TALK TO THE PLAYER OOCly!!!!!!

NOT the GM....

Is this so hard people?


Edited - a clarification:

I'm talking about the fact that multiple times in my games I see the same thing. Some one takes something IC personally OOC when it's not something personal... but they don't know that because they don't talk to the person and refuse to listen to me saying it's not the case this guy/girl is just being a bully (for lack of more valger ways of describing them being alowed in a public form). So with out talking to anyone in the game they demand I do something about it or quit with out any willingness to talk to or acknowledge the other person.

They do not even make an attempt to question or discuss the IC actions with anyone, just exspect I do something about it.

They instead just try and get me to kick them out of the game or force them ICly to act in a way that makes the person happier OOCly.

There not taking IC conflict and escelating it into OOC.

They are taking IC conflict and taking it strait to the GM with demands.

Last one did say something OOCly to try and resolve things, but even that was just them complaing that there char didn't do anything to deserve to be talked to the way they where and it was explained the circumstances as to why the char was acting the way they did. But rather than discuss it, they escilated directly to me expecting me to fix it with out even talking about it in a situation where people where quite open to discussion.

People need to at the least TRY and consolidate things OOCly....

There not looking for that nor are they looking for me to act as a mediator, there just expecting me to fix things so they will like it more.

I am happy to mediate a problem, but this is more of running to mom and demanding "there not playing the way I like do something!" or the sorta "tell so and so this because i'm not talking to them." kinda thing....

I'm just saying instead of going directly to me, TRY talking about it.

And if I don't do exactly what you ask don't go storming out of the game blaming everyone else because you refuse to talk about something. Especialy when everyone there is open to discussion and willing to work something out.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:34, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

Well, gotta live up to my tag so...

For some people, it is that hard.

Maybe you don't know the player well or you don't know how to phrase your complaints in a way that won't offend them. Maybe they have acted and reacted OOCly to their own posts in a manner which makes you think that such a conversation won't be productive (or on other subjects, perhaps, where the same conclusion was drawn). Maybe you're the type of person to file anonymous complaints so that the GM can handle it in order to keep it from becoming a "You" vs "That Player" thing and, instead, is simply the GM voicing the complaints of "One or more other players." Maybe it's just been a long day and you're already sending the GM a message about something so you tack it on in order to give yourself one less headache to worry about later.

Or, maybe none of these and something else. Whatever it is, there are plenty of reasonable and valid justifications for contacting a GM instead of the player OOCly. It might be a better world if we all aired our grievances directly to each other and everyone could respond well to criticism and I had more pizza but, alas, none of it seems to be so. We live in the world we've got, and sometimes that means you get this.

But, hey, that's just my opinion on things. Not saying I like it, just that I like to show people the other side of the coin.

Actually, no. The player should talk to the one running the game. Part of the role of DM/GM/ST is Adjudicator between players. In a perfect world, we would all be mature adults who could easily give and take constructive criticism. Sadly, we do not live in such a world. People WILL, CAN and DO take things personally.

I disagree entirely.

If anyone is spoken to OOCly about IC actions, it should be the GM and only the GM. As far as players and characters are concerned, I find that games are best when there is a firm line between IC and OOC, which means that IC things are handled ICly - not discussed OOC between players.

In general it is the case of speaking to the GM is better as trying OOCly talking to the player can potentially draw others in and than you have a mess. The GM is there to help with problems. The GM is the one who helps mediate and help with such things, this is so there is a toned down he said she said thing. In my own experience.

I've see players talk things out in public OOC and it almost always blows up with other players either tossing in their two bits or getting uncomfortable with the conflict.  I hate it when this happens, and both players risk getting booted for not being able to refrain from childish antics.

I've seen players try to talk things out OOC in PMs and it can go either way, but at least other players aren't getting upset by the conflict.   I prefer this is they aren't going to get me involved.

I've also seen players take things to Rmail, but that sometimes results in the sudden rage quit of one player to the complete surprise of the GM. I dislike this option only slightly less than when players blow it up in the public OOC.

I prefer players to keep it quiet, but keep it in the game.  The GM needs to know there's a problem, even if they don't get involved directly.

If you do that, it just risks degrading into the players arguing with each other about each other.

The GM is called the Referee in older games for a reason.  Best to channel all grievances there.

