"Some Advice Please" Topic

Having just read the link below:

TMP link

I figured I would trot this minor problem out and see what the concensus is.

I recently fell in with a group of Euro boardgamers that my friend introduced me to and have decided to join them twice a month at both CoolStuff in Broward and FIU North Campus.

One of the very first questions I asked was, "Are any of these guys JERKS?". Ie, rules lawyers, win at any cost, keeping an eye on your every move to insure you don't (or aren't) a cheater; and was told that the group was a good set of people.

I'm not a Euro gamer, because of some horrible experiences the first few times I tried them, but I figured I would give it a go.

The group which meets at CoolStuff is part of a bigger Meetup crowd and after an awkward start, things have been progressing nicely with them…I've really enjoyed myself and am learning that a lot of Euro's are quite good.

The FIU group started out nice, but…of course…one of the members is a older teen/young adult geek son of one of the other members is is just the type of person I shy away from (see above).

The first time I played with the group, I noticed the intensity and the…borderline rage/anger in this kid…and when it came out after a few times, I looked at him and said "It's just a game."

Now this kid either must be home schooled or would have had his ass handed to him several times in HS for his personality, but the group…which is otherwise a great set of people, let his behavior slide.

As a gamer, when someone is new to a game, I am used to someone showing me the ropes and being a bit easy on me the first time I play a game, as this is how I treat those I teach. I'm out to have FUN. It's worth the time to teach and help someone to learn (as has been the practice with the CoolStuff crowd) the first game or two and then treat them as a worthy opponent from the third game forward.

This weekend we played "City of Horrors", a Zombie apocalypse game, which was new to me. I received three characters and the card dealer immediately told me, out loud and in front of everyone, that I was "screwed", since I got the Granny, Screaming Blonde and the Pregnant Mother.

Sure enough, Granny and the Blonde died quickly, but I was able to not only keep the Pregnant Blonde alive but also keep her one step ahead of the crowd and gather some goodies.

At the beginning of the third turn, when it was the…kids turn…he told me that I had to give him my (only) antidote or be killed next turn. I had already lost 2/3rd's of my characters and wasn't about to lose my third due to a threat, but when it came his turn, due to the luck of some action cards…he did what he said he was going to do.

Again, had this been my second or third game, fine. But, it was halfway through the game, I had sacrificed two characters so one would live and instead of going after Zombies or other characters, he went after me.

Some of the other players pointed out that they had more players, some still had all three, that were worthier targets, but nobody really stood up and said, "Whoa, he's a new player, why don't you…"

But he was not to be disuaded and out of the game I went, to cool my heels for another 3/4 hour. Fortunately the game was relatively quick, I had my NOOK with me and they had Wi-Fi, so all was not a loss, but it left me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

I game to have fun, I can rip people to shreds with certain games, but rarely do. Especially in group play, I'm happy to come out alive and around the middle of the pack with game points, especially in my first few plays.

Of course the kid did other things to annoy me, but the bottom line is:

Am I being too sensitive about this or should I let it slide.

I lost two other games Sunday, first time jobbies also, but on my own accord (Speculation and Robo Rally). I'ts also a 45 min drive to FIU and eats up 1/8th of a tank of gas, which equals money.

If I'm not being too sensitive, should I:

Just shut my mouth and play along

or

Make an empassioned "Marco Anthony Needs your Ears" speech in front of the group next time we get together and let the chips fall where they may.

Your thoughts and advice are welcome.

PS:

I was told that City of H was a cut-throat, back-stabbing game up front.

Also, the rest of the group, including the kids father are fun to be around, but the "one bad apple" rule seems to be applying itself here.

Sounds like the kid is a . I used to play a lot of board games and there were players at the club I would either not game with b/c of similar "style" of play or would – for example – never ally with, or – always attack if it was that sort of game.

I should say also that winning is not the criteria – at least for me – of a "fun" game.

The zombie game sounds like a "last man standing" game, so I don't think I'd take that personally and would probably let that slide.

Go another time or two and, if you're not having fun, bail out. If you bail and they ask why, tell them the truth.

Ah.. you have come up against "the protected bully." He feels he can bully and intimidate other players in the group with impunity and is protected by his familial status with a senior member.

I can help with some advice here.

