Jennifer Schlickbernd: Ask Ms. Meeples – Through the Ages for Ages
Hi, Miss Meeples, I run a game group and I’m noticing that one of the members isn’t quite keeping up with more complex games – he mainly likes party games and doesn’t seem to take to more “complex” games like Through the Ages or Battlestar Galactica. Any time he plays such a game, he really seems to be struggling and doesn’t seem to enjoy the experience and takes a VERY long time to make decisions, to the point of it being painful and uncomfortable for the other players.
At the same time, he doesn’t seem to notice that he’s not keeping up and is becoming a liability for the other players; he won’t bow out or say, “This is just not my cup of tea, so I’ll wait for another game that’s more my style.” Most of the time we’re diplomatic and just put up with it, and we don’t want to hurt his feelings, but is there a better approach to this delicate situation? Thanks…
Complex games can easily break down into very slow moving affairs, making them last a long time and convincing people never to play these types of games again just because of the time involved. I think that it’s important when you play these kinds of games that you explain this experience beforehand, and ask that people try to move the game along before playing.
If this encouragement doesn’t work for this particular player, then you can explain to him privately that a certain pace is expected while playing more complex games and that unfortunately he’s not keeping up, making the other players uncomfortable. If he still doesn’t get it, then I think you’ll need to suggest alternate activities, depending on your situation. For example, I’m having a meetup this weekend for 90+ minute strategy games. If someone whom I thought couldn’t handle the complexity wanted to come, I’d suggest a different gaming venue for him or her.
Now, not everyone has this luxury and if you don’t, then you will have to be firm with the person and ask him not to play. If the situation is such that he’s one of four or so people who are invited to play, and there’s no other alternative game for him to play, then you’ll need to decide how much you need him. If he’s the fourth for a game of Tichu, you will be stuck. You also want to avoid him being the only one not playing because that is not fair or comfortable for anyone involved.
I realize this is a lot of if’s and I also realize I could have written back to clarify the exact situation. However, I wanted to discuss different scenarios so that others may get some help, too.
A comment from my last column:
...the fact that no one out of the 99 boardgamers at this group is willing to accommodate [a problem person] after two meetings. From my experience, a group that is only a fraction of that size already has quite a range of people with varying levels of social skills. In an open gaming meeting, that is often the price you pay, if you look at it in terms of your own personal enjoyment. That is why many people I know host invitation-only gaming at their homes.
My only two regular gaming nights are both open to the public, and that means that sometimes I game with people who are not the types of people with whom I would normally enjoy spending my free time. Does that make those people truly “harmful”?
In my experience, when a player is dragging things down or exhibiting inappropriate behavior, the best way to deal with the situation is speaking with him about it (preferably not in front of the group). Either that person will want to change to continue to be part of the group, or you have grounds to discontinue the invitation.
Confrontation is by no means easy, especially when it deals with personal issues (such as “Would you please take a shower before you come to the game night"), but again, that is one of the responsibilities of an open gaming group organizer.
I do appreciate this person’s honesty in struggling with the question, and his clear concern for both the 99 and the 1.
For me, these types of situations require 1) healthy boundaries, 2) when necessary, confrontation in love, and 3) sometimes sacrificing myself – and the 99 – for the one. Posted by Jeff Allers on Feb 26, 2010
I agree with most of Jeff’s posting. I’m not sure, though, how much real difference there is between an “open” gaming group at a game store or other semi-private place and a home. For those of us who are running meetups in our homes, yes, it’s “invitation only” but it’s usually pretty easy to get an invitation (which is why we use Meetup.com). Also, the game store that I’m most familiar with has some pretty clear social requirements for gaming there.
What concerns me most (and I had mentioned this previously in the comments) is sacrificing people for a single person, despite the issues that person may have. A couple of months ago, I found myself spending a lot of time with a particularly problematic player in my group. I thought about it later and realized that I wasn’t being fair to the other players who had attended the meetup and that I was ignoring them for this person. You can never assume that just because someone behaves “normally” that that person doesn’t also have major issues in their life and they are playing games to help them get through what’s going on in their life. To subject these people to someone who is not following the rules, is testing the boundaries, and is generally annoying, upsetting, or immature is not fair. And I won’t do it. I’ve said this before, but in the end you can play board games only if others are willing to play with you. It’s your responsibility to make playing games with you a pleasant experience. It’s not the responsibility of other people to put up with someone who is outside of the boundaries. No one has to take that on.
