Let's merge problem-players and problem-gm

Question

We have separate tags for problem-players and problem-gm.

I don't especially like this, for several reasons.

1. It's kinda making an assumption about the problem that may not be warranted. Sure, sometimes one person is the problem, but sometimes you've got an issue where several people are responsible, or the asker could accept an answer that indicates that they themselves were the problem or that no one is particularly to blame. Tags that only really unambiguously apply after a question has been definitively answered are... not very good tags.

2. It's loaded language. Saying that someone is a "problem player" or "problem GM" is making the gaming problem a the identity of a person rather than just their behavior.

3. (Minor) I feel like these are making structural assumptions about the game that don't fit all games.

How about group-problems instead?

Answer 1

I agree, it's been bothering me too.

The language is passive-aggressive, in addition to your first two points. I do think that "not all games do it that way" isn't a very solid reason for changing a tag --because then we'd have to trash battle-map too. But as you say, that's a minor reason.

I suggest problem-at-the-table.

It'll come up when they start to type in one of the other tags, and it avoids any implication of number, role, or identity.

Answer 2

To follow up to BESW's answer, how about a merged problem-behaviour tag?

Since the issue isn't the identity of a player/GM or their role, but their intentional or unintentional destructive behaviour causing the issue that the question is being asked about.

Answer 3

disruptive-behaviour

A blameless tag that describes nothing but the fact there is stuff happening. Also, this better conveys the kind of problem these questions universally deal with: something disrupting the game and the social group.

Naturally: synonymize problem-gm and problem-player to disruptive-behaviour.

Answer 4

I disagree.

1. The lack of existence of a problem-GM tag as opposed to a problem-players tag makes the same assumption that you imply exists by its existence. There is clearly a school of RPGing in which the GM stands as a sort of adversary against the players, the rules to be used are the RAW, and both "sides" adhere to them. While it's not my own ideal style of play, it certainly exists. It's not necessarily a style I prefer to play but I think the site does a disservice by denying its existence.

   This is kind of a tough point to "grok", I apologize, but the issue that I am getting at here is that to a large extent language speaks the people. In other words, if we don't have a term for something, it won't be used. To that end, what I fear is that by replacing "problem-GM/player" with problem-at-the-table", we will be obliquely cutting off responses from players in "it's my way or the highway" style games because they assume that since we don't even have a word for problem GMs they must not be a "thing".

2. I understand your point here but I think a tag like "problem-behavior" doesn't necessarily get at the particular issue a lot of folks want to get at when they use the tags. For example:

   How to handle a 'power-GM'?

   To a new player, "problem-GM" in this case may as well mean "I have a problem with this particular GM". The player doesn't know if it's a behavior issue or if it's just how the game is played, and since the whole point of the site is to answer these kinds of questions, I think the current vocabulary is useful.

3. People whose games of choice have structures which do not apply to certain tags can choose to ignore those tags. It is impossible to anti-ignore something, i.e. to choose a tag which does not exist because we have decided not to acknowledge the existence of that other structure.

Answer 5

I just fail to see any real problem that's being solved here, and I think we're talking about removing common sense tags people use all the time with artificial constructed tags they will just be confused by. I don't support a change at this time.

Sure, someone who thinks the problem is their GM, the problem might actually be them - but that's not how they will be looking to ask the question, or to look for existing answers to their question. And in the end that's what tags are for, not to satisfy our own sense of politically correct taxonomy.

Answer 6

In this newer meta I've suggested group-conflict as our replacement tag for problem-players and problem-gm.

Pros:

1. It doesn't label any person as a problem.
2. It doesn't assume where the problem lies, which might be where the asker thinks it is and might not.
3. It's really clear what it means.
4. No judgement is implied; conflicts happen.

Compared to problem-at-the-table (the top-voted suggestion):

• Both tags have the pro of (2)
• group-conflict is clearer by being unambiguous and specific, while problem-at-the-table may get mistagged on problems of any kind, because it only implies "the people there" is what the circumlocution "at the table" means.
• group-conflict is more intuitive to discover for new askers and easier to type for experienced users.
• group-conflict is better for (1), of not implying that maybe someone is the problem.

Answer 7

Make [problem-gm] a synonym of [problem-player] and then, maybe, rename [problem-player]. [problem-gm] questions always come down to RAW and behavioral/play-style questions. The thing is, the GM is just another player. A player with a different role and agenda, to be sure, but he is as reliant on the group to play the game as they are on him and I'm not really sure what purpose having the tag split actually serves.

Of course, such a merge might require more careful policing of the [problem-player] tag to ensure people aren't using it for the "This was a stupid decision; am I right?" questions.