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.

In reply to Evil Empryss (msg # 20):

True, though unless that host knows all involved and their dispute well, and has their trust, I wouldn't want or expect the host to do anything more than ask the disputants to leave.

Except in an roll game, the gm is expected to know all and handle it.  Its part of the job description.

I really think the idea of players arguing out their problems in any game as being self defeating. It would be pretty hard for a game to get passed it. As a gm I'd be pretty kissed they would even try, and would likely boot them for it.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 22):

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a "roll game," but no, I don't expect my GMs to handle interpersonal conflicts and I don't really want them to unless, as I said, they are already personally involved somehow. And as a GM, I never received a job description and I don't consider it a "job." If the players want something from me, they can ask for it, but I'm not obligated, and they are always free to leave.

Anyone is welcome to try to take up whatever responsibilities they feel they should, as GM, but there's no overriding set of requirements, just individual preferences. Not every player would want to play under every GM, and not every GM would want to run a game for every player.

Different discussion. The point, as I believe you said, is how to handle "a problem with IC actions of players" depends greatly on everyone involved.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:29, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

(Note: this isn't directed at engine, but this quote frames a thought I was having well)

The idea that "IC is just IC" is possibly one of the most insidiously destructive things in the tabletop gaming hobby.  It's an attitude that has left many people (especially female and minority people) feeling like they're not welcome.  Flat-out offensive actions done "only IC" are still offensive.  Being a royal jerk to the other players is still being a royal jerk.  Diving in to offensive content (while remaining within the RPOL rules, of course), is still diving into offensive content.

If your character is a racist, an over-the-top stereotype, and/or misogynist to the point that I'm personally offended, you can bet that I'm going to say something to the GM and if it doesn't drop to a level I'm comfortable with, I'm going to walk.  And while that is an easy example (and annoyingly common in RL gaming circles), it doesn't have to be so straightforward.  Say I just lost a loved one to cancer... I'd probably really rather we didn't play out a storyline that's all about someone dying of cancer (though I might be open to a "cure cancer" story).

Being bothered by stuff isn't a bad thing.  Saying something about it isn't a bad thing.  Gaming is a social experience, and some social courtesy is owed to everyone else at the table, virtual or not.  If someone's child just died you don't go making "dead baby" jokes around them.  If you had no idea, that's fair, but if you're asked to stop because it's really bothering someone, you stop.  That's your requirement as a human being.

If you somehow think that it being part of an RPG lets you gleefully push all of someone's buttons and offend them, then I won't be gaming with you.  Being "in game" isn't an excuse.

---

Now, if you're running a game that's going to deal with some tough themes like that and you make it clear, from the very start, that it's part of the game, that's a bit different.  Giving people warning can blunt the sting of the material and you'll have many people that might have been sensitive self-select out.

I (and it seems many other respondents) have no problem with players working things out on their own - but in private. The other players don't need to see it, or have it interrupt their game. GMs on this site can read PMs to make sure the spirit of the game is upheld, taking appropriate action if, and as, needed to protect the integrity of the game.

So, don't vent or argue or express your displeasure in OOC, take it to PM, either to the player of the other character or to the GM. Work things out there and allow the GM to inform other players of the results, if necessary. It's better for the game that way.

And this is what I meant in my own post with the qualifier. I'm the sort who believes stuff in IC should be handled in IC, but...



...that's a problem that probably needs to be dealt with outside of IC.

And while IC may be IC, it doesn't mean that IC is 'just' IC, as you note.  Wisely.  :D

And if the player insists on having their character do all kinds of truly offensive things, and that wasn't the point of the game (I mean, I'm sure there are some games out there where this is the norm, but let's say it's not what everyone else signed up to play and certainly wasn't written that way in the game background/description), then the GM should probably be stepping in and saying 'look, this isn't THAT game.  I'm sure you could find one.'

And I certainly wouldn't have a problem doing what you suggest as well:



Which is still, in my opinion, the best way to go rather than going straight to the player.  But that's me.

