The proper way to handle thisseriously, Id grab a 6er of beers, head over, and say "Dude, I seemed to have pissed you off about that. Whats up?" While we killed a few hours in some Call of Duty, Halo, or Street Fighter
I think this is, in fact, the answer to the OP's question.
RD, honest question, here.
Do you, as a character, take great pains to make sure nothing gets away, EVER?
Or (alternately) do other members of your party frequently take great pains to make sure nothing gets away, EVER?
I ask because, my gaming group is like that. It's sort of annoying as a GM when nothing you put in front of the players can EVER escape for any reason (without protracted argument ended by GM fiat or me simply caving in, of course).
Is this an ongoing problem for your GM? Just thinking that there may be a baby in that bathwater somewhere.
It varies from character to character, campaign to campaign. I actually have a reputation of having a cowardly play style, always having my character in the back row--or even in the previous room--when things start to go down.
I don't think we've been overzealous in hunting our enemies in this particular campaign.
Bruunwald: This isn't a case of my not having the details. You might have a good argument going for you had the GM tried to deus ex machina the whole thing and was vague in the manner of the beast's escape. However, there isn't even an unexplained set of circumstances here. There are no circumstances whatsoever.
Whatever is happening is happening for metagame reasons. That I'm sure of.
|
I think this is, in fact, the answer to the OP's question.The proper way to handle thisseriously, Id grab a 6er of beers, head over, and say "Dude, I seemed to have pissed you off about that. Whats up?" While we killed a few hours in some Call of Duty, Halo, or Street Fighter
+1
Talk to your friend. Something is probably bodering him outside the game and he snaped at you. Even if its was not your fault, and i don't think it was, apologize. Try to make him tell you his side of the story first and them you say yours and explain how his attitude hurt you. I would go for something like:
- Hey man, i feel really bad about the way our last conversation played out. I didn't mean to upset you, what happened? Whats going on?...
Good luck.
I often find that when my GM goes to that much effort for the baddies to get away that I should pick up the hint, play ball, and let them.
Its usually a sign that something fun and interesting is coming along not long after that is usually interesting and entertaining. So its sometimes a good investment in the short term to allow yourself to be 'foiled' for now.
As a GM I have done this in the past, but usually had the escape orchestrated well and in a way intended to foil the adventurers, after all, thats what smart escapees do.
Anyhow, 6 pack of beer, or some mountain dew and cheetos would be a good start.
Its tough as a GM accommodating all the players little quirks, so try give him some leeway. Otherwise YOU are GM'ing going forwards :P
I often find that when my GM goes to that much effort for the baddies to get away that I should pick up the hint, play ball, and let them.
Its usually a sign that something fun and interesting is coming along not long after that is usually interesting and entertaining. So its sometimes a good investment in the short term to allow yourself to be 'foiled' for now.
As a GM I have done this in the past, but usually had the escape orchestrated well and in a way intended to foil the adventurers, after all, thats what smart escapees do.
Anyhow, 6 pack of beer, or some mountain dew and cheetos would be a good start.
Its tough as a GM accommodating all the players little quirks, so try give him some leeway. Otherwise YOU are GM'ing going forwards :P
The idea of a player fudging for the DM is interesting. It just reminded of a base concept used in Mutants and Masterminds that suggest the same thing.
|
From the way that RD has described the situation, it looks like the GM may have made some poor or odd calls in regards to this situation in-game. He also doesn’t appear to be running things as written.
However, I don’t think any of us (beyond possibly RD) can make a call that the GM was ‘doing it wrong’; none of the rest of us were there in the gaming session to know exactly what the GM did or didn’t do; none of us knows what the GMs end-game in making those particular calls was; none of us knows what the GM has planned for this situation next session or in the future; none of knows what other context there may be surrounding this situation. We can’t really make that call.
The number of times I have seen a thread complaining about something a GM has done … and then the GM posts and gives his/her side of the story and often (not by any means always, but often) the whole context changes.
