Letting Them Down Gently

[nomannic]

I've only GMed a few group RP's, and to be honest, they didn't succeed very well. I'm working on a new RP, which I'm going to be GMing, and foreseeing a future problem I wanted your input on it.

Say a character just God-Modded, taking the story completely of tangent, making themselves the master of the story and crushing all other character beneath their six inch stiletto heels. How do you politely, without inciting a riot, let them know that they need to fix this? And that if they don't fix it, you have to remove them from the RP?

Or even before that, if someone submits a Mary Sue character sheet, or something else along those lines, how do you tell them to change it? And even after they changed it, if it's still not right for your RP, how do you tell them that that character isn't acceptable?

Is it better to let them down gently or to just flat out tell them the truth, in a more blunt fashion? If you want to let them down gently, how do you go about doing so?

Personally I'd rather let them down gently, but I'm a pushover. Working up the courage to tell them It isn't good enough is hard enough as it is, I tend to be too gentle about it. I usually tell them what specifically isn't okay in as sweet a way as I can manage, and politely ask them to fix it. But how do you think it's best to go about this? What have you seen go over succesfully, and what have you seen fail miserably?

[ViceVersus]

First, about the person who casually takes over the RP - I, personally, would advise not being afraid to kick them out. Not at all in a rude way, and that shouldn't be your immediate resort, but don't forget that as a GM, you have that ability. Look at it this way. If the user is sprawling themselves all over your affairs and affecting the interaction of your players, then that isn't fair to anyone - much less you.

Bring the issues to the attention of the user, preferably, in a non-public way through message or something. Not everyone in the OOC thread needs to see you calling someone else out. Always approach them not as a superior to a subordinate, but as a storyteller to someone who is participating.

Telling someone that their character isn't acceptable to your standards of roleplay is a tricky one. Oftentimes, I've heard of GMs even not offering a reply to a character sheet that doesn't meet their standards. While I wouldn't go that cold of a route .. hey. Don't be afraid to have standards. Explaining what can be changed in reasonable terms is also an option.

Writing is a skill where you're always learning. Coming off as encouraging and helpful to the user, while not claiming bettership is generally where I stand.

Um. I think I rambled a bit without making much sense. But that happens a lot.

Thanks for reading!

-VV

[Marionette]

I always spell it out rather clearly that I don't tolerate godmoding in my games. If someone really transgresses this in a big way, that may be grounds to kick them out, and I very well might do so. If it's minor, though, I'll tell them and let them off with a warning. Whether it's because the player is really that self-centered or because they just don't know any better, this is one area that needs to be addressed as soon as possible because it can and will get worse in most cases.

If I have minor things that need to be fixed before a profile is accepted, I'll just politely point them out.

If I don't think the profile can meet my standards, period, I'll say something along the lines of "I'm sorry, this profile isn't really right for this RP, so I'm going to have to reject it." I'm not about to spell out all my issues bluntly (as in this case there are usually quite a few of them), and it's really not necessary to do. Unless someone's asking me to rip their character to shreds with critique, I'm not doing it. Some people don't want critique, and that's perfectly fine. I'd rather reserve it for people I know want it because it's those people who are going to make use of it, and I just feel a little rude giving serious critique where it's not requested because it's not a fun experience to be critiqued like that. If they ask for specific feedback, then I'll go through all of my issues.

That is, at least, in theory. I'm really, really afraid of hurting people's feelings, so often I wind up failing to reject something when I really ought to be rejecting it. This has seriously injured the quality and enjoyability (for me, at least) of my RPs in the past. In my experience, it's definitely better to let people know kindly but firmly whether something meets your expectations or not.

[Tea]

Very cute avatar, Nomannic. Pikachu.

Most of the text which I would present here already echoes the words of Sato. Marionnette also touched on this, but I feel that it is worth making this additive explanation:

It is more important, especially for a self-proclaimed push-over, to be firm about a rejection. Whether it is a character concept or the player themselves, being firm and honest are the rules of your game. If a player thinks that there is some kind of hope, they may take it, which will prolong the process of removing an unwanted power-player from a game or role-play. Honesty is important because it will protect the GameMaster from lying...which would hurt every player in the game and not only the one rejected. Falsehoods also feed bad reputation and anger, so honesty, though not rudeness or bluntness, is quite important.

The gentle aspects of rejection are best noted in good or positive items. Tell the player or character submitter what you liked about their character. This presumes that there was anything to like, of course, but with fortune there will be something. Compliment the player, and do so honestly. Positive reinforcement will grow a good role-player faster than any chastisement. It is not always easy to remember at the time, but the role-player which the GameMaster is rejecting may very well go looking for another game and another GameMaster immediately. This is why it is important to affirm the positive qualities about a role-player. The goal, and especially in this community, is to grow a thoughtful and courteous role-player who will want to address their power-playing rather than a resentful pest who would join a role-play only to make misery for all those involved.

I sometimes equate this issue with the phrase, "This is going to hurt me more than it does you." And yet, even though a parent will say that, the child is still disciplined. Despite the...emotional qualities involved, rejecting a character and detailing why is one of the best solutions to improve a role-player's character submissions.

