Gwazi Magnum

Characters growing in power without getting OP?

There is always the issue of what to do after reaching a certain power level.

To explain, on the site I would roleplay on before joining the Guild it was star wars themed. It started off very controlled, all gun slingers, smaller scale adventures. The power level slowly grew as they got more skilled, gain new friends and more tech. Eventually the force made it's way though, and that force starting growing very much like the Bell Curve Brovo mentioned.

This did last for a good few years mind you, but eventually when we finished our big plot we were left with nothing. We already did the biggest thing possible, saved the Galaxy. What else could we do? Save the Galaxy and it's cat? With smaller scale adventures now seeming more pointless cause if the lower power level that community ended up ultimately dying out after that epic moment.

Now, you could of considered this a successful roleplay ending since it did last a few years, but the main point being highlighted here is that we wanted to continue, but could find no real way or motivation to because the power level was so high, which is a common issue with high power levels.

defusing a bomb

Most of that post is largely the same argument I'll have the same response to, so I'm not going to make four different quotes simply reply with the same thing four times.

So in regards to what I'm not quoting, I'm not making the assumption everyone is troublesome by default. I am simply acknowledging such players exists. Big difference.
You can't act like every time there's a player conflict the GM is fully within their power/capability to resolve it peacefully and favorably. It doesn't always work that way. It's a nice sentiment, but you are doing no one any favor's by giving advice the assumes any failed attempt to make players get along is instantly the GM's fault. It's just flat out ignoring a type of player exist.

I am not suggesting walking in and treating everyone like those kinds of players like you seem to be claiming I am. But simple acknowledgement that some battles a GM can't fix is rather important to notice and accept, especially when you're giving advice to GM's in need, so you need make them feel shitty about themselves when in fact they have no reason to be.

TLDR:
Admitting something exists is not the same as treating everyone like that something.
Admitting something exists is not the same as being a Pessimist.

Kestrel said Also, I'm talking within the context of the guild, not some other forum you've been playing years ago irrelevant to this thread. As far as I'm concerned, there are entire communities dedicated to those.

It's happened on the Guild also, and even if it hasn't it's not a foreign concept. You can have an Interest Check, and OOC and an IC just like any other RP. It's just that authority and power is not majority being handed over to one person. It's a shared/equal effort, and nothing in the Guild forces you to have a GM, it's just commonly accepted culture.

XCOM Roleplay - An Open Discussion on How It Should Work

I also agree with the middle option, when you're fighting against an alien force against all of earth it makes sense your sending most of your manpower at it, but giving specific focus to the best soldiers among them.

Katawa Shoujo ~ Disability Girls ~ (All Genders Welcome) REBOOT

defusing a bomb

Kestrel said Or maybe I approach people as individuals. I've dealt with a number of issues, and the only real issues I've had with inter-player conflicts were when I wasn't around. Maybe I've been lucky with my roleplayers, or maybe I've simply not put up with bullshit as much. Maybe I can approach people and call them on their actions without making them go into instant-defence. I don't know (that's a lie, I do). Most people are reasonable. Most people can be worked with. Understand that people come to RP, most of them do so to escape, others do so as a creative effort. Once you understand motivations, you can cater to them. Trick is you need to anticipate and observe. You need some knowledge. And yes. If you lack that, a few bad behaviours can kill your roleplay off mercilessly. And yeah, actually having decent people management skills is tricky, most people don't know what GM'ing entails. Here's a hint though, which you will hear from every GM of long-standing RP's; it survives because of the group being connected.

Most people go into auto-defense mode when criticized. Unless if they are a notably open-minded person (and/or respond well to total honesty) you often tend some kind of Charismatic charm to get a point across to them where they're somewhat in the wrong without making them go total defense.

I do agree that a RP survives largely because the group is connected, and that most people are there to RP. But at the same time, just as some are there to escape and others to be creative you got those who RP simply for things such as stroking there own ego. Me and an old school friend of mine who both use the Guild know of a third person like this, and we purposely hide RP places (Such as the Guild) from him because what happens every time he RP's is he makes a Mary Sue, get's mad when anyone else does anything that somewhat takes away from his glory and then (literally) throws a tantrum if people don't back off and let him keep being a Mary Sue.

