once again, why do people put up with shit in gaming that would not be tolerated in any other leisure activity?  Try this fuckery in a bowling league, for instance, and you'd be out in a week.

I don't see this bullshit in my boardgame meetups.

I wonder if its the cooperative and on-going nature of RPGs.

AKA, even when playing a co-op boardgame, its only for 1-3 hours and the end goal is pretty pre-determined (win or lose based on these constraints), but a RPG is incredibly open ended by comparison.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1012798I ask again... are gamers so fucking pathetically desperate for attention that they tolerate shit no sane adult would endure for ten minutes?

Have you seen what some people fuck?

Its amazing (or vomit inducing) what so-called sane adults will tolerate for attention.

Quote from: Graewulf;1012705When my group gets together to play...we play. That's why we're all there...to play. You pay attention to the game, the GM, and what's going on around the table. Period. Nobody wanders off or goes to sleep or plays on their phones. That's not getting together to play D&D (or whatever game). That's just hanging out. If I was ever invited to a game group and saw that, I'd walk out then and there.

This.  We might be having a beer and joking a bit, but we focus on playing the game.

 I'd just stop the game if people did what you describe as you are not really playing it, in fact it is getting in the way of hanging out.  Frankly, I'd rather go out than hang out where people sleep on the couch and spend 2 hours on their phone.

 As a side note, I've experience what you described when younger when people really just wanted to party, talk, etc., and in every instance it's just better to end the game and do something else.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013832Another route is the premeditated, slow-boil version of Gronan's specter showing up:  You announce that you will be gradually but surely ratcheting up the difficulty until it is such that only a reasonably cohesive party can manage.  This will involve difficulty of foes and the response times needed to deal with situations.  Then do it.  Throw something trivial at them, fast.  Let them walk all over it.  Then turn up the heat.  Keep doing that until they learn or you kill the whole party.  It will likely get very painful short of death, such that they try to change.

I've used that exact technique three times, and it was a success every time.  Twice, the slow approach allowed the players to work out the kinks before it was fatal.  The other time, they eventually worked them out with their replacement characters (slow learners).  

If you do this, just remember to back the heat off a little once the lesson is learned, unless you happen to be one of those groups where everyone likes it that hot.  They do exist, but they aren't all that way.

Mhmm, it seems like GM's probably wouldn't have this sort of problem if they ran games where players needed to pay attention or unfortunate things were liable to happen to their PCs before too long.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013723"I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" is pretty much what it is, though for us it's not disruptive, in a sense, since it's how the people in question are outside of the game with each other too. It's like those situations where you have people who always end up arguing with each other in every situation no matter what, eternal opponents. Except now it's in the game. We find it rather funny and enjoy their antics, normally, but the problem is when it stalls the game since neither side will give up.

....

How old are your players?   This is pretty adolescent-like behavior, although I have observed even people in their 30's act this way...some never grow out of it.  You could have their characters settle it with combat, a fight to the death.

Or have the PLAYERS fight to the death!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;10137531) For every ten seconds of debate roll a wandering monster check.  For the second check in a row use two dice.  For the third roll three dice.

2) Play with grownups.

3) See 1.

I'm saying number 2.  If grown-up players want to play and are bored they are not going to do all this sort of passive-aggressive disruptive and rude behavior.  They speak up in a congenial manner, you are all friends after all.  If they don't want to play they are not going to pretend to play, then just back-out on it.

I'm still going with these players are young, and have way too much time on their hands.  I haven't had time to waste to hang out for hours and hours being bored since I was in my teens.

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

Now that only works if you can legally place bets on it.  Remember what happens at game-night stays at game-night.

Or have them split into two groups: the ones who agree on something to do, and those who want to discuss more.

Run two groups, or one... (e.g. start with the group that agree what to do, have a session with them where they do it, then have them mention to those still planning that they've done the thing).

That's one place where having a dungeon is brilliant.  "While you clowns were dicking around arguing for four sessions, the other group cleaned out the first level and half of the second.  They're all third or fourth level now and you haven't even left the inn."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013726What structures and what kind of people?

