How to deal with a troublesome gamer?
Eddy Bee
gaming group, and I'd be interested in hearing any constructive ideas
folks might have for dealing with it. (By the way, this has nothing
to do with games specifically, and everything to do with
personalities, so please forgive me if this sounds a bit like a soap
opera...)
One of the core members in my group (let's call him Bob) is one of my
best friends - I've known him for over 30 years, and he is my best
gaming buddy. About a month ago Bob's girlfriend (let's call her
Sally), who I really don't know all that well, expressed an interest
in attending the weekly game night that I host.
The first couple of times she attended were fine, but now the
"honeymoon" period is over, and her true nature has started to show.
So far, I've gotten direct and indirect complaints about her from four
players in my group. The complaints are:
- she constantly interrupts while the rules are being explained
- when it's her turn she sits and complains that she doesn't know
what she should do
- she doesn't seem to retain the rules, so she is always asking the
most mundane questions about how to play, over and over and over again
- she engages in constant chatter during the game, usually a running
commentary of what people are doing, or should do, on their turn
- she exhibits a general level of immaturity
In short, she is genuinely starting to annoy some of the players.
Personally speaking, aside from the first complaint, I don't have too
much of a problem with her. Since I'm usually the one explaining the
rules and running the games, I've come up with ways to manage her
rules interruptions, and have been able to short-circuit her rules
ignorance simply by turning the tables and asking her what we do next
during a game - before you know it, she becomes the rules expert and
gone are the repeated questions.
But while I am able to deal with her, it's obvious that several of the
other players cannot, and some of them might stop attending if this
situation persists.
The unfortunate thing is, Bob doesn't really see any of this. He
tends to be somewhat socially naive and doesn't always pick up on the
subtlties of social interplay. He's a nice guy and everyone likes
him, but he doesn't see anything wrong with Sally's behavior. And
certainly Sally is not aware that her behavior is pissing people off.
I really don't know Sally well enough to approach her directly, but I
could easily say something to Bob. But if I do, I know his feelings
will get hurt and he'll become defensive, and I'm not sure there's
anything he could do about it anyway - after all it's Sally's
behavior, not his, that's the problem.
Has anyone had similar experiences with problem gamers in their group?
How did the situation get resolved? Any suggestions for this one?
Thanks,
-Eddy Bee
"Once a gamer, always a gamer!"
Richard Vickery
edd...@yahoo.com says...
> There is a problematic situation starting to develop with my weekly
> gaming group, and I'd be interested in hearing any constructive ideas
> folks might have for dealing with it
> - when it's her turn she sits and complains that she doesn't know
> what she should do
> - she doesn't seem to retain the rules, so she is always asking the
> most mundane questions about how to play, over and over and over again
> - she engages in constant chatter during the game, usually a running
> commentary of what people are doing, or should do, on their turn
> - she exhibits a general level of immaturity
> I really don't know Sally well enough to approach her directly, but I
> could easily say something to Bob
Well I think you can best approach it as a group. If you take Sally to
one side it seems like it is your personal vendetta, and approaching Bob
seems unlikely to help. Getting people to calmly and politely point out
behaviour that they would like improved at the time the bad behaviour
happens, seems like the best approach. This will give Sally the sense
that she is actually upsetting several people by her behaviour (as
presumably others would jump to her defence if they did not mind). Don't
overdo it though - just work on one problem at a time, and don't forget
that she is probably nervous breaking into an established group of
friends, some of whom go way back with Bob before she was even on the
scene.
Good luck!
Richard Vickery
Alex
>
>Has anyone had similar experiences with problem gamers in their group?
> How did the situation get resolved? Any suggestions for this one?
You might have to end up biting the bullet and talk to *her*. They're
both adults, right? If so, you talk to the adult in question.
When you talk to her you should generalize all her flaws (or as many
as you can) into one thing-that's-wrong. This is so she doesn't have a
chance to get defensive while you list half a dozen things that she
sucks at. So, in this case, something like "you have a problem
concentrating on the game". Maybe that's not so good - but you get the
idea. You want to tell her one thing that, if she fixed, would make
most of her "faults" disappear.
Alex
atheist #2007
Patrick Carroll
games just to be with her SO and interact with some of his friends socially.
I've had this problem a couple times in my groups (and I don't even game
that often).
> The complaints are:
> - she constantly interrupts while the rules are being explained
Typical of nongamers to say (or at least think), "Can't we skip this boring
part and just play?" The nongamer isn't there for the game (which is
centered on the rules); s/he's there for the socializing (which s/he
confuses with game play in this situation).
> - when it's her turn she sits and complains that she doesn't know
> what she should do
Because she didn't hear the rules and figures the game would be more fun and
interactive if she & others could discuss things like this during her turn.
> - she doesn't seem to retain the rules, so she is always asking the
> most mundane questions about how to play, over and over and over again
Showing that she's not really interested in the game but may be interested
in the social interaction *surrounding* the game. Some nongamers can't
fathom that people would ever really be so into playing a game that they'd
partially suspend or modify social interaction for the game's sake.
> - she engages in constant chatter during the game, usually a running
> commentary of what people are doing, or should do, on their turn
See above.
> - she exhibits a general level of immaturity
Likely because when someone says, "Let's play a game," she only hears,
"Let's play." Many people play games only in childhood, when play is play
and the rules and mechanics don't matter much, if at all. The concept of
having fun while simultaneously taking a game seriously is hard for some to
grasp (sometimes it still seems paradoxical to me, as a matter of fact).
> Has anyone had similar experiences with problem gamers in their group?
Yep.
> How did the situation get resolved?
Our nongamer eventually stopped coming to the games. But before that, she
spent several gaming sessions begging out early, walking over to take a nap
or watch TV while the rest of us continued playing.
> Any suggestions for this one?
I'm not there & don't know the people involved, so I dare not say much.
Everybody's different. But one thing I'd try to do is get her to see that
everybody else is taking the game more seriously than she is--that the game
is important to others at the table, and she needs to respect that. But I'd
bend over backward to get that across *without* offending her, and while
being kind & considerate of her outlook.
