Dealing With GM Favoritism

[dr. kekyll]

Hugo Rune wrote:

You know that a DC26 stealth score will beat the passive perception check. Do you a) build the ambush knowing it will fail or b) build the ambush knowing it will succeed c) lie to yourself that the knowledge is not colouringyour judgement.

Why do you know your NPC will roll a 26 on stealth? One wonderful effect of the d20 is that you can design encounters with a chance of NPC success in mind rather than knowing the result before hand...

Edit: To be clear, I'm saying that nothing forces you to have NPCs take 10. The rules allow you to take 10 on pretty much anything, but they don't force you. If rolling stealth for NPCs is more fun, do that. Also, passive perception is a house rule. You're supposed to roll perception against that DC 26 stealth reactively, so anyone with a +6 could potentially catch it. If you choose to both use passive perception and have NPCs take 10 on stealth, you've created this problem for yourself.

[AwesomenessDog]

I would point out that passive perception is not 10+bonus for taking 10, it's 1+bonus meaning you couldn't fail it (and considering there is a distraction penalty, it could be even lower than that) as long as you make the most basic efforts. 10+bonus is more akin to active perception but trying not to hone in on anything particular and just checking for surface level irregularities: You might skip over something well hidden but anything obvious you'll catch, while rolling meaning you're more likely to find the thing that's well hidden but can skip over the more obvious things in the process.

It's also way easier to keep your players from not assuming you're about to spring an ambush on them if you don't roll a stealth check for every enemy. Because if you play in person, the players can hear your roll, as is the case by his mentioning of the laptop. Combined with the above, when you have say 7 mooks all rolling stealth, you can be practically guaranteed that at least one of them is going roll terribly, which means that across all ambushes without taking 10, there's going to be that one guy who always gives the ambush away and gets the bandits killed, which may be too "gamey" for many people.

That said, if you have access to a laptop, why not just use an online dice roller like google dice instead?

[Scott Wilhelm]

Hugo Rune wrote:

When I mentioned metagaming, I meant GM metagaming rather than player metahaming.

GM Metagaming is a sticky wicket. A GM is supposed to create situations and events for his players that are challenging for his players. By definition, he is supposed to take advantage of his knowledge of his players and their characters to play to their strengths and weaknesses so that his PCs overcome obstacles and grow through great struggle. And the result is supposed to be a good time.

That being said,

I have had the experience of a GM metagaming to undermine the players' good time. One of his favorite tropes is the bad guy always knows where we are and can always hear our plans. That is problematic because he runs his games in gaming stores and a lot of his players don't know each other. And knowing you can't speak freely undermines group cohesion. And already-established group would be able to handle that from time to time.

One time, he told me the mechanism by which the BBEG always knew. There was an item in the party that served as a beacon to her Scrying. The only official item I found does that is the target of a Symbol of Scrying Spell. Symbol is a Level 8 Spell. That means that the BBEG had to be at least a Level 16 Cleric or Wizard. The item must have been planted in our party by the time we were level 3.

OOOOOOOkaaaaaaaay.

Realizing that we were bugged, it should have been a fairly easy matter for each party member to have Detect Magic and Identify cast on all of our equipment lists, find the bad one, then dispose of that item, but the GM also took advantage of one of his own house rules.

Because he was playing at a public table, players would come and go, and the party was a sort of Ship of Theseus. He realized that certain items would come into the party's possession that would be important to the advancement of the story arc, so he contrived a conceit of Party Property of Unspecified Placement, reckoning that certain important items, especially McGuffins, were in some PC's backpack. Well, that Symbol of Scrying was "stolen" by a PC Rogue early in the game, and then that player left the table early-on in the way that one does. And that means the item was not on any single player's equipment list, but rather on a the GM's list that none of us knew about, but we thought we did.

On another occasion, to save time, that GM stipulated that our party had been mapping as we had been adventuring overland. He said at some point, we would show us the overland map of where we'd been. But before he showed us, another player and I got into a big argument about which way to go next, and it turned out that we both wanted to go in the same direction. The argument happened at least in part because the GM withheld information from the players that the characters knew. And the fact that he refused to acknowledge any part in that fight, means he was metagaming to create party conflict. Although, admittedly--if you'll pardon my French--that other player was being an ass, and I was being a douche. Asses and douches don't go together. They go with other things.