Now, obviously that's an extreme example. But there are players who even on a lesser extreme mainly come to feel epic, amazing or gain attention. And this can cause conflict rather quickly if another character is also doing something that deserves some praise or attention.

Then there's the whole matter of player style, some players may like dialogue heavy RPs, other's may like action heavy. There are cases where players do simply don't mix, you can just expect 100% of the time the random assortment of players you gather from an interest check will all get along. If often does not turn out that way, and it may not always be the fault of a certain person but rather styles simply differ too much.

Kestrel said People management doesn't mean acting like a parent either. That's a very sad way of looking at it, or plain and simple ignorance. Know how I approach pretty much any conflict? It goes like this; "Hey mate, got a minute?" I approach people as equals and rather than telling them they are bad and should feel bad, I explain the behaviour and the effect, and the context if needed. I'm not approaching it as if they made a mistake for which they have to repent, I approach it like they missed something. I resort to authoritative measures if I have to, or if people are uncooperative. But really, like mentioned before, most people just want to indulge in escapism and/or write a fun story. They want things to be fun and without conflict and as soon as you realise that, the sooner you can work with it.

That's making the assumption everyone react's well to sugar coating, or that such situations are not common. Some people can read through such wording and recognize it basically for what it is "Hey man, I don't like/think you should be doing ________" and at that point it's up to that individual. Are they able to accept the criticism and change it? Or will they get defensive and refuse? Now, sugar coating is known to work on most people (it's why it's what's culturally accepted when we need to break the news to someone), but it is never a 100% tactics. Lot's of people (especially online, and even more in an RP site. A collection of people often rejected by normal society, most likely meaning in some ways they do not follow typical culture).

Now, let's assume this is the case where sugar coating does work though. Then most of your points do hold true, but once again it still boils down to how that player is able to receive and adapt to criticism and information. It's not a case of "If GM says ______ & _______ the RP will not suffer". Putting the responsibility on the GM for how others react is just unreasonable, a GM can try to minimize the damage sure. But they are not in control over what their players do, they power and influence only extends as far as players are willing to listen.

Kestrel said Sure, a RP can live even though they're a bad GM, because the GM is not the only factor that determines the RP. But regardless your statement is incredibly, incredibly stupid, because the way you phrase it you suggest the GM-factor is negligible, which it is not. The GM is a very important factor and you need a lot of work put into it by other players, taking over certain GM-duties one way or another, to offset a bad GM. It's possible, but it sure as hell is a lot fucking harder. It's the difference between rolling over a combined number of 4 with one or two d6's. You can do it with one, but it's harder.

You seem to be of the belief that a GM is necessary to run an RP. In which case if you're so willing to call an opinion that says otherwise as stupid I feel the need to break it to you that you have been very restricted/sheltered in the kinds of RP's you've been in.

Have you not ever been in an RP where the GM has quit and players as a group took over? Have you never been in an RP where there was no GM, it was simply a universally combined effort to make a story? That was about all of my RP experience before joining the Guild, and it works well. It can keep an RP alive and a close community of players for years (which it did).

There are some style's of RP where an assigned, authority-holding GM works better for players. Allows things to be more easily decided and kept on track. But there are also times where it's possible to get by without any real GM but simply by a universal group effort. If you prefer to keep all your RP's with a GM that's fine. But to deny that other systems works well is really just ignorant to the kinds of systems and possibilities out there.

Kestrel said You don't understand that you don't always rule in one's favour and condemn the other. Half the time you can work it out by consensus, and if not usually some sort of compromise is possible. This view you have is very narrow-minded. You associate dictator-ship with malevolence and not listening to others. Every time someone complains. That's not the definition of dictatorship. It means you make all the decisions, but not what your decisions entail or how they are made.