--Patrick
Steve Haffner
The complaints are:
> - she constantly interrupts while the rules are being explained
> - when it's her turn she sits and complains that she doesn't know
> what she should do
> - she doesn't seem to retain the rules, so she is always asking the
> most mundane questions about how to play, over and over and over again
> - she engages in constant chatter during the game, usually a running
> commentary of what people are doing, or should do, on their turn
> - she exhibits a general level of immaturity
>
Ever since starting my little gaming group, I have feared this exact
situation. Currently, there are only a few close friends in the group
but as I have considered inviting other people, I have often avoided
it because I'm afraid the person might not fit in socially or
personality-wise. Since we are all males, I have been especially
nervous about adding females because (sexist remark coming, prepare to
reel) game playing for them is usually more of a social gabfest in
which the game is secondary.
I know from my experience of playing with women who would not be
considered "gamers", that getting them to concentrate on a strategy
game is like the old adage of trying to teach a pig to sing (boy, now
I'm REALLY in trouble!). It becomes frustrating for the other players
and really un-fun and stressful for the woman.
It sounds like the woman in your group may not have a lot of
experience playing strategy games, hence her problems with the rules
and her perplexity at figuring out what to do on her turn. This may
get better as time goes on and she gets used to strategy games in
general.
As for the general level of immaturity, I don't know of a way to make
someone grow up fast. I have often thought that if there was a problem
person in my group, that I would draft some guidelines of "game
etiquette" which could be referenced when someone was guilty of a
gross violation. Then it wouldn't seem like picking on them, but just
trying to keep things within the already established guidelines.
Geenius at Wrok
> Has anyone had similar experiences with problem gamers in their group?
A very similar one, except that this one lacked the added complication of
romantic involvement.
I invited an old acquaintance, Kevin, to join our weekly group. After a
few sessions, Kevin started bringing his roommate, Ryan. It wasn't long
before Ryan began to get on people's nerves. He kept up a nonstop line of
chatter throughout each game -- table talk, cutting remarks, unfunny
quips. If he wasn't doing well, he'd give up only halfway through a game
and start playing kingmaker -- and BRAGGING about playing kingmaker. It
was ruining the fun. A couple of other regulars began griping to me about
his attitude, and I finally sent Kevin an E-mail, which I paraphrase:
"You're a nice guy and a good sport, and we like having you around, but
Ryan is neither, and he's getting on people's nerves. You are always
welcome here, but he isn't unless he can clean up his act. I hope this
doesn't mean we don't ever see you again, but we've gotta do what we've
gotta do." Kevin, to his credit, was totally cool about it. The next
time they came together, Ryan started off OK, but he was back to his
regular behavior before long -- only this time Kevin, at the table, was
gently admonishing him to cool it. After a couple more weeks, Ryan
stopped coming, but Kevin is still a valued member of the group and is now
a regular.
Grown-up people can handle these issues. IMO, the purpose of the game is
to have fun, and if certain people get in the way of the fun no matter
what you do, then you're better off playing without them. Conversely, if
it's the people who are more important to you, you're better off leaving
games out of the picture.
--
Und sperrt man mich ein im finstern Kerker § Keith Ammann is
Dies alles sind nur vergebliche Werke § gee...@cifnet.com
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken § www.cifnet.com/~geenius
Und Mauern entzwei -- die Gedanken sind frei! § Lun Yu 2:24
Peter Clinch
> Since we are all males, I have been especially
> nervous about adding females because (sexist remark coming, prepare to
> reel) game playing for them is usually more of a social gabfest in
> which the game is secondary.
Let's see, in my group I'd give awards for the most competitive player
we've ever had, the most A-P prone deep concentrator, the sharpest
natural gamer, all to the lassies.
They do come in all shapes and sizes, on the inside as well as the
wrapping...
> I know from my experience of playing with women who would not be
> considered "gamers", that getting them to concentrate on a strategy
> game is like the old adage of trying to teach a pig to sing (boy, now
> I'm REALLY in trouble!).
Same goes for men though. I'd say it's quite likely the case that the
bigger proportion of men in the gaming hobby is more down to the anorak
nature of it being (in relative terms) a niche hobby where collecting
little known nuggets of info is important and useful (how many other
hobbies would have people in N. America on tenterhooks for the outcome
of the German "best product" awards?). Might as well say the chance of
getting me to follow a strategy is doomed because I'll be scratching my
balls and dreaming about power tools...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Patrick Carroll
> I know from my experience of playing with women who would not be
> considered "gamers", that getting them to concentrate on a strategy
> game is like the old adage of trying to teach a pig to sing (boy, now
> I'm REALLY in trouble!). It becomes frustrating for the other players
> and really un-fun and stressful for the woman.
Man, are you in trouble!
But along these lines, I've noticed a curious thing about my wife. She's
far from the stereotypical woman you describe. She's got a mind like a
steel trap, with superb pattern recognition, and she picks up and masters
games with amazing rapidity. She'll laugh and joke with the best of us
during the light parts of a game, but when the situation's intense, she's
silent, focused, and patient. And if anyone seems to need help, she's right
there with a tactful tip that smooths out the snag and gets the game moving
ahead.
Yet, in spite of all that, once or twice a year she says, "We should join a
bridge club so we can socialize." And then I ask what socializing has to do
with bridge, of all games, and she rattles off a string of comments I don't
understand[*]--and in the end we both forget about it. From what I've heard
about bridge clubs, they're dominated by a generation older than mine and
the regulars take the game *very* seriously indeed--too much so to have time
for much socializing.
In fact, playing a game (other than a party game) and socializing seem
almost mutually exclusive to me. If players' minds are locked into game
play, they're not going to be friendly, they're going to be trying to thwart
each other's plans. Of course there may be handshakes before and after a
game, if you call that socializing. But to me, that kind of stiff
interaction and modicum of small talk doesn't count. So, if we have people
over and everybody seems to want to just socialize, I don't even think about
games. But if there's a lull and people are looking for something to do, I
may suggest a game as a *break* from socializing.
--Patrick
[*] As best I've been able to make sense of her comments, she seems to
believe the bidding process of bridge *is* a form of socializing, and that
it teaches people how to communicate effectively, form alliances, and deal
with potential enemies before the shooting starts. On an intellectual
level, I suppose that makes sense to me; but I'm too much an old hippie and
hopeless romantic to share that structured, insidious view. To me,
socializing means hugging--or doing the kind of
eye-contact-and-vocal-intonation stuff that eventually leads to hugging--and
it never has anything whatsoever to do with "enemies" (potential or
otherwise).