Anyway, Hugo, while I do suspect you of oversimplifying about the problem of GM metagaming to hurt the players, I also take your point and have had experiences like what you are saying.

[Mark Hoover 330]

One thing I agree with Hugo Rune on, that makes it difficult for me not to show favoritism to a player over others when I GM, is the level of player engagement.

Most of my games are non-linear plots or outright sandboxes. I encourage my players to explore all avenues, abandon plot threads they don't find interesting, etc. I have a houserule at character creation that every PC gets a free rank in a Craft, Performance or Profession skill so that they have something to do during Downtime as a job.

The point is - I'm actively asking for my players to be creative and engaged with the setting.

In one campaign I played a session of over the weekend, I have 2 players who routinely are doing this. They ask questions, take notes, and try to be creative both in a tactical sense as well as in non-combat scenes or scenarios.

The other 2 players though, honestly, are just in my game to be entertained. They don't create plans for their characters' personal or professional lives. They have businesses from Downtime b/c the other 2 players encouraged them to make them; they go along with whatever decisions the "main" 2 players make.

Knowing that I was going to be running this session completely online, I asked my players for feedback on where the players want the game to go next: do they want to check in at the temple, check for rumors at the inns and taverns, go and visit some Ratfolk traders they know, attend to personal plot threads that are still dangling, or what? I received at least SOME feedback from the "main" players, nothing from the other 2.

So... how do I NOT favor the 2 "main" players? How do I not engage with the players who are, themselves, engaged, and frankly ignore the two who are ignoring the game around them?

[yukongil]

I wouldn't label that favoritism, it's simply giving more spotlight to those who actually want it.

[SheepishEidolon]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I received at least SOME feedback from the "main" players, nothing from the other 2.

Well, messages via Internet are more easily ignored than a personal talk. It's still bad manners IMO, and lately for me it was the final reason to stop playing with someone. You can try a follow-up question like "John?" to emphasize you are waiting for at least something. Maybe you feel like it's pestering them, but I'd say this awkward absence of a response from their side is much worse behavior. If you let it slip, they will simply continue this way - because it's comfy and it works.

Quote:

So... how do I NOT favor the 2 "main" players? How do I not engage with the players who are, themselves, engaged, and frankly ignore the two who are ignoring the game around them?

It sounds like the two "minor" players are not that interested in the setting. You could ask them individually whether they want more combat or whether they are happy how their build turns out. Some people rather play builds than characters, after all - depending on the campaign I might even be one of them.

[gnoams]

One of my regular games is with a group of friends that most of us have known each other for 20 years or more. The people in that group aren't likely to change any time soon. We're all adults, everyone has jobs, families, lives outside of gaming. Some of us put a lot of time and effort into the game. Some don't even think about the game outside of game sessions. In the end, it's just a hobby. I'm not going to demand that my friends spend more time on this hobby if they don't want to.

Part of my spiel that I give players when I start a new campaign (as a GM) is that I will do my best to match your investment. I really like this hobby and put a lot into it. If you get into it too, then you'll get more out of it. If you just want to ride along that's fine, but I'm not going to spend my time catering to you if you're not reciprocating.

[Quixote]

Agreed. I've known several players who were interested in the world, who were engaged in the story...but just lacked the outgoing personality or the confidence or the desire to actually get in there and mix it up.

Some people are perfectly content to observe and to follow.

That's not favoritism, that's just letting people enjoy the game how they want.

I once had a player who was super withdrawn at the table. Spoke less than 10 words an hour beyond declaring the results of a roll.
I sent him a text between sessions like, "hey, your character hasn't gotten much of the spotlight. Do you want them to get some, or do you prefer it this way?"
--no response. When I mentioned it to another player, they said "oh, yeah. He told me about that. He said he thought it was really weird and uncomfortable. That you'd text him and ask him that. So he just didn't respond at all." --spme people are so far removed from the theatrical aspects of the game you can't even talk to them.

