Passive aggressiveness.
Passive aggressiveness.
Crap, they're onto me!
When I get really excited and accidentally take over someone's turn, then realize what I'm doing and feel like such a douche. Then i apologize 60 times and then feel s!#! for the rest of the session.
When I cite CRB to a GM and they don't like it because they are either are on rails or are and older player who doesn't believe it should be like that.
|
A person, who when DMing, has a direct vision on how his campaign is run. How class abilties will work, what classes are allowed. "Hey, you're in a kingdom that hates spellcasters and kills them on sight: you'll all be spellcasters!"
When he's a player in your game? Any and every option that was created must be allowed (including their house rules for things they don't like).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A person, who when DMing, has a direct vision on how his campaign is run. How class abilties will work, what classes are allowed. "Hey, you're in a kingdom that hates spellcasters and kills them on sight: you'll all be spellcasters!"
When he's a player in your game? Any and every option that was created must be allowed (including their house rules for things they don't like).
Agreed and seconded.
I have had similar experiences. A DM once gave the table a long and unwanted dissertation on why he disliked Gunslingers. Then tried to play one next game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A person, who when DMing, has a direct vision on how his campaign is run. How class abilties will work, what classes are allowed. "Hey, you're in a kingdom that hates spellcasters and kills them on sight: you'll all be spellcasters!"
When he's a player in your game? Any and every option that was created must be allowed (including their house rules for things they don't like).
Agreed and seconded.
I have had similar experiences. A DM once gave the table a long and unwanted dissertation on why he disliked Gunslingers. Then tried to play one next game.
That sounds like someone trying to "prove" their point. "You guys don't believe me that they are broken? I'll SHOW you!"
To which I would have responded by intentionally exploiting every weakness of the class until he died or quit out of utter frustration.
Sunder/disarm/water barrels would be his life.
I may be slightly vindictive...
|
|
That's the funny thing. It was not even trying to prove that it was broken. Simply double standards when a person is both a DM and player. What applies to players in their games as a DM. Suddenly no longer applies to them as a player. Not only wanting the candy store. As well as the factory where the candy is produced. Made worse when they think your picking on them. If for example we both agree in a mutual dislike of Gunslingers. Why would I suddenly allow a person to take the class in my games.
As far as I'm concerned it's not being vindictive it's proper tactics. Maybe not so much the water barrels but sunder/disarm are all valid tactics against any class whose features are based on a weapon.
Cheating plain and simple.
Recently a player dropped out of our group but left his character for us to run till we can find a new player, I was running the character and had fairly good luck on my dice rolls I still did nothing like the damage that this character normal kicks out.
So had quick break to reread character and see if I was missing something but no had allowed for all bonuses etc but was still falling very short of his norm.
Then we realised he always used to roll all his to hit and damage rolls at once into a shallow tray which none of us could easily see into .
So mystery solved biggest thing was he was the loudest complainer about cheating power gaming etc