I'm not even sure I'm putting this in the right place...

A little question that has been bothering me a for a while: I run a fairly Story-line-style campaign, so I work on only about one at a time. In the middle of one campaign, a new player joined us. Beforehand, I had warned of the content of the campain: dark, a bit twisted, and a rather messed up loony for an NPC. Said player agreed to this and joined in. Later on, around the "climax", I suppose, of the campaign (we'd been playing it for...oh, around ten months, rather spaced out), he started to complain that it was "too angst-ridden" and "really disturbing". Now, I'd warned her/him previously about this. I don't know, do you think I'm not being fair to the newcomer or is it his/her fault? This really does bug me, and I've heard through friends of mine that things have happened like that in other RPGs they've tried to run.
I've told that player that if he/she didn't like the content, to simply walk out of it. Continuing to participate, I received more complaints about it. I warned the player that if such things were to continue, her/his PC would be either no longer regarded as a presence in my campaign, or would die, simply because the player was slowly starting to grate on my nerves and disrupt the campaign. I'm pretty new at GMing, so I'm really unsure of how to handle the player's continuing criticisms about my game. I don't run pure angst or pure SL (latter part being a little hard to describe), but this is just taking the proverbial cake! This particular game has been going on for almost a year, and I get some newbie player who decides to, for lack of better wording, screw it over by constantly complaining.
My games focus on character development, which is partially why I say I run SL-type games, as story-like qualities tend to form as the game progresses, so I have games with players who don't necessarily have to do with the SL and sessions with only those who fit into it. Mind you, having contacts outside the SL is something I like to have happen. Now.. this player wasn't even part of the SL portion, and she/he STILL complained about it. I know, I know, I'm probably ranting, but I'd really like input from those of you here who have been running games for longer than I have, or have at least some advice on what I should do about this player of mine.
I think I've probably gone on long enough, so I'll stop now. ..and I've probably confused people, too.


~Tsukino Bara

It's your game. If he was warned and he is the only player having a problem with it, then he might want to find another game. The only danger I see is that one player is speaking out about a sentiment that other players hold.

That doesn't sound like the case here, but it might be worth opening up a dialogue about the tone of the game with the players. If they don't like something, encourage them to let you know and be friendly about it (rather than confrontational).

Sounds like you've given this player every opportunity. 1- They were forewarned. 2- They consented ahead of time. 3- They received at least one warning. Drop a cow on them... A depressed, suicidal cow if you want it to stay angsty.

I'm assuming here, that your other players like the story line and like the way things are. If that's so, then this new player not only disrespects you and disregards your wishes, but also disregards the entire group. That's somebody who can't stay.

On the other hand, it might (just might) be that other members of your group feel the same way as the new player: that things are too angsty or whatever. The new guy might feel empowered to stick up for himself because of them. Probably a good idea to get a reality check about this guy from your other players before doing anything drastic.

The problem with getting advice from a forum like this is that we only see your side, and we don't see all of that. We've never been to a game session, we haven't met this guy (or girl) and we're all going to tell you to drop an orbital cow. However, for my 2 I'd get a second opinion from the other players before you open up. Assuming they're with you at all, go ahead and waste the guy. Preferably in an angsty fashion.

I've tried a few times to explain the situation, but he/she still complained. It seemed as though it just never sank in: "You don't have to play if you don't like it. It's like fanfiction disclaimers--you don't like it, don't read it. You've been warned of the content." That's about what I said, too. She/he ended up leaving and hasn't spoken to me or any of the other players since. I'm wondering if I went a little overboard on being annoyed..
As for the angst, it's actually not really all that angsty. I think the characters didn't have picture-perfect histories, but that's really about it. As much as I like angst, and I probably somehow messed this up in my initial post, this isn't really one of my angsty plotlines. O_o ...so I'ma just a little confused.. well, there was maybe ONE scene of something depressing...

I second TKG.

As a GM it's pretty natural to get this feeling. I second the dialouge thing, especially with your other players. If they bother to give you feedback on the game then be very grateful. Believe me, I'd much rather have players who go 'Bleagh!' or 'Cool!' when I say I want to run a game, instead of players who go 'If you want to."

