Quote from: RPGPunditI've heard people often complain about those players who seem to fade into the background a bit, always end up playing support characters, etc etc.  You know, the "quiet ones".

Why?  Because they are boring.

How is it for you to say they are boring?
Is it the other players job to entertain you?
How are you so sure that you aren't boring?
Do quiet players not have a right to play if they "bore" you?
If we can accept that roleplaying games are creative endeavors, is it ok to shit all over someones elses creative enjoyment just because they aren't method acting and emoting all over the place?
If the player is new to the game or perhaps even new to gaming, do they get a pass for keeping a little quiet while they figure out what the dynamic is?
How long does the pass last? (assuming they get one).


Here's my theory:
A creative community that regularly shits on other peoples creativity and enjoyment is one that doesn't deserve to survive.

Get ready for it: line-by-line.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow is it for you to say they are boring?

Because they don't say much, they just sit there like a lump of dirty laundry.  That's boring.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIs it the other players job to entertain you?

Yes.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow are you so sure that you aren't boring?

Because I'm cool.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDo quiet players not have a right to play if they "bore" you?

That's right.  They can play with someone else.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf we can accept that roleplaying games are creative endeavors, is it ok to shit all over someones elses creative enjoyment just because they aren't method acting and emoting all over the place?

What does intensity have to do with method acting?  Anyways, someone who isn't emoting (such as "Wicked, you kicked that orc's ass!") is boring.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf the player is new to the game or perhaps even new to gaming, do they get a pass for keeping a little quiet while they figure out what the dynamic is?

Sure.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow long does the pass last? (assuming they get one).

Until I start to get bored with them.

It's like hanging out with friends.  If some guy never has any interesting stories to tell, never tells any jokes, never contributes to the conversation, never does anything cool or interesting, what's the point of hanging out with him?

Quote from: Abyssal MawA creative community that regularly shits on other peoples creativity and enjoyment is one that doesn't deserve to survive.

Here's my theory: If I think you bore me, then we shouldn't be doing creative stuff together.

I dig your answer, Lost Soul, I really do. And your attitude.

That said, "boring" is a minor crime to me compared to some other ones.  You see, I'm talking about a gaming group that already has some "intense" people (you don't need more than two or three); the "boring guy" is GOOD for that group because he's one more warm body but one less guy competing for attention.  He's a desperately needed back-up player.

If I'm a player in a group (which is rare), I tend to be an intense involvement type, as such, to me, it would be way WORSE to have a primma donna player that wants to steal all my scenes, cut into my action, constantly demand the DM's attention, and wants every plotline to be about him; than the quiet guy.  Hell, the quiet guy is usually playing a fighter or something like that; I can get him into the game by making a point of having him as a sidekick (without using the word, of course), and he'll count as a valuable ally.

RPGPundit

To answer the OP, christ no. The more intense players i have seen around the playing table, the more disruption i have seen around the playing table. This may be just my experience, but i tend to see "intense" = "competitive" in many cases. The intense guys want to out intense each other and before you know it, you've unintentionally created a number of quiet players.

Just like in all avenues of my life, i want a mixed bag. I have some friends that aren't the most interesting people in the universe, but they are still friends (some of which i game with). I expect the same social conventions to apply to any game i take part in, not artificially constructed social dynamics between people. Chances are, a good proportion of people who are quiet in real life are quiet in roleplaying games. Does that mean they shouldn't be gaming with me? Hell no. There's room for everyone at my gaming table (well, you know, bar the trouser wetters and stuff).

I think a prima donna is worse than a boring guy.  He's the guy that always interrupts the conversation to say whatever retarded thing he has on his mind just to hear himself speak.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat said, "boring" is a minor crime to me compared to some other ones.

For what it's worth, I don't think it even makes sense as a "crime."

I don't get why everything that is a problem has to turn into a question of blame.

I've been reading a lot of Fantastic Four, so my examples are getting a little on the wonky side   Suppose I have a friend who is composed entirely of anti-matter.  He has a lot of fun being anti-matter, and traipsing around the negative zone.  And he's a good friend!  Brings me back macro-atoms and all that good stuff.  There's nothing inherently better or worse about anti-matter, compared to positive matter ... even the nomenclature's a question of which side was making up the names.

