I was reading this article over on Voices in my Head. In this case, the writer is chalking up a slaughter of a PC to a difference of play styles. In this case, a PC walks straight into a group of orcs known to be killing everything in sight. They smile, pull back their bows, and fill him full of arrows as he tries to approach them to use diplomacy. The line in the whole story I find most interesting is the player's response: "Player 3 – Well you should at least let us try diplomacy. You should run this differently."
This type of scenario is what I call a "Clash of the Helpless". The GM sees himself as helpless to resolve the problem, because the player didn't pick up on the hints he gave. The PC sees himself as helpless, because he tried something he thought was reasonable, and the outcome was not reasonable or expected. If this were the first time I'd seen this pattern, I wouldn't have a name for it.
I believe the problem in this case is truly a problem of expectations. Though both the GM and the player presumably have a social contract on the rules they are playing by, the player has assumed a way that things should play out that does not match with the GM's vision. Unfortunately, this is exactly how many, if not most, GMs deal with the problem. They let the player get surprised by the outcome, let them get upset with the GM and the game, and let them leave to find another group.
[Now I want to interject an important, but secondary point here. I am assuming that the rules that this group was playing by do not supply a structure for specifically using diplomacy in this case. I know in the case of Pathfinder, there is a very specific set of rules for attitude and diplomacy (which, by the way, could be used to make sure diplomacy can't be used). If the GM has just skipped these rules with the justification of "play style", there is a different problem here: a breach of the rules social contract.]
My problem with this approach is a very simple one. It is the GM's responsibility to ensure every player has proper expectations for the game BEFORE playing. If a player comes to a point in the game where he thinks diplomacy can be used, and the GM hasn't made it perfectly clear that there will be scenarios where it can't be used, the GM has failed. Not only has the GM failed, but the GM also now has a responsibility to fix it. Fix it, means stopping the game, talking about the problem, and giving the player a reasonable alternative to the bad outcome that just happened, with the understanding that in the future, the expectation issue has been resolved, and that next time the bad outcome will stand.
Note that this doesn't mean that the player gets his way. This also doesn't mean the player will continue to play. It does mean that the situation is now made clear before the player takes his action again. Now, this could also require the GM to make some additional changes. For example, if the player was designing a character around using diplomacy, the GM may need to allow the player to change the character to be more in-line with the play style and game assumptions.
Of course, this reasonable resolution requires the GM to care about the player (and every player) and humble himself to admit that there was a mistake made. Many GMs fall too easily into the ego trap to allow this to happen. The bottom line, however, is that the GM is in charge of the communication at the table, and sooner or later there is going to be a failure, just like this. What happens when this inevitability occurs is what separates a good GM from a bad GM, and in fact, a bully from a friend.
Comments
Post a Comment