[Sysryke]

Quixote wrote:

One of the worst games I've ever been in was with a friend from college. He had no idea how to build encounters (against 4 level 6 players, he sent three ogre vampires. In the middle of the night. And they summoned rat swarms. Which he did not understand only took up a 10ft cube each; he thought each swarm covered the campsite. So the party awoke to 6d6 damage and then three ogre vampires). He had a hopelessly rigid and small-minded view of character potential (he assumed my halfling mercenary was a Chaotic-Something thief, and was thus barred from entrance to a temple dedicated to the Lawful Neutral god of retribution. My character was not only LN, but frequently prayed to this god in particular), and favored his BFF far and above the rest of us (he postponed a session when his friend canceled last minute. Then, when two people couldn't make it to the next session because it was scheduled last minute, he went ahead and ran it anyway. And his friend, along with the one other player, earned more than quadruple the xp from that one session than we had all...

I lost track of how many times I said, "Oh Hell no!" while reading this. I'm sooo sorry for that on so many levels. Incompetence can be corrected with time and experience, but sadly, inconsiderate jerk often lasts forever.

[Quixote]

Thank you. I guess in a way I should be flattered? If your setting is good enough for other people to use (two, actually. Had another friend who ripped off my whole setting later that same year. Again, without any word to me. And he tried to make permanent changes to it that would effect the game I was running...?), and your storytelling devices are good enough to just copy/paste, you must be doing something right?

I've had people tell me that they love having me at their table because I'm always right there in the pocket and I help move the story forward and I appreciate all the work they put into it. But then I've also heard people say they don't want me at their table because of my storytelling clout and their hesitancy to offer themselves up criticisms. I dunno. I don't ever offer a critique unless it's asked for, and even then, I feel like I'm fairly careful.

[Derek Dalton]

Favoritism is a thing. Has it been a real problem with the groups I;ve been in. No not really. Only once was it an issue and I called the player on it. The first time we played Pathfinder we ended up running from a monster. The husband tried tripping my character. He failed I tripped him. A riund later the wife hamstrung my character. I called her out on it since we were a complete group of strangers. She told me bluntly he's my husband referring to him in reality, Admittedly I was pissed my character died after being disabled. When I ran it became a joke then he and I while best friends outside the game often aimed for each other in game. Other then that never seemed an issue.

[DRD1812]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Something else I've experienced. Sometimes, it looks like the GM is favoring one player over another, but it's because the GM is trying to sucker that player and the party into a trap.

lol. Ima need to know the circumstances on this one.

[DRD1812]

Quixote wrote:

Agreed. I've known several players who were interested in the world, who were engaged in the story...but just lacked the outgoing personality or the confidence or the desire to actually get in there and mix it up.

I can respect that. But by the same token, my wife likes to tell a story from game club way back in undergrad. Some dude was doing the lone wolf thing, and utterly refused to pick up any of the plot hooks. You know the type.

"I stare at the NPC from my backstory, then growl is my coolest Batman voice: 'I'm done with all that. I'm never going back.'"

Once the session was over, he wrote an angry letter about how the GM ignored him and he felt overlooked at the table.

How are you supposed to please that person?

[dr. kekyll]

DRD1812 wrote:

Quixote wrote:

Agreed. I've known several players who were interested in the world, who were engaged in the story...but just lacked the outgoing personality or the confidence or the desire to actually get in there and mix it up.

I can respect that. But by the same token, my wife likes to tell a story from game club way back in undergrad. Some dude was doing the lone wolf thing, and utterly refused to pick up any of the plot hooks. You know the type.

"I stare at the NPC from my backstory, then growl is my coolest Batman voice: 'I'm done with all that. I'm never going back.'"

Once the session was over, he wrote an angry letter about how the GM ignored him and he felt overlooked at the table.

How are you supposed to please that person?

Yeah, that's a tough one. On one hand people like that character exist and players should play the character they want. On the other hand, that kind of character is a lot of effort on everyone's part to include. I expect the players of those characters want to be constantly asked what they're doing because the "cool guy" doesn't volunteer or speak up without being asked, but that's exhausting for everyone else.

[Artofregicide]

DRD1812 wrote:

Quixote wrote:

Agreed. I've known several players who were interested in the world, who were engaged in the story...but just lacked the outgoing personality or the confidence or the desire to actually get in there and mix it up.