He is under no obligation to transform into positive matter on my behalf.  I certainly don't blame him for being made of anti-matter.

But I am still not going to give him a big, hearty hug.  Why?  Because the resulting explosion would destroy us both and crack the planet in two.

And yet, it seems like, the moment I say something like "Well, playing basketball with anti-matter Bob isn't really fun for me, because I like a more rough-housing game, so having to avoid physical contact spoils my fun," people are all ready to assume that I'm casting blame.  I must be saying that anti-matter Bob is a bad basketball player!  There's no other possibility!

Feh.  Some people are just flat-out too ready to draw up battle-lines.  If I ask anti-matter Bob not to attend our four-on-four game, it doesn't have to be because either of us is wrong.  It can just be because we don't play well together.  No harm, no foul.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I'm a player in a group (which is rare), I tend to be an intense involvement type, as such, to me, it would be way WORSE to have a primma donna player that wants to steal all my scenes, cut into my action, constantly demand the DM's attention, and wants every plotline to be about him; than the quiet guy.  Hell, the quiet guy is usually playing a fighter or something like that; I can get him into the game by making a point of having him as a sidekick (without using the word, of course), and he'll count as a valuable ally.

Hogging all the spotlight time, and other PCs are only there to revolve about the glorious firey globe of your greatness? So what you're saying is that in a game group, you're an Attention Junkie?

Somehow, that does not surprise me.

As I said earlier, one of the jobs of the GM is to bring forward the quieter, more self-effacing players, so that they have the share of game time they're actually comfortable with, not simply the share they can arm wrestle off the noisier players. I would add that it's also the GM's job to slap the Attention Junkie down, put them in their place. The game's not just there for you. If you want a game where you're the only star and everyone else is just there to support your glory, play a one-on-one game. But if you're playing in a game group, then sometimes you'll have to pull your fucking head in.

Compromise, and stuff.

The way I look at it is this:

The problem player is never the quiet player. The guy you have to watch out for is always, always, always the overly enthusiastic jackass.

When I join a new gaming group, I often spend my first hour or so as a fairly quiet player myself, sorta feeling out the group dynamic, and looking for the best places to contribute.

In the event I end up in a game with a fairly quiet player, my instinct is to help that person out, especially if he or she is new to the group. Maybe you give them an oppostunity to roleplay if your'e the GM, or when the group splits up or something you make a point of including them or enaging them.

I call this "being a good player".

Also, since I mainly game with people I consider my friends,  the idea of slagging off a player for being quiet as "boring" strikes me as repugnant.

UPDATE: Also total agreement with JimBobOz up above. As a GM you strive to bring forth the quiet ones a bit, and hold down the loud ones a bit. Eventually you get a working dynamic.  The important thing is everyone is comfortable.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I said earlier, one of the jobs of the GM is to bring forward the quieter, more self-effacing players, so that they have the share of game time they're actually comfortable with, not simply the share they can arm wrestle off the noisier players.

Yeah, this is good policy.  Hard as hell to implement, sometimes, though.  Drawing the line between "Putting them in the spotlight right now is giving them an opportunity to shine that they wanted, but wouldn't have taken for themselves" and "Putting them in the spotlight right now is forcing them into a position they didn't want" is hard.

'course, I've also been doing a lot of holiday shopping recently, so maybe the difference between "What they want but wouldn't get themselves" and "What they didn't get themselves because they don't want it" has been highlighted in my mind

I gotta agree with Lost Soul and (surprise surprise) disagree with Pundit. Being boring is the single most deadly sin of gaming IMO.

I love prima donnas. I am an unabashed prima donna by default. I love fighting other players for the spotlight, setting up dramatic situations which people WANT to focus on. I like it when players do that. If I'm in a group with mostly "quiet" people I try to ratchet it back a little, but really I prefere trying my best to get and keep the spotlight and having other players try to do the same.

