One of the things that's interesting about the broader hobby is the assumptions it makes about what gamers are like.

I tend to view RPGs as social activities and so you solve problems with your group the same way you'd solve problems in your five-a-side football group: A bit of leadership and communication.

RPGs tend to view these as insurmountable problems. You can't talk to Derek about only playing Laserface BUT you can make it against the rules to play Laserface and assume Derek will obey.

Which is quite a weird understanding of human nature as it assumes that people are completely unreasonable and refuse to back down or alter their behaviour in any way but will instantly and unquestioningly follow published guidelines.

I guess it's all about solving problems *at scale* and realising that you can't trust that people will have the social skills or nous to solve inter-personal conflicts.

Which is quite a weird understanding of human nature as it assumes that people are completely unreasonable and refuse to back down or alter their behaviour in any way but will instantly and unquestioningly follow published guidelines.

I guess it's all about solving problems *at scale* and realising that you can't trust that people will have the social skills or nous to solve inter-personal conflicts.

@Taskerland "You have to do this, I'm in charge, waaah" vs "you have to do this, it's in The Rules" vs "could we try doing this".

This is not an assumption without foundation.

I have had gaming groups detonate underneath me due to inter-personal conflict and people getting annoyed rather than using their words. In fact, I have never had a group break-up because of disagreements over rules.

I don't know if that's proof of the well-foundedness of this approach to people management or a sign that 'fixing' the rules only ever kicks the can down the road.

Was I the primary agent in those group-detonations? I want to say no (obviously) but I don't think I ever made things easier.

Anyway, one of my pet theories is that the folk devil figure of the 'auteur GM' associated with the hobby as-it-was in the 1990s is really a product of the industry assuming that GMs could manage group cohesion despite gamers often not being massively well-socialised and the industry not being great at training GMs.

You look at modules from that period and it is all 'Here is how to punish your players for being disruptive' and well... people applied the techniques that were offered to them.

This is not an assumption without foundation.

I have had gaming groups detonate underneath me due to inter-personal conflict and people getting annoyed rather than using their words. In fact, I have never had a group break-up because of disagreements over rules.

I don't know if that's proof of the well-foundedness of this approach to people management or a sign that 'fixing' the rules only ever kicks the can down the road.

One of the things that's interesting about the broader hobby is the assumptions it makes about what gamers are like.

I tend to view RPGs as social activities and so you solve problems with your group the same way you'd solve problems in your five-a-side football group: A bit of leadership and communication.

RPGs tend to view these as insurmountable problems. You can't talk to Derek about only playing Laserface BUT you can make it against the rules to play Laserface and assume Derek will obey.

Anyway, one of my pet theories is that the folk devil figure of the 'auteur GM' associated with the hobby as-it-was in the 1990s is really a product of the industry assuming that GMs could manage group cohesion despite gamers often not being massively well-socialised and the industry not being great at training GMs.

You look at modules from that period and it is all 'Here is how to punish your players for being disruptive' and well... people applied the techniques that were offered to them.

@Taskerland Bloody Laserface again

One of the things that's interesting about the broader hobby is the assumptions it makes about what gamers are like.

I tend to view RPGs as social activities and so you solve problems with your group the same way you'd solve problems in your five-a-side football group: A bit of leadership and communication.

RPGs tend to view these as insurmountable problems. You can't talk to Derek about only playing Laserface BUT you can make it against the rules to play Laserface and assume Derek will obey.

@Taskerland The worrying thing about Laserface, Derek and playing with bare feet, is he's dangerously close to becoming a trope about a group that deserves a webtoon

@Taskerland I always look at this through the lens of the one guy in my old group who played Literally Dean Winchester in every single ttrpg regardless of setting. like we were playing fallout like ok why is dean winchester here

@Printdevil The comedically awful player is an old old trope in fairness. I think my view of Derek Laserface is like the guy who only plays ninjas and when forced to play Call of Cthulhu beligerently agrees to play a retired professor of ninja studies.

@Printdevil The comedically awful player is an old old trope in fairness. I think my view of Derek Laserface is like the guy who only plays ninjas and when forced to play Call of Cthulhu beligerently agrees to play a retired professor of ninja studies.

@Taskerland To be immediate in response, I'm thinking a retired professor of Ninja Studies sounds like a great CoC character. I can imagine playing that and doing a "eyes light up" bit every time it might be Ninja. It'd be like the Lupus diagnosis in House

@Taskerland To be immediate in response, I'm thinking a retired professor of Ninja Studies sounds like a great CoC character. I can imagine playing that and doing a "eyes light up" bit every time it might be Ninja. It'd be like the Lupus diagnosis in House

@Taskerland @Printdevil I've known players like that, and I've accepted that a game we're both in is a game that will be not fun for at least one of us, so I don't play with them. I would rather no gaming than do gaming I don't enjoy, when it comes down to it.