It will do you no good to do the Marc Anthony speech or take the point of reasonableness, as this is NOT in the person's calculus of value and in fact it will only egg him on because he will KNOW he got to you. Your opinion and personality has no value to him, BUT his participation in the game does. Therefore, if you've the courage and patience to do it, you can not only win over him, but perhaps rehabilitate him.

This is the method, and it's best conveyed by an example.

At one time in a Diplomacy game one person betrayed me openly and quite egregiously. He crowed about it. So I determined he must be punished.

From then in every game, and I mean EVERY game, he was the goat. I would not help him, would not deal with him, would not even talk to him most of the time. This not only included multi-player games like Diplomacy or Ancient Civilizations, or so forth, but it included straight miniature games (giving him one unit when everyone else had eight or none) and simply saying "Sorry XXX you can't be trusted." In games which required diplomacy when he wanted to work with me I wouldn't deal with him, would barely speak to him except to announce publically that it did not matter that it was to his best interest and mine to work together, I simply wasn't When he asked why I refered him that Diplomacy game. He would Protest "THAT WAS YEARS AGO! and "IT WAS DIFFERENT GAME!" I simply sniffed "But it's the same player, the same person, and I have seen you time and again playing in many many other gamers some of them not even "diplomacy" style games, even straight historical miniature games, where you constantly betray other people and act foully toward them. Whatever should I think than but that you would do the same for me." The other players caught on and soon they were always jumping on him and destroying him.

Now at this point I must tell you that depending on your own personality it might be hard to do. When I play a game like Diplomacy or any multi-player game (Like Junta or Ancient Civilization) I always live up to the spirit, not the letter of my agreements, even if it means I will lose. I always pay scrupulous attention to what is going on and never betray anyone. This of course means that in any game I have people falling over each other to be my ally, because they know I'm trustworthy, and the others--- well-- lets just say that the others do to them what a frog does to a bug.

And-- it works-- they can learn. At one time In a game a full decade later I turned to the guy and said "XXXX you are now off the hook. I will give you a second chance. I will draw the line and forget and forgive everything, but from now on you get only ONE chance. If you betray me again it will be for the rest of our gaming life together and you will never be forgiven again.

It works. He has since become quite scrupulous in his play, at least when I am in the game, and he's scrupulous with everyone. So they can learn.

By the way, in my own war game group here in NJ, which I hold at my house, everyone KNOWS to not attack the newbies. That is the easiest and fastest way to get un-invited.

Oh to be sure people betray each other in Diplomacy games, but it's not malicious or stadistic, and they don't do it just for the fun of doing it.

It can be taught.

The problem Andrew is that it's easy to say that if you aren't having fun, just bail. But that will set you up for a long list of short tenures in various war game groups. One must work with what one has, and if the rest of the group is OK and fun to be with and you have only one bad apple, then it's time to discipline that one. if the group won't discipline them, than you can.

You see, by doing what I did it makes their presence in the game not fun at all, and THAT has value to them.

But remember, always couch the terms in which you point out why you are doing this as an obvious moral failure of the person. Namely- he simply can't be trusted to live up to his agreements or act civilly within the game.

PS I would Never play Zombie games. If you played this game again then the first thing you do is run over to wherever the other guy has his characters and shoot them, kill them or disable them to let the zombies get them, Then open up your WI-FI or whatever and sit back and let your own characters be eaten. When people ask what you are doing, simply say "I fulfilled my victory conditions" so I'm done.

Other than bailing out, the only other way to possibly improve the situation that I can think of is to simply, politely and without pointing any fingers, keep making the other players (especially the adults) understand that "intense" gameplay (in the negative sense of aggressive or passive-aggressive, dead-serious, obsessive, win-at-any-cost kind of gameplay) is a genuinely negative experience to you.

For instance, try to vote down games that you feel will give the kid too much free rein to act like a jerk, but do it saying something like "that game brings out the worst in people" or "it's such a mean-spirited game, I'd rather play something that lets all the players have fun". Again, pointing no fingers. Don't engage with the kid. He'll either grow up a bit thanks to your civilizing influence, or he won't. In the latter case, there will be nothing you can do to change the fact that there's a jerk in the group. Being the son of another player in the group, he's "protected". You may just want to bail out at that point.