Really, I can't understand the alternative. I assume quiet players are bored and not having fun because, well, they are boring to me, and I know when I'm quiet it means I either have no idea what is going on and don't know the rules or I am dreadfully unhappy with the game and just wishing it would end. No matter how much I know that other people don't think like me, I can't help but thing "When I'm quiet, it means I am very discontent and just wishing the game was over, he MUST be atleast bored or uninterested..."

Edit: I really hate the idea that it is the GMs job to put quiet players in the spotlight. You have a boring character, and you are quiet, and you don't draw my attention, guess what? You aren't gonna get my attention. Isn't my job as a GM. I'll give the prima donna the spotlight because atleast he A. wants it and B. will do something with it.

as a player it is more fun with people who are louder and get into the game. I play so much better with interaction than if half the group just sits back and waits for me to do something.

Quote from: SethwickEdit: I really hate the idea that it is the GMs job to put quiet players in the spotlight.

It's not. It's to give the quiet players the opportunity to step into the spotlight themselves.

Here's the spotlight, pointed at centre stage. You've got your really active-types, who'll go running up to that spotlight, and push aside anyone already there. "Me! Me! Look at me!" You've got your really reactive types, who'll stand around doing nothing until the GM points the spotlight at them. "Who? What? It's my turn? Oh, okay, I'll do this, then." At then you've got your passive types, who'll stand there just blinking at the light and saying and doing nothing.

Few players are entirely passive. Most are at least reactive, you just have to find the right buttons to push. Sometimes players are just quiet, and overwhelmed by the active ones. When there's some guy who follows the spotlight around and jumps into it, pushing aside anyone else, then others are sometimes going to just step aside when the spotlight comes their way.

The point is not to leave that spotlight on them until they do something. It's simply to give them a chance. It's like I said upthread about having a quiet player, and some noisy ones - the noisy ones would sit right opposite me, the GM, to make sure they could get all my attention. I moved them around so that the quiet guy was sitting opposite me, so he'd get some of my attention. If he didn't want to do anything, that was fine - but at least I remembered he was there and thought to ask him. If one of the noisy ones was opposite me, I wouldn't remember the quiet one sitting right next to me.

A GM's job is to give choices and options. But options are optional, you can just sit back and let events wash over you if you want to. That's fine. But sometimes other players erode each-other's choices and options. More often than a GM railroading players, players railroad each-other. There's one or two noisy people who dominate the game. That ain't good. It's a game group.

And sometimes, people are just shy. Haven't you ever had a shy friend who was reluctant to go to a party, you had to persuade them pretty strongly, then when they went, they had fun? Well, an rpg session is just like a dinner party. When you host a dinner party, one of the things you have to do is to keep conversation flowing, and make sure everyone's included. No wallflowers. That's what a courteous host does.

Quote from: SethwickYou have a boring character, and you are quiet, and you don't draw my attention, guess what? You aren't gonna get my attention.

As part of giving players choices, the GM should encourage them to make characters who aren't boring. "I see that your character likes swords, dislikes blunt swords, has a habit of sharpening his sword, and an ambition of getting a bigger sword. Perhaps if you were to diversify his interests, that'd give us more things to tie him into the campaign?" A character whose only interest is "swords" has few choices. A character whose interests include swords, tobacco, and broad-shouldered men, and who hates people humming, that's a character with more choices, more options in play.

If the player has a boring character, it's partly the GM's fault.

Quote from: SethwickIsn't my job as a GM. I'll give the prima donna the spotlight because at least he A. wants it and B. will do something with it.

Yes, it is. Your job's to gives choices and options. If you give all your attention to whoever most loudly demands it, that reduces the choices and options of the less noisy players. You may as well just go off and roleplay one-on-one with that one guy, and let the others find another game group where they'll actually get to do stuff.

It's a game group. It's not a Survivor challenge.

I'm starting to kind of get a handle on the demographic being talked about here: loud, attention-seeking players. Obsessive 'need' to roleplay with 'intensity'. Treating it like it's 'art.' Taking it a bit seriously... Willing to step on the "boring" quiet ones who are just there to game.

I think I have a handle on you guys.

Thank you, Jimbob, for handling Sethwick's comment so throughly and politely. Saved me from going in both guns blazing tearing shit up and generally making this an unfreindly discussion.

Hey, I know my limits.  :cool: