Quote from: SpikeIt ain't your problem, bub.  You've done you part.

Depends on who you're playing with. If I'd be running a game for a bunch of kids,  the need to get the silent ones into the game would be bigger than for a 40 year old who can't get his jaw moving...

On the other hand, most "non-intense" gamers I've had were just glad enough to be along for the ride. Usually very supportive and good for the group. New players are a different matter, they just might be silent for different reasons. And the "proud male" effect might catch them sometimes, so they won't exactly admit that they don't "get" the rules. Before talking, it often pays to just watch them during the game. If they look confused while they try to participate in combat, going over the rules one more time might be worth it. You don't even have to make it too obvious for whom you're doing it...

Quote from: RPGPunditThe ideal gaming group, in reality, is composed of a mix of players who are very involved and some who aren't.  A bunch of primma donnas all put together don't mix well, and if every player in your group is a quiet guy, then no one will move the party along.

RPGPundit

QFT.

I would also note, that sometime the quiet guy in one game is the loud/outspoken guy in another...

Quote from: JongWKTony, do you think that "quiet" players can detract from a GM's fun?

If I get my fun by tossing people a big tangled ball of snakes and watching them get excited and react viscerally to it?  Of course.  The guy's not going to do his "part" in that little exchange.  I'll toss him a big tangled ball of snakes, and he'll just do a little "Uh ... yeah, that's a ball of snakes all right," sidestep and then wait for me to make the next move.

I mean, you can certainly argue that having fun in that way is BadWrongFun or something ... but if that's the fun I'm trying to have, is there really any question that the guy can detract from it by not engaging?

Quote from: TonyLBIf I get my fun by tossing people a big tangled ball of snakes and watching them get excited and react viscerally to it?  Of course.  The guy's not going to do his "part" in that little exchange.  I'll toss him a big tangled ball of snakes, and he'll just do a little "Uh ... yeah, that's a ball of snakes all right," sidestep and then wait for me to make the next move.

I mean, you can certainly argue that having fun in that way is BadWrongFun or something ... but if that's the fun I'm trying to have, is there really any question that the guy can detract from it by not engaging?

Fallacious argument, Tony. The quiet guy MIGHT go, 'yup, that's a big ball of snakes'... and avoid it. Or he might 'handle' it his way. Just because he doesn't jump up and down screaming 'OMFG it's a big ball of snakes!!!" doesn't mean he's wrong. If he calmly goes 'I pull my battle axe and chop the ball of snakes out of the air, cleaving it in twain, then return to the business at hand'... is he wrong?

The GM's fun in NO MORE important that the player's fun. No less, sure. But no more. Just because YOU see it like popping a frog in front of a girls face and having her NOT squeal in shock, doesn't make her response unfair. ...

I can only go by what I know. I find it's more fun to play with people who get involved. I get impatient and bored if something's not going on.

I love my friend Simon and I'd never turn him away from a  game, but it makes very little difference whether he's there or not. Sometimes he falls asleep. Meanwhile, I'm actually playing with other people.

Quote from: SpikeIf he calmly goes 'I pull my battle axe and chop the ball of snakes out of the air, cleaving it in twain, then return to the business at hand'... is he wrong?

"Wrong"?  When did "wrong" enter into it?  I wasn't talking about right or wrong.  I was talking about what was fun for me.

Quote from: SpikeThe GM's fun in NO MORE important that the player's fun. No less, sure. But no more. Just because YOU see it like popping a frog in front of a girls face and having her NOT squeal in shock, doesn't make her response unfair. ...

No.  But it the fact that it's "fair" doesn't make it fun for me, now does it?

Quote from: TonyLB"Wrong"?  When did "wrong" enter into it?  I wasn't talking about right or wrong.  I was talking about what was fun for me.

No.  But it the fact that it's "fair" doesn't make it fun for me, now does it?

Well Tony. We can all agree that the guy who dodges the ball in soccer isn't playing the game and is wrong. See earlier posts in thread. Then you pop up and adapt the metaphor to a big ball of snakes, and equate the quiet player with 'sidestepping the ball'... returning us to the earlier soccer comparison, making the guy that ruined your fun as the GM... wait for it.... Wrong.


To which I cry bullshit.  His response is fair, valid and right. Your demand that he react viscerally for your amusement is selfish. Let me go so far as to say railroady. You want one specific response (reacting viscerally) and when you don't get it, the player isn't co-operationg with your vision of the game.

So, if that 'If I' statement you started your post with is any indication of how you play, I think most of us are in agreement in suggesting you are a less than optimal GM.




As for the second part: I wasn't aware that he was solely responsible for your fun. My bad.

Quote from: SpikeWe can all agree that the guy who dodges the ball in soccer isn't playing the game and is wrong. See earlier posts in thread.

No we can't.  What kind of straw-man are you trying to construct here?  You're the only one who's been saying this nonsense, and only in order to disagree with it.

Quote from: SpikeYou want one specific response (reacting viscerally) and when you don't get it, the player isn't co-operationg with your vision of the game.

