TPK: Problem Players

Welcome back, my friends, to TPK. When I started this blog, I really didn't think I'd have to write too many of these. The biggest two things I've seen destroy games are disinterest and scheduling conflicts, and...there's not a whole lot I can say about those. Scheduling a game can be a lot like ordering a pizza for five or six people: It sounds super easy, but it never actually is. No, instead, we have a concept today inspired by last week's post on Cleverness. Unchecked, a single player with a bad habit can easily wreck a game: negative feelings build up until nobody wants to play anymore...and worse, they don't want to start a new game either, since they're expecting more of the same. We're talking about disruptive players and how to deal with them.

Just as a warning, this one's going to have some story time. The names won't be changed, because these people weren't innocent. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself reading about a situation you were a part of, don't take it the wrong way. I'm trying to teach, not shame.

So we discussed a lot of bad habits in the blog, but so far only cautions and tips on how to avoid them. The problem is that the social aspect of tabletop gaming is always going to be an X-factor. There are a ton of  ways someone can be disruptive, including ones that really have nothing to do with gaming. People who smoke, dip chewing tobacco or constantly drink too much at game might be obvious, but even someone who insists on snacks being offered, can't go five minutes without quoting Star Wars, or constantly show up in tiny shorts where you can kind of see their balls can be equally as bad as someone with a traditional vice. Internet based games also bring a more common problem of people who are doing something else while playing and thus aren't paying attention at all.

First, you have to analyze whether a character-focused problem is disruption, or character conflict. This can be really hard, but often this is as simple as watching and seeing if the 'problem player' is engaging those around him when challenged. There is a big difference between people who have a quirk or habit to their character because it will spark interaction and people who develop something ridiculous into their character because it's funny and they don't care what others think. You'll know which is which if the character seems to ignore or blow off others who confront or challenge them. The character who is open to IC interaction is not a problem player, and we will not be discussing them. We are splitting a fine hair here, but basically...you just have to get good at figuring out which is which. Don't jump to assuming an in character situation is an out of character problem, but don't think you can solve everything in character either. More on that later.

In my experience, simply letting people continue performing a disruptive or bad habit is a bad idea. Negative feelings will pile up until the game breaks, or worse, the group itself. People will start to resent game day and slowly stop showing up. Lord knows I've been there. Trying to squash confrontation to "keep the group together" will absolutely have the opposite effect. In fact, if you're trying to 'shut someone up'...all you're doing is becoming one more problem for them. It's not as if saying "It's fine" or "I don't have a problem" ever changed anyone's mind. There's only one healthy way to solve a problem player, and I want everyone to read what I'm about to say carefully.

Directly confronting the player in an out-of-character situation and diplomatically discussing the issue is the only thing that's going to work. 

Roll that around in your head until you're tired of thinking about it. Please. Talking to people is the only way you're ever going to fix your problems with people. Trying first to sanction them by penalizing their character will only breed resentment for being passive aggressive. Thinking you can "teach someone a lesson" by using in-character situations is arrogant, and not even very likely to work. They'll either blithely assume there's no problem since people naturally expect others to communicate with them, or they'll 'get it' and think you're being a passive-aggressive dickhead. That's because you ARE a passive aggressive dickhead if you think this is a good first attempt at solving a problem, but I digress.

This is a sidenote, but most people reading this are probably going to remember Blackjack's iron cow method. If you don't, this is a similar suggestion to mine, where Blackjack suggests penalizing them in a way that can't possibly be interpreted as being truly in-character: killing their character by dropping a cast-iron cow on them from the heavens. I appreciate the sentiment of making sure the problem player understands that your reaction was a purely out of character one, but overall I don't agree with the method, despite how popular it is. I find that, very often, people have no idea there was a problem right up until the first mention of one...and if your first mention of a problem is to severely penalize them, all you're going to do is make them mad. Remember, I keep saying that you're not as much an authority as you might feel. You're not their boss, you're their friend.

Nearly nobody likes confrontation. Out of the thirty or more people I can call a friend, I can think of three who enjoy confrontation.  Two have admitted to the behavior, and one just seems to. The rest of us? We'll DO it, but we don't like it. I've even met a lot of people who avoid confrontation as much as possible.