Life's too short to game with people you don't enjoy gaming with…

To clarify the point I was trying to get at in my previous post: You as a mature adult have a strength that the kid presumably doesn't. Namely, the ability to bring other mature-minded people to your side and make the group gravitate to a better place, by acting civilized and polite. The kid is in the minority and won't like it when the adults vote him down in mature discussion. If he wants to pull the group in his direction, let him make his case in a level-headed way, which he very well may find himself unable to do.

Of course, in a democracy, you don't always get your way either. That's part of the deal. If the kid continues to sour the experience for you, extract yourself politely.

"Of course the kid did other things to annoy me, but the bottom line is:

Am I being too sensitive about this or should I let it slide."

Stay cool. Smile. Free your mind. Wait your chance.

Then SKULL CRUSH* HIM WHEN IT REALLY MATTERS TO -HIM-

That is my motto. It is our obligation to nurture and educate the young.

*euphemism

It can be difficult joining an established group especially if they have a quirky style of play *

one of the members is a older teen/young adult geek son of one of the other members is is just the type of person I shy away from (see above)

Do you know if he is there by choice or has he been dragged along by his parent?

It would be interesting to find out what the rest of the players make of it including his parent

I certainly wouldn't give up if it was just the one guy.

If it was all of them acting that way then either a) run for the hills or b) fight fire with fire and, in game mode, be even more brutal than they are

* The Berkeley Vale group has an optional "recrimination phase" in some game turns. It covers complaining about the rules, mocking another player's move or dice rolls etc. We find it therapeutic and stops players getting wound up. Some new members don't like it but others do and join in

So it's a cut throat back-stabber game and the kid went after the weak link, both in terms of in-game capability and player familiarity? Honestly, I'm not that surprised, and wouldn't raise a fuss about it. Best thing to do, actually, is to joke about it. After all, as you said, it's just a game. Heck, your experience might simply have been a one-time "payback" for trouncing him earlier, in which case as far as he's concerned, he's counted coup and that's probably the end of it. So for now, yeah, I'd let it slide. In fact, at the start of your next game, make a joke of it— "I've got my eye on Kid Killer here," or "Okay, but I'm wearing back armor this time," or "If I get that pregnant blonde again, I'm warnin' all of ya'll that Momma's hormones are on full alert, and payback IS gonna be a you-know-what…" or whatever works for the situation.
Or, you could back the kid up in a game, do him a few good turns here and there. That might make him swing to your camp, and he'll be the one defending you.

But whatever you decide, cut the kid some slack for now. It is just a game, and you don't know everybody's situation. As you figure things out a bit better, then you can see how things need to be addressed. Then, if the kid's a minor, talk with the dad. If the kid's an adult, talk with the kid "man to man."

For now, your guide should be forgiveness and the Golden Rule.
(Unless it's a cut-throat, winner-take-all game of zombie fratricide, in which case, it's frag or be fragged. )

Gentlefolk,

Thanks for your advice, though I still haven't made a decision as I'm waiting to hear from others.

Just a few FYI's though:

Almost every game we have played has been a first time for me, as I am a board wargamer first and miniature gamer second.

I haven't beaten anyone yet or back-stabbed anyone either. The best I've done is come in a strong third in a full blown Waterdeep (w/expansions) which shocked everyone since my Patron was, essentially, the "Goddess of Building Codes", which pretty much meant that I had to build shops to get a "piece of the action" along with some side quests. (And this was the CoolStuff meeting game, where I was generously helped by the game-master and another person who is also in the FIU group).

Zombie Horror VPs are points, so as long as your alive when the "Choppa" arrives, you live and then the VP's are counted, so it's not a "last man standing" game…though, admittedly, the fewer the better.

Good stuff so far, just waiting to hear a bit more.

So Andrew. I think the real question is whether you had fun or not? Everyone gets into a game every now and then and does not have that great of a time or they get the perfect combination that leads to an early demise.

So be honest with yourself. If you otherwise had a good time in other games you played, then just stick with it and grin and ignore the kid.

If the kid is ruining everything for you, perhaps it's time to part ways.

Quite frankly, there is never going to be a perfect group. There is always going to be one of those somewhere. Nothing to be done about that. To me it's just that simple. Game on or cut and run. It's up to you.

John

I'd smash him at every opportunity. When he whines just comment on how well he plays and you thought you'd give a try.

I think you simply need to explain how his actions make you feel and ask him/the group to change.

If they don't want to, then fair enough – don't play with them.

I think people are too reticent about speaking up – they are only games and the whole point is to enjoy playing them. if you aren't having fun then don't play.

Mike

I agree, life is too short. I found a large proportion of gamers at clubs are overgrown kids and people that I wouldn't choose to spend time with outside of gaming.

In the end I just gave up.

Wow, OScmidt – someone back-stabbed you in Diplomacy once (a game where that is par for the course) and you treated him like crap for ten years? I don't think you're playing the part in this story that you think you are…

I agree with Guinny. You are supposed to betray people in Diplomacy. Always keeping your word is often a good tactic ( and I prefer to operate that way myself) but there is nothing morally wrong about lying to another player in a Diplomacy game. In fact, if everyone always played it as OSchmidt does, it would be a boring game. I feel like this Zombie game might be similar.

That said, and back to the OP, having someone stick it to you is one thing, having them crow about it obnoxiously is another. The first just motivates me to play better next time, the second makes me want to find other folks to game with. If the kid's bad manners don't improve, drop the group.

My read on the OP is that the kid ticked him off and now he's sensitized to everything he does/says… to the point that even if he is playing fair and square it's still going to be annoying/aggravating.
I recently quit an RPG group because of one player who I just gave up on ever getting along with… the guy just pushed my buttons, whether it was intentional or not doesn't matter. I was spending the whole game wanting to punch him and coming away with anger that lasted well into the next day. So I quit, and haven't regretted the peace of mind I gained by doing so.

I was playing in a Risk game with my best friend. During the game he offered me a three turn truce between "Egypt and the Middle East." I held all of Africa, so I immediately accepted, moved my forces away, and began whomping on another player. Two turns later, my friend moves down from Southern Europe into Africa, kicking my butt all across the map. When I asked him "what gives?" he pointed out to me that the truce was between Egypt and the Middle East— that he'd said nothing about the rest of Africa or any of his other territories or mine. He had outfoxed me with his diplomatic cunning, and I had to acknowledge that. I'd been beaten, and I deserved it for being naďve. We're still great friends, but I've learned in Risk to pay very close attention to exactly what he offers. And I find that it makes for a much more challenging and fun game, too!

So some things have to be weighed in the spirit of the game itself. If the design of the game intends for you to "cheat" as part of the play, then that form of "cheating" is part of the game. Diplomacy is that sort of game, Munchkin has some elements of that, and Illuminati is famous for telling players to lie, cheat and steal like a good conspirator to gain the win. So know your opponents, know your game, and know what you're getting into. And don't get mad if your buddy is just playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

(Oh, and yes, I've gotten my friend back with my own careful wording… )

I think it comes down to whether you find the other members of this club and the general gaming environment enjoyable enough even with this kid in the group.

I've been in various clubs over the years and there's usually a jerk player in them. It's how the rest of the club deals with them that affects whether I stick it out or move on to fresher pastures. Some jerk players end up in a sub-group of other similarly minded ultra competitive gamers, or with gamers who have known them for years and have built up a tolerance of them. As long as there's room for both you and them in your club you'll find over time that their lack of grace won't bother you a great deal.

My current club is terrific and fortunately we don't have that type of player, but the previous two clubs I was in did and both reacted in different ways which ultimately determined my involvement with them.

The first club was primarily board game and RPG focussed and this new guy joined who was not only highly competitive (he played online poker a lot as well) but couldn't tolerate weakness of play in others. We were playing in a multi-player game that I hadn't played before (it was a Eurogame and the background and game mechanics were unfamiliar as well. Something to do with livestock trading and community building). I treated the first game as a test run; I wasn't bothered with winning so much as trying to work out different strategies so I could get a handle on the game. This really bothered the guy and he ultimately ended up saying "go ahead, play like a *** loser like you always do" and trying to move my pieces for me when I did something he thought was wrong. The rest of the players told him to calm down and offered words of support for me. The mood of the game plummeted and he earned no favours from his outburst. Once he saw that he couldn't divide and conquer the club, he left.

The other club had a player who always likes playing the best of the best of the best: French Imperial Guard, the SS, etc. He'd never lost a Napoleonic wargame playing the French…until I was paired with him in my very first game at this club. As a noob returning to the miniatures after years of RPGs and boardgames I floundered a bit as I came to grips with the rules and trying to remember some Napoleonic tactics as well (I found out that this game didn't really reward period tactics, but instead has a few quirks that you need to know in order not to lose badly). Anyway, my flank collapsed around mid-game which in turn meant the French lost that night. This guy was not pleased, but didn't have a tirade but instead went passive-aggressive on me. The defeat was written up in the monthly club newsletter (that REALLY helped!) and from that time on he was so frosty towards me and didn't like my presence in a game. However, he was popular with the club membership and as time went on I found it more difficult getting involved in any game at that club. This time, it was me who left.

To summarise a bunch of ramblings there, you can control how you deal with things but a lot comes down to the other club members. Clubs are communal beasts and should accommodate a wide variety of playing styles but above all else is having respect for those varieties. If a club values good skill, bad skill, friendliness, competitiveness, humour and seriousness in its players, you'll have a gaming home. If the others pander to this kid and don't allow you the freedom to play your way then move on.

Gentlefolk,

Okay, other than the jerk, the group is a good one and I think I will stick with it for awhile. I will be civil to the kid, but no more and when I get a chance to see him lose or sweat, I'll do it, but without resorting to any foul play on my part either. I think I'll just keep on reminding him "that's what he gets for killing a pregnant lady" every time something bad happens to him and leave it at that.

I'm a big boy and I know who the jerk is now, so I can do my best to avoid direct contact with him and when I must, I'll do like many of you suggest and if allied with him plan on not helpinng him or if his enemy, doing my best to throw a wrench in his plans.

If his behavior worsens, then I will bring it to a head, but only after all other avenue's have been exhausted.

BTW…Diplomacy, played it once…HATED IT! We played Struggle of/for Nations a few weeks ago and had a blast. We also play "lieing and cheating" games too, but they are quick and fun "filler" games, so no one takes offense at those since it's announced from the start that's the object of the game.

Thank you again for all of your helpful advice!

As the originator of the post in the link you are referring to, I would like to clarify my major stance on "bad gaming" experiences.

Losing games is still gaming.
Playing with jerks is still gaming.
Losing to a jerk is still gaming.

Bad gaming is better than no gaming.

I'm OK with losing to my power gaming buddy with better (higher priced) collectible models. I like gaming and I like hanging out with the guy, in fact, we do non-gaming stuff more than we game. I don't play to win, I play to play. I'm not sure I would feel the same way about gaming with him if I had to significantly invest time and gas driving just to game though.

Andrew…

Have fun when you are playing games with others, (and with him)…but remember the old Klingon saying…

"Revenge is a dish best served cold…

And you'll know what to do….

Murph is correct, turnabout is fair play. Just be pleasant and smile lots.

At one time In a game a full decade later I turned to the guy and said "XXXX you are now off the hook.

A decade later… over a game of diplomacy…. any other examples of how to waste a life. Truly a cautionry tale. I just don't get it, promoting the fact that your holier than thou is a strange attitude to carry into game night/day…. for ten years! The moral here is to move on with your gaming life and don't waste a decade trying to make your point (assuming that after so long the gaming group still exist in it's current format).

Andrew revenge your sensibilities if you feel you must, by all means, but do it within a goldfishes memory not ten years, do it unsuspectingly and never say what it is for, you will only look the ….I dont know what… as our friend above ably demonstrated. For myself I would frankly prefer to move on either within the group or without. If your not getting enjoyment from your hobby, based on group dynamics, then try another, but for gods sake don't waste ten years on dodgy advice.

regards
dave

…but for gods sake don't waste ten years on dodgy advice.

Don't worry, I won't. The situation either improves, one way or another within the next several weeks or I move on.

The Berkeley Vale group has an optional "recrimination phase" in some game turns

It's optional? Since when?

Life's too short to game with people you don't enjoy gaming with…

That's my take too.

But when it comes to back-stabbing games, I consider Junta players who get upset when they are assassinated to be greenhorns.

My only problem with Diplomacy is the game going on and on and on…

Junta's a fun game…how can you get upset…I mean you come right back as your Uncle's Nephew's Sisters Twin Brother's Aunt…and penniless, but you stay in the game.

Odd that.

