LibriumArcana.Games

At the moment I'm burned out from GMing and I'm playing in not one but two railroads based on canned adventures so I'm somewhat cranky when it comes to the subject of gaming. So with my usual perfection possibly impaired by said issues I thought I would ask other people what are good qualities in a gamer?

As with people, there are several qualities that gamers can have, all of which, when taken to one extreme or the other, can result in bad gamers.

Just from personal experience, these are my thoughts.

1. The Social Gamer: these are the gamers that are less interested in the game and more interested in the social aspect of being around others. They are often the glue of many groups since they tend to be friendly and good natured. They can end up distracting from the game for real-life conversations or just too much kibitzing, but they also often help smooth out interpersonal conflicts both in and out of game. Getting them involved in the activity, over the event, however, is critical for continued enjoyment of all.

2. The Power Gamer: Positive? Yes, actually. The power gamer can, oddly, be a bonus to a group, the issue here is that it's easy to go too far with this. This player wants to win, which is good because it means they're driven and will do what they can to move the story and the group forward. However, all too often they hate to lose and will get frustrated if they feel as though they lost to unfair means. It takes some work and understanding, but a power gamer can be a solid member of the group.

3. The Assistant District Attorney: Rules Lawyer for everyone else, I tend to really love having someone else who knows the rules in the game. As long as it's understood who makes the final call, having someone on hand who knows the rules as well as, or even better than you, helps out a lot in play. As a GM, attention is split between a huge number of sources, having basic rules information being explained by someone who understands them and wants to show off that knowledge means there's one less thing for me to do. I think of them as something like a Co-GM, and are usually a good sounding board for rules modifications and changes, since they're looking at things from the player's side of the screen. Taken too far, they can become Brian from KODT level assholes who look only for loopholes that help them while obscuring everything else, but more commonly they have an overwhelming sense of fair play.

4. The Center Stage: This one is another one that can get out of hand easily, and often shares many similarities with the Power Gamer. Eager to be at the core of whatever's going on, the Center Stage player will try to grab attention whenever possible. It's not bad if they're moving things forward and letting other players have their fair share of spotlight time, but it's easy to get caught up in trying to do or micromanage everything. If the other players are more passive, it's easier for someone to keep the spotlight for extended periods of time, which leads to nasty situations wherein eventually everyone gets sick of it.

5. The Loony: This is the player that comes at things sideways. Done right, it can sometimes be awesome, hilarious, and at the center of the best gaming moments of all time. Done poorly or too often, and it becomes a sad cry for attention that gets old very quickly. This aspect of gaming is one of the most widely variable and hardest to shape properly. It also can end up distracting from the game completely, since some loonies use their randomness to put on their own one man show.

6. The Character Actor: Similar in some ways to the Center Stage, the Character Actor is someone who comes up with distinctive characters that maybe break from the norm, or are given far more detail than others. Regardless if the character is a thinly veiled version of themselves or some wild diversion from the rest of the group, the person plays the character to the hilt. On the upside, they're less likely to metagame and far more interested in the events of the game world than, say, kibitzing, but they can get rather intense and offputting to those that may not have their devotion to the role. And if you have a Character Actor who's a bit too Loony, well, everyone remembers that one guy who has to play the bisexual gnomish acrobat with disturbingly large breasts. Oh how I wish I could forget.

There are likely other aspects that are positive, but those are the ones that most every gamer has that can be played for both good or ill. There's also some overlap with other concepts, like the team player or the macho man, but that's neither here nor there. There are also other factors, like if people like each other or not, a lot of outside of the game drama can leak in and ruin even the best of gaming groups.

There's obviously no one perfect combination of qualities here, every group should have a decent mixing, just like any given party itself. Of course, there's other things that can be looked at for what makes a gamer a gamer in the first place, to say nothing of interests.

Gaming has many purposes, and there are many reasons to play games. The most important of which, of course, is entertainment. It's a way to have fun, unwind, and generally de-stress from the BS of life. Some people look to it as a way to control things, others look at it as a way of liberating themselves from the constraints placed around them. There are lots of ways to go about it, just look at the games there are to play.

What, for example, makes someone want to play a Rogue, a Wizard, a Fighter, or a Cleric? What about good or evil characters? The questions are legion, as are the answers, but ultimately, the desire to have fun comes to mind. Still, knowing what motivates your players to play these various classes is beneficial, since it will often deal with how they like to approach and resolve challenges put before them.