[Boxer]

Three words: Random illithid mauling. Before you ask, yes I am completely serious. What do I mean by random illithid mauling? Well if it's a fantasy roleplay I mean it just as that, a random illithid mauls the mary sue character to death, writing that they had no time to react, their character is now dead. In other genres write a GM event that specifically targets that character, making it a situation in where there is no question that they will not simply walk away from it alive, they will be dead or otherwise maimed in such a way that they'll not see their return to glory. If they complain, tell them your reasoning, honestly.

As for character sheets, I don't beat around the bush, I either give them approval or flat our denial. For my denials it's usually lack of detail or creativity and I will tell them as such. I give them the chance to fix it up but I don't spoon feed them how or what. Sure this leads to hard feelings, but you're here to write a roleplay, not to babysit. Character sheets are like resumes if it's not good, you don't get the job.

[Marionette]

That comes off as pretty catty, auto-killing their character for meta reasons without even an explanation beforehand. It's not likely to earn you points with anyone - certainly not the player in question, but more importantly one also has to take into account the other players who are going to see you auto-killing a character with no warning and potentially, if they don't understand the issue, for no good reason. I'm not sure I'd want to continue in a game in which that was the GM's solution rather than being honest about issues in the first place. Definitely not the route I would go. If killing off the character becomes necessary after the player has been kicked out for their rule violations, that's different.

[nomannic]

Boxer, while I giggled a rather ridiculous amount at the image of a bear eating the God-modding players computer, I agree with Marionette in the fact that it seems rather rude to "randomly and illithidly(sp?) maul" someone. At the very least, I know I wouldn't be able to do that. If it comes down to it, I'd probably send them a pm explaining the fact that they've been removed from the RP, then go maul them, but not without some warning, no matter how abrupt it might be.

On the note of character sheets, it does seem best to have a simple "yes, you're hired" or "No, get out of my house" approach, because I've learned (through some not-so-pretty experiences) that if you mention what you liked they argue, throw a tantrum, or otherwise make you feel even crappier for rejecting a perfectly willing roleplayer, and make you out for such a horrible, meanie-faced GM. If they ask for critique (AKA ask why they were rejected), I would most definitely return it though, because personally I always hate it when I ask for an explanation of why I wasn't up to standards and I get "because I said so" or no response at all.

[Tea]

Three words: Random illithid mauling.

...some of the most ineffectual words I have ever heard strung together. The problem centered in power-playing is a Player problem, not a Character flaw. A GameMaster who would handle a Power-Player in this way obviously does not know what they are doing. I will admit that showing a player what power-playing is by using a random illithid event can, in certain situations, be useful. However, the GameMaster who responds to a Player flaw with Character retribution is immature enough that perhaps they should not run a game.

Power-Playing and Meta-Playing are caused by a player's inability to separate Self versus Character in their minds. The Random Illithid Event mentioned above meets the exact criterion of a GameMaster who has the same trouble.

...also, members' views in this community are their own. No one forces one member to help another. The adopted theme of this web site, however, is to encourage other players with good conduct and good advice...especially to those who do not know what they are doing. Why? Because if we do not help them then Boxer might have to dish out more Random Illithids than Boxer might have the stomach for.


Since Nomannic mentioned it, I will address the Job Application view. It is...a functional one. Since it is arrived at from experience I will not speak against it. However, I would like to encourage that if it is appropriate the GameMaster say something to the effect of, "No. Please revise your concept and submit again." This is, of course, only to be used when the GameMaster believes that there is some worth, value, or compatibility in a character concept with the other character concepts submitted or the role-play in general.


Good day to everyone.

[Marionette]

While there may be cause for a GM to be meta over the course of an RP, I definitely agree that this is not really an appropriate case. It amounts to "Ha, you did something I don't like, so I'm going to kill your character, and there's nothing you can do to stop me!" One of the most useful phrases I know is "in character actions = in character consequences," often abbreviated to ICA = ICC (fair consequences, of course). This is normally most handy when someone doesn't want their character to suffer for a mistake they made in the story, but it can also be extrapolated into OCA =/= ICC except in the most dire of circumstances (e.g. someone gets kicked out of the game; something is going to have to be done in the game). The line gets blurry here because powerplaying is a player issue but is based on unfair in character actions -- and this is a case where ICA should mean OCC (even if those consequences are just "You have to stop doing that.") because it is a player issue, as is any rule violation. The bottom line, though, is that OOC grudges are not to be solved with IC anything.

I have had players squabble with me rather obstinately about rejections as well. Sadly, while many players are perfectly good-natured, there are a few that are more than ready to combat a GM on a decision that they don't like. If your decision has some air of finality, this is a little less likely to happen (though nothing stops someone really determined to argue).