I can respect that. But by the same token, my wife likes to tell a story from game club way back in undergrad. Some dude was doing the lone wolf thing, and utterly refused to pick up any of the plot hooks. You know the type.

"I stare at the NPC from my backstory, then growl is my coolest Batman voice: 'I'm done with all that. I'm never going back.'"

Once the session was over, he wrote an angry letter about how the GM ignored him and he felt overlooked at the table.

How are you supposed to please that person?

Lone wolves generally want to hog, not share, the spotlight. I don't think it's a question of pleasing the lone wolf so much as asking them to be a team player or move along.

[Derklord]

dr. kekyll wrote:

On one hand people like that character exist and players should play the character they want.

I disagree here. I mean, in general, sure, but there is one rule that all characters must follow, in my opinion: Just like the players form a group and have to be considerate of each other, so must the characters form a group. If a player is unwilling to be an equal part of that group working together so that everyone has fun, that player has no place in the group. Just the same, if a character is unwilling to be a piece of the party working together towards their goals, the character has no place in the party. Every character must fit into the campaign, and part of that is that the PCs form a party. If that doesn't work for your character, then your character can't be in that campaign.

"Lone wolf" characters are basically the player begging to be favourited. They're about the player demending more than an equal share of the GM's time both during session and during preparatory work. In the end, every such character boils down to the player all but saying "I am more important and worth more than the other players". A GM giving into that not only negatively impacts the other players, but also encourages such behaviour, which usually means the amount and intensity of such behaviour will increase.

Note that this isn't limited to lone wolf characters - every character that doesn't work as a piece of the party has no place in the campaign. That includes characters much stronger than everyone else (because that prevents everyone working together), characters much weaker than everyone else (exact same reason), and characters that require something not intended as part of the campaign to work (be it a gunslinger in a game set during the crusades, or a character with underwater stuff in a desert campaign).

[Derek Dalton]

It's one thing to want a powerful character who will survive dangerous encounters. I think most players go with that mindset. I mean it's no fun that your whatever gets killed especially if it's repeatedly. I have a GM who rolls hot I mean she gets at least two or three criticals in a gaming session. Depending on the group you work with them to cover any gaps or weaknesses the group might have. Depending on the GM you know what to expect and plan around that. GM is playing a Pirate style theme you make your character have at least a few ranks in swim. A desert campaign you plan on that. Unless you have a prick GM who decides to change things up and not tell you or adjust to it most players can have a decent character.
Then you get the players who thinks he must win and upstage everyone. They may not outright cheat but if they see a rule that is murky or questionable they will use it for their benefit. That same rule if it screws another PC they are quick to point it out. If their character is flawed and having issues it's the GM or players fault not his.

[dr. kekyll]

Derklord wrote:

a bunch of stuff i don't disagree with

There were two hands in my post. The second one made the same point you're making... I'm not sure why you framed this as a disagreement with my first point rather than agreement with my second point. It's almost as if you want an argument, but we agree...

[Derklord]

dr. kekyll wrote:

There were two hands in my post. The second one made the same point you're making... I'm not sure why you framed this as a disagreement with my first point rather than agreement with my second point.

I framed it like that because agreeing with your second part and disagreeing with your first part are completely seperate things, and stating my agreement with the second part would not have in any way have communicated that I disagree with the first part.

Also, I don't agree with your post as a whole. I don't think it's "a tough one", rather I think the answer to "How are you supposed to please that person?" is a really easy one, namely "you shouldn't even try". Likewise, I disagree that this is a "one hand... other hand" situation (because I disagree with your first hand, as detailed in my last post). And lastly, while I don't disagree on your second 'hand', it did not make the same point I was making. Not even close.

dr. kekyll wrote:

It's almost as if you want an argument, but we agree...

The real question is, why do you protest against my post, if you agree with it?

I don't think we agree, though. Still, why wouldn't I want an argument? I don't mind a friendly discussion. Presuming the other party doesn't take any disagreement with something they wrote as a personal attack.

[Mark Hoover 330]

The players in my games are tactical to the point of nausea. When I say I asked for feedback and the 2 "main" ones gave it, I mean that they suggested courses of research to tactically analyze current threats in my "sandbox."