Honestly, at the risk of being called out for using the argument of authority; have you ever lead a successful RP? I have several, with different people. I failed a few times, sure, but I was able to identify what I could have done and learned from it. Not once I went "but waaah the people!" Some persons are harder to work with than others, sure. RP'ing is a numbers game also (hence the importance of writing a good interest check) but all these are factors you can influence. Denying this limits your growth as a GM. By telling people this you're limiting them also, just because you can't see past your pessimistic attitude. If you want to be a successful GM, you need to think in terms of solutions. If something doesn't work, analyse why and what you could do different.

I never claimed anytime someone complains it's dictatorship. Please don't put words in my mouth, arguments tend to hold much more weight when you're not straw manning the other person.

I have led successful RPs before, and I've also been in successful RP's where there was no real leader. And sometimes you need to recognize when some players don't mix well, or a certain player simply is not ready for an RP. To act as if everyone is always able to get along with everyone else, that everyone's style works with everyone else, or that everyone is always ready/capable of any kind of RP plot or demands is really just not paying enough attention to the different types of people there are. That's not going "waaaah the people!" that's recognizing that humans are a varied species and no two people are always going to be able to get along.

Also, you claim that there are factor's a GM can influence (which is true), but then go on to say that telling players this limit's their growth because of a 'pessimistic' attitude that I hold? First, my stance is not pessimistic, it's just different than yours. I recognize certain combinations just don't work out, I don't simply say "anything can work if you try hard enough!". Also, a GM being able to influence things (mainly to help a RP) was mainly your argument, so I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by now attacking the argument as if it was my own like it will somehow disprove my point.

I do agree that if something doesn't work you can analyze and figure out what you can do different, we do learn from our mistakes. That's fact, but having an ability to learn from mistakes doesn't = any combination of players or styles will always be able to work out. This isn't a Bioware game where you can get the perfect ending with certain dialogue options, this is real life with living, breathing, thinking and feeling people. And there will be times you simply cannot win, or there will need to be a loss one way or the other. And there will be time's where the best route is to simply not involve yourself in another's conflict.

Kestrel said GM interference when necessary =/= constant interference. You can't think I'd constantly be playing police. Then I'd have to admit to your parent-metaphor.

A lot of GM's do, and these are the GM's that have their RP's die the most.

If you're not like that then that's good. But then I'd really like to know where your issue was with me to begin with when I said there a times a DM just shouldn't get involved and let the players sort things out.

Katawa Shoujo ~ Disability Girls ~ (All Genders Welcome) REBOOT

defusing a bomb

Kestrel said Nah. The only issue is presence. You act as a mediator; if conflict arises, you ask them to talk to you before they talk to each other. You gather their concerns, get a grip on the situation and base a decision off of it. Also explain your course of action.

You must of had very obedient roleplaying friends though if you honestly think that. People aren't always going to get along just because you try to act as a mediator, conflict can happen and often times a third party like a GM getting involved only escalates it.

Kestrel said ... No. Above all else, you're a facilitator. You provide the setting and plot for people to tell a story in. And I use storytelling loosely. However, besides the IC environment, you're also responsible for the OOC environment. If you allow shitstorms to rage on, you're doing a bad job as a GM. Take this from me; one shitstorm is enough to kill an entire game. But here's the thing. You don't give up, shrug and say "Well, I guess they just weren't a good mix." You make sure everyone sits down and talks it out. You create an environment where conflict is resolved. A lot of things can be resolved if you act quickly and properly, and your RP's will be healthier for it. Even if you lose a player or two in the process, simply creating that environment is an assurance to other players. People adapt to their environment, especially if they want to fit in, so make it a positive one.

Actually yes.

You're right in that one shit storm can kill an RP, but that doesn't make you the Roleplayers parent. Nor does it mean that they need one. An RP's survival is not simply the result of a good GM, it's a result of group effort. The GM could do everything good and it still falls apart because players don't get along. A GM could do everything wrong and it still lasts because the players learn to get the RP moving regardless of (or without) the GM.