You can't avoid it. You just can't.

Thinking you can by using other methods has strong potential to make everything worse. I don't think I've ever seen it go well at all. In fact, I can trace the beginning of the end of a friendship to something just like this. Someone I knew by the name of John had come to us with a new idea for a Shadowrun game where we all have to "play against type" by taking on severe character restrictions. I had to make someone who looked normal. Dino had to play someone who didn't. Dale had to play an unoptimized character(because John is Dale's brother, and thus uncommonly mean to him). I was behind this idea until he told us that he already came up with all of the restrictions himself, and his wife already had her character finished. I don't remember being told what her restriction was, either. I started to grow uncomfortable when the only plot of the game beyond basic Shadowrunning was my character being mistaken for a child molester with a very high price on his head. Then, my good friend Jason caught him gloating about how he was going to graphically kill my character to prove I take gaming too seriously.

This line break is here so you have time to think about how fucking stupid his plan was.

Once Jason warned me, I started to realize this game only existed so he could do this to me. I was angry, and I won't lie, I was very close to violently angry. It felt like a violation of trust. Probably because it was. I confronted him directly, and he had no reasonable answer for me. It was obvious that John didn't want to actually discuss the problem with me, for whatever reason, and cooked this up so he either didn't have to or held a position of power in the following discussion, assuming one followed at all. We never played that game again.

After that, Jason, Dino and I discussed the problem that John set out to "fix". The core of the problem was that I was constantly leaving another game angry due to Dino's(The GM) love of picking on my character. I was playing a hateful little Jawa technician and I guess it was irresistible. He even cooked up a scenario once where everyone got a nice vacation except for my character, who was stuck dealing with PIT droids and mercenaries, for no reason. After months of being completely unsatisfied with my character, I asked if I could make a new one, and the answer was 'no'. So obviously, this led to anger and dissatisfaction. We talked it out, and I promised to try and step back more often. I don't think we even played many more sessions of that game after that, but Dino did back off too. He later apologized.

So! Colloquial evidence is fun, right? Which method worked, and which ended in a broken friendship? I really can point at that situation as the beginning of the loss of my friendship with John, though. Every time you're passive aggressive or 'sneaky' with your methods of solving problems, you flirt with this disaster. Even something as simple as beginning with in-game penalties or sanctions is very likely to backfire on you: When trying to 'solve' a problem of Ray's attention constantly wandering to his phone, John decided to begin with experience penalties every time it happened. He tried to apply this once, and Ray completely ignored him. That was the end of that idea. It could have gone even worse, though, because if Ray had challenged the idea, John would not have an answer to "why didn't you talk to me first?" and it could have ended with the loss of a player, or worse, over what was a minor problem at best.

I said there's only one healthy way to solve the problem, but there is another way. It's just really shitty of you. When someone's just not working out or being so disruptive that talking isn't working, you can just ditch them. Change game day, stop calling them, lie...whatever. Sometimes, this is the kindest let-down when someone just isn't going to work out. Others, it's really your only recourse. We would have needed to do this in the past, if a particular disruptive player hadn't disappeared just as the confrontation was going to begin. Dale had a roommate who would insist on charging party members listed book price for spells and do whatever it took to keep the game's plot to himself. He'd order us around and, at one point, pointlessly trying to keep us out of an important meeting with a King simply so HE'D get to make all of the decisions and we wouldn't even know what was discussed. He even literally hid treasure and important plot items from us.

Someone like this isn't always proven to be a douchebag in other areas of his life, but it's probably not likely that he's going to change, either. Our nasty little example boy disappeared from our group as he skipped out on over a thousand dollars owed to Dale, but...sometimes, people are just stubborn in their entertainment and otherwise stand-up people. If you tried diplomacy more than once and it's failed, or it's a problem that's too severe to try discussing, you have to skip to the next step of solving the problem.

You kick them out of the group.

Yeah, sorry. There really aren't many steps to this method. There's no tips, or tricks, or little methods I can give you. You have to either talk your problems out, accept some minor annoyance or compromise, or simply not game with that person again. It helps to be willing to compromise or discuss a problem more than once. It also helps to know exactly how many people are being disrupted before you bring it up, and try not to make it a situation similar to an intervention, where one person is socially assaulted by several. Be kind, and be courteous, but make it clear that the game can't go on while they're acting the way they are.