Warren J. Dew
One of the core members in my group (let's call him Bob)
is one of my best friends - I've known him for over 30
years, and he is my best gaming buddy. About a month ago
Bob's girlfriend (let's call her Sally), who I really
don't know all that well, expressed an interest in
attending the weekly game night that I host.
The first couple of times she attended were fine, but now
the "honeymoon" period is over, and her true nature has
started to show. So far, I've gotten direct and indirect
complaints about her from four players in my group.
Based on subsequent description, Patrick Carroll is exactly right - what you've
got here is a nongamer who is bored by the actual game playing happening at
your sessions. Normally I'd say the best thing for your gaming group would be
to ask Bob if he really thinks this is the best thing for Sally, since she
seems bored, until he and she realize that she doesn't really want to come to
these things - though that would risk Bob leaving the gaming group, too, at
least until he and Sally break up. However:
I've come up with ways to manage her rules interruptions,
and have been able to short-circuit her rules ignorance
simply by turning the tables and asking her what we do next
during a game - before you know it, she becomes the rules
expert and gone are the repeated questions.
If she can actually learn the rules, then she's potentially a gamer! So
perhaps a better alternative is to try to make sure that potential is realized.
Finding additional ways to encourage any nascent gaming knowledge and ability
would probably be good. In particular, complimenting her on good play or good
results would encourage her to pay attention to her actual play of the games.
If she finds that others in the group respect good game playing ability, rather
than resenting being beaten, she'll be more willing to play to win. This may
be a better route than complaining to her or Bob if Bob is more important to
you than the gaming group.
If you want to follow this strategy, I'd suggest talking to the other players
and asking them to help out - at least those of them who also see some
potential in Sally to become a good member of the group.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Glenn Kuntz
Steve Haffner <stev...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b2ddeb1.02102...@posting.google.com...
> game playing for [women] is usually more of a social gabfest in
> which the game is secondary.
>
> I know from my experience of playing with women who would not be
> considered "gamers", that getting them to concentrate on a strategy
> game is like the old adage of trying to teach a pig to sing (boy, now
> I'm REALLY in trouble!). It becomes frustrating for the other players
> and really un-fun and stressful for the woman.
DEAD MAN WALKIN' HERE!
Eric
> Any suggestions for this one?
Be honest, without being judgemental and do it in private. Depending on
the exact situation, it may make sense to speak with your best friend
first about this and hope that he would be willing to speak with his
girlfriend.
As for the constant telling others what do to problem, I tend to be like
that, but find more often that it just focuses attention on me (when I
want it to be on someone else) and causes me to lose...so, I generally
(but not always) try to keep my mouth shut, unless someone is attempting
to put the focus on me.
--
== Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
Eric
> Well I think you can best approach it as a group. If you take Sally to
> one side it seems like it is your personal vendetta, and approaching Bob
> seems unlikely to help.
I think this is far more likely to be viewed as "ganging" up on one
person to criticize them....not a good idea, imho.
Mike Caprio
Gamers have ettiquette, just like everyone else. Next time you're in
a group together, just politely correct her when she does something
wrong or out of turn.
"blah blah you should do this..."
"Sally, please don't suggest things to other players on their turn,
it's not polite".
"blah blah chatter chatter..."
"Sally, please don't talk during so-and-so's turn, it's rude to
distract other players."
"I don't understand the rules, what do I dooo??"
"Here Sally, you take this copy of the rules and keep it for your
reference. Read it if you don't understand something, and we'll wait
for you to go while you look at it quietly."
It's always best to lead by example. For example, when someone does
things out of turn, designate the last action of a turn (if not
already clear in the rules), and then clearly state "I'm done, your
turn" when you perform the last action. It's just a question of
learning how to be polite and then following through... novice gamers
don't know the ettiquette, so you have to teach it.
Mike
Gola
I'm no psychologist, but I don't think that this is a good idea. It
would probably be pretty embarassing to be confronted by three or five
people all at once about undesirable behavior. Would you rather have
one friend take you aside to tell you your fly is open, or would you
rather have a crowd point it out?
If it were me I would probably speak to the friend and just try to be
as diplomatic as possible. I wouldn't even bring the rest of the group
into it unless the friend got very defensive; then you could drive the
point home by saying, well, it's not just me, other people have said
something too.
The last thing you want your friend and his girlfriend to think is
that everyone in the group are against them (even if they are).
For more advice on life and love please listen to my call-in radio
show: "Gamers are from Catan, Women are from Venus."
Gola
Brian Leet
"Patrick Carroll" <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bmcu9.104802$om2.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
I usually don't quote a whole message, but I think this sounds very likely
on target. I think there are a few other things you can do. For a bit try
to concentrate on only playing games she's played before and seems to have a
good grasp on. It is hardly fair to ask her to be "more serious" and then
throw a lot at her that may be too much to handle. Second, try to find
games where verbal interaction and banter fits well into what is going on.
I think this aspect is part of why Settlers of Catan is an effective intro
to the hobby type game. Also, if you are introducing a new game, let her
know that watching/playing as a team with her SO is a fine way to start to
learn the game as well. The reduced pressure to perform solo may help calm
her and allow her to absorb the admittedly abstract ideas in many game rules
over a more extended period of time. Remember, it isn't really a problem
with her, she just most likely interprets the goals and ground rules of your
gaming sessions differently than the rest of you do.
Good luck!
Slyvanian T. Frog
> There is a problematic situation starting to develop with my weekly
> gaming group, and I'd be interested in hearing any constructive ideas
> folks might have for dealing with it.
It sounds like a combination to me. First, you have someone who is
not truly a gamer, does not fully understand the nuances of a "game night",
and is therefore starting to grate, but appears to be trying to fit in to
some extent.
Second, and probably more importantly, as is often the case with
gamers, you have a bunch of socially maladjusted women-fearing troglodytes
who are consciously or unconsciouly pissed off that the mysterious one with
breasts (well, maybe that part is not mysterious, as we are dealing with
gamers) has entered their domain. Normal people like to converse, joke,
have fun, and do not memorize lengthy sets of rules for fun.