I know it's possible, in THEORY, since I've heard tons of stories about huge D&D groups in ye olden days.

Well, I'm doing a megadungeon-centred 'expedition' campaign where every session is a Delve, PCs always start & end Back In Town. This is excellent for maintaining focus and Getting Things Done. Plus I have a co-GM running the dungeons around the next village over, together we can accommodate around 12-14 players I guess (6-8 to me, 4-6 to him)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;10137531) For every ten seconds of debate roll a wandering monster check.  For the second check in a row use two dice.  For the third roll three dice.

No 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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013758There IS a player willing to put his foot down, who in-character is in the best position to be leader, but he's also the one who the party doesn't want to follow half the time. It usually goes like this:

Party: Hey, we need to defeat this dragon. Let's go to his lair and scope him out.
Lone Player: No, you fools! That'll get us all killed! Let's travel three weeks down south and find the orc tribe, then forge a letter pretending its the dragon threatening the orcs, deliver it to the orcs, convince them the dragon wants them dead, then set the orcs loose on the dragon! Then we'll be safe and everything will work out!
Party: But that's so much more impossible and complicated. Why can't we just go check out the dragon?
Lone Player: No, it's genius! You guys are going to get us all killed.
> 4 hours of arguing later
Lone Player's Rival: Whatever! I'm kicking down the door and we're going in! I don't care if we die! I just want to do something!
Lone Player: Fine! Don't blame me when we all die! I'll come but I want no part of this. I warned you!

As for rolling random encounters, I do that when it seems realistic (ie, the timing I'd normally roll it) but wouldn't it feel unrealistic if monsters magically appear every time they stand around? Maybe I could structure the environment so it makes sense in-game.

But yeah, as you can see, the character who'd be the "in character" leader would be the one they always buck heads with. So if it was an out of character decision instead, then there's the question of how it makes sense in-game.

I think what you guys are telling me is I should me meddling more directly in the game flow as GM, calling for votes, and then when the vote is game forcing the game down that direction. That or pointing to the caller and telling him to announce his decision after X time.

The sad part is, I had a chance to test what the dynamics are one session when said player was not there. Do you know what people did? They decided to wait for him to be back next session and actually did even less because they didn't know where to go or what to do or that it wasn't in-character to take charge.

So despite all of the friction he actually ends up being the one moving things along in the end because he's so stubborn everyone just defaults to his idea after enough arguing.

Ugh. I've seen a Lone Player like this, but with a bit more charisma, totally destroy a campaign.
My advice would be you need to seriously clamp down on him, to the point of possibly booting him from the group.
Weirdly enough, he would probably be fine in a solo campaign where you could run with his weirdness. But these guys are toxic to a regular group.

Quote from: S'mon;1013985Ugh. I've seen a Lone Player like this, but with a bit more charisma, totally destroy a campaign.
My advice would be you need to seriously clamp down on him, to the point of possibly booting him from the group.
Weirdly enough, he would probably be fine in a solo campaign where you could run with his weirdness. But these guys are toxic to a regular group.

Even though he's right? Even though his hairbrained skeams will work, acording to the DM?  Who is the best judge/ultimate arbiter.

Quote from: Headless;1014008Even though he's right? Even though his hairbrained skeams will work, acording to the DM?  Who is the best judge/ultimate arbiter.

Well I get the impression his schemes work because he is an OOC dominant personality overbearing the GM's weaker/more pleasant personality, not because they were really great in-world.
But even if he is a competent schemer, yes, he is dysfunctional with that group.

You read the part where he didn't show the rest of the party didn't do anything at all.  

But the group is dysfunctional.

Quote from: Headless;1014015You read the part where he didn't show the rest of the party didn't do anything at all.  

Because they were afraid of what he would say/do when he came back.

A GM has to either be:

1. the most dominant personality in the room (relative to the other participants, which may not be all that dominant in an absolute sense), or;

2. have total buy-in and cooperation/support from those of more dominant personalities than they.

Or else things go off the rails.