Yes, that is true.  He doesn't have any obligation to cooperate with my vision of the game, of course.  But it is very much true that if I'm looking for that response, and don't get it, then it decreases my fun.

Quote from: SpikeSo, if that 'If I' statement you started your post with is any indication of how you play, I think most of us are in agreement in suggesting you are a less than optimal GM.

>shrug<  I was answering the question "Tony, do you think that 'quiet' players can detract from a GM's fun?"  That's a reasonable question about my fun.

You want to tell me that type of fun is BadWrongFun?  Go ahead.  I literally couldn't care less about that if you paid me specifically to be apathetic about your opinion.

IME there are two problems when it comes to the quiet ones.

The first, they fade into they background so well, that the other players and gm forget about this player and are only reminded of his/her existence during really intense situations - combat etc - which may break the whole mood of the game.

"Okay, the plan is set, everyone know what to do?...but wait..."oh we forget about Charlie..I mean, Denarth..."

The second, is that their silence is deafening. Everyone seems to be getting into character and engaging with the setting and each other, and this player is just sitting there...

The thing is, I've found that most of these kind of players can be drawn out of their shells. Indeed, they may be pretty shy when not gaming, but during a game, they leave their shells for a couple of hours...at least long enough to contribute to the session so that either of the above problems are eliminated or reduced.

Regards,
David R

With quiet, casual folks, I'm always wondering if they are as engaged as they want to be.

When asked, many of them waffle a little, in a way that constantly seems to indicate "I'd like things to be a little different, but I'm not sure how."

On the occasions where I hit something one of them really digs, and engages, I remember to present it more often.  On the occasions where they seem to be saying that they really are content, I butt the hell out.

For the ones that want something a little different, I'd love if I could find out what that is more efficiently.

I don't think people need an equal share of the action, I think they need a fair share. The fair share is whatever they feel comfortable with. Not what they'll put up with, but what they feel comfortable with.

This is another topic which shows just how social a hobby it is. That's why I went through and read each post and agreed that it seemed reasonable - even though they contradicted each-other. It's human relationships, about which it's often hard to say anything definitive.

I think that most people will have more fun when they participate more. And there'll be a synergistic thing going on, that if Quiet Quentin speaks up, not only will he have more fun, but Loud Larry will, too. I think of an rpg group as a team - teams work best when they work together. The example of the guy who falls asleep in the games - he's letting the team down. As a player, I'd ditch him from the team. He's taking a space more interested people could take, and if the bugger's sleeping, he won't miss the game anyway. There are enthusiastic gamers out there desperate for a group, why should they miss out so Sleepyhead can lie there snoring?

Now, that does not mean that every has to participate equally. If we have four players, they don't have to get exactly 25% of the spotlight time each. What usually happens is that in a group of four people, two of them will be extroverted and lively, and two of them will be quieter. So the lively ones get 40% of the time each, and the quiet ones, 10%.

I reckon that's okay. What's not okay is when the loud ones shout down the quiet ones when they do speak, reducing them to 2%, and when the quiet ones get all self-effacing and say, "oh I'm entirely happy with 2% of the spotlight time." But that's what happens.

It's because human personality traits aren't etched in stone. We respond to other people. I'm naturally foul-mouthed, but if I'm with a politely-spoken person, I'll be less foul-mouthed, and if I'm with a rude person, more so. I respond to the company I'm with. That doesn't mean I'm happy with swearing more or less, that just means it's my natural response.

Likewise, a quiet or self-effacing person, a reserved one, will become more so in the company of louder or more assertive people. So that 10% wil become 2%. That's what the GM is there for, to moderate things, and try to bring them more into balance. Not equal balance of 25% each, but the balance which people would be most comfortable with. Quiet Quentin isn't going to be comfortable if you push him up to 25%, nor is he comfortable if Loud Larry pushes him down to 2%. So the GM's there to try to bring him up to his natural 10%.

And that's not just for Quiet Quentin's sake, either - it's for Loud Larry. Loud Larry will have more fun if Quiet Quentin speaks up a bit more, than he'd have if he was essentially on his own.

Of course, there are also people who are comfortable with just 2% of the spotlight. I'm not interested in gaming with them. I want to game with people who want to game. Roleplaying is not a spectator sport. Join in, or go home.

Again, that doesn't mean everyone has to participate exactly equally. But they should have the chance to participate as much as they'd be most comfortable with, and if it's below some small percentage, then I'm not interested in gaming with them - since they're not really interested in gaming with me, they're just there to watch.

The reason that GMs need to watch out for this and take action is that often the quiet ones are self-effacing, not very assertive people. Or perhaps they're new to the group and don't want to make waves.