Now obviously there's a lot more to all of this than just that, and there are other ways to look at it, but I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up one of the biggest aspects of tabletop RPGs: creativity.

Creativity is something of the core of all of this, and what that means is going to vary for everyone. Being creative is hard and it's not something everyone can do well. For some people, they just want to have fun and having to spend too much time and effort into thinking about it makes it more like work. They just want to shut down those parts of their brain for a little while and engage in mindless violence. Other people lack stimulation and push it into overdrive. This, as you can imagine, can cause conflicts. A GM who is very creative gets frustrated at players that just want to kick back and engage in a power fantasy, and a GM who creates an adventure with that in mind will get frustrated with players who want to ignore the carefully prepared script and go off to do something else entirely.

Ultimately though, you need a basic level of creativity to sit down to a tabletop styled game and have fun. A good GM shouldn't simply lead you around by the nose, we have a nearly endless collection of video games and movies that can do that. Similarly, a good player shouldn't just mindlessly wander through things, doing what they're expected to do.

On top of all of this, of course, is communication. If there's something you as a player don't like, it's up to you to talk about it with the GM, and be able to do so effectively. There's a lot of BS that builds up through games, and without an outlet it crashes down hard. If you're not having fun, it's better to tell the GM than to just keep quiet, silently lose interest, showing up to games and half-heartedly playing along. Even worse is when the GM asks what's going on and is met with empty platitudes assuring them that everything is fine while complaining to the players that they aren't having fun. Of course, I have a general issue with passive aggressive crap anyway, but that's a whole other rant.

Without communication, the game becomes adversarial, a nightmare of KODT proportions, with the GM and the players at each others throats and it can get really, really bad. Especially when each side makes assumptions about the other's actions and perceived motives. What may have just been an honest mistake gets turned into a malicious motive and some people, players or GMs, will use that as an excuse to vent their frustrations on the other side by whatever means are available.

My own thought is no matter what your type above is you have to play well with others. Each player and the GM needs to be able to realize that the game is not just about them, it's about the other players to. That can be hard to do especially when the others don't seem capable of pulling their weight.

Teamwork skills would be nice but remain a dream of mine.

I'm going to save the echo, and just agree with Frigid's points.

Except that I've seen what happens when groups have teamwork in them - the games go smoothly and there's enjoyment to be had - when at least the players have teamwork not so necessarily the characters.

Hotfoot wrote:As with people, there are several qualities that gamers can have, all of which, when taken to one extreme or the other, can result in bad gamers.

Agreed, there are many ways to be a bad gamer. But the question asked was what makes a good gamer.

A good gamer:

1. Creates a character concept that is appropriate to the theme of the campaign and compatible with the rest of the characters.

2. Conveys that character with an identifiable personalty.

3. Watches for and follows plot hooks.

4. Pursues side goals that other characters can become involved in.

5. Accepts DM decisions, especially when DM is wrong.

6. Gives DM honest, constructive feed back when asked.

7. Encourages other players to develop their characters.

Magnus wrote:Agreed, there are many ways to be a bad gamer. But the question asked was what makes a good gamer.

Then you entirely missed the point of the post. The point was that any quality, taken to the extreme, can result in a bad gamer. The trick, then, is to reign in the more extreme cases.

Allow me to demonstrate "bad gamer" versions of your own list, to illustrate.

1. Creates a character concept that is appropriate to the theme of the campaign and compatible with the rest of the characters.

1. This can easily go astray because it can lead to characters that are bland, uninteresting, or possess of themselves little motivation or unique attributes. Party conflict is not, in itself, a bad thing. It's the extremes that result in the problems. If everyone takes the role of Gordon Freeman, mute protagonist who blindly follows orders, there's not much to the role to play, but it is very much compatible.

2. Conveys that character with an identifiable personalty.

2. Here we have the opposite problem, the Center Stage, the Loony, and the Character Actor all can come out of this. Like I said above, that's not a bad thing, and having a well defined character is good, but note that you yourself put two potentially negative traits together in an attempt to moderate the extremes. See where this is going?

3. Watches for and follows plot hooks.

Oof, this one is tough. On the one hand, yes, paying attention to plot hooks can be a good thing, but it can also be a really, really bad thing. A tabletop RPG is a game of give and take between the players and the GM. It's not just the GM coming up with missions and the players going out to complete them. That sort of dynamic can work, but it lends itself far too much to railroad plot design, which some players will not like. This isn't an issue of good versus bad. Liking highly structured games or liking games with more freedom is a preference, not something that can be decidedly labelled good or bad.