Now, before anyone rants, I understand that you are part of a group
that does often choose to be taciturn, gruff, and memorize lengthy sets of
rules for fun. If she wants to be part of this group (which she may not),
she needs to come in your direction. I think, however, that there is
probably an unadmitted lack of openness from the rest of the group, and
that the other people in the group likely need to lighten up a little and
have some of the "give" that is required in making new friends.
Eventually, she may swing over to their type of gameplay. How much time
has elaspsed since she joined the group?
David desJardins
> I think, however, that there is probably an unadmitted lack of
> openness from the rest of the group, and that the other people in the
> group likely need to lighten up a little and have some of the "give"
> that is required in making new friends.
I think they only need to do that if they *want* to make new friends.
I've noticed that there are some people who want to get along with
everyone, and some people who don't mind having only a few friends with
whom they have specific common interests and characteristics, and a lot
of people all along the spectrum between them. I think that people who
play games with the same group every week might well care more about
preserving what they like about that group, than they care about making
new friends.
David desJardins
Slyvanian T. Frog
news:vohof9i...@math.berkeley.edu:
> I think they only need to do that if they *want* to make new friends.
Sure, no problem there.
> I've noticed that there are some people who want to get along with
> everyone, and some people who don't mind having only a few friends with
> whom they have specific common interests and characteristics, and a lot
> of people all along the spectrum between them. I think that people who
> play games with the same group every week might well care more about
> preserving what they like about that group, than they care about making
> new friends.
Again, I agree. I am probably in the latter group myself. However,
one might as well be honest with one's self. I do not make a lot of
friends, and it does not bother me, but I do realize that I do not extend
much to make friends, and a lot of the world does. It is my choice to not
extend the olive branch to most people, but again I think that is slightly
abnormal in our society. I do not pretend that it is the outsider's
problem "fitting in" because I am generally exclusionary and critical.
Peter
Maybe as a group, come up with a few simple rules. Like if she starts to
chatter inanely while the rules are being read. Just say "Sally, we have
an unspoken rule to let the game instructions be fully read before any
questions or comments."
Next, if she's telling people what they should do, or how she feels that
they should play the game. Do as we do, another rule, as competitive
players, we do not give assistance to others players as that can alter
the game, by making them second guess themselves, or by giving unfair
strategies to players who may not have thought of those. When we play
risk, we ususally don't say "You blind idiot, if you attack there, you
leave you ass end defenceless, and he'll tramp over you."
But as Richard said, take it one problem at a time....
IF none of these work, or you don't think they'll work.. The best thing
is, beat her pants off in the game. Utterly destroy her. Playing
monopoly. Bankrupt her quickly.. In Risk, double team her with another
player.
This is tricky, because you have to do it in such a way that she doesn't
feel she's being teamed up on, yet make sure she loses most of her
games, the more badly she looses the better. Gang up on each other from
time to time, so it doesn't look like you're singling her out..
In my experience, people who loose at particular games constantly
usually decide they don't like to play that game anymore because it's
dumb =). Although some do strive to "beat you eventually"... But you may
get her to leave voluntarily if she decides "she's no good at board
games". However this way is a little mean spirited. But you can work out
the ethics of that.. I'd leave it as a last resort.
--
"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever."
- Anonymous
--
Thats not funny!
---
Signature generated by SillySigz!
http://www.sturec.com/sillysigz.shtml
Peter
I think if people want to socialise during boardgames. Then "Party"
boardgames are the way to go
Games like Pictionary, Taboo, Cranium, even games like Monopoly.
But when you get into games like Risk, or scotland yard, where there is
certain levels of thinking and deduction, planning different routes of
action. Then players often don't want to be disturbed. Not say that
there isn't socialising during a game of Risk, obviously there is, but I
wouldn't say socialising is the main reason to be there, where a party
game would be.
David desJardins
>> In fact, playing a game (other than a party game) and socializing
>> seem almost mutually exclusive to me. If players' minds are locked
>> into game play, they're not going to be friendly, they're going to be
>> trying to thwart each other's plans.
I don't think "socializing" requires being "friendly". People are
"socializing" even if they are interacting in an unfriendly way and hate
each other (which most board gamers don't). Arguing is a form of
socializing, for example. So is anything else that involves interaction
with other people.
"Peter" writes:
> Then players often don't want to be disturbed. Not say that there
> isn't socialising during a game of Risk, obviously there is, but I
> wouldn't say socialising is the main reason to be there, where a party
> game would be.
I definitely think that socialization is central to why people play
board games. If they just wanted intellectual challenge, without
interacting with people, they could sit at home and solve puzzles.
David desJardins
Christopher Dearlove
<de...@math.berkeley.edu> writes
>I definitely think that socialization is central to why people play
>board games. If they just wanted intellectual challenge, without
>interacting with people, they could sit at home and solve puzzles.
I'd add two caveats to that. First as usual "people" is "most people"
(but I assume that's what you meant). Second the nearest to an organised
exception may be among chess players, who at all but the lowest level
don't talk at all during a game - and who until recently couldn't sit
at home and solve problems comparable to those actually experienced in
a chess game (chess puzzles are a different kettle of fish). Of course
socialising between games is another matter, but I doubt it's central.
Clearly at least one participant here plays war games with the same
mind set.
(Just to make it clear, I'm personally 100% with your characterisation.
Even BSW is a lot lower on the socialisation scale than my ideal.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
David desJardins
> I'd add two caveats to that. First as usual "people" is "most people"
> (but I assume that's what you meant). Second the nearest to an organised
> exception may be among chess players, who at all but the lowest level
> don't talk at all during a game - and who until recently couldn't sit
> at home and solve problems comparable to those actually experienced in
> a chess game (chess puzzles are a different kettle of fish).
Yes, I only meant to refer to most players and most games, not all
players and all games.
But I'd say even sitting at a chess board and scowling at your opponent
for five hours is "socializing". It's a form of human interaction.
Kasparov certainly views interaction (intimidation!) as part of the
game. Of course, whether it's a positive or negative experience is a
question for the individual player.
I do think that some tournament games (like chess) are played by some
players primarily for competition (to measure themselves relative to
other players), rather than for socialization. That's a small sliver of
all board gaming, though.
David desJardins
M. Ryan
>
> Has anyone had similar experiences with problem gamers in their group?