I hope nobody has to use this advice. Truth be told, I don't have as many horror stories of wanton douchebags as other people I know personally. Being up-front with someone is sometimes the hardest thing you can do, but it's the kindest and most effective way to solve a social conflict. Overall, take that away from this: Confronting someone about a problem does not mean you're allowed to throw kindness and compromise out of the window.

Cleverness

"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! "

Today is another in our series of really obvious concepts that I've seen plague games. I'm getting into minutiae a lot lately, but I promise more big, universal concepts are coming. The problem with writing about those is that they're way harder and require more thought. It's strange, but I can boil something down pretty easily if it's just a minor point to some, but huge universal concepts have way more pressure to them. BUT ANYWAY, enough of me complaining, today we're talking about "Cleverness" and why I hate it.

That's what we call an inflammatory lead-in to hook your interest. I don't mean being intelligent. I'm not suddenly saying I crave the company of the blind and stupid. Cleverness is defined a little more closely here and it's thanks to a book I enjoyed called the Tao of Pooh that made me think of it in a different light. Cleverness is defined(for our purposes) as a desire to prove yourself smarter or more clever than others.

Yeah, suddenly you see why this is a Pen and Paper game concept, right? I'm sure we've all met a few of "that guy" who constantly comes to game with real world tips and tricks, science knowledge, home chemistry recipes or worse, social psychology tricks to use in a pen and paper game. Or, maybe you know someone who immediately looks for a loophole in every encounter, tries to find things the GM hasn't thought of, or worse, constantly tries to trick others in an OOC sense. In my experience, most of these people don't really know what they're doing wrong, but this is a fairly bad habit to get into. First off, a lot of people feel things like bringing real world knowledge to a game is some sort of method to "logically" eliminate a skill check. We've talked about challenge a lot on the blog, and there's a big, big difference between solving a challenge fairly and thinking you can "outsmart" the GM or "skip" a skill check. The difference is very, very obvious, and you should know which is which. Thinking PNP games are a 'fight' between the GM and the Players is probably the beginning of this mode of thought, and I'd like everyone to try and squash that immediately. There are plenty of ways to have a competitive PNP experience, but the model of GM and Players is not one of them. a competitive experience can't have a GM competing in it. Simply put. This doesn't mean that a game can't support competition, but in my experience this slides a PNP game a little closer to being a board game.

Applying real world knowledge is admittedly a hairy concept, because sometimes it's good. Sometimes it can even be what the GM intends for you to do. What I'm arguing against here is less an action and more a mentality. It can feel really cool to apply real science or know-how to a challenge, OR it can leave everyone groaning as you excitedly try to manipulate a loophole in design. Introspection can be hard, but try to think about your motives: If you're more excited that you know something that can solve a challenge easily than you are about actually solving the challenge, that might be a red flag. If you're excited that you found something that you're sure the GM didn't think of and obviously didn't intend, that's a REAL BIG red flag.

I'm going to put aside, for NOW, the idea of bringing knowledge to the table that your character wouldn't necessarily possess. No, a post on The Information Game is coming very soon because it's one of my blog's big elephants in the room. Past that, whether you know you're doing it or not, trying to outsmart other people is arrogant and creates negative feelings that might fester and become a problem later. You might not even know you caused it. So what do I want you to do? In general, try not to think of gaming as inherently antagonistic, because it's not. Be nice, and understand when a GM says something isn't going to work or when he asks you to roll a skill check even though your action shouldn't "logically" need one. I promise I'll explain more about the whys of my advice in a moment, after we talk a bit to the GMs.