Quote from: EOTB;1014040A GM has to either be:

1. the most dominant personality in the room (relative to the other participants, which may not be all that dominant in an absolute sense), or;

2. have total buy-in and cooperation/support from those of more dominant personalities than they.

Or else things go off the rails.

I 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. :\

Quote from: Xanther;1013942How old are your players?   This is pretty adolescent-like behavior, although I have observed even people in their 30's act this way...some never grow out of it.  You could have their characters settle it with combat, a fight to the death.

We'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.

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. :D
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.

Quote from: Skarg;1014736"Alpha" to me implies wanting to be the leader.

I was using it to refer to natural leader types, who are very different from the LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! jerkass types who want all the attention but can't lead. Like I said, real leader types are well attuned to social hierarchies and can normally operate smoothly together.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014816Well, 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.

Put them in a room.
Lock the door.
Slide a knife under the door.
Unlock the door when the screaming stops.

Usually a problem of two alphas will resolve itself because one is likely to be more appealing to the intermediate (you could say beta) players who are partially engaged but not looking to lead.  The alpha that loses that contest may or may not fall in line; if they don't, they usually leave the group.

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).

Not allways. Sometimes one player gets elected leader because they are a good negotiator, tactician, organizer, or whatever. They may not necessarily want that position. From experience as a player and at LARPs as the elected leader It can be a real hassle. Other times its fine.

Quote from: Omega;1016211Not allways. Sometimes one player gets elected leader because they are a good negotiator, tactician, organizer, or whatever. They may not necessarily want that position. From experience as a player and at LARPs as the elected leader It can be a real hassle. Other times its fine.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say is my experience too. I know more players who can lead, and can and will find motivation, make plans and take action with or without others, without having what I'd call an "alpha" personality. The players who I might label "alpha"-ish are rarer in the people I've gamed with (and the ones I'm thinking of have sometimes had a hard time not competing all the time even when it's sort of OOC).

Quote from: Omega;1016211From experience as a player and at LARPs as the elected leader It can be a real hassle.

Quite.  A large part of me dropping out of LARPing is that it ate my fucking life.  Every weekend event, my phone would be ringing Monday and Tuesdays whether I was at the event or not, either in dealing with the fallout, or with the "Do you know what happened??" nonsense.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1014816This thread made me realize these two players just love arguing with each other in general, it's like their hobby.

Talk to them. Explain they are the key players and key problem. Then demand a solution.

If they don't, here's an option for you. New rule = highest CHA is the leader. AKA, your PC views THAT PC as their leader. Now roleplay THAT.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013760Your players suck.  Get different players.

"But I only play with my friends..."
"Your friends suck. Make new ones."

I hope it works out Macular. Unless your party reforms itself, eventually (sooner not later) you are going to have to make adjustments to your player roster. In any case, don't submit to bad gaming, and just do something else with your friends.

Quote from: S'mon;1014843I was using it to refer to natural leader types, who are very different from the LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! jerkass types who want all the attention but can't lead. Like I said, real leader types are well attuned to social hierarchies and can normally operate smoothly together.

I often play characters that are Leroy Jenkins "LOOK AT MEEE!!!" goofballs IC. But because I'm not a jerkass OOC I make sure to put breaks on them to make sure that they play well with others.

For example I RP low wisdom (or the equivalent stat) as my characters being easily led/tricked/dominated, so the other PCs can get my character to go along with their plans with a bit of supervision. I also generally try to make these guys very hard to kill and have good mobility (barbarian PCs or just buying up defensive stats) so I can do insane things and survive.

For heist based adventures my character is the one drawing all of the attention but doing something ludicrous so that the PCs can avoid attention and get on with the main plan. It got called "annoyance tanking" in one campaign, in that my character annoyed the NPCs enough to draw fire away from the squishier players.

Quote from: S'mon;1014843I was using it to refer to natural leader types, who are very different from the LOOK AT MEEEE!!!! jerkass types who want all the attention but can't lead. Like I said, real leader types are well attuned to social hierarchies and can normally operate smoothly together.

Yes, the latter type are not Alphas.