> How did the situation get resolved? Any suggestions for this one?
>
> Thanks,
> -Eddy Bee
>
> "Once a gamer, always a gamer!"
One thing that may help is to do some re-arrangements of the gaming
group to help her (and perhaps her spouse) figure out whether she
wants to do gaming, or to spend time with her boyfriend.
For example, play some games w/ small numbers of people, which require
splitting the group up. When you do the splits, make sure that her
and her boyfriend are in separate groups. If she's not willing to do
this, this may be an entry point to say to her in a diplomatic way
that "People who come to the gaming group are here for gaming, not to
hang around a specific person."
Another consideration is the romantic connection, which may be
upsetting other members of the group. Couples have to be careful that
they don't treat each other differently than the rest of the group.
They have to make sure (or people need to tell them) that they must
not be nicer to their partners ("I would never hurt you, honey.") or
worse, help their partner to win. Conversely, they can't take out
domestic conflicts at the gaming board. Also, gameplay can't be
extended into real life. "If you screw me in this territory, I'm not
cooking dinner tonight!" -- admittedly, this might be a joke, but if
other players feel that even to a slight extent this tactic works, it
will really grate on them.
Whenever I bring my spouse I try to make sure that people feel that
these things won't happen. We're both guys, so there aren't any
male/female issues. But new people who meet us will still wonder if
we will treat each other in the game as equally as the rest of the
players. As the more experienced gamer of the two of us, I feel a bit
of an obligation in new groups to show that we won't treat each other
specially. I've known couples who were great gamers (hello Ken &
Shelley from Cornell ca. 1990), but I've met other couples that had to
be sat down with and told that they had to stop 'being a couple' when
they were at the gameboard.
Mike R.
David desJardins
> For example, play some games w/ small numbers of people, which require
> splitting the group up. When you do the splits, make sure that her
> and her boyfriend are in separate groups. If she's not willing to do
> this, this may be an entry point to say to her in a diplomatic way
> that "People who come to the gaming group are here for gaming, not to
> hang around a specific person."
Why would you say that? Why can't they prefer to play games with one
another, if they enjoy doing so?
Would you also say that people can't have preferences among opponents
with whom they don't have a romantic relationship? Can't I prefer
playing games with X just because I like playing games with X?
Every group I've ever seen that has more than a few people, has some
players who especially enjoy playing with one another, and some players
who aren't as harmonious. Some people don't play with certain other
people at all; others just have preferences, of varying strengths. This
all strikes me as normal, but maybe your friends are very different.
And the notion that someone (who?) gets to assign everyone to games, and
tell them who should play what with whom, doesn't seem very workable
either.
David desJardins
Todd Derscheid
"David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:vohsmyr...@math.berkeley.edu...
> "Mike R." writes:
> > For example, play some games w/ small numbers of people, which require
> > splitting the group up. When you do the splits, make sure that her
> > and her boyfriend are in separate groups. If she's not willing to do
> > this, this may be an entry point to say to her in a diplomatic way
> > that "People who come to the gaming group are here for gaming, not to
> > hang around a specific person."
Hmm. That's not bad, actually. Alternative: figure out who dislikes her
the least, and put that model of tolerance at the table with Gabby and her
man. You said you can take it, so do, and give your crew a one-week break.
My wife hated the gaming veterans with whom I played; she attended one
session and never came back. They were either boring, or cutthroat, or
both. They also played games that were longer than her attention span.
Heck, my attention span is only about three hours a game.
>
> Why would you say that? Why can't they prefer to play games with one
> another, if they enjoy doing so?
>
> Would you also say that people can't have preferences among opponents
> with whom they don't have a romantic relationship? Can't I prefer
> playing games with X just because I like playing games with X?
Absolutely. I don't want to sit next to Stinky Stephen (not a person in our
current group), and don't invite Card-Counting Carl (not a real person in
our current group), the idiot savant, who sits motionless for twenty minutes
pondering, then makes the absolute best play possible.
>
> Every group I've ever seen that has more than a few people, has some
> players who especially enjoy playing with one another, and some players
> who aren't as harmonious. Some people don't play with certain other
> people at all; others just have preferences, of varying strengths. This
> all strikes me as normal, but maybe your friends are very different.
Group dynamics vary. One of my previous groups was completely different
when a specific sometimes-attendee would drop in. He was a lawyer, and had
a strong presence, so he tended to dominate the table, aside from being a
bad-ass gamer.
> And the notion that someone (who?) gets to assign everyone to games, and
> tell them who should play what with whom, doesn't seem very workable
> either.
You're right there. I sometimes manage to do that as the most experienced
gamer AND host of the party, but only if people appear to be milling
excessively.
Alternate idea: Have her pick the game for a session. Whatever she wants,
play it. Play it and play it, until she sees all the angles or gets sick of
it and picks something else. If she has to pick the game, she'll find her
natural strengths (even if they're relatively undeveloped) and work on them.
Force her to make a choice and defend her preference.
Alternate idea: If it is a patience or complexity issue, try ramping down
the time-frame or complexity a notch. Carcassonne, Raj, basic Settlers,
Bohnanza, Entdecker, whatever. If you're trying to get her through Age of
Renaissance or something similar, with no ramp, she'll probably never enjoy
it.
Alternate idea: Play a shorter game, then they can cut out, then play a
longer game, or work out a schedule where Boyfriend only shows up every
other week with her in tow, or find her another thing to do.
Alternate idea: Boyfriend should spoil her rotten for a month or two, and
then she'll get bored and need some space...
Heather Garvey
>
> Second, and probably more importantly, as is often the case with
>gamers, you have a bunch of socially maladjusted women-fearing troglodytes
>who are consciously or unconsciouly pissed off that the mysterious one with
>breasts (well, maybe that part is not mysterious, as we are dealing with
>gamers) has entered their domain. Normal people like to converse, joke,
>have fun, and do not memorize lengthy sets of rules for fun.
Er, are you insinuating that ALL gamers are "socially maladjusted
women-fearing troglodytes" or just this group?
Because we are a group of mixed gender (a 60-40 split, maybe)
and while we like to converse, joke, and have fun, we also do not like
people who aren't ready for their turn, people who don't at least have
the basic rules memorized or people who criticize others' play (as opposed
to general interest table talk).