I can see the idea of taking it to PM as well, but having been burned that way in the past, these days I just lay it on the GM (haven't needed to do so in some time, really...can't recall the last, even).

As an old friend and fellow GM used to say, "Chaotic neutral is an alignment, chaotic appleberries is not."

ALWAYS take it up with the GM, for OOC and IC issues.

The GM is responsible for the game in its entirety, and there's a darn good reason why the GM can see all PMs.  May as well include them from the beginning, because they can see it anyways, and if it all goes to hell, they bear some responsibility for it.

Raffles, the way you're wording things, I don't know, you seem to imply that there's "suck it up and stick to IC" and there's "this is not tolerable, either this stops or I leave", with no middle ground.

No "hey, that last line of your character, kinda bothered me, could you maybe tone down the insults involving mimes? I'm terrified of mimes IRL and it's making this unenjoyable to read about them all the time"

or how about "I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable roleplaying romance, could we rework this OOC so that we can find an in-character way for things to not head that way?"

In reply to pdboddy (msg # 27):

Under "Use of Contents" it sounds as though a player could appeal directly to the moderators in certain situations, thereby circumventing a GM. As I read it, this could involve the removal of a player, at the discretion of the moderators, who might inform the GM, but have no obligation to confer with them. So, on this website, it sounds like a GM isn't responsible for their game in its entirety. I could be misunderstanding, though.

I had been assuming we were including in-person games in this discussion, but now I see that I probably shouldn't assume that.

You make a good point about this - mild discussion about this kind of thing, I suppose, might not be a bad thing between players.  I'll note that your thing is a notice of 'I feel xyz, could you possibly -'  Which is nice and polite and a request.

Though I feel that it should be taken to PM.  And if there is any disagreement on the matter, then off to the GM.

There's some middle ground in things.  My personal preference is that if people have problems with IC stuff, they should talk to the GM, but yes, conceded, there will be times when it could be easily dealt with by a simple, polite request...if the other person is reasonable.



That, I feel, is more of a 'I'm not comfortable writing that kind of stuff' rather than 'I don't like how you're writing your character and your posts'.

Fine line, I suppose, but to me there's a difference.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:26, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

Going to the mods is an extreme, and I'll bet that unless official RPOL policy has been violated, that incidents reported to them will be sent back to the GM.

In reply to Westwind (msg # 31):

Sorry, I didn't mean it wasn't an extreme course of action, I just meant that the buck doesn't necessarily stop with the GM, or even run by the GM.

In reply to engine (msg # 29):

I think it would be a pretty rare circumstance where, if you went to the mods without discussing it with the GM, that you wouldn't be told to work it out with the GM.  It's not the mods' job to work out in-game problems, whether IC or OOC.  If it gets to the point you've asked the GM to remove you from the game, and s/he hasn't done so in a timely manner, then you can ask the mods to do that, but that's the last resort, nowhere near the first.

No, they couldn't.

First: Moderators are not responsible for resolving in-game interpersonal disputes, that is purely the domain of the GM.  So if somebody is acting like a jerk and blocking everything that your character does, then reporting it to us, will just get an "And?"  See also here: link to a message in another game

Second: If somebody posts something that is in breach of the site's rules on content, then we might possibly get involved.  But, again, it should be pointed out to your GM first.  If they don't fix it, then the Mods should be contacted.

Yes, in fact they are.  The GM is considered responsible for every post in their game.  So if a post breaches site rules, and the GM is told about it but doesn't do anything, then they are considered to hold just as much responsibility for that rules breach as the player who posted it.  See also here: link to a message in another game
This message was last edited by the user at 18:49, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 34):

Thank you for the clarification, though I didn't mean to imply that it was any more likely to happen than "might possibly." If someone doesn't feel comfortable or able to point it out to their GM first, do they have recourse?

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 34):

I was just thinking that.  If the moderators actually got involved in game disputes then you wouldn't have time to do anything else at all.  It'd be non-stop drama resolution.