To illustrate, from the files of "sometimes flavor text is just flavor text, except when it's not". When I was running my Star Wars game, I included a brief throwaway line about Kyle Katarn going missing. My original intention was to have that explain, timeline-wise, his disappearance for the events of Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight. It wasn't a big plot point, it was just some added flavor for the players to give them a sense that there were things going on in the galaxy around them, and name dropping some characters from the EU in the process. There were other plans to have him involved later on, but I figured I'd let them get there later.

This was instead interpreted as a plot hook, and the players wanted to go off after him and help him out. There were other things they had on the table that needed doing, but they really got fired up about helping out Kyle Katarn.

So, as a GM, I tabled my plans for the next several sessions and let them work their way towards finding the lost Kyle Katarn. Had I been stricter, I would have discouraged them from going, despite the fact that their characters really wanted to, and I would have missed out.

I could go on for hours with how players, using their character's motivations and ambitions, help drive the game more than obligatory plot hooks could, just from my own experiences. Part of that is based in how I GM games, but ultimately, again, it's neither good nor bad. A good GM, which is another subject, however, should be able to balance player randomness with their own story reasonably well.

4. Pursues side goals that other characters can become involved in.

4. There is nothing wrong with engaging in selfish character goals, especially depending on the setting. As long as the table is not dominated by secret notes to the GM and whispered conversations in other rooms, there's plenty to be done here. Now, if the game mechanics work against you, that's another thing entirely. Case in point, hackers in most cyberpunk games, until recently, had to do their runs separate from most of the party. That sucks, but not having a hacker in a cyberpunk game can be a real pain in the ass.

The trick here again, is balance. Let's say you have a character who, for whatever reason, has a goal that not only can other people get involved in, but in fact they NEED them. The risk is high, and the payout is minimal, but this character begs and whines and pleads with everyone to do it for them. Once again, a bad gamer.

5. Accepts DM decisions, especially when DM is wrong.

5. Oof. Again, this one is tricky since yes, at the end of the day the GM is god and they control their games. Everyone, to a certain point, has to bite their tongue when the GM makes a call they don't like. That said, no, I'm sorry, I've had enough bad GMs to say that sometimes you just can't take that shit sitting down. When a GM arbitrarily decides your character is shot in the head because they made a shitty call, or even more fun, a series of shitty calls, they can fuck off.

And yes, really, really bad gamers can result from this. Particularly ones who are friends with the GM and butter up the GM, accepting marginally bad calls to seem more reasonable so that they can whisper in the GM's ear about calls they really should make.

The GM/Player relationship is a delicate one. Some GMs go mad with power and have this utterly insane idea that because it's THEIR game and THEIR table, it's their given right to be power-mad dictators.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

At the end of the day, the players need to trust the GM to be fair, that a ruling made will apply evenly and fairly and that it won't end up screwing over any given player. The GM is the arbitrator of disputes, as well as the source of challenges. While yes, the game cannot continue without the GM, so can it not continue without the players.

A good GM, when there is a dispute that cannot be handled at the table, for whatever reason, will postpone the discussion (and the consequences) until such time as all parties are calmed down and can discuss things in a more level-headed fashion. Good players, on this note, should not press on while angered, but such a thing is hard to do. Ultimately, the conflict from this arises from preconceptions about the rules, which is something all gaming groups must wrestle with.

Thing is though, rules disputes tend to be case-by-case sorts of things. It can make a huge difference in the resolution as to what was the reason for the ruling. Was it something convenient for the GM that gave him an advantage over the players at that moment? Was it a player taking advantage of a broken rule to gain an unfair advantage? Was it just a new situation that the rules didn't adequately cover that took both groups by surprise? Was it malicious, was it accidental? Did it result in a character or major NPC death when it really shouldn't have? These are crucial things to know, and go far beyond simply stating "obey the GM".

Ultimately, a good player has to know when to walk away from a game that is no longer fun as well as try to keep the peace to prevent minor disputes from getting blown out of proportion.

6. Gives DM honest, constructive feed back when asked.

6. This is the best example of a good player rule you've given yet, but I would go one step further and say that a player should give the GM feedback whenever possible. If you wait for the GM to ask, then you're off balance because you RIGHT NOW have to think of what to say, as opposed to crafting those words on your own time. Know what I almost always get when I ask for feedback when I GM? "Oh yeah, it was fun, look forward to the next game." I don't have to explain why that's not terribly helpful.