Ah but you guys don't understand the exquisitely savor of Schadenfreude when prolonged over a long, Long, LONG! Time. There's an art to arranging the treacherous one time after time on the block so that others tear his chitlins out--- of watching him beaten to death time and again by other players who did unto him exactly what he did to them. I didn't waste my life, I played many games with the guy and had a great time with the other guys, it was a lot of fun, but when it came to him the message was driven in remorselessy. Live up to your commitments.

And in the end, he was absolutely scrupulously correct after I forgave him. He and I worked quite well as allies from then on, and while he continued to be treacherous to others, he never was to me.

He learned.

I was satisfied.

And I'm not being "holier than thou" I just have cultivated a reputation for absolute honesty and trustworthiness in a game. It pays off. Many times other players in an alliance will vouch for me and will say, "if you partner with Otto, he'll never betray you-- never!"

It's been worth it gaining a sterling reputation. I suspect you are jealous you don't have one.

Junta is of course a different story, but I play the same way. No one bothers me. Actually I'm usually elected El Presidente from the start and stay there. Canny players notice that whenever I get the money from the US everyone gets the same, me too, and at the end of the division I have no more than anyone else, and that often I take my own money out of my hand to make the disbursement even. persons of course who have betrayed me get nothing. After a while people notice there are only one or two notes in my hand and nothing in the Swiss bank account. They realize they're never going to get a better deal from anyone else.

In fact at one time I made a promise that if there was NO coup in the country for a turn I would step aside and allow others to choose a new Presidente. There was no coup. I stepped aside, took my 2,000,000 I had in my hand, my two mistress' and retired to at the American Embassy. They immediately staged a coup to bring me back.

I am a river to my people!

Junta to our group is more an excuse for outrageous acting and accents and organized craziness than a game to win. I never send anyone to the wall either.

OP, whatever you do, don't follow the advice of OSchmidt here. It's bad enough there's one person like that around.

OSchmidt – you certainly have a reputation now I think, but it isn't what you think it is. Dear god man, how petty do you have to be to act like that?

OSchmidt – given the rest of your sentence, I'm not sure you understand what the phrase "holier than thou" actually means…

Guinny

Whatever, if you enjoy being betrayed or more important if treachery and lying is your stock in trade in gaming then I don't think you could every understand a concept like "ethics."

Do you not believe that bad behavior must be punished?

have you not said at some time in your life "Revenge is a dish that must be eaten cold?

So how have I then done wrong.

Recall I did not say I minded when attacked in a game or given opposition. The case is very narrow. When you pledge something to me in a game and then betray. That is, you say you are my ally, but then you attack me when vulnerable, that's treachery. That's betrayal. That's when the vengeance without end kicks in.

Of course if this is the way you operate, that you are naturally treacherous and duplicitous and expect and desire that sort of conduct, then I guess I am holier than thou.

So are you saying you are naturally treacherous and duplicitous and resent being held accountable for your bad behavior?

Answer me this. If you do not seek revenge on players who are treacherous, or to discipline people of whom Andrew spoke about, however are you to expect anything more?

Please explain what you find so objectionable to my always being absolutely trustworthy in a game and never breaking my word? And what is objectionable to feeling resentment and seeking redress when wronged?

Holding a grudge for 10 years over a game of diplomacy has to be one of the saddest things I have ever heard of. Pretty sure you are meant to betray each other in that game. What a childish grudge to hold. He wasn't the one who had poor conduct OSchmidt you were.

To ignore the rather sociopathic / childish tangent and get back to the actual point, I'd recommend to the original poster to try the club again, if possible just don't play with the teenager concerned, it sounds like there's enough people there that several games would be going on any one time. Contrary to what someone else posted, bad gaming is not better than no gaming. We game to enjoy ourselves; if gaming leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths or feeling angry, then it hasn't done what it was intended to do. Not gaming is preferable in that situation.

If there is only one game being played so you can't avoid the idiot, then I'd suggest letting people know. After a few attempts, say "sorry guys, but I'm just not cut out for this group, X seems to have a problem with me as he always attacks me or hinders me in any of the games we've been playing, and while I like the rest of you and enjoy the banter and your company, I'm not enjoying the games because of his conduct. So, this is a farewell, thanks for the games so far, but I'm afraid I won't be joining you again."

