Annoying Players

[Dave Chase]

What I always found annoying was when you Role Played your character by completely being/staying in character and the GM gets mad/upset/annoyed with you because you missed a prime opportunity to do something, and tha something was not with in your characters:
background
knowledge
skill/experience
etc


I too, have had players decide to skip some of the obvious clues of an adventure and go do something else.

Even had a player that purposely did this and would always strive to convince the other players to skip out. Once the players realized that they were not getting anywhere from following that player who skipped clue on purpose alot, they decide quietly ignore him and play along with the adventures. They had much more fun then.

Dave Chase

 

[far-trader]

There has to be a bit of a sub-rosa contract between the players and ref that the ref will bait the hook and the players will bite. Otherwise the whole exercise is a little pointless.

You're right about the role-play aspect though Dave, the ref must also be responsible for making the bait attractive to the characters, not something they shouldn't be biting. Just as much as the players should be role-playing their character.

Perhaps if there's any lesson or advice to take from Alex's frustrating attempt maybe it's that when the players don't go for the bait the ref might take a moment and just lay the cards on the table. Ask the players why they didn't go for it. What might have gotten them to go for it. Or even something else they might have gone for. It might even lead to a replay of the setup, with the players better understanding their roles, so they'd go for it and the adventure could proceed and the evening won't be a loss.

...of course Monday morning quarterbacking is easy

 

[alex_greene]

People who very sensibly just do the job they are told to do and who try and avoid trouble are nine to fiver sarariiman struggling in the rat race.

Even special forces soldiers in a combat zone very sensibly just do the job they are told to do and avoid any unnecessary trouble ...

They are the trouble.

 

[rust]

What I always found annoying was when you Role Played your character by completely being/staying in character and the GM gets mad/upset/annoyed with you because you missed a prime opportunity to do something, and tha something was not with in your characters

We call it the "Pirate Problem", because of the old saying that there are
old pirates and bold pirates, but no old and bold pirates: If the characters
are well trained and experienced professionals, they are very unlikely to
act like thrill seeking reckless rookies - they will want to have lots of ad-
vance informations in order to calculate the risk and to take their time to
make plans and prepare their operations, unless something forces them
to act on the spot and without intelligence and preparation.

 

[aspqrz]

We call it the "Pirate Problem", because of the old saying that there are old pirates and bold pirates, but no old and bold pirates:

It's really, or at least a significant part of it is, an artifact of the excessive lethality of RPG combat systems.

In WW2 it took something like 7000 rounds of smallarms ammunition expended for each casualty (80% WIA, 20% KIA) caused.

By all accounts from the research I have read the accuracy of shooters drops markedly when in a severe stress situation ... like, for example, when they are faced with high levels of danger that could result in wounding or death.

Read all the accounts about Police/Criminal shootouts where, unlike on Hollyworld TV/Movies, both sides expend all their ammo and don't kill or wound anyone!

If there were an automatic -4 penalty to all combat rolls (perhaps even higher) made in combat, maybe players would be more calculating and take more risks in the knowledge that, relatively speaking, their actual risks were much less than they perceive them to be?

One thought, anyway ...

Phil

 

[rust]

It's really, or at least a significant part of it is, an artifact of the excessive lethality of RPG combat systems.

Yes, indeed. In my experience at least the player characters are a lot
more willing to take the initiative and accept risks in systems that are
less lethal than Traveller, for example D&D.

 

[Dave Chase]

...

By all accounts from the research I have read the accuracy of shooters drops markedly when in a severe stress situation ... like, for example, when they are faced with high levels of danger that could result in wounding or death.

Read all the accounts about Police/Criminal shootouts where, unlike on Hollyworld TV/Movies, both sides expend all their ammo and don't kill or wound anyone!

...

Phil

Add to this the fact that most human beings are not truly willing to fire/kill another human being.
Plus the type of training that is used does not translate well into actual combat conditions.

Shooting 'known' paper targets (even if they look like a person) is not the same in an individuals mind as shooting an actual person.

It is one of the reasons that some of the more highly trained forces use paintball, dummy round (rubber/powder) and wax rounds and train against other live forces using the same.

It has shown to actually help the hit ratio and reduce some of the stress of firing in combat.

Dave Chase

 

[DFW]

Basically, no more Patrons, no more big jobs, not enough money even to buy a cold berth passage, stuck on a planet where the only thing left was some cubicle in an air conditioned office ... Hell. Sheer hell.

Ah yes, when in doubt or, without sufficient GMing skill, railroad. :lol:

 

[aspqrz]

Add to this the fact that most human beings are not truly willing to fire/kill another human being.
Plus the type of training that is used does not translate well into actual combat conditions.

Shooting 'known' paper targets (even if they look like a person) is not the same in an individuals mind as shooting an actual person.

Indeed. ISTR reading somewhere that the number of medical retirements for Police/Security forces resulting from PTSD or similar mental stress related problems resulting from "Officer involved shootings" as they so quaintly put it in some places is very high indeed. Severe enough so that they (a significant percentage) not only can't take up their jobs as Police Officers again, but can't take up *any* paid employment!).

