How to Run a Game (Part 19) - Dropping the Negatives

I'm probably going to wind up this series soon. I've noticed that in a couple of posts I've started going over the same stuff from slightly different perspectives, and that overlap basically means I've run my course with what I really want to say about this topic. I'll probably top before I hit post number 25. 

If anyone out these is reading this, and wants me to address something specific about running games, send me a message...make a comment on the blog...or contact me via some other method. I might revisit the topic in a few months, or a few years, you never know.

For the moment, let's look at one of the less desirable aspects of running a game...

Last post I talked about "Red Lights". 

Sometimes you just have to red light a player right out of a game.

I don't really like doing this, however for the good of the session (and sometimes the good of the group) sometimes it's necessary.

I mentioned earlier in the series that it's a good idea to curate your players. Getting the right players along to a game before it starts is a whole lot easier than removing players later who prove to be problematic. But sometimes you just don't realise that someone is going to be an issue in a game until the session has begun... or maybe you don't even notice it at first, but come to the conclusion after a few sessions that the player either just isn't a good fit for the group or isn't a good fit for the types of narrative that are developing at the table. 

This can apply in a variety of circumstances. 

• The player might always be trying to start fights in a game focused around investigation and social interaction.
• The player might be trying to engage in social interactions when everyone else just wants a good fight.
• The player might be constantly cracking jokes, or making Monty Python quotes when everyone else is trying to establish a psychological horror vibe.
• The player might be constantly trying to make gunpowder in a pre-gunpowder setting (or similar anachronisms, then trying to justify it with long-winded explanations that use logical leaps that similarly wouldn't be appropriate in the setting).
• The player might be constantly interrupting other players during their actions.
• The player might be regularly metagaming by incorporating stuff into character that their avatar in the fiction shouldn't know.
• (Yes, most of these I've seen... and in many cases they hampered or destroyed games)

There are numerous reasons why a player might be a mismatch for the group, or the mood the group is trying to establish. I always try to work with the player, up to a point. The Traffic Light situation helps to remedy immediate issues when they first arise, it's generally a fairly subtle solution. A debrief at the end of a session is always good too. Sometimes, to be honest, a narrator might have trouble with a player, but everyone else in the group enjoys what that player is bringing to the table. In this situation, maybe the narrator needs to reconsider their expectations, maybe slightly altering their storytelling technique to accommodate the player. A good open debrief doesn't need to be confrontational, it just needs to allow everyone the opportunity to talk about the session that has just played out, and it can be a good part of closing off the liminal space before everyone heads back off into the "real world". 

If the group as a whole agrees that a certain player is problematic in the game, but they're a good friend otherwise, perhaps there are underlying issues that the player is expressing through the shared imaginary journey. Here's where things get tricky. It's where we need to consider "bleed". We never want to abandon that person, but instead help support them through their expression of issues. We've set up a safe and welcoming environment, and we've established the idea that what happens at the table stays at the table. We may not be therapists, but we're a peer group who probably know the player better than any therapist could. We can guide, we can support. 

If the group is split between those who like the player, and those who think the player is too disruptive for their imaginative space, it might be a good idea to split the game into two halves. Those who want one style of play, and those who want the other. Perhaps run two shorter stories during each session, one group can play boardgames or magic, or watch TV while the other plays... then swap over. You can make the two stories interconnected in some way if you feel up to it.

If the group wants the player to change the way they address the shared imaginary space of the narrative, the debrief session is a great place to bring this up. I wouldn't kick the player out after a single disruptive session, because everyone has bad days. However, if the group of players had to address this type of issue with the same player regularly, then I'd seriously consider a three strikes and you're out ruling. Otherwise everyone else is just wasting their time and the hobby will be tainted for them by a single player.

I mentioned "Tommy" before (in the 7th post of the series). He's still a regular player in certain sessions, but he's taken to spontaneously attacking other players in game and when confronted on the issue he gives an assortment of reasons (and excuses), including the old chestnut "It's what my character would do". This was even his reason when he did something risky in game, and when the risk didn't pay off (he knew the risks, failed a roll, failed a saving throw, and lost his character) he randomly drew another character from our stockpile and instantly sent his new character after the one he'd been previously attacking before failing his risky gambit. Why the new character would suddenly have a vendetta against the same character just didn't make sense. This is the kind of problematic issue that would make me seriously consider booting a player from the group. It becomes a further issue because "Tommy" is playing in our school sport sessions, rather than our lunchtime sessions where I'd have more autonomy to remove him from play. I may have to just play things out until the end of the school term and have him shifted to another "sport" for the rest of the year. So far he's been getting a lot of red lights, and conversations. 

Another player, let's call her Fiona, is really new to the idea of RPGs. She's at that level of escapism where she realises that she can do things in game that don't impact the real world, so she plays characters that set fire to things, or steal things, but she does it in a cheeky and mischievous way rather than deliberately targeting other players. There might be some unresolved issues that Fiona is working through in the game, or maybe she's just having some fun with her first few characters until she finds a character that she'll resonate with and settle down. I know that Fiona is a Star Wars fan, so I might throw her a character that functions a bit like a Jedi youngling and see how she responds to that. I don't want to boot her from the game because she's having fun, and the players around her are having fun too. We'll see how this situation unfolds over the next few months.

My general thoughts on the whole issue are that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the one. If one person is having fun at the expense of a few others, or at the expense of the majority, then I have no troubles dropping them from the game. If a small group is causing problems for a larger group, and the larger group are going to leave, I'd rather leave with them and give them a better entertainment form closer to what they're after (or split the group into two parts to give each a style of play that suits their respective agendas). 

Roleplaying won't be everything to everyone, and it's crazy to think that it should be, but it can be an interesting pastime, a fun tool for socialization, and a valuable tool for exploration of personality and character. With the right people, and the right atmosphere, a game can become something truly special, but with the wrong people and/or atmosphere it can be a confusing, confronting, or even anti-social event. Hopefully the tools I've been providing in these posts will prompt a few more positive games out there.