So for example, once I had a player who was very quiet, incredibly polite and modest guy. I'd sit at the head of an oblong table, he'd sit on my immediate left. Something like this:

- GM -
|               |
A              B
|               |
D               C
|               |
- E -

Naturally, the GM is going to look mostly at E, a bit at D and C, and rarely at A and B. That's why when you go on a date you sit opposite the person, not side-by-side. So anyway this quiet guy would sit at B. The loud assertive players would sit at E, or C or D. The loud players claim your attention, and the people sitting in your field of vision naturally get more attention. So the loud players were getting a multiplier effect on the attention they got.

I talked to quiet B, and asked him, "hey, you're a bit quiet, I think you're getting lost in the noise. Would you like to move around a bit on the table, that way I'll remember to call on you?" He agreed, and moved to E. I then moved the noisy players up to A and B.

The noisy players don't need any extra help in getting my attention as a GM, they demand it already. The quiet ones may need some help. I just arranged for some more eye contact between me and the quiet ones. It's not even always a conscious thing, "okay, time to call on this quiet guy." More like, as GM I'm there talking and telling them the situation, then I say, "okay, what do you do?" When I say, "you," I mean "the party," but whoever I happen to make eye contact with at that moment is naturally more likely to answer.

I did all that, and then the quiet guy went from 2% to 10% of the spotlight time. Not an equal share, but a fair share. A share he was comfortable with. He was only putting up with 2%. I could have just asked "are you happy?" but that's not enough. A GM has to poke and prod a lot more than that.

Now in my latest group, there's a different situation. One player isn't actually quiet, but he's self-effacing. He's always saying he's not up to the task, not much of a roleplayer or a GM, doesn't have any clue of what to do next in the game. But when you press him, he actually has fucking good ideas. So by pressing him for them, he has more fun because he realises his ideas aren't so crap after all, and everyone else has more fun because they get to play out his good ideas.

Sometimes you have to press the people, sometimes you have to move the chairs around on the table, because not everyone is loud and assertive and demanding. It's not enough just to ask them what they want - you have to watch them, too. If you just leave the players to it, they'll share out the 100% spotlight time amongst themselves, and we'll end up with 50% fun, because the luood guys take more time than they really know what to do with, and the quiet guys lose that time, and become more quiet than they'd like to be. If you try to be more active with it, watch them carefully, then you can spread it around more evenly and get at least 80% fun going on.

It's a funny thing, roleplaying - if you game with a lot of people, you start getting some insights into people as a whole, different kinds of personalities and how they interact.

Anyway, all that ramble is why I don't think people need an equal share of the action, I think they need a fair share. The fair share is whatever they feel comfortable with. Not what they'll put up with, but what they feel comfortable with.

And yes, all loud players is utter chaos. But then, all quiet players is utter boredom.

Quote from: TonyLBNo we can't.  What kind of straw-man are you trying to construct here?  You're the only one who's been saying this nonsense, and only in order to disagree with it.

Really Tony?  I just made up the whole soccor ball idea on my own? that's funny, 'cause when I looked up the thread to post this I found this from you...

QuoteThere's a girl on his team who never touches the ball. She will actively step aside to let a perfect pass miss her. She just saunters around the field while the game is going on around her. She seems to be happy. But she's not doing a damn thing to help my son be part of a team, and in fact she's stealing a good deal of his fun whenever she's on the field with him.

So, I know you know what I'm talking about.  Nobody disagrees that the kid playing soccer has to kick the ball, not just wander about aimlessly enjoying the pretty fucking grass.  Yet... you deliberately equate the quiet player with the girl playing soccer.

And when i call you on it you say it's a strawman?  

Maybe if you weren't  involved with the soccer ball idea to begin with. Seriously.

Now, if everyone else is talking about wether or not quiet players are a bad thing, you talking about your personal fun as a GM is only relevant in answer to the question... building an argument that they are not playing on the team is another critter entirely.

Quote from: SpikeNobody disagrees that the kid playing soccer has to kick the ball, not just wander about aimlessly enjoying the pretty fucking grass.

Well I disagree.  It's freakin' youth soccer.  Whatever they want to do is the right thing for them to do.  They're five years old, for pete's sake.

The only concern I've got is that her pursuit of her goals makes it harder for my son to pursue his goals.

She's not responsible for making him happy.  But I don't see any reason to ignore the fact that her behavior, no matter how perfectly reasonable and fair, has an impact on how much fun he can have.  Am I supposed to pretend it doesn't?

Quote from: RPGPunditAlso, why the fuck do you need all the players to be equally "involved" in a campaign? Personally, if there's one guy who is "low needs"; who feels happy with coming every week and playing and enjoying his game without needing every fucking plot to directly involve him in some way, or to get to spend hours dedicated to his issues and his plans, then the last fucking thing I'll want to do is try to change him into a primma donna! Shit, I would wish there were more like him.

That's true, but I think that GMs should strive to provide players equal opportunities to have plots happen which directly involved them. There's no harm done if they turn down the opportunity, there's plenty if they were hoping for it and you never give it to them.

Quote from: TonyLBAm I supposed to pretend it doesn't?

By all means, pretend what you like.  As long as it doesn't involve equating quiet players with bad, non-team players.

'Cause that boat don't float.