In reply to Kioma (msg # 36):

Not every game dispute, just ones that involve action counter to the User Agreement. And hopefully a GM would see and recognize such a thing and take their own steps, but they might possibly not.

Yes, they can leave the game.  Apart from that, no (at least for the personal disputes).

Exactly .  We simply don't have the time to read through a game looking for who said what to offend who, and in what order.

As mentioned above, if a GM is aware of an actual breach of the ToU, and doesn't do anything about it, then we should be contacted.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:01, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

Regardless, I feel like the GM should always be included.  The GM is the one that talks to everyone and your minor gripe with someone else's behavior might actually be shared by other people in the game.  If you all tell the GM, then that has a lot more weight behind it than one player sniping at another.

People being people, by the time anyone does say anything, they're usually quite annoyed.  It's rarely "one line that you used" but rather "one line in each of your last fifty posts".  If you're bothered by it enough to go to the GM, then go to the GM.  Going to the player is typically the wrong course of action because you don't have any real power in that dynamic.

bigbadron's posts are what I meant when I said it was in the GM job description to know all and handle all problems.  Sorry my dumb autocorrect apparently made that unclear.

But the point brought up about IC only being IC is something I've had problems with.  Players criticizing or insulting choices made by other players in a manner that was clearly directed at the player behind the character, not the character itself.  Such as "John leapt back as Greg charged forward, cursing as he thought only a total idiot would decide to do what Greg did." That screams insult toward the player controlling Greg.  This type of thing has happened many times in my game, and VERY rarely does it end with the two players agreeing and moving forward.  It almost always descends into an argument and further insult.

That's why in my games, any activity like this is not tolerated, and any problems between players will be handled by me.  I don't know anyone on rpol well enough to trust them to handle a situation in my games to my own satisfaction.  So I'll handle it myself.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:32, Wed 19 Apr 2017.

I'm curious about the incident Azraile is referring to in the original post.

There's a huge range of things it could be, but if it's the case where someone is upset that another player has an annoying tic, or always seems to be copying their actions in combat and it's starting to get on the player's nerves, yeah, I'd go to the other player first.  The GM doesn't need to get involved unless it's something important.

If I have beef with my co-worker, I'm going to talk to them first.  I'm not going to go directly to our supervisor, or our supervisor's supervisor.  Some people do this, but I want to talk to that person directly first.  If that doesn't solve the issue, I might go to the supervisor at that point.

In the same way, if another player in my gaming group is annoying me, I'm going to talk to that person first before going to the GM.  If the player doesn't listen, then I'll go to the GM.

However, if one player is intentionally needling me and I know it's intentional, I might go to the GM about that.  In that case, talking to the other player isn't going to accomplish much at all.

In a similar situation, if one student in a class is making another student uncomfortable with some pretty strongly political statements, it would be safer to talk to the teacher directly rather than talk to the politically charged student.

It depends greatly on the cause of conflict, whether it's a minor annoyance or a pretty serious issue.

I'm in the "Keep the GM in the loop" camp.

Realistically, though, unless you contact the other player off-site or through rMail (which doesn't strike me as being at all a good idea), then the GM is involved no matter what.  GMs can see all posts, all PMs, all private lines.  I can't speak for anyone else but when I post something - anything - in a game I assume that the GM/s will look at it.  Given that all GMs on the site can be held accountable for posts in their games, as big bad ron points out, all GMs likewise have a vested interest in resolving problems as smoothly as they can.

From perspective as a player, that means that if something gets out of hand (as so often disagreements can, and I don't think anyone's saying they can't or don't), the GM is there to govern over the conflict as is their responsibility because it's their game.  For my own sake, I'd contact the GM first just to get a second opinion on what it is I'm perceiving.  That alone, discounting all other factors, makes me think that talking to the other player first isn't a wise move.