Yeah, get back here. This concerns you too. There's two ways to go about creating a challenge, and one of them is wrong. When you create a challenge in a PNP game, most of the time it's something you are intending the PCs to solve. Regardless of the difficulty. This is, understandably, one of the biggest leaps in logic a GM has to make, so I want you to go back and read that until you understand what I'm saying. If you "stump" the PCs to prove you're a smarter person than they are, your game doesn't go anywhere. It's as simple as that. I mean, I didn't think I had to explain this but I've met many, many people who could really use that advice. I've heard dozens more horror stories as well. To constantly try to "trick" or "outsmart" your players also makes them way less likely to want to play your game. There is a very fine line between designing a challenge within the genre's rules(more on that in a moment) with reasonable solutions and designing a tricksy encounter that's intended to stump or halt the PCs. Building a challenge around real world knowledge is only acceptable when you're giving the PCs a real puzzle to solve(such as a word puzzle or cipher) and even then, you should be prepared to give out hints for things like wisdom checks or Enigmas skills. Any other "real world" checks should have some sort of component of a skill check to them. Imagine a situation where a player must build a car engine: Obviously, this is a situation where someone would make one or several skill checks and the GM would state some sort of time frame. Now imagine I forced the players to describe how to build an engine, step by step, without using real world reference. I am confident that I know nobody who would be able. I know many gamers who know car maintenance and construction, but none who would be able to describe the action while sitting at a gaming table and with absolutely no reference.

Obviously that's an extreme example and something that's shockingly mean to do. However, it's also what you're doing, on a smaller scale. Real world knowledge has its place in PNP games, but as we discussed in "Well Logically", it's not even in the top ten most important things about a pen and paper game. You're wholly dismissing the character's build when doing this, which we discussed before when social skills came up. Seeing as how we've transitioned partially to discussing application of real-world knowledge in games, I'd like to bullet-point some of my tips and reasons.

Your clever little real-world trivia could be wrong. You remember how we were all taught things like Christopher Columbus wanted to prove the world was round, how to properly eat with the food pyramid, how Billy the Kid was ugly, and people in the Wild West thought tomatoes were toxic? Maybe you're thinking of torture devices like the Iron Maiden being built in the middle ages? Yeah, none of those are actually true. People get away with applying junk trivia and pseudoscience because we all have something similar to "fight or flight" in our minds: When we encounter someone saying something in a bold or insistent manner, we choose "Argue" or "Drop it". Often, disruptive cleverness starts by someone hearing something on the internet and ends with their bold assertion not being argued, because we don't have all god damn day.

You're only right because you're running counter to the genre. Yeah, this one happens sometimes too. Sometimes, a desire to prove yourself as smarter or better than the GM leads you to completely forget that he's working within genre conventions to create a special feel to the game. He's hoping you play along, because(presumably) he described the game's feel to you fairly well. Doing things like calling the police in a superhero or vigilante game, like using siege tactics on a band of orcs in a high fantasy hack-and-slash game, or even building your character contrary to obvious expectations can be disruptive and breed negativity. It's not even very clever, exactly: The GM probably thought of that sort of thing, and dismissed it because he expected the group to immerse themselves in the world he created. Building a mage who technically has melee attacks when he asked everyone to build melee characters isn't "clever", it's "acting against the spirit of what he asked you to do".

You're not promoting healthy challenge, you're squashing it. In my high school chemistry class, my teacher openly and repeatedly called my row of seats stupid. We were "the dumb kids". I was struggling with the class already after the first time she did that. What do you think happened? Yeah, I stopped trying. I regret not skipping that class, honestly. I failed it, told nobody about the severe verbal abuse(because this was the 90s, nobody cared) and took the class again next year. Constantly trying to "one-up" everyone in a game or prove you're the most clever will absolutely cause everyone around you to just stop trying. Most people naturally shy away from conflict, so everyone's just going to check out and the game will fizzle if it piles up too high.

Rules and conventions exist for a reason. Sometimes some fact, trick or method is omitted for a reason. In addition to presenting a reasonable world, PNP game rule sets have to worry about a multitude of other things. They have to be reasonably fair, offer the players plenty of choices, and be easy to use. Sometimes a system simply doesn't think to include something, but often when things are omitted, it's for a good reason. Telling the GM you're buying a bunch of unrelated chemicals then informing him that they make C4 when mixed is outside what a lot of systems intend: What they want you to do is to buy C4 like a normal person and deal with the availability rules for it. Exceptions can be made, of course, but this is something you need to work with the GM for and not "spring" on him like you're trying to trick him. After all, nobody would argue if trying to make C4 in your bathtub got you blown the fuck up.