Also, the other player may not even realize they're doing something abrasive (holds up hand meekly).  It's one thing for the GM to say "Hey this behavior is distracting can you dial that back going forward" because then it's just a fleeting feeling of mild embarrassment that the offender will get over quickly and a week from now no one will care.

But if you jump on their butt and go "Man you're like that one person I don't like because you type all your posts in red monotype", then you put them on the defensive and they double down as is human nature and you get drama.

So don't ride the drama llama.  Express the problem to the GM once, briefly, and then (assuming there is change) let it go and pretend like it never happened.  It won't be hard.

Public disagreements have a way of disenfranchising the uninvolved players, and create hard feelings, even if they don't pick sides (which is a whole other issue). As a GM, I've had to stomp pretty hard on some players who could not, or would not, behave in an appropriate manner in the public OOC thread. I really don't like doing that as it interferes with EVERYONE's fun, dropping a huge wet blanket over the game that can take weeks to get through.

As a GM, I prefer that player issues come to me, privately, so we can handle it privately like adults, in the PM forum. And, if necessary, I can kick the petulant one to the curb without the other players knowing any more than they need to.

One referee, one whistle, one opinion that matters.

Yeah, this is... not good.  Cutting out the GM in the first place is a bad idea.  Going directly to the player you have a problem with in PMs I don't see as so bad, because if you do that and then expect that the GM won't get involved (if necessary) then you're just naive.  That's part of our job, as pretty much everyone has already stated.

Going to the player in the OOC channel, though - if that's what's being implied here by the use of the term 'OOCly' - is not only a bad idea, it's destructive, disrespectful and toxic to the entire game and everyone in it.  There's no reason to lay all of that out in front of everyone when it can (and should) be handled privately.  People come to RPoL to enjoy games, not to watch arguments that risk stalling the whole game and turning everyone off the fun.

I feel like it really depends on the problem.  If it's something like disagreeing with a choice in how to proceed, I don't see it being a big deal to discuss it OOC between players.  But if you are angry at another player, or feel like they are behaving improperly, that is definitely something to tell the GM.
Few things can derail or ruin a game faster than an angry argument between players in OOC.  I've had a few instances where I had to boot multiple players because they wouldn't stop going after each other.  The worst is when they are both dishing out as much as the other, but get mad I'm not disciplining the one they don't like.  If 2 players start slinging insults in OOC, or even pm, I am removing them both.  I don't need to have that kind of thing in a game.

I partly agree with gladiusdei, in that some problems are fairly innocuous and can probably be handled simply and without major issue.  I know that I, personally, would react differently to being 'called out' for different issues (most of the time I'm pretty low-key, but if I feel like you're making a scene with me simply because you're being a jerk, I'm not gonna put up with it.)

But more than the nature of the problem, I think it depends on the game and the players.  In one of my games, there are a couple of players that I could go to directly with issues and work them out, no problem.  There's another player that I'm pretty sure would take serious umbrage were I to call him out in such a fashion (even though he seems to have no problem calling others out)...one player who I honestly have no idea about (in terms of how he'd react...he plays some very odd characters and his OOC behavior leads me to believe his 'oddness' isn't a character trait that he's playing...he's playing characters like that because that's the way he is).  The rest of the players in the game, I haven't played with long enough to have developed an opinion, one way or another, about how they'd react to that kind of confrontation.

But, as has already been pointed out, there are a lot of GMs out there who would prefer that such issues go through them, so they can handle it without increasing any behind-the-scenes tension between players.  One of the functions of the GM is conflict resolution, and that can be OOC as well as IC, and between players as much as between characters.

Please don't.

If you are in one of my games, talk to me, the GM.  Trying to tell other players how they should be running their character will mean you end up talking to me about your attitude anyway.  Keep doing it, and you'll be out.

For all you, as a player, know, the other player might be acting the way they are because I've given them IC information that you simply don't have.  Perhaps his character is not seeing the situation the same way yours is.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 12):

Exactly what BBR said. I have kicked players out of my game before for raising a big stink in the OOC over the IC actions of a character. If you have issues, message the GM. That's what they are there for.

And the corollary: If someone has a problem with your character actions -- and especially if more than one person has problems with your character's actions -- consider that there might be something to their point of view.  React first with clarifying questions rather than defensive protests.  Find out what they are really trying to say, and then address that.