From the perspective of a GM, I know that the game is my responsibility, whether I was handed a list of rules or not (spoiler: we all were - it's called the TOU and it makes the responsibilities of a GM pretty darn clear).  I often hand individual players information that can change their actions without wanting the others to know about it, to keep reactions genuine.  I've seen small wrinkles turn into snowballing disasters just on the basis of small understandings and minor issues with communication.  I would always encourage a player with a grievance of any kind to come to me first, so I can provide a second opinion and so I know there's problems well before they become Problems.

It's a multi-layered matter but ultimately a huge factor to take into account is that we're all communicating via text, which is an imperfect (but on balance still pretty freakin' cool) method.  People react differently, misunderstandings arise, autocorrect happens.  Having a second opinion and a moderating influence should things go south, especially when it's the person who's backside (and whose game) is on the line, is surely rarely ever a bad thing.

The rule isn't quite as pointed at that.  GMs are required to act on ToU violations if they are made aware of them, but the GM doesn't necessarily have to read every single thing in the game.  In fact, I'd say that assuming that they read everything (and caught the violation) might be a bad idea.  If something is a violation, it's the responsibility of every player to draw it to the GM's attention.

Have to?  Oh, I'm certainly not saying they have to read everything.  But they can, and what I'm saying is that I don't assume they're not.  'Private' is a particularly qualified concept in the bounds of an RPoL game.

My point was that if you're taking the issue up with anyone in the game, whether you're going to the GM or the player, then the GM automatically has the capacity to read it and is therefore - theoretically, at the very least - involved in the matter.  Quite aside from TOU violations (which I'm moderately sure wasn't the OP's original focus) there's no way to ensure the GM doesn't read any particular thing in their game, though they're responsible for the entire content of the game whether they read it or not.

And I wholly agree, it's every player's responsibility to draw a TOU violation to the GM's attention.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:02, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

Actually it is as pointed as that.  RpoL expects every GM in a game to be aware of it's content.  That means reading everything, including the PMs - we will not accept "I didn't read that thread" as a valid reason for being unaware of a thread' s content.

Example: Only the involved players and the GM are able to read a private thread, so who reports breaches of the TOU in a private thread to the GM?  If we spot a couple of people playing out the rape of a minor in a PM then we are going to be asking why they've been allowed to do it.

"Sorry, it's a private thread between two players that I trust, so I didn't read it." will probably earn a site ban, just like theirs.

When I went looking, I had a really, really hard time finding this rule.  There are some mentions of that kind of policy for adult games in a few posts, but it took about half an hour of going through every item in Help and FAQs to finally find a statement to that effect that it applies to all games.  The only mention I found was in the FAQ for Mature games under a section on Adult content in PMs.

If this is meant to be a core rule, I really think it should be spelled out more clearly in the basic areas of the rules.  Unless I missed it there, somewhere, of course.

EDIT: Please don't misconstrue the above as opposition to the rule.  As long as the enforcement is reasonable, it's probably fine.
This message was last edited by the user at 18:37, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

I feel like I've seen that rule repeated again and again in the community chat and threads like this. So it isn't exactly a hidden thing.

GMs are personally responsible for everything in their games, which is also why they are the only authority on who plays in them, and what decisions they make.  Every bit of the game is their responsibility.

It's things like this that make me want to implement something like the X-Card in my games.

http://tinyurl.com/x-card-rpg

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 48):

There's also a very clear post about GM responsibilities in "RPoL Announcements".

It seems sensible to me that GMs are responsible for everything in the game - GMs are the only ones (apart from mods, obviously) who can permanently delete any post or kick any player.  You can't really expect to wield near-supreme* executive power in a game without taking on a similar amount of responsibility for that game.

Not everybody feels the same way, that's clear, but I figure that's the way it should be.

I dunno.  Maybe I'm a bit of an idealist in some ways but I figure it's realism talking.

* = 'Near-supreme' because the game contents are still bound by the TOU, of course.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 51):

The post is clear, but it is lost on the second page... I found it because you mentioned it, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. I feel that it should also be somewhere more evident, like the ToU or when creating a new game.