Another week, another long ramble. I sincerely apologize for this post not being as coherent as my others, but there's no editing it. This is a habit everyone's seen but one I have a hard time describing. This is also a really, really fine line: a lot of the time, applying knowledge can feel really cool and accomplishing. At the end of the day, I'm cautioning you against a mentality, and it can be very confusing to discuss. Constantly looking for loopholes instead of sincere solutions to challenges is antagonistic and arrogant. Trying to "pull one over" on a GM is ridiculous(he's presumably putting work in for everyone's enjoyment) and trying to "stump" your players ensures that you're the only one having fun. Players buy skills for a reason, and throwing them out to make a challenge harder is the same thing as making them fist fight you in real life to win combat. Bringing up little "real world" science or psychology tricks can get really tiring. Consider it a bad habit: Use skill checks alongside real knowledge, and try to immerse yourself in the genre and tone the GM is setting. Try not to act solely in self interest, and ask yourself if you're doing something because you want everyone to think you're really smart. You're one of several people trying to enjoy the same activity, and you should take care not to step on someone else's enjoyment.

As a final word, I did leave out one major piece of advice: How to deal with a problem player. There are a multitude of advice sections in GMing guides on this, but I'll be weighing in with my own dumb advice next week. It was going to be in this one, but I've tied a really long rambly tail on this post already.

TPK: Railroading

"Do it? Dan, I'm not a republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting the outcome?"

"I did it thirty-five minutes ago."

CHOO CHOO. I wrestled with whether to make this an episode of TPK or not, but frankly? I've seen railroading kill a lot of games. It's something we all hate, but it's also one of those things that everyone has a slightly different definition of. It's one of the villains of pen and paper gaming and you can find millions of horror stories online of shitty GMs using railroad tactics for various ends, usually to make sure nobody messes up their precious story. I'm going to go over this concept like none of you have ever heard of it before, why people hate it so much, when you're going to need to use it, and how to do it when you need to. That's the unfortunate little truth behind railroading, after all: Sometimes, it's necessary.

As a loose definition, railroading is forcing the game to go the way you want it to, either on a large scale or a small scale. It can be as large as blatantly scripting entire parts of the game, providing only one plot hook, or squashing any attempt at self motivation, or as small as forcing the players to deal with the pointlessly weird, overly quirky NPCs you made. Yes, the guy who demands you speak only in rhyme is the only blacksmith within a hundred miles. Sorry.

Remember we discussed Agency, and how I said it's hyper important? Agency is why railroading destroys your game. When people say "I'm upset that you keep railroading us", they're really saying "I'm upset that you keep removing my agency." Agency is a person's control over their surroundings, their character, their choices, the plot, anything. Railroading is more precisely defined as the removal of player agency for some purpose, usually to make the game go in the direction you want it to. When you remove a player's agency, they are going to get upset on some level. It's as simple and as childlike as this: They had something they wanted to do, and now they can't do it. This level of disappointment is primal and easily turns to anger after they reason their own way that you could have presented the plot without railroading. They WILL do that. This is why removing agency is so bad: the response is deep within us and can not be trained or "beaten" out.

Nor should you try. Pen and Paper gaming is a collaborative experience. The GM is not more important than the player, and already has much, much more input over the story than them. Removing what little say over the plot that they have just to protect your lion's share is absurd and selfish. Like I've said over and over, you are not the King of the Castle magnanimously doling out the exact plot that you deem fit, and the players are not grubby Dickensian street urchins who should be glad to get whatever scraps they get. This is a collaborative effort, and frequent railroading is an act of greed.

If you really think that, stop now. You don't have what it takes to be a GM. Close the book, close my blog, and take a break, because no game you ever run will be satisfying. Even if they finish, even if everyone tells you it was amazing, inside, they're not happy. Thinking you're King A-Rab, controller of this game, and telling people who complain that "the door's right there" will lead to failed, unfinished games. period. One of the problems is in the social aspect of PNP games: Frequently, if your railroading killed a game, the players may not tell you the real reason they're not interested. They may not even know consciously. They just know that playing your game doesn't sound very fun.