Edit: Reply was too slow =/

Be friendly. Talk privately to the player and let him know that this particular adventure/campaign is emphasizing part of the dark and gritty side of the cyberpunk genre. Future games might emphasize other aspects. Invite him to enthusiastically continue in the current campaign, where he can enhance the enjoyment of all the players and the GM by being a full participant in the game. Or tell him to sit out the rest of the current campaign until a new one is started. Inform him that you believe his current attitude is irritating the current campaign, and you, as GM, can't allow that to continue.

If he wants to stay in, offer to let him run a character that complains about the dark and terrible world in character. He can run a do-gooder, or super-ethical character, or a pacifist who constantly complains about the evil in the world, in character, and tries to change the world to be better for everyone.

Hmm... do you think maybe there was another reason the player wanted to play? Like say romantic interest in one of the other players, or yourself? Maybe just looking for friends to hang with?

And, if you're players are happy with the game as you're running it, be confident in yourself and don't let anyone make you doubt about how you're running it. Unless he exposes very good reasons of how to improve it, such criticism will finally make you change the campaing focus and, likely, will make you and the other players less happy and have less fun with it all.

This is one of those things that you should bring up after the game ends for a session. Feedback is wonderful, but be friendly about it. I've been luck enough that I've usually anticipated how my players want their games and can (9 out of 10 times) deliver. But still discussing with the players the direction of the game, the mood, etc. is important.

Also what is with this one player. Based (semi-sexist, I'll freely admit, don't kill or sue me ) if they are female, chances are they are coming from the angst games and may have been fed up with that sort of thing. If so, talk with her about what doesn't equal angst and find out what direction she is interested in. Not to defend her, but sometimes the players have ideas I never would have come upon.

Don

I did a campaign a few years ago (in another game Shhhhh ) and I had some comments made that it was dragging out and they just wanted to get to the head man ASAP. I first of all said "If you don't like it don't play!" and it caused a bit of tension.

So I came up with an idea. One of the players characters went off on a single person mission (we did that sometimes in the campaign) and so I created a character and introduced him into the campaign as a kind of lone ranger hero type (you know, the guy who has been after the evil boss for years for killing his family and is joining the shadowrunners as he sees what they are doing and wants his pop as well). The other player whos character was away on a mission took the role of games master for a couple of games.

eventually my character then wandered off into the sunset (after a bloody good couple of games I might add ) and we swapped back.

Not only did it gave me loads of material for the future but the campaign continued for many more games than it would have done, before an absolutely epic ending. If this was not done then I feel the campaign would have been an anti-climax!

Ah the subtle arts of GMing...

OK, first up remember that the purpose of plying a game is to havefun. When it stops being fun you have to discern what's wrong and how to fix it. As a gaming group is usually tight knit and often comprised of friends, the last thing you want is to cause aggro and lose those friendships. This is one of those life things were people start to drift in their various opinions and find their own paths.

OK, so how's that help you sort out the problem? Here's some advice that I've learnt the hard way.

Talk to your players about the situation out of game-time. Get their lowdown on how they feel your campaign and GMing style. Use this as constructive criticism to help improve your game.

Analyse your own part and the atmosphere you want to set for your game. Is this what the players want to play in? Sometimes as a GM you have a really great idea and environment, but its no point forcing it upon a group of players who aren't as fanatical to it as yourself. You'll be left with one of three solutions.

> Ultimatum - Play it your way. If they don't like it then they can leave and be replaced by players who do want to play in this campaign. Normally use this one if everyone else is A-OK with the game, IE its only an individual who isn't fitting in.

> Compromise - Alter the campaign to fit in with the other player's requests, but still keep your edge in there. You shouldn't let them dictate the game for you so retain that GM control. Just make it a little more acceptable to the player's desires. This is usually used if a majority of the players are having problems with your style and it does often help retain those friendships.

> Downtime - Halt the game for a month or more. Take a break and refresh your batteries. This also lets the players reset their enthusiasm too. There's no point continuing to flog a dead horse and build up resentment and inter-player hassels by forcing the game upon them. Nobody wins in that situation. You lose friendships, stop playing anyway and there's a heck of a lot of bad blood left lying around. Sometimes it taints any future games and groups you might join/start later on.