Do you mean the post titled "Required Reading for those who GM or PLAY in Adult Games"?  Because that's the item I was referring to earlier as applying explicitly to adult games.  Would someone that's only running general or mature games expect to be held to rules in a post that's, from its very title, targeted at players of adult games?  The fact that most of that post is clearly outdated makes it (all of the age stuff is overridden in the FAQ)... less likely to be viewed as a go-to source for the current rules.

From a technical aspect, a rule like this worries me because it's quite possible to miss a PM here and there due to the way they're ordered by recipient.  From a practical standpoint, I'm very, very unlikely to break it as the kind of forbidden PM thread mentioned here is likely to be active enough that I'd certainly peek in on it to see what was up.

@gladiusdei

I get what you're saying, but a lot of people don't read community chat or the other forums.  I've gone years without reading a thread in community chat before.  If there's a rule that's going to affect me, I should be able to find it in the Policy section of Help at the very least.

---

Again, I'm not saying it's a bad rule, but it's easy not to know it.  Rules that are easy not to know are easy to break without knowing it.  All I'm suggesting is that it get made more clear in the Policy or ToU section (technically, it's not the ToU but the Adult Games Policy that's getten broken - which is in itself not an Adult Games Policy but an Adult/Restricted Content Policy since it applies to games that aren't Adult games).

Woah, that thread is clear (though some explicit mentions of PM threads would be welcome to bulk it out a bit).  It's just... lost on the second page... and from nine years ago.  That might be asking a bit much for new GMs to become aware of it.  It's clearly asking too much for my memory to have retained solid knowledge of it nine years later.

I was talking about the one entitled "Responsibilities of GM status."

And now it's on the first page

Considering some people only read the first post i'll fix that too... but just to be clear:

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.

See, this is precisely the sort of thing that drives me nuts.

Look, I understand that sometimes you can't react to everything in an IC post in an IC fashion (whitetext inner thoughts being the prime culprit, here, because another PC cannot react to those without becoming a metagamer) - but by jove, when a PC talks to your PC in a way that you think is unfair (ICly), then have your PC respond to that and be all 'yo, I don't deserve that' and then get some RP going that delves into the issue and perhaps explains it/resolves it ICly.

Because, see, the problem with the example that you cite (and the prime reason that I prefer IC things to be handled ICly, and not OOC) is that Player 1 complained about Player 2 OOCly and received an OOC explanation that 1)doesn't help Player 1's character IC, and 2)provides them with metagame knowledge (the motivations for why Player 2's character acted the way it did) that they wouldn't have otherwise had.

Some players are really good about keeping their IC and OOC knowledge distinct, but the majority aren't, and in my experience it's simply better to never, ever have an OOC discussion about the whys of a PC's actions when it could have been had ICly. [Edit: Even if its not going to wind up used as metagame knowledge, it still tends to rob the game of a scene/conversation that could have actually been had that will be rendered moot by it having taken place OOC.]

Other peoples' mileage obviously varies.
This message was last edited by the user at 23:13, Thu 20 Apr 2017.

And why wouldn't they run to you (mom) if you are there? You can make something in the fiction to help them, edit a post, kick someone out.

At the same time, I think that the complain is legit. If player A want a game of romance, and player B want to play a bully, A and B shouldn't be in the same game. When the conflict happen, the player need to know where you stand, because if you pick the other option, they won't have fun in your game. And with 5,266 games on rpol, they could probably find one more pleasing to them.

The OOC knowledge might give you metagame knowledge, but frankly, it's better to air out things, for everyone to be aware of the kind of themes that are going to be involved. Because sometimes, they're seriously not what you want.

You can metagame for good. If one character is an apple pie because he got alcoholism problems, and this aspect and the topics it brings up makes you uncomfortable, talking it OOC can let you find excuses for your character to not be around when the topic is brought up so you can skip reading on the subject, or it can be channeled in a way that doesn't bother you.

Sure, you can make your character suddenly develop an aversion to alcoholism the moment it's actually brought up instead of just the side effects in response; rage, be preachy, walk out of the room or whatever, but without the acompanying OOC knowledge you most likely come off as an apple pie... The kind of characterization other players would go 'what the hell dude?' at you in OOC or to the GM because it came out of nowhere and it bothers them.