So I hope I explained why railroading is so bad. This is a collaborative experience, and even past that, punishing or outright preventing people from doing what they want is arrogant and absurd. PNP games are not video games, and they can not be compared to them in any large way. You can't just present the exact linear plot that you want and simply pause every once in a while for reactions. Pen and Paper RPGs are a completely unique beast and can't be treated like a movie, or a game, or a book.

Only, here's the thing. You may need to remove the player's agency over specific things to keep your plot from derailing. There will eventually be a moment, an NPC, a villain or an act that the players can't muddle with or else the plot won't continue. Railroading is still not okay, so we have to minimize the amount of it we do as well as its impact. Here's some tips.

Write as few 'hinge' moments as possible. When outlining your campaign, look for these moments that can easily derail the game. Write them out if you can. Create a contingency if that's possible. Think of how the players might act and plan for it.

When a person must live, do not put them in harm's way.  If I could bold this one twice, I would. Don't give the players a chance to kill someone if killing them destroys your plot. Villains can send lackeys to gloat or provide needed exposition, or employ spells to protect via spells like contingency, or show themselves via illusions. In most systems, inventing a spell isn't THAT hard and the villain often has more time for this sort of thing than the PCs do. More modern games can use phones and televisions to give the villain face time without being in the same room as the PCs. So can architectural design, depending on your PCs and their capabilities. Being too far away from the players for them to catch up or attack effectively, or being behind a fence they won't be able to hack through in time. PCs aren't always as bloodthirsty as the stereotype, but they WILL often try for the shortest solution they can think of: To stop the villain, murder him. Only give them a chance when you're okay with a villain dying and have planned for it. In a pinch, you can fudge a bit to give him more AC or more HP, but be very, very careful with doing that: The players can't know you did it.

Make the players feel like their agency was never removed. This is very tricky and a touch dishonest, but it's very important. in some situations you can control the outcome without making it feel like you did. Do this sparingly(or else they'll notice) and it can be effective. This also covers coming up with contingencies for the PC's actions: If the players are too genre-savvy to open the necronomicon and recite a spell from it, someone accidentally listens to a recording of the former owner doing the same. See what I did there?

Consider important events happening off-screen. The players don't have to be present for everything. The story can be conveyed in other ways, like the PCs showing up too late to stop something or seeing its aftermath. Telling them the story via finding the evidence of something happening can even be more compelling than just watching something happen. The feeling of "There's nothing we could have done, because we weren't there" is very different than "There's nothing we could have done, because you keep fucking with the dice.". In some situations you can even literally show them what happened, via security footage, television screens, tapes, or programmed illusion magic. I've even had one GM show us scripted "Meanwhile" scenes at the end of a session. Use this sparingly, and it can be very effective.

I'd actually like to, for the first time ever, reference the quote I used for today's post. The characters in Watchmen arriving too late to stop Ozymandias is an excellent example of this tactic...however, it's used in precisely the wrong moment. In a comic book story, it's perfectly acceptable to end on a "down note". The good guys lose, the 'bad guy' wins, and the fight that ensues is a pointless, purely emotional conflict. However...it's not okay to ever remove the agency a player has over the ending of a game. This is a big, big moment for everyone, and...I'm sorry, but the players losing in the end is going to make your game memorable in the bad way. It's a disappointment that will live with them for a long time, especially if you forced the 'bad' ending take place.

Information. This one is another tricky one. Something can happen right in front of the PC's eyes if they don't understand what's going on at first or don't think they need to stop it or kill someone. This is another variation on the PCs "showing up too late". There's a huge X-factor to this, and it's called "how bright your players are". In my experience, player's reactions can vary WILDLY, missing obvious clues but latching on to and solving extremely esoteric ones. Be careful, and always have a plan B.

In fact, I think that's my parting advice. Always have a Plan B. Never hinge your game's plot on something that MUST HAPPEN if the players are intended to be anywhere near it when it does. Plan multiple ways your plot can move forward so you don't have to force it to do so. You will have to railroad at some point, but imagine it like ninjitsu: To be noticed is to have failed.

Hard Vs. Soft Crowd Control

As a companion piece to last time, I thought I'd go over the two different type of crowd control. As an MMO player these terms are second nature to me, but I was discussing last week's article with someone and thought maybe this ISN'T a common concept. This week might be a bit of a shortie, but it's about hard vs. soft crowd control. Now, I know what you're thinking and I just want to caution you we're going to be saying "hard" and "soft" a lot. Try to get all the erection jokes and giggles out before the end of the article, please.