A word to players being rejected: do your best to accept it gracefully. It is normally not meant as an insult toward you. It's perfectly okay to explain yourself and ask if there's anything you can do to improve the profile, but be prepared for critique if you do ask, and also be prepared for "No." at any point. Be polite in your responses and let it go if you can't play in the RP. I know rejection hurts, but you have to accept the GM's right to pick what characters are and aren't proper for their games; if you don't like the standards, you can play elsewhere or run your own game. This is not a "well, could you do better?!" challenge but actual advice -- there are tons of places to RP, and everyone has the ability to run their own games, so if you're not enjoying something as it is in one game, why subject yourself to it? If you're telling the GM that they're wrong about what belongs in their own game, you're the one doing it wrong. Not saying a GM is always going to be right, but they at least have that right regarding the games they create and run.

[Kestrel]

Say a character just God-Modded, taking the story completely of tangent, making themselves the master of the story and crushing all other character beneath their six inch stiletto heels. How do you politely, without inciting a riot, let them know that they need to fix this? And that if they don't fix it, you have to remove them from the RP?

I'm gonna answer this with the words I'd use. Prolly not for the best if you use my language, 'cause it isn't gonna come out too naturally if you don't post like this all the time, but the idea behind it should be clear.

"Woah, man, I just read your post and... Went a bit far there, don't you think? As the GM, I'ma have to ask you to edit that out. Thing you did is against the rules, see *quote of rules in OP* So yeah, if you can change that quick, that'd be much appreciated."

I wouldn't threaten them on their first offence. Seems pointless. However, should the offence be repeated, it'd prolly be something amongst the lines of; "Hey listen dude, I let it go the other time but... I ain't gonna keep asking you, man. So, do me a favour and hold off on the godmode button. Oh and edit it out. I don't wanna pull out the GM-card, but these things don't fly around here, aight?"

Again; "*username*, last warning. Don't wanna do this, but you're making this really hard on me. Next time, I'll be forced to take measures."

Again; "*username*, for X reason, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave. Your character will be removed from the game as seen fit. Good day."

I generally run a three and out system, written or unwritten. All the above is assuming no fuss is caused by the player in question. If a fuss is caused I'm more direct and less tolerant. I will listen to good reasoning, but as te GM I will absolutely not put up with one person's bullshit, as that might be destructive to my image as GM or even the entirety of the RP.

Or even before that, if someone submits a Mary Sue character sheet, or something else along those lines, how do you tell them to change it? And even after they changed it, if it's still not right for your RP, how do you tell them that that character isn't acceptable?

"Hey mate, thanks for your interest. About the CS, there's a couple things I'd like to see explained or changed before I can accept you *list of things*"

If the CS after a (couple) revisions still doesn't meet the standards. "Hey, listen, I don't think this is gonna work out. Afraid I'm gonna have to decline your application, but good luck finding another game. See ya around."

Is it better to let them down gently or to just flat out tell them the truth, in a more blunt fashion? If you want to let them down gently, how do you go about doing so?

If you don't want to deal with a lot of bullshit, you generally wanna make sure not to play it on the person, but you must remain firm. You don't want to be the bitch-GM 'cause that's gonna scare off all your other players, but you also don't want people to think they can walk all over you, or that others can walk all over you. It's a pretty fine line to walk and you'll inevitably fuck up from time to time, regardless of how much advice you're given. The best thing is not to worry too much about the mistakes you're going to make and get some experience under your belt. Once you got the confidence, you can start analysing your past mistakes and figure out ways how to avoid them in the future.

[Scumbag_Brain]

I only have trouble with this when it's a matter of player skill. A Power-Player is easy to boot because their power-playing is derived from a personality which is easy to dislike. When someone is simply under-geared for the RP, though, either skill-wise or maturity-wise, I feel bad cutting them. After all, it's not really someone's fault that their writing is awful, they're likely either just young, inexperienced or both. Unfortunately, so that the other players can enjoy their RP, the GM must be the jerk in this scenario. To harden myself to boot such a player, I focus on how jarring it is to be reading an RP full of exciting and unexpected entries and stumble over that one turd-post steaming with cliches, bad grammar and stale passive writing. Its like planing a pristine piece of cedar board only to find a big, brown knot right in the center.

One thing that can help (though it can hurt you to) is to have your RP's intro match the complexity of the topic. This acts as a filter and minimizes the number of feelings you have to hurt. Then again, in this age of attention deficit, even good writers will occasionally TLDR on a lengthy and complex intro.

[Eyeris]

I like Kestrel's examples to dealing with both issues.

Generally, (particularly in regard to character applications), I find that specific and honest feedback is the best way to go. It allows the character to either be 'tweaked' or for the player to step-up their game as needed. (or for the power player, to step-down)

It also depends on how much you are willing to 'teach' or 'mentor' players who are to far at either end of the spectrum. To me, that is why I like the role playing community because it helps and encourages me to be a better writer. When I was starting there were enough people willing to point out my flaws (even as they rejected my characters) and support my improvements ("wow that was your longest post yet, good job!"). If they had blown me off I'd either still suck or not be playing. If a DM doesn't want to do that within their game, this webpage has a whole section to help role players improve and learn, you can politely refer them to that forum as well.