It's not "gals against guys" or "touchy-feely against gruff".
It's "gamers vs non-gamer", which has nothing to do with whether any
of the people involved are "normal" or "having fun". It's a style of
play and a certain depth of interest in a particular subgroup of games.
There's no shame in their group being that way, nor her for being her
way. They just might not be compatable ways, is all.
--
Heather Garvey "By order of the school board's program to reduce
ra...@xnet.com misery among schoolchildren, this class is issued
one classroom pet, hamster class, name - Peepi."
-- Miss Bitters, _Invader ZIM_
Michael
> How did the situation get resolved? Any suggestions for this one?
I was the one who started bringing my "Sally" to the group. Their response
was to stop inviting me to things until I got the hint that they didn't want
to chance me bringing her along. So now I make it clear that I'm interested
in gaming with them AND that she has other plans and all is well. I still
play games with her and some OTHER non-serious gamers from time to time, but
I avoid mixing the crowds. The thing is, she SEEMS to really WANT to play
the games, but she just doesn't have the focus for it. I mean, we've played
Settlers of Catan a million times by now and she STILL never knows whose
turn it is. I just cope with it, but my gaming buddies get pretty
short-tempered about that sort of thing.
Joel Baxter
[ snip ]
> So far, I've gotten direct and indirect complaints about her from four
> players in my group. The complaints are:
> - she constantly interrupts while the rules are being explained
> - when it's her turn she sits and complains that she doesn't know
> what she should do
> - she doesn't seem to retain the rules, so she is always asking the
> most mundane questions about how to play, over and over and over again
> - she engages in constant chatter during the game, usually a running
> commentary of what people are doing, or should do, on their turn
[ snip ]
> I really don't know Sally well enough to approach her directly, but I
> could easily say something to Bob. But if I do, I know his feelings
> will get hurt and he'll become defensive, and I'm not sure there's
> anything he could do about it anyway - after all it's Sally's
> behavior, not his, that's the problem.
Well, you've already gotten a dozen advice-dumps... what will one more hurt?
I've seen some suggestions in this thread that, if they were applied to
me or any of the people in my gaming group, would cause actual insult
because they would be interpreted (perhaps rightly so) as being very
condescending. We're fairly "verbal" and social people, and most of us
know each other well, so we use friendly teasing to steer each other as
necessary. I think the solution depends very, very strongly on the
communication abilities of "Sally" and of the rest of your group, and on
how well people know Sally by now. That will determine how subtle you
can be, and how pointed the teasing can be.
The concept of saving face is key in handling these situations I think.
The tricky part is to not make it blatantly obvious that you're doing
that, because then you get into "condescending" again. When there are
real problems to be worked out, you've got to approach them as "here we
are both working at a solution to the problem" rather than "here I am
with a solution to your problem".
To take your above examples, applied to my group:
- If someone in the group is repeatedly making pointless interruptions
during rules explanation, the likely response is "Shh!" with a smile, or
the dispensing of Dr. Evil quotes ("www.zip-it.com!").
If they are interrupting with questions about issues relevant to the
rules but that are better handled at a different stage of the
description, just a quick "Hmmm..." pause followed by "Good question,
but I'll get to that in a minute." works fine.
- If someone is bellyaching during the game, there's several responses
to that; it depends on if they're being gripey/grumbly ("Hell, just pick
a move at random, I'm gonna whup everyone anyway.") or if they are
honestly upset about something (which needs more sympathy, followed by a
useful redirection). If the bellyaching continues, I'd find a way in
casual conversation outside the game to mention that their fun quota
doesn't seem to be getting filled, and ask how things could be changed
to help.
- If someone is sincerely asking basic rules questions during the game,
often you can find "generous" ways to interpret the question, and answer
them without implying that they're a dummy. I.e., restate the basic
gameplay point ("You can only place 3 widgets in a turn...") and then
take the opportunity to illuminate or reinforce the related, more subtle
points which it wouldn't hurt to remind everyone about ("...but the blue
thingamajigs don't count as widgets."). It's possible, BTW, that they
really were asking about the subtle points.
- Unwelcome kibitzing can be handled by the kibitz-ee, but that can be
awkward; it's usually easier to have the bystanders speak up, since they
have an obvious motive ("Hey! He doesn't need any more help, he's
already 10 points ahead!").
More generic chatter is probably the toughest thing to deal with, since
"chatter tolerance level" is an ambiguous thing, and something that
differs widely among people... I'd say if you can take care of all the
other issues and then worry about this one last, you'll probably be in
good shape. This one may tend to resolve itself as she spends more time
with the group anyway, hopefully absorbing the behavorial norms at least
a little.
Now admittedly, I have run into a very small number of people in my life
who are resolutely unable to "take a hint". With those folks, nothing
works but the direct approach; but fortunately, they seem to not be very
affected by being flat-out told unpleasant or embarassing truths (or at
least they hide it well).
So I'd say to give the subtle approach time to work, since that won't
hurt anything (assuming you don't start losing players from your group
yet), and then graduate to direct statement of the problem if necessary.
If there's a perceived leader or director of your game gatherings,
then they or "Bob" should tackle the problems one-on-one in private
conversation with Sally. I don't think anything good can come of a
public chiding or "group intervention", even if Sally is one of the
thick-as-a-brick types.
If I haven't gone over my posting limit yet, lemme mention one other
thing. Sally may be happier watching the games, or being a spectator
during certain types of games. First of all, this can help her learn
how the games work, without any performance pressure. Second, some
people just enjoy this. Actually I enjoy it too; I just enjoy playing
more. :-) But there are a few people in our circle of friends who will
often come to game-day but choose to spectate unless we really need
another person to fill out the game. They like socializing with the
group, and they like watching the players interact and the game unfold,
but generally (or for some specific games) they prefer not to play. It
took me a while to get convinced that this was their honest preference
and not just giving up their seat out of over-the-top politeness (for
example, to get the player count down to a certain number that would
allow us to play a certain game)... but I'm convinced now. Maybe Sally
falls in this category too. If so, there's nothing bad about that.
Slyvanian T. Frog
news:apk12c$n6e$1...@flood.xnet.com:
> women-fearing troglodytes" or just this group?
I do not know whether this particular group is. I do believe
that gamers, more often than is average for the rest of the population,
seem to have "women issues".