Neither type of crowd control is bad, but Hard Crowd Control is the one you have to be more careful with. This type is anything that completely(or virtually completely) denies any action a character can take. Stuns, Paralyzes, Sleeps, anything that makes a PC think it's a good time to get up and get a soda. In fact, while these can be a very powerful threat, THAT is the reason you want to be careful with this style of crowd control: whoever falls victim to it is 'out'. His interest in the game is gone, and it may not necessarily come back once he can act again. Being hit by hard CC is a disappointment to most, and when CC is a problem, it's usually hard CC you're talking about, just like how nearly every time you talk about violent or exploitative video games, it ends up being Rockstar you're discussing.

However, it's not all bad. Neither type is. The good thing about hard CC is its threat factor, they're powerful, scary abilities because they reduce the party's action economy in a single saving throw. Action Economy is the number of actions an individual or party has, and is incredibly important to any type of pen and paper game. This is why Haste was broken in 3.0, why initiative bonus is so important in Shadowrun, and why an army of minions can be so devastating in Mutants and Masterminds. So, knowing all that, we know that Hard CC can be deadly effective and always makes the party sit up and take notice. Use it sparingly, and try to make sure the party knows about it before being hit. That way, the very threat of it will likely make them change their tactics. Reacting to a situation to try and defeat it is what feels good about combat.

Soft crowd control is anything that restricts your actions but does not prevent them entirely. Slows, trips, knockbacks, pushes, herding, grappling and swallowing whole are all in this category. In fact, MOST crowd control lies in this category. Hard CC is a pretty small list in most games. These are effects that cause the players to think, to stare at the board carefully and plan out their action instead of their decisions being basically independent of what's going on in the game board. These you can use more judiciously since Agency has been restricted but not removed, and thus the player remains engaged. The player(depending on how they game) may even be more engaged than he was before. Basically, soft CC is your friend and can be used way more often than its hard counterpart. I do still have two cautions for you, though.

The first is that you really can't spam any of these effects, regardless of the circumstance. Making a decent "really challenging" encounter is a collection of different things and tactics, and overusing any one thing will easily knock your encounter down to "really annoying". As a general rule, don't try to make something more difficult by overusing soft CC or setting up "team tactics" such as pairs of two who repeatedly bull rush you into each other to easily knock you down. Even the guy who came up with THAT one apologized for it later. Remember that the players have a much harder time coordinating tactics than you do, and a solution that sounds simple to you may be anything but for them. In addition to that, the GM often has the luxury of using minions whose actions aren't as important as a player's and thus has more tactics available to him. More on that concept in a future blog post.

The other caution is that, to paraphrase Cool Hand Luke, "Some men, you just can't reach.". Soft CC can easily be used more often in your game, but you still have to use caution. Some people are going to be irritated any time they have to change their tactics due to outside forces. Thankfully, I don't personally know any of these people, but they ARE out there. They're not bad, though, and this isn't something you should try to 'break' them of unless it's very disruptive. Just know that, as always, all of your decisions as GM will be tailored to your specific group. With some, that might mean a grid, miniatures, and heavy tactical combat peppered with crowd control and combat options. With OTHERS, this might mean the joy of jumping into a sea of orcs and destroying them with whirlwind strike over and over, and not worrying about 'dumb stuff' like being pushed around. Neither is the "right" way to play a PNP game, this just comes down to what people want out of their hobby. This is an escape for all of us, and we're equally split between people who crave intellectual challenge when we game(because we don't get it in real life) and people who want to 'turn off' and let loose emotionally(because our real life or job is tense and frustrating). Frequency of Crowd Control is a button for both of these kinds of people.

I'm rambling. Anyway, don't refuse to use crowd control just to pander to the latter crowd. Just tailor your game to their expectations and throw them roadblocks and 'intelligent' encounters every once in a while. With luck, actually, they'll see a powerful sorcerer with the ability to CC them as a major villain and hate them all the more for it.

And in conclusion, penis penis penis.