There are countless minor and major things that could seriously rub a player the wrong way, many of them are not malicious and the person that brought it up would not even suspect that it would affect another player that way. Intercharacter conflict is good, interplayer conflict is better off being cut off in the bud.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 14:27, Fri 21 Apr 2017.

Exactly, it's the GM's job to make sure EVERYONE has a good time. So it erks me a bit when people won't even try and work something out and just expect me to fix it so they are the one having fun regardless of everyone else.

I liked all but one of the players that did this too, but I can't order other players around when no one is doing anything wrong.

Well I take that back the most resent did have the other player, in my eye, take things a little to far. But I resolved it with them, the player that left wouldn't talk to them to try and resolve it and they didn't listen to anything I said to try and do so.

All three also tried to use "I'm quiting, bye" to try and get me to do something.... I am like, well ok but you should least try and talk this through before you just walk off.

And who knows how many people in games arn't happy about something and just leave with out saying anything.

I just wish people would try and talk there problems over.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 14:29, Fri 21 Apr 2017.

Well, see...my take on your example is that the player in question had already made up his (her?) mind to take offense at what was said.  And, at that point, trying to discuss it between players isn't going to do any good. The player has already jumped past the 'let's talk about this' stage.  The fact that said player came to you as GM, and then refused to accept your explanation, says a lot about that player...and what it's saying isn't good.

The problem isn't the method of conflict resolution...the problem is that the player has already rejected any option for resolution short of the one he decided on, probably immediately and without any real consideration.  With players like that, it doesn't matter how they 'try' to deal with the issue, it's not going to work...they've decided on the virtual equivalent of wanting a pound of flesh, and nothing less will appease them.  And they probably know, good and well, that they won't get it by talking to the other player, so they appeal directly to you.  When you present an argument that nullifies their desire, they refuse to accept it.

I fail to see how going directly to the other player is in any way going to make this problem less severe...and I see a lot of options for it exploding spectacularly in everyone's face.

In a perfect world, yes...we could all step aside with the person who annoyed/offended/insulted us and say, "Hey, you know, I really felt that was inappropriate and could have been done better," and they would say, "Oh, I didn't realize my words/actions came across so antagonistic.  That was not my intent, here's why I did it that way and hopefully understanding that will clear up any misunderstandings."  It's not a perfect world...and, sadly, in that regard, the internet is considerably less perfect, in general.

I'm still not clear on how this is a bad thing.

If they're coming straight to the GM with demands, instead of escalating conflict with the other player (whether in PMs or in the OOC chat), then the GM has an immediate chance to defuse the situation and resolve the matter peacefully.  They can demand all they want, but if they're taking those demands to the GM rather than to the other player (or, far worse, in the OOC chat - especially if they're the kind of toxic, noxious player who will attempt to turn players against each other and act the innocent all the while), then the GM can privately say, 'This is not the huge drama you think it is.'  How diplomatically a GM is going to say that will depend on the individual, obviously.

Yes, a player bringing grievances to you the GM directly might (depending on the circumstances) be frustrating, but that's part and parcel of the whole GM gig.

If a player is going to ignore the GM on interpersonal conflicts or any other matter, as facemaker329 wisely points out, that's their damage.  You can't do a thing about that and directing their ire away from yourself and toward the other player, who has no way of properly defending themselves if things get too heated other than turning to the GM or leaving the game... that doesn't seem ideal.

We do not live in a perfect world.  But even if we did, the GM would still be responsible for what happens in their game - and that includes the if-and-how interpersonal conflicts are resolved.

I'm not saying they should redirect there ire, I say they should give discussion a chance first.

Skipping right past talking about it and going to the top is not the way to handle a problem.

You can't escalate a conflict before even seeing if there is one.

I have to agree though if a player can't separate IC and OOC feelings they don't need to be playing.