There have been a number of books written in recent years, outside, I guess, of the psycho-medical community, that look into the psychological injuries suffered by those exposed to such situations.

ISTR that the US Army did a study of their WW2 experience, or maybe it was of their WW1 experience ... it was evidently quite early in WW2 (for the Yanks, anyway, the rest of us having been at war for quite some time :wink ... and the result were surprising.

Statistically the average soldier was expected to last something like 350-400 days in combat before being killed or wounded seriously enough to warrant being removed from further combat while they were expected to have a severe nervous break at around 350-400 days as well.

One wonders how many casualties and deaths were actually the *result* of the expected nervous break ...

Quite a lot, I expect.

Certainly Australian Armed Forces figures show massively higher rates of alcoholism and all sorts of substance abuse problems, mental problems, violent behaviour, family breakdown and divorce in soldiers from all wars Australia has been involved in from WW1 on (and would probably show the same for those involved in the Boer War as well, but that was before the Commonwealth and I do not know if records were ever a) kept or b) centralised). I would be surprised if it is different for any other country's armed forces.

(NB: "In combat" means within the area of combat operations - as random shellfire, booby traps, raids, air raids etc. meant that the continual stress was almost as bad on remfs as on the actual frontline troops.)

It is one of the reasons that some of the more highly trained forces use paintball, dummy round (rubber/powder) and wax rounds and train against other live forces using the same.

It has shown to actually help the hit ratio and reduce some of the stress of firing in combat.

I wonder whether the US use of laser training simulators has a similar effect? One would suspect not ... not "immediate" enough, at a guess.

Indeed, I hadn't read of the above - any idea of which forces? Or any idea of where I might find a reference (I am very interested in such things!)

Phil

 

[rust]

Indeed, I hadn't read of the above - any idea of which forces? Or any idea of where I might find a reference (I am very interested in such things!)

I am not aware of that kind of training with airsoft or paintball weapons,
but if it does exist in the USA, a good place to start a search for informa-
tions could be this:

http://www.peostri.army.mil/

 

[Dave Chase]

I don't have my old notes readily availabe but

2nd Ranger Batt stationed at Ft Lewis, Washington, did lots of Paintball training. ( I know because I was involved in a few of the sessions as the OFOR.)

Both sides were given different color paintballs so that during the AAR it could be determined who was 'killed' with friendly fire or enemy fire.

The first mission there were lots of friendly fire on the Ranger's side. It was determined (Decided by the officers) that maybe the Rangers were not taking the training as a real exercise because it was paintball.

The second mission there were still high levels of friendly fire on the Ranger's side.

Command was now not happy (pissed is more like it.)

They stopped the training that day and went home (for briefings?)
They came back for the second day of training and did some what better.
One month later after some serious in house training, they came back for another 3 day training execise.

First they played a bit of speed ball (tight quarters, close range, very fast play) in the morning. Then they did the actual missions using paintball.

Very, very few friendly fire kills.

Many of the Rangers, had a better mindset about the training missions and fire control (targets, controled shots, observing fields of fire. OFOR had unlimited ammo, the Rangers had limited ammo.)

Also, I was involved with some Training with the SP (AirForce military police) at Offutt Airforce Base in Nebraska. The commanding officer wanted to build a better team work within his command and let the airmen have some fun too. Later he decided to spend some money on the M16 and military like pistols that shoot paintball and do actual 'life' training.
They did training on the installation and at the paintball field.
IMO, this was great, and I personally have no desire to go against Airforce SP, in any attempt to penetrate an Air Base.


As for the WW2 training, I cant remember what documents, (and I know that they are in public records because I researched them at public library) but some of the results showed that the Marines seemed to react better at being fired upon than the Army.

During Vietnam, it was again determined that the Marines reacted much better while under fire than the Army.

One of the main reasons was how the Marines did their range (shooting targets) than the Army did.
The Army used knock down, automatic flip up (reset) targets, where the Marines stationed men down range under the targets (behind berms) and they manually reset the targets.

It was determined that being shot at, hearing the rounds 'fly overhead' and/or hit the berm/targets, helped condition the Marines to 'being underfire' yet still doing their job.

(this only applied to those soliders (Army and Marine) that had recently been in country. If memory serves correctly, a foot note about how most all soldiers reacted the same after being 'in country' for 30+ days. Also that the soldiers in the field had different reactions under fire than those stationed at bases. )


I will do some digging in my boxes of military this month and see if I can find my notes or any tech manuals on this. Sorry, I don't have them right handy. Its been more than a decade since I did that research.



As for MILES (military laser tag) it is helpful only if the service members and the controls keep things real and do not cheat or let the soliders cheat.

Dave Chase

 

[DFW]

Indeed, I hadn't read of the above - any idea of which forces? Or any idea of where I might find a reference (I am very interested in such things!)