> Because we are a group of mixed gender (a 60-40 split, maybe)
> and while we like to converse, joke, and have fun, we also do not like
> people who aren't ready for their turn, people who don't at least have
> the basic rules memorized or people who criticize others' play (as
> opposed to general interest table talk).
If you think the sex split for gamers is 60-40, we are already
completely apart as far as what we have seen. When I have been in game
shops, Gencon, etc., I have rarely seen women (enough so that I have
felt uncomfortable at the "there's one of them in our midst" reaction
that often occurs).
You may be right as to the reasons that the woman in this
particular situation is being criticized. I have been a gamer long
enough, and have been around enough gamers, to suspect that there may be
other reasons in this case (at least in part; I do not believe that it
has to be 100% because this person is a woman/outsider/socially well-
adjusted being).
> It's not "gals against guys" or "touchy-feely against gruff".
> It's "gamers vs non-gamer", which has nothing to do with whether any
> of the people involved are "normal" or "having fun". It's a style of
> play and a certain depth of interest in a particular subgroup of
> games. There's no shame in their group being that way, nor her for
> being her way. They just might not be compatable ways, is all.
I think that gamers are often socially maladjusted (you could ask
whether having such an interest in the correct "style" of play that it
causes social rifts is in itself proof of maladjustment). I am not sure
that there is any "shame", or whether that question even matters. I
just am not sure that people are being honest in these situations when
they are blaming the outsider for "not learning the rules", etc.
Michael
> > women-fearing troglodytes" or just this group?
>
> I do not know whether this particular group is. I do believe
> that gamers, more often than is average for the rest of the population,
> seem to have "women issues".
I agree. Sure there are plenty of gamers who have gone on to normal
well-adjusted lives, but they seem to be the exception, rather than the
rule.
> If you think the sex split for gamers is 60-40, we are already
> completely apart as far as what we have seen. When I have been in game
> shops, Gencon, etc., I have rarely seen women (enough so that I have
> felt uncomfortable at the "there's one of them in our midst" reaction
> that often occurs).
Yeah, I don't buy the 60-40 split either, but she probably only means the
group she plays in. That explains the unusually small percentage of women
that WE see.... she has them all playing with her! =)
Todd Derscheid
"Joel Baxter" <jba...@remove.this.neogeographica.com> wrote in message
news:P5ScncPxE97...@giganews.com...
> - If someone in the group is repeatedly making pointless interruptions
> during rules explanation, the likely response is "Shh!" with a smile, or
> the dispensing of Dr. Evil quotes ("www.zip-it.com!").
Don't you mean the dispensing of interlocking pop-up ads?
> If I haven't gone over my posting limit yet, lemme mention one other
> thing. Sally may be happier watching the games, or being a spectator
> during certain types of games. First of all, this can help her learn
> how the games work, without any performance pressure. Second, some
> people just enjoy this. Actually I enjoy it too; I just enjoy playing
> more. :-) But there are a few people in our circle of friends who will
> often come to game-day but choose to spectate unless we really need
> another person to fill out the game. They like socializing with the
> group, and they like watching the players interact and the game unfold,
> but generally (or for some specific games) they prefer not to play. It
> took me a while to get convinced that this was their honest preference
> and not just giving up their seat out of over-the-top politeness (for
> example, to get the player count down to a certain number that would
> allow us to play a certain game)... but I'm convinced now. Maybe Sally
> falls in this category too. If so, there's nothing bad about that.
>
My wife falls into this category for Tigris and Euphrates. She doesn't like
playing it herself, but enjoys watching it. The direct antagonism is too
much for her.
Joel Baxter
> "Joel Baxter" <jba...@remove.this.neogeographica.com> wrote in message
> news:P5ScncPxE97...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>- If someone in the group is repeatedly making pointless interruptions
>>during rules explanation, the likely response is "Shh!" with a smile, or
>>the dispensing of Dr. Evil quotes ("www.zip-it.com!").
>
>
> Don't you mean the dispensing of interlocking pop-up ads?
Is that an actual website? Not too surprised I suppose...
Todd Derscheid
If you can imagine it, it's on the internet...
Heather Garvey
>> women-fearing troglodytes" or just this group?
>
> I do not know whether this particular group is. I do believe
>that gamers, more often than is average for the rest of the population,
>seem to have "women issues".
This group whose internal dynamics the original poster was
talking about.
> If you think the sex split for gamers is 60-40, we are already
>completely apart as far as what we have seen. When I have been in game
>shops, Gencon, etc., I have rarely seen women (enough so that I have
>felt uncomfortable at the "there's one of them in our midst" reaction
>that often occurs).
I was talking about my particular playing group, not the
entire culture of gamers. Well, actually TWO of my playing groups,
although the other is probably more of a 75-25 male-female split.
> I think that gamers are often socially maladjusted (you could ask
>whether having such an interest in the correct "style" of play that it
>causes social rifts is in itself proof of maladjustment).
Well, most other "normal" social interaction causes social
rifts as well - it's just that the people on the other side of the
rift are "social outcasts" and therefore you don't apparently care
whether they feel left out or not. Whoa, sorry, high school flashback
there. The group in question was socially stable and happy before this
person showed up, and she is behaving outside the group's social norms.
IN THIS INSTANCE, the girl is the one "at fault". In that social circle,
her behavior is disruptive and anti-social. In her favorite social
circle, those guys might be anti-social and disruptive.
Apparently, they've been pretty accommodating so far with
her disruption, but people who let others walk all over their social
interactions without addressing it aren't "well-adjusted". They're
"doormats".
Wei-Hwa Huang
>Yet, in spite of all that, once or twice a year she says, "We should join a
>bridge club so we can socialize." And then I ask what socializing has to do
>with bridge, of all games, and she rattles off a string of comments I don't
>understand[*]--and in the end we both forget about it. From what I've heard
>about bridge clubs, they're dominated by a generation older than mine and
>the regulars take the game *very* seriously indeed--too much so to have time
>for much socializing.
Your wife may be thinking about a different sort of bridge club, the
sort that actually has more socializing.
At my place of work we play bridge for one night every week. We have a
mix of novice and experienced players, and when we play we occasionally
discuss the meanings of bids openly, make interjections and strange
facial expressions when we feel like it, and after many hands we
discuss how it went and what other ways it could have been played.