The point is though that discussion can often lead to the escalation you're trying to avoid; especially in a PbP format. You 'talk' to the other player, and having no idea of their background, their sensitivities, it can lead to an explosion. I'd make more allowances for just talking to someone if you're talking about a group that is really an offline group who due to current circumstances have had to go online; but you're talking about a group of strangers, who have no idea of what makes each other tick.

It -can- work, but by going to the GM, the likelihood is greater. Not all RPers, in fact I'd even suggest quite a low proportion, are good at putting their points in a tactful manner. But if when the GM says something they react badly, then you know there's an issue of some sort (even if it's just 'this player shouldn't be gaming with this GM). But when you react badly to another player, there was not necessarily an issue to begin with though there certainly is now.

You're kind of being vague on this, but as the GM you certainly can order the players around.  It's perfectly fine that if Carl has a problem with the way Rob's acting for you to ask Rob to tone it down a little because it's making Carl uncomfortable.  In fact, if someone were making me uncomfortable in a game, that's exactly what I would expect you to do!

The thing is, you don't know your players deeply.  You don't know the fully story on why something is upsetting them.  You don't know whether or not it's something they want to talk out or deal with at all.  There are certain topics that I'd go straight to the GM and request that it be retconned out or I'll leave.  Granted, they're all borderline Content Restriction violations, but they exist.

More mildly, if it's not what the game was supposed to be about, why are you, as the GM, fostering that conflict?  I'm a pretty conflict-averse person, and my characters tend to be the same.  If something goes beyond my threshold for enjoyment, I'll come to you as the GM and ask you to fix it.  When you start saying "well, Bob wants to have a big inter-character conflict with you, you have to talk it out with Bob", that's my cue to go.  I'm not doing that.  I signed up to fight aliens (or whatever), not to engage in a deep dive of Bob's personal issues with me.

Alternately, I've had characters walk out of games before because of other characters.  My cleric shows up at the "meet the party" session only to find out one of the other PCs is a sloppy drunk that's offensive and abusive to her?  There's the door over there and other adventures beckon.  If I'm playing a character and one of the other PCs decides to lay into me for no reason I can discern, my character may well leave.  Or shoot them in the face.  Is that better than going to the GM and asking for a resolution?  It certainly makes the game more exciting for the 2-3 posts that it lasts past that.

Oh, no. no no no no...

When I'm the GM, it isn't all my responsibility to make people enjoy things. EVERYONE has to work to make the story fun and exciting and interesting. We're all in this thing together.


I think this exactly. When that player came to you, she/he was already out the door and just looking to create some trouble on the way. A discussion with the other player would just have been argumentative and angry and hurt and nothing the other player said would have done anything but fan the flames. You had zero chance of a positive resolution here.

That said, the GM can have a positive influence in some cases, especially where there's a legitimate beef or misunderstanding. But it's not easy.

Yeah...you're saying "Try discussion first," but the inciting example you're presenting has a player who doesn't even want to discuss it with YOU, and you're not the one who triggered the incident.  Yes, some players can settle their own issues...but I wouldn't ever make that the default for everyone, because some people have all the subtlety and diplomacy of a block of C4, and can be nearly as destructive when triggered.  Better to have a buffer in place (the GM), who can head such things off before they become catastrophic.  Not everyone needs it...but if you're going to make a 'one size fits all' approach to those situations, you don't want it to be the one with the highest likelihood of blowing up in your face.  And, let's face it...if you, as GM, don't want to referee those arguments, you can always listen to the complaint and then tell them to wirk it out themselves.  But you SHOULD know about it, because it can impact your game heavily, and it's better to hear about it before things go nuclear, rather than after it's all blown up and you're trying to find a way to clean up the fallout.

As a player if i have a problem with another player and for some reason feel like I can't talk to them without making it worse (I'm one of those people Facemaker so nicely put has the diplomatic equivalent to a truck of C4...) then you can bet it goes to the GM First, and only.  Because I know if I handle it myself, it will take out half a city block.