Now, if there’s someone with obvious issues, and you (as an organizer) ask people whether they will work with that person, then I’m fine with that because people can say no. But when you seat these types of people at a table with others who don’t know what’s going on, that’s neither fair nor social and will generally cause resentment. Note I’m not saying that’s what Jeff would do. Resentment can lead to people not coming back, which would then make the whole situation worse.
Enough for this week! Comments are welcome! Questions for me to answer in the column are needed, too!
Posted by Jennifer Schlickbernd on Mar 11, 2010 at 01:00 AM in Columnists, Jennifer Schlickbernd / 950
Want more posts like this one?
to Boardgame News to keep the game goodness flowing!Comments:
To comment, you must register with BGN.|
In my opinion, the difference between a public ("open") gaming group and private gaming group is that the latter is usually hosted, sponsored and/or moderated by an individual in a public place or private home. Invitation to participate can be either selective “by invitation only” or open to all (only it’s best to spell out exactly what your private gaming group is about in terms of range of games played in your public postings and ads about it). In many areas, cities and towns where modern/Euro strategy games are scare and/or unheard of, the sponsor of a private gaming group may provide and bring all the games. A public ("open") gaming group is usually more of an association or club that usually meets in a public place; may even have officers; and is more of a collaborative group effort in terms of bringing and providing games to the event. Most private “invitation only” gaming groups which meet in private homes are generally tend to be more insular and aren’t at all easy to visit much less to get an invitation to participate in unless you’re already an established friend or acquaintance of one of the members. In that respect, they’re far more cliquish and generally aren’t so concerned about or interested in introducing outsiders to the hobby. Posted by James W. King on Mar 11, 2010 at 03:29 AM | #
|
|
This series about ‘problem’ gamers is fascinating. There is also something a bit disturbing as well because, whislt the cases documented here are clearly problem gamers, i wonder how easily marginal cases could be lumped in with that category and excluded? I have this image of the kid in the playground not being allowed into the soccer game because..... I am the organiser of a largish group (50+ at our weekly meetups) and I recognise all of the cases described but we don’t seem to have a problem with them. Having a large group is a big factor , most of our gamers don’t stick in the same group week by week or even game by game at a meetup - so problem gamers are shared around. One does not have to take the pain for very long and almost all of our members don’t mind the occassional sub optimal gaming experience. Another factor is leadership, i don’t mean just the organiser but having a group of people willing to share the responsibility of arranging games ,showing a sensistivity to the people present, their gaming preferences and level - and even their social skills. Also having group members who will cleary explain when and how gaming mores have been broken if they are. This is, probably, key - no ones behaviour will change unless the people they play with points them in the right direction at the time they are exhibiting ‘problem’ behaviour. Leaving it to the organiser after the event should be a last resort because i believe it humiliating and not productive. So empower group members to actively encourage and enforce acceptable behaviour at the table. On on night, the group of fifty our gamers run the arrange from newbies to 30 year vets. Another way we have found to accomodate slow/challenged players is by having themed gaming nights which can accomodate all levels If we have a train themed night then we state that it ranges from Ticket to Ride to 18xx. Some players will be steared towards the former - others naturally gravitate towards the latter. In summary I beleieve games groups should be as inclusive as possible. Posted by Paul Lister on Mar 11, 2010 at 05:20 AM | #
|
|
As Jennifer points out, it is difficult to address these kinds of things without knowing specifics, as there are all sorts of people and all sorts of problems. Having the humility to admit that each of us has “problems”, and that some of these may come out during the course of a friendly game--whether intentional or not--can go a long way in nurturing an atmosphere of acceptance and fun. I agree with most of what Jennifer writes as well, as I feel it is always important for people to learn healthy boundaries in all of their relationships. What I want to be careful of, though, is fostering an overly-selfish attitude that is only concerned with playing games of certain types, at specific speeds, etc. If this type of player wants to form a closed group at his/her home and have complete control over game selection and invitations, that’s perfectly fine with me (and that is what I mean by a closed, invitation-only group). By “open” groups, however, I mean groups who have a regular core of gamers, but are also open to people who literally walk in off the street, which does often happen when you meet in a public place like the gaming cafe in Berlin. In this type of group, it is important to be as inclusive and accepting as possible. I think Paul makes an especially good point about the role of leadership in the group. In the smaller groups I have, I often take that role (and would never just defer a problem person to someone else’s table). But in any group over a dozen, I would hope that there are enough natural leaders who can handle different situations in a mature and sensitive manner. Posted by Jeff Allers on Mar 11, 2010 at 08:27 AM | #
|
Next entry: Indie Boards & Cards Serves Up Haggis
Previous entry: Kachina Expansion Coming from Bucephalus