My players, none of them, would ever just pick a direction and go that way. None of their characters are played as much more than a collection of numbers, regardless of the personal traits or "roles" the players intend for them through backstory and character write-ups. Heck, my players don't even speak "in character" unless forced to by my own NPC dialogue. Most of their responses are "my character says..." and so on.

So I get where you want your players to form a group, and likewise your characters to form a group, but that in itself can have drawbacks. Taken to the extreme, as in the case of my current campaigns, the PCs are designed to have tactical advantages specifically to benefit the group. They have no individual identities outside said group.

None of the characters have individual goals, not even the "main" players' characters. By individual goals, I mean things they want to do that have nothing to do with their character's personal power level or mechanics. Things like making an orphanage solely to care for the numerous orphans I've mentioned in the background of the setting, or the acquisition of trophies, not to sell for GP or to make into magic items, but JUST to have them.

No, every single aspect of the characters in my games are managed with the idea that X action will deliver Y bonus to my character which, in turn, means that our party will succeed in fights against Z monster/foe. In one of my campaigns for example, a player known for running spellcasters wanted to try stepping out of his comfort zone a tiny bit and made a Magus. The other players harangued him until he remade his character into a Wizard to fit into the ranged damage/utility spells role they wanted tactically filled in the group.

This frustrates me no end.

It also leads to favoritism from me in a backwards type of way. Recently one gal in one of my games revealed she hadn't really been keeping track of the GP on her character. After buying armor, weapons and a couple other "big 6" items for her "bardbarian," she basically just erased out the last few hundred GP.

When pressed in a game session what she did with the rest of her character's gold she just shrugged. "I don't know, I'm also a bard now; I guess I just partied." This one line led to me slowly turning nearly every downtime session into me and her talking while the rest of the players methodically work out the GP and Capital their businesses made.

NPCs around the town have begun to treat her character more positively. They ask her PC to do keg stands/flips, they crowd her for autographs. Basically her reputation has become the Savage Great Gatsby of the town.

I favor this player, not because she does anything amazing but because she's willing to break the mold of the standard play style in my game.

Human beings always pay more attention to, or favor, the weird and unusual in their environment. GMs are only human, so they will seek out those players who stand apart in some way from the rest of the group and favor that player. Sometimes this player's uniqueness comes from being a spotlight-hogging OP monster, other times it's because the player just doesn't care enough to conform to the tactical obsession of the group. Whatever the case, favoritism will endure as long as significant diversity occurs.

[dr. kekyll]

Derklord wrote:

I framed it like that because agreeing with your second part and disagreeing with your first part are completely seperate things, and stating my agreement with the second part would not have in any way have communicated that I disagree with the first part.

Nor would it have communicated agreement with the first part, but you did that anyway...

Derklord wrote:

Also, I don't agree with your post as a whole.

I didn't think you did, but "I mean, in general, sure" indicates some level of agreement.

Derklord wrote:

I don't think it's "a tough one", rather I think the answer to "How are you supposed to please that person?" is a really easy one, namely "you shouldn't even try".

I think that makes some assumptions I wouldn't make. It's totally possible to please that person and everyone else. It just depends on your table dynamic.

Derklord wrote:

Likewise, I disagree that this is a "one hand... other hand" situation (because I disagree with your first hand, as detailed in my last post).

What I got from "I mean, in general, sure" was "on the one hand [you] like to give players what they want, but on the other everyone needs to work with the group" which... isn't exactly the same thing I said, but seems like some degree of agreement.

Derklord wrote:

And lastly, while I don't disagree on your second 'hand', it did not make the same point I was making. Not even close.

Then maybe I misunderstood your point. It seemed to me that you were saying that it was unfair of the "lone wolf" player to demand so much from everyone else. That's what I was saying.

Derklord wrote:

The real question is, why do you protest against my post, if you agree with it?

No, I think it's pretty obvious I was disagreeing with the framing of your argument and not the argument itself. This seems disingenuous.

Derklord wrote:

I don't think we agree, though. Still, why wouldn't I want an argument? I don't mind a friendly discussion. Presuming the other party doesn't take any disagreement with something they wrote as a personal attack.

We certainly disagree about something, I just don't think the points of contention were well communicated originally (which could be my fault). Also, there's a difference between being open to discussing disagreement and seeking conflict. It seemed like the latter to me, so I mentioned it. It looks like that was a misunderstanding though.

[Opuk0]

I've been on both ends of GM Favoritism and both were for the same reason, the other players can't keep track of rules.

When I was on the receiving end, the other players would receive freebies ranging from free gear to stat boosts while I had to meticulously plan every bit of equipment I could bring with me on every adventure. This was mostly because the other players tended to be more 'beer and pretzels' type players, making choices because they sounded flavorful or just didn't care that most of their choices were less than suboptimal(let me tell you the tale of the paladin that couldn't smite!).

When I'm the one doling it out, it's because the player in question has a very hard time remembering rules even despite playing Pathfinder for many years. Trying to get them to remember the rules between campaigns, or even between sessions is nigh on impossible, so for the sake of moving things a long I, and pretty much the rest of the party, just accept it as part of the game.

[Derek Dalton]

GM favoritism in regards to helping a newish forgetful player remember and improve his character isn't a bad thing. What bothers me about that is when they have played the game for over a year especially the same character and still depends on the GM to help him or her along. It doesn't take a lot of effort to study your character at some point and learn what he can and can't do.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Double D: I'll see your example and raise you. I have a lady in one of my campaigns, she's been playing PF1 for nearly a decade, has in the past played both Rogues and arcane spellcasters. Currently in my game she's playing a U-rogue with minor and Major Magic talents. She often holds up game play trying to remember what her stuff does or trying to pick the best attack.

In this instance I helped her, as her GM, once. When the problem persisted I very bluntly told the entire group that I was instituting a timer, giving people a minute to execute their actual turn unless there were mitigating circumstances. Under normal conditions, if a player can't decide what to do and begin to move their minis/execute plans in under a minute, they Delay until all other PCs and foes have acted.

She routinely gets delayed at least 1/session.

[Derek Dalton]

Wow. In one campaign I have two players still unfamiliar with their classes. One is a Ninja the other is a Druid. Both have admitted they are still unfamaliar with their classes. We are high level but still. Our druid usually uses beast shape into an elemental. Our Ninja sometimes forgets his Ninja talents.

[Quixote]

How about this: I have a player who's been in this hobby for over twenty years. I was asked, on at least three separate occasions over the course of five sessions, what the "charge" action entailed. What's the bonus? Is it to damage? And I can move...how far?

And that's just charging, and just the basics. Trying to explain that they need to move at least 10ft and that it's a full-round action? Trying to get them to remember how Power Attack works? Forget it.

[Derek Dalton]

The problem with Charge is this. You can do it as a standard action. It's a little wrinkle in the wording but you can take a move then charge as a standard action. It's an odd thing.
Now Power Attack is simple just requires a bit of math. I had a character that used it all the time. With Furious Focus my only math was my damage.
I do get some questions even from old timers like myself. Been doing this awhile and still have questions because of wording and intent. The one advice I keep hearing from people just starting in RPGs was play a fighter. A lot of people say no Fighters are complicated. First time I played D&D I was handed a Wizard knowing nothing of the class. I attempted to cast Fireball not knowing the blast radius. Another player snatched the sheet out of my hand said play this. It was a cleric. Still no help or advice I learned the class and spells.

[Rysky]

Derek Dalton wrote:

The problem with Charge is this. You can do it as a standard action. It's a little wrinkle in the wording but you can take a move then charge as a standard action. It's an odd thing.

No you can't.

If you can only do a move or a standard then can charge up to your speed instead of double. You can't move then charge.

[SheepishEidolon]

I wouldn't blame the players when it comes to the action system. It's sometimes quite counterintuitive or arbitrary. I'd even say it's the weakest point of entire PF1.

Since my players still have questions and misunderstandings about it after ~100 sessions, I will be back to Unchained's revised action economy next campaign.

[Quixote]

My point wasn't that charging is simple or that the game is without flaws. Just that, when you have a player who frequently fails to grasp basic mechanics and has turns that take ten times longer than anyone else's, it's hard not to get frustrated or give up. Which can easily come through as a bias toward or against that player.