7. Encourages other players to develop their characters.

7. Again, this one is good but it doesn't go quite far enough, since this could easily be taken to the extreme of "don't do anything, you might take away from someone else's fun".

To that end, it's good to encourage people to do things if they're a bit shy or don't know what they should be doing, but ultimately if they don't step forward and take the reigns once in a while on their own, what are they doing there? The Social Gamer is an example of this. Some people don't come to game, they come for other reasons. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but when nothing happens in the game because of that, it's frustrating because effort went into the game itself.

Here's the tl;dr bit, in case you didn't bother to do more than skim that. There's no such thing as a perfect gamer, or hard and fast rules one should follow to be a "good" gamer. There are good qualities that one should have, but most of those rate with being a relatively social person.

And that's just it. We're all people, socially interacting with each other with a common purpose. Gamers need to work out these issues in their social groups in order to enjoy interacting with each other.

Hotfoot wrote:

3. Watches for and follows plot hooks.

Oof, this one is tough. On the one hand, yes, paying attention to plot hooks can be a good thing, but it can also be a really, really bad thing. A tabletop RPG is a game of give and take between the players and the GM. It's not just the GM coming up with missions and the players going out to complete them. That sort of dynamic can work, but it lends itself far too much to railroad plot design, which some players will not like. This isn't an issue of good versus bad. Liking highly structured games or liking games with more freedom is a preference, not something that can be decidedly labelled good or bad.

There's often more than one way to follow a plot hook; some paths are direct, some paths more creative. Either path can be entertaining. Railroading is typically a GM's frustrated response to players ignoring plot hooks, generally because of inattention or disinterest. Hopefully, the GM makes the plot hooks interesting enough that even bad players are drawn in, but the qualities of a good GM is a topic for another day.

I like your your Kyle Katarn illustration; but I'd say that your point is not incompatible with mine. The fact is your players did follow a plot hook, but it just happened to be a plot hook that emerged somewhat accidentally. And it sounds like you eventually did get back to your originally planned plot line. Your players hyper-sensitivity to plot hooks didn't ruin the story, it enhanced it.

4. Pursues side goals that other characters can become involved in.

4. There is nothing wrong with engaging in selfish character goals, especially depending on the setting. As long as the table is not dominated by secret notes to the GM and whispered conversations in other rooms, there's plenty to be done here. Now, if the game mechanics work against you, that's another thing entirely. Case in point, hackers in most cyberpunk games, until recently, had to do their runs separate from most of the party. That sucks, but not having a hacker in a cyberpunk game can be a real pain in the ass.

The trick here again, is balance. Let's say you have a character who, for whatever reason, has a goal that not only can other people get involved in, but in fact they NEED them. The risk is high, and the payout is minimal, but this character begs and whines and pleads with everyone to do it for them. Once again, a bad gamer.

Again, I think I mostly agree. I just don't see whining as falling along the same continuum as party goals v. self-absorbed goals.

5. Accepts DM decisions, especially when DM is wrong.

5. Oof. Again, this one is tricky since yes, at the end of the day the GM is god and they control their games. Everyone, to a certain point, has to bite their tongue when the GM makes a call they don't like. That said, no, I'm sorry, I've had enough bad GMs to say that sometimes you just can't take that shit sitting down. When a GM arbitrarily decides your character is shot in the head because they made a shitty call, or even more fun, a series of shitty calls, they can fuck off.

If the GMing is truly that bad, just quit. No campaign, no matter how bad, has ever improved by telling the GM to fuck off.

Thing is though, rules disputes tend to be case-by-case sorts of things. It can make a huge difference in the resolution as to what was the reason for the ruling. Was it something convenient for the GM that gave him an advantage over the players at that moment? Was it a player taking advantage of a broken rule to gain an unfair advantage? Was it just a new situation that the rules didn't adequately cover that took both groups by surprise? Was it malicious, was it accidental? Did it result in a character or major NPC death when it really shouldn't have? These are crucial things to know, and go far beyond simply stating "obey the GM".

Sometimes frustration over what look like bad GM calls, might just be a misunderstanding. Therefore, if GM calls are impacting your enjoyment of the game, by all means talk to the GM. I'm just saying that interrupting the session to have that chat probably isn't the best time. Give it a week, and if you're still annoyed by the call, discuss it privately.