Personally I don’t think telling your GM they are ‘doing it wrong’ is ever really a great idea. Telling them that they are ruining your fun is a far more legitimate complaint (well … no one really ruins your fun. You choose to have fun or not in reaction to the situation they present). In this case, I would just tell them, plainly, without judgement, as I would when talking to a friend, that I didn’t have a lot of fun at the end of that session, based on the way the GM chose to run it, and see what he/she had to say.
|
|
Two things in the original post stood out to me. One is RD, that you implied the phone call was not the first time you had requested a solo session to deal with this event – what was the reaction the first time you mentioned it?
Second is that you mentioned that the GM is normally a great GM … would this suggest to you that you should give him the benefit of the doubt in regards to this situation?
I phoned my Kingmaker GM earlier today and I...
** spoiler omitted **...
When I came into this thread, I thought I was going to see some major rules infringement or something (I thought you were going to comment on how a lycanthrophe can't transform post-morteum, which is a fair argument. Instead, you're saying that the DM is "doing it wrong" by not offering you solo content. I don't think he's doing it wrong at all.
#1 - He's not taking anything away from your character. You haven't even played yet, he's just saying that you can't follow up on this mission by yourself. How can he infringe on "the core aspects of your character" when you're not even playing?
#2 - I totally agree with him on no solo campaigns. Why SHOULD he let your character run off into the woods, on his own, for what could easily turn into a days-long goose chase? What would the other characters be doing then? Do you really think it fits the other characters, who probably don't have as much invested into this werewolf, to just sit around and wait for you? If I were in their shoes, and a party member just up and left after a WEREWOLF, I'd presume them either lost or dead and go on my merry way with a new plot hook.
First...what was the reaction the first time you mentioned it?
It was at the end of the last game as we were packing up and getting ready to head home. He seemed indifferent.
Second is that you mentioned that the GM is normally a great GM … would this suggest to you that you should give him the benefit of the doubt in regards to this situation?
Yeah I suppose.
#1 - He's not taking anything away from your character.
Yes he is. He's taking away my character's verisimilitude. Why WOULDN'T an expert tracker law officer track a criminal who JUST escaped?
You haven't even played yet, he's just saying that you can't follow up on this mission by yourself.
You misunderstand. He's not saying that I can't go on a mission by myself. He's saying that the guy can't be caught. It's "part of the story."
How can he infringe on "the core aspects of your character" when you're not even playing?
He can't. Him not hosting for me is not the problem. The problem is that he is keeping my character from doing something my character would, in any logical world, do. I don't even think he will let me "fluff it" and move on.
If YOU were playing a ranger law enforcement character whose job was to stop criminals, and one escaped right before your eyes, would you really expect or appreciate the GM saying "No, you can't go after him" without any explanation whatsoever?
#2 - I totally agree with him on no solo campaigns.
He hasn't forbade solo games. If he had, that would have been fine. He's forbade THIS solo game.
Why SHOULD he let your character run off into the woods, on his own, for what could easily turn into a days-long goose chase? What would the other characters be doing then? Do you really think it fits the other characters, who probably don't have as much invested into this werewolf, to just sit around and wait for you? If I were in their shoes, and a party member just up and left after a WEREWOLF, I'd presume them either lost or dead and go on my merry way with a new plot hook.
Maybe because that's how Kingmaker plays? If a criminal escapes, the sheriff and his men go after him. You don't send the whole of the kingdom's leadership after a murderer.
The stories and the roles therein make little to no sense otherwise. Not everyone is going to do everything together.
Also, it's not like I'm trying to take anything away from anyone else. None of the other characters could even keep up! I barely could! I was trying to be courteous to them by having it out as a solo game, so they wouldn't have to wait for me at the start of the next game. I was even willing to forgo XP for the encounter just so we would all be on the same level.
I merely wanted to play out the logical conclusion of the ongoing scene for fun. If the GM didn't want to, and would prefer to narrate it, that would be fine.