Can you solve some issues by intervening quickly? Yes, but that doesn't mean that is a GM's constant job. If a GM is always butting into other people's conflicts as if they're the dictator of all conflict or issues you'll only piss people off because you're essentially removing their own ability to act and think for themselves. Good intentions or not, GM's who try too hard to dictate or control how players act are the one's who eventually get players walking out on them because they're being too controlling.

Like you said, people adapt to their environment. Especially if they want to fit in, which only helps to highlight people are capable of resolving issues without constant GM interference. Or if you treat them like children that need to be controlled that's exactly what you'll get, rowdy children.

The Online world of Zion

Also edited my CS now to change the username. I figured a generic username like AddictX360 would get annoying to constantly be called by in an RP.

Katawa Shoujo ~ Disability Girls ~ (All Genders Welcome) REBOOT

TimasheTiger said
Dude your character is from Ottawa, Canada, there is no technically. And yea unless I'm thinking of the wrong side of Canada, I'm pretty sure your character's preferred language is English and you can do so.

Hey, hey, HEY! Canada has many anime weeaboo's who are more Japanesse than Canadian at heart! :P

And I say that as a Canadian, and yes Ottawa is majority English. However it's one of the area's where there may also be a decent french population (but the character is English mind you. Like me he doesn't speak a bit of French),

defusing a bomb

Kestrel said In the future; don't let players argue amongst each other.

Easier said than done. A DM holds the power and responsibility over if something is accepted or not, but they're not the roleplayers parents. A DM can speak or advise against conflict all they want, but if players are in the mood then it will happen, and nothing the DM can do will stop it. You're the story teller and/or organizer, but not the care taker. If your group of players are constantly bickering it's probably a sign your players just aren't a good mix.

Rilla said You handle it simply.Tell them both that you'll be making decisions on the character, and that your word is law. If the first one leaves, after you accept the 'similar-but-not-quite', that's probably someone you don't want anyway, as they could easily turn into the type of player that threatens to leave any time they don't get their way.If you think the second one is too similar, request the changes to make them different and see where it goes. Essentially, you're the GM, your word is law and they have to respect that. Just stand up to them, as otherwise, they'll run all over you... repeatedly.

This, combined with Captain Jordan's post below...

Captain Jordan said Finding a balance between this, and being a dictator, is the crux of any good leadership. Good luck!

Is basically what I would be advising.

As the GM you have a certain amount of responsibility on you to keeps things working, but you can't always be held responsible for players either. Sometimes you just get a bad egg, however and GMs get this confused with "The GM is never wrong/always right", get rid of this mentality, now. I've dealt with many GM's and Admins who acted as if they had all the power and were not to be questioning. One was an D&D campaign who drove his campaign to the ground cause of it (and out of spite sabotaged the following one out of revenge), other's simply felt they could dictate every last thing a person was allowed to say or do (Both IC and OOC), or ran a site as an admin/mod with a similar mentality. Those last two cases without fail would see the majority of their players gather up and leave elsewhere as a result (often on account of me saying "Fuck this, let's go somewhere where people are treated fairly" sometimes on account of others).

Now, you may be going "That's all nice, but how do I act then rather than how don't I act?

For that I'd simply pay a few moments of attention of the admins of the Guild. They're some of the only people in charge of such a huge community where even after constant evaluation I have yet to find anything wrong with, and I'm someone who on more than one occasion has a horrid GM/Leader and as a result of their bad leadership got everyone under them to follow me elsewhere, where people wouldn't be ass holes (and they'd all be thankful for it in the end).

Basically, establish that you're the one in charge, that in the end you're making the final shot. But listen to your players, find the issue, see if you can find a solution that works for everyone. If you can't do whatever seems the most fair/just. You will still make enemies, you will still get the odd player storming off, but you should have the majority of people under you happy with your leadership. People willing to go the extra mile to help you because they're happy with you in charge, rather than simply sitting there obediently until someone can convince them to move elsewhere.