This same player wanted to run a game in some new system we'd never tried. They talked about it for months. Finally, I gave in and accepted an invite to the table. I read the basic rules, made a character and sat down to play. And was consistently in the position of knowing the rules better than them. After an hour or so of reading, versus however much time they spent with the system before the game and in preparation for this game, specifically.
So no, at least in this case, it's not just that Pathfinder is complicated or whatever. Some people are just not that strong in regards to mathematics, game tactics, etc. Whatever that kind of thinking those activities all involve.

To circle back to an earlier point, I'm agreeing with Derklord. Boo to the "lone wolf"‐type players who want to hog all the spotlight and not cooperate with the other characters, players or me.
If we sit down to play and I say "as you walk through town, you see several wagons, laden with goods as if for market. One of several armed guards standing around the caravan says 'I told you we'd never make it through the pass! Not the way the roads are!' You notice there are several short, black arrows with ratty fletching stuck into the far side of some of the wagons."
And a player goes "*yawn* 'Kay. I'm going to the tavern." -- I'll pick up my dice and leave.

Open-ended storytelling is great. But there is a difference between exercising agency and being maliciously difficult and just spitting in my eye.

It's not unfair to expect your players to respect the time and effort you've sacrificed at the altar of A Great Session. It's not favoritism to play into those who buy into your world and story more.

But with all that, there are some people who are invested. Who go all in. And who just aren't theatrical or outgoing and prefer to observe/follow. I used to spend a lot of time trying to pull your people out of their shells. But now I realize that's just the way they are, and the way they enjoy this game is no better or worse than the way I do.

[Derek Dalton]

Some players I had two you do have to beat with a stick to get to pay attention and play. They will miss or ignore sometimes even both the clues and hints you drop that they need for a random side quest or even the main adventure theme.
I personally hate being railroaded into doing something. Old AD&D adventures were infamous for that. In order to really start the adventure your characters have to be killed. The suggestion was throw a few plural Beholders or dragons at the party. After they are slaughtered villain revives them telling them your my servant don't obey you die again. Or traveling from point A to say E you are forced to go in order when logically there is a better faster smarter way.
With some players you needed to do that. Most others can take a hint and do something. Damsel in distress needs help most good especially Lawful Good would try and find out what is troubling the damsel. They might say no but at least they'd ask.
On a side note something that drives me nuts is how little people play their characters alignment. I tend to enforce it with the exception of Chaotic Neutral I ban that alignment. Too many times I see a players screw up a game even a campaign then say I'm playing my alignment. No they are being an A$$. But I have seen players have on their character sheet a good alignment and do more evil crap then the sneaky evil character. I have seen a Paladin rob torture and kill someone without a need to except the player is a greedy jerk. Most GMs I know don't even blink at that.

[Quixote]

It sounds like most GMs you know are bad GMs.
And I think there's a pretty large area between "merciless railroading" and "complete lack of structure". Your damsel in distress example is a great one; if you say your knight in shining armor passes up what 99% of people would assume they'd jump at the chance to do, I'm going to ask for a little explanation.

I've occasionally had new players winge about "railroading" when what I did was present them with a plot hook that their character would obviously be interested in. If you tell me you're out to avenge your father's death and then tell me you don't want to follow a lead to track down your father's killer, you don't have a problem with my storytelling. You have a problem with control in general, and you need to figure that out before you sit down at my table.

And even if you are honestly just chafing a bit at what appears to be less than 100% freedom, I ask you: we're telling a story, right? So...do you want it to be a good one? Because then I'll need to do at least *some* planning ahead of time. Improvisation is great. But improvisation plus planning will always be superior than just one or the other.

