Kestrel

Character Sheet vs. Non-Bio

Pretty much most has been mentioned by Rilla and Brovo. Showing the character's abilities and limitations up front accounts for fairness. Be it in an arena match, or a challenge a GM has tailored to fit the party. Having all skills and abilities as nice bullet-point lists are also a far easier reference than simply having them hidden in an IC-post. As a GM it is also a good way to gauge what kind of player you have on your hands, and very importantly if they are able to adapt if they got something wrong. Running systems may be a hassle to some, but tweaking characters together to create balance will teach you a lot about your players.

Though one of the main uses of the bio-part of the CS is very simple; it teaches you if a player can read or just skips a lot of your OOC and fills in the blanks for their selves. This simple part has saved me so, so many headaches, you can't even begin to phantom.

The Library

Oh right, two things I haven't mentioned yet.

Brovo and I did a collab for Rendezvous, he'll post it after tweaking it.

Also I'll be in China for an internship starting September. I'm not sure how this'll influence my GM'ing times, but we'll deal with that when the time comes.

defusing a bomb

Magic Magnum said
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.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.

Exploring options before making a decision isn't shitty advice. Destructive behaviour isn't a simple disagreement, but a threat to the roleplay itself and should be treated as such (again; read harder). Commonly accepted culture = relevance to topic. Brovo made me read this, but I'm bored with this now. So yeah.

The Library

Well that was the name of the first one. It's a series and this one is like, the fourth.

defusing a bomb

Most people go into auto-defense mode when criticized.

Because you approach them wrong,

Yeah there are destructive players, but there always are exceptions. If that's your argument, you might as well not ask directions on the off chance someone stabs you. Wanting to be appreciated or praised, BTW, is fine as long as people don't engage in destructive behaviour to get what they want. Want to be praised? This is what we do, if you're good at it, you'll get your fill. If you're trying to make an epic saga come together and you motivate someone to write the awesomest contributions they possibly can for everyone to read and enjoy, I don't see an issue with that. It only gets destructive if these people don't understand their boundaries or sacrifice others for their own entertainment, but this is destructive behaviour.

And no, not everyone gets along, but that doesn't mean you give up there. Communication is key. Did you like all the people you now associate with from the get-go? Please.

That's making the assumption everyone react's well to sugar coating, or that such situations are not common.

There's a difference between “You are a dick for doing X. Quit it or I'll kick you.” and “Hey, when Y happened I felt uncomfortable and I'd like to see if we can do it differently.” It's not sugarcoating, it's basic communication skills. I know this because I don't respond well to sugarcoating myself. I like people to get to the point and say what they need to, which you can do with the second method. You can be assertive without being aggressive.

Also again, some random passerby may possibly stab you at some point in the future. Beware whenever you leave your house!

The players may be the cause of a turmoil, but at this point it's not the GM's responsibility that they stirred the shitstorm, but their responsibility to fix it. Be it by talking to them or removing them from the game. Or the mods, if the shitstirrer won't quit.

You seem to be of the belief that a GM is necessary to run an RP.

I didn't say that. Read it again. This time read it harder. 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.

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.

Welp, *points at above paragraph* Also there's the words every time, which means all the times.

My point is that people who are unable to work out something together is rather rare. They either don't fit in the RP as a whole, like a couple players going full-on romance in an action-scene (solved by; "Hey guys, save it for the inn-scene coming up! We need you guys in battle!") or genuinely hate one another. Also, it's not so much 'try hard enough' as 'understand well enough'. I'm calling you pessimistic because you know nothing about the individuals in question, yet you already pulled that conclusion.

Also I'm always talking influencing chances when it comes to GM'ing, and not guarantees. Note words like d6 dices and number games in the previous post.

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.

Guy A makes character X, guy B makes character Y. Guy A complains to guy B their characters are too similar, guy B refuses to change his character. Now either the GM jumps in or you let them bicker and negatively influence the atmosphere.

defusing a bomb

Magic Magnum said 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 bad 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.

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.

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're 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 to controlling.

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.

tl;dr, be an engineer.

Feeding your quitter attitude to others, on the other hand, makes me want to slap you. Because seriously, fuck that noise. You're potentially ruining my future RP's.

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.

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.

defusing a bomb

Magic Magnum said Easier said than done.

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.

Magic Magnum said 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.

... 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.

defusing a bomb

In the future; don't let players argue amongst each other. You're the GM and character approval is your responsibility. If a character is unacceptable for whatever reason, you're well within your right to deny them access to the IC. Therefore, it is a non-issue if you hold your ground.

As for getting people back, yeah, er... Shit-stirring has that effect. It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. You informed him of the situation and your action, whether he wants to come back or not is up to him.

Legend of Renalta 2: Reborn

Western Watch Tower

Esyllt wouldn't get an answer from the Drow, as the ravens transformed into demons and the games began. Esyllt could not see this imminent battle as a game, but she wondered what the chessboard and so-called rules meant. Not that there was time for such, as her allies mounted the attack right away. Except for Draza... Who was intent on passing out sweets. Esyllt hurried to the fairy's side and put her shield in front of the strange creature. Even if combat didn't seem within her interests, if the fairy was part of the Queen's Blades she had to be of importance.

“Fall back.” Esyllt suggested to Draza. “These aren't games.”

The drow and... A woman with a mechanical dragon, seemed powerful allies in their regards. Monsters to fight monsters, it was sure more exotic than a squadron of soldiers. Esyllt put her hand down on the chessboard and focused her energy into it. She channelled mana through the tiles; forging a small body of black and white. It wouldn´t last long or be powerful without a soul to fuel it, but Esyllt didn´t need it to. While her allies would be demand the enemy's attention, Esyllt would have her creation sneak to the back of the girl; grabbing her legs and prevent her from dodging. If the golemancer would be successful, she would be free picking for any of her allies with ranged abilities.

The Library

CTHD and Hive of Minds up. Let me think what I'll do with Viva...