Phil

Here's some info. Can't tell which US forces use it. Only that some do.

Simunition:

http://www.ustraining.com/new/courses/NC/mil-advanced-marksmanship.asp

 

[aspqrz]

Indeed, I hadn't read of the above - any idea of which forces? Or any idea of where I might find a reference (I am very interested in such things!)

Phil

Here's some info. Can't tell which US forces use it. Only that some do.

Simunition:

http://www.ustraining.com/new/courses/NC/mil-advanced-marksmanship.asp

Thanks for the pointers, now that I know the sort of thing to look for, I will run with the ball!

Phil

 

[aspqrz]

Indeed, I hadn't read of the above - any idea of which forces? Or any idea of where I might find a reference (I am very interested in such things!)

I am not aware of that kind of training with airsoft or paintball weapons,
but if it does exist in the USA, a good place to start a search for informa-
tions could be this:

http://www.peostri.army.mil/

Thanks, I'll follow that up, too, now that I know what to look for!

Phil

 

[Bense]

Do you think the players were really thinking "my character could be killed," or was it more "my character would do his job honestly?"

 

[MX]

I wonder whether the US use of laser training simulators has a similar effect? One would suspect not ... not "immediate" enough, at a guess.

Well, I cannot tell about US Military, but the Bundeswehr uses two systems for training:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGSHP for basic training and scenarios such as guard duty or 'reaction' tests or other stationary scenarios.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausbildungsgerät_Duellsimulator a system similar to MILES.
While I have not yet used the AGDUS, I have had very good experience with the AGSHP, both as an instructor and as trainee.
It teaches basic handling of the weapons without the need to use life rounds (very handy for such things like a Panzerfaust :wink: ) and it helps in finding shooting errors (e.g. bad aiming).

 

[locarno24]

Add to this the fact that most human beings are not truly willing to fire/kill another human being.
Plus the type of training that is used does not translate well into actual combat conditions.

Shooting 'known' paper targets (even if they look like a person) is not the same in an individuals mind as shooting an actual person.

It is one of the reasons that some of the more highly trained forces use paintball, dummy round (rubber/powder) and wax rounds and train against other live forces using the same.

It has shown to actually help the hit ratio and reduce some of the stress of firing in combat.

Reminds me of the description the fire training in Starship Troopers (book, not film) - they use something similar to a MILES rig assault rifle firing blanks, but one random round in 1,000 is NOT a blank. The odds of anyone being hurt by it are minimal, and even then it's unlikely to kill you, but as Rico notes, "suddenly hearing a live round whip past your ear encourages you to treat the exercise properly", and that it's threatened that if people still mess around, the incidence of live rounds would be dropped to one in 100.

Of course, the Federation is a bit less concerned with trooper health & safety than most contemporary armies.

 

[AndrewW]

Reminds me of the description the fire training in Starship Troopers (book, not film) - they use something similar to a MILES rig assault rifle firing blanks, but one random round in 1,000 is NOT a blank. The odds of anyone being hurt by it are minimal, and even then it's unlikely to kill you, but as Rico notes, "suddenly hearing a live round whip past your ear encourages you to treat the exercise properly", and that it's threatened that if people still mess around, the incidence of live rounds would be dropped to one in 100.

Of course, the Federation is a bit less concerned with trooper health & safety than most contemporary armies.

Though there is no mention of them ever actually carrying out that threat.

 

[zero]

^ Still it makes that scene in the film make more sense. If they went with that, the whole thing would have been less of a wall-banger, and yeah I know the film was supposed to be a pastiche that made fun of things like this, but still... :roll:

 

[simonh]

And as for annoying the players ... basically, ending the game the way I did was the best punishment I could think of. Basically, no more Patrons, no more big jobs, not enough money even to buy a cold berth passage, stuck on a planet where the only thing left was some cubicle in an air conditioned office ... Hell. Sheer hell.

Sounds great, where can I sign up for your next game?

I've played games where the first mission given by a patron was to test how competent and reliable the party are before giving them the 'real' assignment. Acting as security like that smells a lot like a test, so I'd have probably done exactly what your players did. Maybe the point of the excercise was to introduce the players to some of the NPCs that would be involved later in the game, possibly as allies. In which case jerking around might be a stupid thing to do long-term. How are they supposed to know?

As Gm you can't rely on your expectations of what the players should or might do. If they just did what you expected, there'd be no point them being there. Personaly as a GM I believe that I have a responsibility to entertain them. There are more of them than there are of me, so in general their idea of what is fun should trump mine, or at least it certainly shouldn't be irrelevent compared to mine. As GM you have huge power, and with that power comes responsibility otherwise you're just ego-tripping.

The players can't see inside their head and don't know what your expectations are. They are in a state of massive sensory deprivation WRT their character's experience of the game world, and only know what you tell them.

Empty room syndrome is a different but related issue. They are there at the table to respond to the signals you give them. If you give them only one signal, don't be surprised if they expend all their efforts responding to it.

Simon Hibbs