What isn't fine is telling me how to play my character.
|
#1 - He's not taking anything away from your character. You haven't even played yet, he's just saying that you can't follow up on this mission by yourself. How can he infringe on "the core aspects of your character" when you're not even playing?
It's because such a scene never got played out that is the problem.
If you have created a PC that is good at tracking, woodcraft, survival, and you've presented it to the GM well in advance, who makes no comment, then you assume you're good to go. And you assume the character will perform a vital role in the coming story.Beyond the normal setting info that the GM should give out before character creation (such as, the game will take place on a desert world, scoured by frequent winds, so if you want to be a guide, learn Astronomy, not following footprints), he should also give out hints if a PC's motivations will clash with the intended focus of the adventures (Yes, barbarian horsemen do exist in that world, but I was going to start you all on an urban intrigue...).
Furthermore, to run an AP whose stated goal is kingdom-building, protecting the settlers, and maintaining a positive reputation, signals to the players that these elements will be important to their characters, and will play a large part in the coming sessions.
Furthermore, to ask the players, as their PCs, to nominate and vet the candidates for the important posts in the new land, maybe even by filling those posts themselves(!), signals an even greater focus will be shone on these elements during the game. There WILL be plot hooks dangled that you WILL want to take, not just because they fit your PCs' curiosity, but because they will be your PCs' JOB. Failure to do these JOBS will lead to demoralised citizens, public unrest, reduced income, riots, abandoned villages and potential invasion by greedy neighbours with eyes on the fruits of your settlers' hard work.
I am the first to get exasperated by players who insist on disrupting a game by inserting totally incongruous, non-sequitur PC concepts into a game, but this player has taken his lead from the GM at every turn.
The GM has told the players he will be running Kingmaker, a wilderness-based, sandbox AP, which involves PCs taming the land and taking responsibility for the settlers. The OP built a ranger-PC that fit that background concept perfectly, has had it vetted by the GM, and has taken steps in-game to take that responsibility. Yet when it comes to the crunch, the GM refuses to run a ranger-style, wilderness-based, law-and-order, protect-the innocent, track-the-outlaw-to-his-lair-and-lynch-him session.
The OP is totally justified in wondering, 'Why did I bother?'.
This isn't a case of 'neglecting to add specific material to fit one player'; the material was already there, and has been specifically taken out.
This is bait-and-switch, on a par with telling the player they'll be doing 'Queen of the Demonweb Pits', then when he turns up with a paladin, replacing all the evil creatures with True Neutrals who are 'just misunderstood'.
|
|
Or, like telling your Call of Cthulhu players you'll be running a game based on Shackleton's ill-fated polar expedition, then actually running an Agatha Christie murder-mystery. But, no, you can't change your Inuit dog-sled driver; he'll have to stand over by the French Windows to let out the smell of fish, as the other players have a jolly old time hobnobbing as Poirot and Hastings.
"Foot print in flowers. Ookla track bad man?"
"No, Nanuq! Bad Nanuq! We wait for Her Majesty's Constabulary to search the scene. We've been through this before."
"Zen we let mon leetle grey cells work ovairnight, and bingo!"
1. "I thought you just wanted to hang out." Sounds like your GM was hopeful for some friendly downtime with a pal, and was disappointed you just wanted to use him for gaming--and moreover solely in order to challenge a decision he made as a GM as well. As far as I can tell, you basically called him, possibly woke him up, and said in so many words, "You're wrong, and I want you to take the time design me a special solo scenario just for me so I can prove that I'm right." Raving_dork, I am saying this because I genuinely am trying to help: as far as I can tell, you were very disrespectful of your friend's time and his friendship outside of your gaming situation.
Exactly. Right or wrong, "bad DM" or "good DM", sounds like this is why he's upset. Being a GM is more than a little bit like a job, and it's very possible this came across as "I WANT MOOOORRRREEE" and he took offense. Suck up the plot point and apologize, assuming you want to put personal relationships above a game point.