[Derek Dalton]

Most games I have run as Sandbox style. That is mostly because in another game system they did what was called Hook Line Sinker. They broke down the adventure in three parts. The hook getting the party interested. Line was to get them going and stay going. The sinker usually was the twist to the story. Example damsel in distress is the rival of the bad guy PCs are after. The game system didn't have any real modules or adventures. They gave you ideas but you had to do most of the work to make the adventure happen. When I switched to Pathfinder I was used to doing that.
Regarding Damsel in distress during the supposed time period and theme men and women are supposed to be good guys. As such seeing a normal woman crying is supposed to evoke an emotional response. Enough to at least have the good guys ask what's troubling her. Depending on the task which you could makee it sound easy and simple. Deliver the basket to granny find my lost sheep, etc, etc.Of course the task isn't that easy it starts the adventure because the PCs accepted the plot hook.
I have seen and in one case myself had to railroad PCs into doing what they need to do. You give the players every hint clue even reward for them to do the adventure. They decide just because to ignore them and do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. The example of hero's father murdered the hero gets a Neon sign saying go here to find and kill father's murderer. They decide to go the opposite direction. You ask the player why he isn't why his character which you designed the adventure around why not. Half the players respond I don't want to.

[wraithstrike]

DRD1812 wrote:

Stereotypically, this topic comes up when someone's significant other joins the game. You'll also see it with best friends, longtime partymates vs. newcomers, or old GMs with younger players "ruining" their table. Either someone is getting preferential treatment, or someone else is getting the shaft.

It doesn't have to be heavy-handed "rocks fall and you die" type stuff either. Close rules calls might always go well for one player and not another. Prerequisites might get ignored one way and stringently enforced for someone else. It can even be something as simple as monsters that just happen to attack the disfavored player first.

My question to the board is this: When you encounter GM favoritism out in the wild, how do you deal with it as a player? How do you know if it's "real" or just in your head? And if you're a GM who's been accused of this, what's the best way to respond?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I'm pretty good at being objective, and noticing BS when I see it. I've luckily never been the victim of it, however I did leave a game because of it happening to someone else.

The times I saw it, a person was allowed to blatantly ignore the rules.

As an example someone was allowed to climb without making a climb check, and they climbed at their normal walking speed. They didn't have any race or class based special abilities, magic items, or anything else that would have allowed this.

You may ask, "Could the GM have not known the rules?".

Someone else was asked to make several climb checks to do the exact same thing.

[yukongil]

Opuk0 wrote:

I've been on both ends of GM Favoritism and both were for the same reason, the other players can't keep track of rules.

When I was on the receiving end, the other players would receive freebies ranging from free gear to stat boosts while I had to meticulously plan every bit of equipment I could bring with me on every adventure. This was mostly because the other players tended to be more 'beer and pretzels' type players, making choices because they sounded flavorful or just didn't care that most of their choices were less than suboptimal(let me tell you the tale of the paladin that couldn't smite!).

When I'm the one doling it out, it's because the player in question has a very hard time remembering rules even despite playing Pathfinder for many years. Trying to get them to remember the rules between campaigns, or even between sessions is nigh on impossible, so for the sake of moving things a long I, and pretty much the rest of the party, just accept it as part of the game.

are you...are you me?

this has become my bane. It's gotten to the point that the other players have noticed that they ask me what their characters do so much, that there is a running table joke that I should tally the number of times I hear; "Hey Gil, what does..." and then give every player a bill at the end of the night. Without exaggeration I bet I could clear a benjamin a month...

[Quixote]

I hear that. I used to have the majority of the 3rd ed. PHB tucked in my head somewhere, so my table never thumbed through it, they just asked me for page numbers. Which, of course, meant they never learned what anything did or where it was, which meant they leaned harder into me as a reference guide, etc.

I don't feel like it's favoritism to let one player plan out their character because they can, and to hand another player something more or less of equal potency because they can't figure it out for themselves. It's when you start handing out *more* to make up for a disparity in system mastery.

[yukongil]

our current game, admittedly is pretty involved (gestalt, mythic), but it got to a point that everyone else was so messed up, I offered to remake everyone's characters. I then handed them write ups with complete descriptions of all their abilities, suggested spell selections, all the maths checked and triple checked and then all their various attack routines figured out for them. And then I update these every time we gain a level or mythic tier.

They still routinely mess it up, both in advancing levels and in actual play. Like no Ben, you can't have rolled a 52, your highest attack bonus possible clearly says +24...what the hell? I swear, sometimes I feel like it's the Celebrity Jeopardy skit from SNL.

I'm honestly afraid for these people doing their own taxes; one session an IRS swat team is just going to kick in the door and haul most of my players off.

on the bright side however, as a GM, I can beat them with a simple math problem, so there is that I guess.