There's also the possibility that if people are consistently going to the GM rather than you (general 'you,' I'm talking in non-specifics), then you might be (unintentionally or otherwise) making yourself unapproachable.  If I were a player and I expected a hostile or passive-aggressive response from a player I'd definitely go to the GM first.

And as bigbadron says, if it's IC behaviour leading you to think the player has it in for you, maybe they just have a different set of information.  If it's an OOC personality clash, however, there's no reason to put that in the forefront of the game.

O___o

Quite the contrary. If you have problems with IC actions, I prefer that people contact me, because I can, in fact, act as an intermediary and resolve the issue without anyone felling offended by it. After all, that's what the GM is there for. Asking for the players to not contact the GM with IC stuff is like a surgeon asking the patients to operate on themselves, because he cannot be bothered. If you're the GM, it's exactly what you're there for.

The only time when my players communicate between themselves IC-related is 90% complimenting each other on a great character or a well written posts, 5% of reminding whose posting turn it is and 5% action clarification or storyline/background story suggestions. And I do stress the word clarification, not complaining about it.

Agreed.  If IC actions are reaching the point where they're breaking down the game, then (and only then!) they should be discussed with the GM.  As in, 'This player's character is ruining the game for everyone else!' sort of thing, and only if it's doing that (honestly, a good GM will have made a comment about this anyway to the player in question).

If not, IC should be dealt with IC.
This message was last edited by the user at 11:55, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

Eeugh, no, just no. I strongly disagree with both Raffles and SunRuanEr.

Without explicit clarification, there's no way to tell the difference between "this player is expressing X opinion" and "this character is expressing X opinion" from an IC post, ditto for deducing from a character's speech and actions if the player wants the story to head in a Y direction or not, if they'll push hard for it or if they'll fold easily.

This is rather important when Y would make another player uncomfortable, when X is outright rude and offensive. Discussing things OOC will allow you to take a step back and not get worked up by X, to find a way for the story not to head towards Y that doesn't break character.

Or to decide that you really do not want to play with this player. And either quit or kick said player before the game is made deeply unenjoyable for everyone.
This message was last edited by the user at 12:09, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

As is obvious just from this thread, people have very different ideas about what "in-character" and "out-of-character" mean, so as gladiusdei says, it really depends.

I once expressed to a player that I preferred that they not play their character in a particular way, and the player informed me that the character was not in his control and that if something bothered my character then the character should deal with it. He didn't out-and-out tell me to have my character argue or fight with his, but that seemed to be all the choice he was leaving me. I chose to ignore the character to the extent possible, for as long as I remained in the game. A passive-aggressive decision, but I didn't see much alternative.

And I can see the point that it's a bit silly for a player to be bothered by what a character in a game is doing, as long as rules are being followed. Some might play that way, but not everyone does, and sometimes players use their characters as proxies to get at other players. There might not be actual malicious intent, but that can only be determined (if it can at all) by discussion with the player.

I can also see the point that a player might feel that accurate and faithful roleplaying requires a particular set of behaviors. This, of course, is why it's common for GMs to set alignment restrictions, so players feel neither compelled to have their characters behave nor excused from their characters behaving in certain ways. I don't personally feel that a player is ever required to run their character in a way that ruins anyone else's fun, but I know not everyone would agree with me.

A person's ability to adjudicate a game doesn't tell me much if anything about their ability to adjudicate real-world interaction. It seems polite to me to inform a GM of any unresolved disputes between players or play styles (and I did so in the game I mentioned above), especially if it's going to result in some oddness, but unless the GM has a proven track-record in the form of trusting relationships with the players in question, there seems little reason to involve them. A GM is, at most, the final arbiter of the rules and who gets to sit at the table, and sometimes doesn't even have that much power or control.

The only thing I'm sure of is that players and GMs should either be able to trust each other, or not play together. If one can't trust that everyone else involved is doing their best to enhance the game for everyone, then I don't see that as a viable game, even if no one is actually being malicious.

You would never go to the house of a stranger --  or even a friend -- get into a fight with someone else there and not expect your host to know about it and get involved. Gaming is just like that.  It doesn't matter if you fight in front of the other guests were going to a back room and take it out on each other privately.  If people are having a problem in the game with each other then the GM/host needs to know about it and needs to get involved so that the rest of the party isn't disrupted.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:22, Wed 19 Apr 2017.