OK, hope that helps. All in all though, if you've explained the situation and the player is causing disruption to the group ask them to leave the group, but write their character out or give them a decent send-off rather than a vindictive thunderbolt from above that incinerates their character outright. After all, it'll go a long way to reinforcing your GMing reputation and campaign continuity.

Good luck.

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Beeste, I wish I had had you for my first SR GM. My first group had some major problems. It turned angsty/sadistic/etc. fairly fast.

Cheers for the praise Phaeton. Heh, had to find out the hard way myself and it wasn't pretty. The good thing is that the damage done wasn't permanent (at least not for myself) and that I still roleplay with many of the original group now and then. OK, they split and now I have five or more different groups of friends resulting from the incident (originally a 15 player bust up session!), but hey we're all older and wiser today.

Unfortunately its not just limited to tabletop RPGs. I've had to whether the experience as a third party from fallout crap resulting from major organisation bust ups on more than one occassion. Lost contact with many fine LARPers and friends therein due to petty politics and powerplaying. Still, you get therough the other side and it hasn't dampened my enthusiasm for getting back into the game.

BTW, I'd count myself lucky I'm not your GM. The therapy bills are expensive and some of my original 1st Ed players are still screwed in the head. Still, its a good warm feeling to have been the cause of all that.

Hey TsukinoBara! What ever the outcome of this DON'T LET IT PUT YOU OFF GM'ing. Some people can be difficult at times and you may even not be doing anything wrong. But as BIG BAD BEESTE has very clearly said Listen to the comments of players and try to use the comments constructively.

When I first GM'd a game I had someone storm out on the game (after throwing the dice at me) because they didn't like what I did. To be honest the fault was not mine though at the time I beat myself up and did not GM again for weeks. My friends (the ones who don't through objects at me ) eventually convinced me to have another go and I started to enjoy myself again.

Now, I learn as much as I can from the players but most of all I do not live in fear I am doing wrong but always look for advice on how to make the game better. In other words remember it's all about fun man!

Like I said earlier I had someone else be difficult (though he did not throw things at me this time ) and this time I new I was not wrong but listened any way and came to the constructive solution I mentioned.

You see, these are the things that never make it into the "What is a Role Playing Game?" Subheaders in every single RPG book out there.

Sure, they tell you about mechanics, dice, imagination, immersion, story-telling and world building.

Do they tell you about how to deal with people? Noooooooooo.

If I ever write an rpg book, that's going to get a least a sentence. Maybe a period. or something.

I second Beestee. The important thing to do is talk to your players and find out what they want. The most delicate thing about being a gm is finding out what your players want, finding out what you want, and finding a way to bring both of those together.

Adn you need to have fun somewhere in the middle.

I think Beeste should write a guide to dealing with people

I wonder what it should be called (other than "A guide for dealing with people")

How to Make Friends and Drop Cows on Players

LOL

How to keep players and frag hecklers

I'm more inclined to go with

"How to Role-Play Games and Mess With Their Heads!"

Cheers for the praise guys. Heck, its all about passing on what I've learnt to make your lives and GMing any easier.

Laughing Tiger has a good point about all the stuff a book doesn't tell you about running a game. You can often find several good ideas in the multitude of gaming magazine articles. Some especially cater to these problems areas. Even better are the old letters pages. Damn, I'm starting to become the Agony Aunt. Oh well, if it can help.

The best way to learn about it is to experience it. I started RPGs with my uncle as the DM and progressed to wargaming and tabletops with a group of friends. From there on I broadened my experiences by attending a local club, trying out different rpg systems run by different GMs. This is great to see all sides of the hobby. After that came live-roleplaying to get a feel for reality and just because its bloody good fun to get out there and physically bash gobbos! After a few years with running large LRP events, and GMing for several different RPG groups at home I managed to get into conventions. Should have gone sooner - they're a blast people. Unfortunatley, I never seem to have enough money when I end up at one. Ho-hum.

All in all though, never let yourself be discouraged. There's always stuff to learn and always players and GM's out there who share your point of view. When you get into a game with six strangers at GenCon and you simply have the best time, you know that there is good in the world after all.

Roleplaying? Its 1% rules and 99% people. Because without the people you have no game.