None of that would be tolerated at a medium-to-large formal club,
where actual masterpoints are on the line and many players are
quick to call over the tournament director at even a slight
delay in bidding.
Boardgames can often have the same dichotomy, although not
nearly as pronounced. I've been in groups where strategy and
possible moves and recent TV shows are freely discussed, and I've
been in groups where merely telling another player what their possible
moves are will get you dirty looks from others.
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.net, http://www.ugcs.net/~whuang/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The average person needs trepanation like he needs a hole in the head."
Wei-Hwa Huang
>"Sally, please don't suggest things to other players on their turn,
> it's not polite".
I've heard this (or the equivalent) from many places, and it still
confuses me. The implication seems to be that suggesting things
to other players on your OWN turn is perfectly fine... which I
don't think people who make this claim really believe.
"Hey Joe, it's my turn now, and I think I might make this move, and
after I do that, I hope you'll make this move. But I'm suggesting
it now, during my turn, because once I actually make the move
it'll be your turn and then the other players won't let me talk
to you anymore."
Yeah, right.
If your gaming group doesn't like players making move
recommendation to other players, then say that. I think
the qualifier of "on their turn" is unnecessary and sends the
wrong message.
Glenn Kuntz
> Patrick Carroll wrote:
> >> In fact, playing a game (other than a party game) and socializing
> >> seem almost mutually exclusive to me. If players' minds are locked
> >> into game play, they're not going to be friendly, they're going to be
> >> trying to thwart each other's plans.
If all, or even a significant percentage, of gamers felt/acted that way, I
wouldn't have any interest in the hobby.
> I don't think "socializing" requires being "friendly".
Perhaps not technically, but in the minds and common usage of most people...
> People are
> "socializing" even if they are interacting in an unfriendly way and hate
> each other (which most board gamers don't). Arguing is a form of
> socializing, for example. So is anything else that involves interaction
> with other people.
I see. So by this definition, we're about to "socialize" with Iraq again...
I never knew (or even suspected) that war, terrorism, murder and other
violent crimes were just some people's idea of "socializing".
Ray Tsai
> Mike Caprio <mik...@world.std.com> decided to post:
> >"Sally, please don't suggest things to other players on their turn,
> > it's not polite".
>
> I've heard this (or the equivalent) from many places, and it still
> confuses me. The implication seems to be that suggesting things
> to other players on your OWN turn is perfectly fine... which I
> don't think people who make this claim really believe.
I think there are some important differences between giving advice to
someone on their turn as opposed to someone else's turn.
Time: Giving advice to someone on their own turn will probably
lengthen the time they take on their turn to make their move.
They have to listen to you, process the information, possibly debate
you, and then make a decision. If they're doing all this work on
someone else's turn, the overall game length may not increase.
Opportunity: players can actually act on advice on their own turn.
If you give it to them on someone else's turn, they may not be able
to act on it. I almost never give advice to players on their own
turn unless they ask for it. But I will often give advice after
they've made their move on what I think is a better move. I'm not
giving them advice to improve their current position in a game, but
to possibly enable them to learn something and play better the next
time the situation occurs.
Ray Tsai
Anthony Simons
<snip>
> I see. So by this definition, we're about to "socialize" with Iraq again...
> I never knew (or even suspected) that war, terrorism, murder and other
> violent crimes were just some people's idea of "socializing".
I don't think David was trying to say this is sociable behaviour;
rather he was countering Patrick's argument by stating that quite
literally any act which involves people interacting with one another
must involve social interaction, whether they agree/disagree love/hate
each other.
I wouldn't have bothered to interject, but I just don't see how
bringing acts of violence into the equation has any bearing on this.
Eddy Bee
> How did the situation get resolved? Any suggestions for this one?
I just wanted to thank everyone for their input, suggestions, and
opinions. Things are always interesting, for better or worse, when
dealing with people and personalities.
Here's an update on the situation. I've decided to take a somewhat
moderate approach in dealing with Sally. I haven't mentioned anything
directly Bob or Sally, but will consider doing so if necessary.
In the meantime, things seem to have started to improve as a result of
the following actions:
I've taken a stronger hand in enforcing quiet during rules
explanations (this actually helps everyone at the table). Sally
doesn't get the opportunity to interrupt with inane questions, and
consequently she has to listen, and guess what? She actually learns
the rules, and doesn't have to ask so many questions during play.
I realized that part of Sally's banter and questions during a game
were a ploy to get attention. So I've tried to direct her energies
towards things having to do directly with the game. I assign her
in-game tasks, like moving markers, collecting played cards,
distributing tokens, etc., and I direct most rules questions from
others players to her first. All of this makes her feel important and
she has started to take the games and rules much more seriously, while
still having fun.
I've also discovered that a couple of the complaints I was getting
about Sally were the result of a specific personality conflict between
her and one other player (let's call him Stu). Stu just plain doesn't
like her, and periodically the two of them get into catty verbal
exchanges at the table. I've spoken with Stu and he's aware of the
issue, and is willing to try to see beyond it. For my part, whenever
I see one of these verbal spats starting to brew, I do what I can to
cut it off at the pass - mostly acting as a referee. So far, things
seem to be okay.
One interesting thing that I failed to mention in my initial
description of this situation, is that while Sally is not a serious
gamer, she was a winner in 3 consecutive gaming sessions (ShowManager,
TransAmerica, and Big City, in case you're curious), and often comes
in 2nd when she loses! Ironically, she is currently sitting at the
top of our player rankings (we use the PLOPS system mentioned in
another thread). So in effect, her "bad behavior" was reinforced by
her winning results - it's hard to ask someone to change what they're
doing when it's working for them!
Of course, this didn't make it any easier for some of the veteran
players to accept her, and I'm sure that's what sparked some of the
complaints I heard. Stu has started his own personal metagaming
crusade to try to prevent Sally from winning whenever possible, but
fortunately he's a reasonable person and a very nice guy, so he
doesn't let these impulses get the better of him.
Anyway, things seem to be going in the right direction for now. If
the situation deteriorates you can bet I'll be back here asking for
more advice! Thanks again for all your thoughtful and
thought-provoking replies.
No matter what, remember to keep on gaming...