It's polite, gets the point across, and it might even spur others into saying something too if it's an ongoing problem. You might find someone else chiming in, or saying "you know, you're the third person who's left because of X." It might even get X to think about what he's been doing and apologize.

Sue,

Thanks again. As I stated, I will stay on for awhile and see what happens…I very well could be reading things wrong, though I doubt it. There are seven members in the pool, but rarely do we all show up, so it's the luck of the draw and it seems that Dad and Junior show up about 90% of the time.

However, some members are starting to suggest some 2 or 3 player games to break up into, along with one "main one" to cover however many are showing up that day…which would help a lot.

For now, since everyone else is so pleasant and it may just have been a social hiccup (doubtful), I'll stay on.

I'll keep you and everyone else updated.

Thank you all for your advice!

Update

Okay, we gamed yesterday and all is well with the world, I finally figured the kid out.

He's Uber Schmart and being a bit geeky, is somewhat shy (not unlike me as a kid) and compensates for it during a game in order to win at all costs, even if he's playing with an alliance.

He's fairly polite when not on stage and when he gets too annoying, everyone just piles on top of him and lets him know it too. Water off his back, but the bottom line is that he's not as bad as I thought the first few times and he does have an off switch.

Coupled with the fact that I had a TERRIFIC DAY gaming yesterday…Cosmic Encounter which was my first WIN in the Group and I will go down in the "Anals of (Psychiatric) History" for my Near Brilliant Performance in "A Study in Emerald". I dazzled everyone with my brilliance while simultaneously baffling them with my BS !

So, all is well with the group and since the young man's actions are driven more by idiosyncracy then an evil nature, I think I'l be sticking around for awhile.

Thanks again to all for your advice.

I will go down in the "Anals of (Psychiatric) History"

Congrats on the win. I hope for your sake you meant "Annals".

Cheers

w.

Perhaps Andrew is a patient of Dr. Tobias Fünke , the world's first Analrapist.

And life is good.

I just love a happy ending!

Perhaps Andrew is a patient of Dr. Tobias Fünke , the world's first Analrapist.

Well, in all truth, you never know just where one of Cthulu's tentacles will strike next.

A Study in Emerald

Never played the game before, but I quickly figured out that there is only a slight chance of winning, so I might as well learn game mechanics while having fun. None of my group ever figured out which side I was on, especially after I bid and received the "Swith Sides" card. I ran amok, first pushing the Cthulu War track up, then the Opposition track up, then Cthulu down, etc.

My agent was left unprotected the entire game, which led the group to think I was Loyalist and therefore protected, but I had received the "Double Agent" card early on and knew four of the five/six agents who could assasinate me so when the attempt was made…I threw that agent's "Double Agent" chit down and they still didn't know if I was protected or just a luckly Revolutionary.

I can't wait to play this game again!

He's Uber Schmart and being a bit geeky, is somewhat shy (not unlike me as a kid) and compensates for it during a game in order to win at all costs, even if he's playing with an alliance.

I suspected as much. It's a sad fact of human nature that we tend to attach "malice" or "disrespect" to behavior that either rises merely out of ignorance, inexperience, or (as you note) simple idiosyncrasy. My teenage son, for example, has a compulsion towards movement. Always has. He simply can't sit (or stand) still for long periods of time, even when he's trying to do so. He's not being rude, inattentive, or inconsiderate— his subconscious just says "move," so he does. It's not a case of active thought at all, and even active thought only holds him still for a very, very brief moment of time. For him, movement seems to be a byproduct of how his mind processes the information it receives from his environment. (I tend to do the same thing when I'm heavily involved in analyzing something— I'll pace, mutter, move my hands about, suddenly sit, suddenly stand, and so on, completely unaware that it's in any way unusual).
In the same manner, my sister talks to herself almost non-stop to process through things, and I've met others who will repeat past events and conversations to themselves, or who don't seem to have any sort of "awareness switch" that a conversation they are in has taken a different path, or has made another person uncomfortable (or bored). The latter is something that particularly arises among geeky types and even more so among avid gamers. So I've learned that not everything that is said is said with an awareness of negative impact, and not everything a person does is necessarily a case of active intent, much less the intent I might be interpreting.
In a way, it all comes down to learning that the world and people are not so clear-cut as one may assume, and forgiveness and understanding go a long way towards making everyone's lives better.