|
Ive been a GM for well, years and made the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder with only a few House rules still in place. I regularly survey my groups and have high enjoyment rate and the players like the way I set things up. They have to think, work for their loot and roleplay though a lot of dangerously overpowering situations. I have recently had a player join the group and it has not gone well. His play style is different which is fine but instead of trying to mesh with the group the player is fighting against it. What to do?
The player recently lead a rather skewed post regarding what I am doing and why... in which I was lambasted. I have run campaigns with characters that range +- five levels and had no problems but it now seems that everything needs to be vanilla the same and equitable. Is this weird?
To me a fighter is good at what they do; a caster is different and good at what they do but they are not the same. faced with the same problem they are likely to deal with the situation differently. Thus players can have different strengths and still enjoy playing no?
Some of my players are richer but physically weak others might be stat strong but magic poor, in that regard I try to find some balance (but not equity) and when the players work together (roleplayed) they share to create a natural instead of a plastic (insert equitable clone character here) balance.
Please help me out here.
If I'm a bad GM then I have been for years developed a group of players that like it and or lie but still show up for years.
Should I simply suggest that the player that doesn't just not come? or change everything for the one (to the likely disdain of the others.. unless they are lying)?
Help.
Ive been a GM for well, years and made the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder with only a few House rules still in place. I regularly survey my groups and have high enjoyment rate and the players like the way I set things up. They have to think, work for their loot and roleplay though a lot of dangerously overpowering situations. I have recently had a player join the group and it has not gone well. His play style is different which is fine but instead of trying to mesh with the group the player is fighting against it. What to do?
The player recently lead a rather skewed post regarding what I am doing and why... in which I was lambasted. I have run campaigns with characters that range +- five levels and had no problems but it now seems that everything needs to be vanilla the same and equitable. Is this weird?
To me a fighter is good at what they do; a caster is different and good at what they do but they are not the same. faced with the same problem they are likely to deal with the situation differently. Thus players can have different strengths and still enjoy playing no?
Some of my players are richer but physically weak others might be stat strong but magic poor, in that regard I try to find some balance (but not equity) and when the players work together (roleplayed) they share to create a natural instead of a plastic (insert equitable clone character here) balance.
Please help me out here.
If I'm a bad GM then I have been for years developed a group of players that like it and or lie but still show up for years.
Should I simply suggest that the player that doesn't just not come? or change everything for the one (to the likely disdain of the others.. unless they are lying)?
Help.
Hey I don't think that makes you a bad GM at all. In fact, I only run my players at an even experience level because i am afraid of my own GMing. If you can handle it, and your original players are having fun, then the problem is with the new player. Ask him/her to kindly conform or find a new group. Trust me, your players will stick by your side.
Developer
|
I would not describe you as a bad GM. That being said, I would not play in your game. This is not a negative. Many people would not want to play in my game. I'm not at all loose with rules and tend to expect optimization when designing encounters. Groups I run know this. They enjoy this. Someone who likes things looser, or wants to play an expert or aristocrat will not. These characters will probably die.
Playstyles can vary, and having a different playstyle does not make you bad at GMing. Being arbitrary, vindictive, and a general arse makes you a bad GM, but it sounds like you are none of those. In fact, the very post you make indicates a desire to improve and have happy players. That makes you a very very very good GM. Maybe I'd give your game a shot after all.
That being said, it's really hard to mesh playstyles as diverse as "it balances in the end" and "everyone must be balanced." These sound similar, but are fundamentally incompatible.
Everything only balances out if players don't mind being weaker. And players 5 levels off are weaker. Much, much weaker. If you can make them feel more than sidekicks, that's awesome. Power-wise, though, that's what they are. Some people cannot deal with having a side-kick's power, whether or not they're treated as such. This is a playstyle difference that can only be overcome by one side or the other just biting the bullet to play.
Honestly, I hate to say this, but he may just need to find another GM. With a game as open as this, and whose rules can be rewritten by a judge, finding a judge with compatible philosophy is pretty important. It also sounds like the rest of your group likes the way you run things. Making one person happy would likely make everyone else less happy. Don't do that.
You can't make everyone happy all the time. This sadly sounds like one of those times.
Hm, I'm lacking details to help you but I will fall back on this old chestnut: "There's no accounting for taste."
Some players are just not meant for some groups, and vice verse. As long as you care enough to try, you're doing it right.
|
Developer
|
Also, is it just the power difference bothering the player? What's happening in game that's got him down? Have you taken him aside to talk things through?
If he posted here, it must be bothering him, but I can think of a dozen "I dislike what my GM did" threads off the top of my head, so I'm not sure what the facts are.
I try to always live by the following: "Never assume Malice for what ignorance will explain."
Now I'm going to assume it's an ignorance on the player's behalf on what the table wants, and ignorance on your behalf on what the player wants.
IF you two can't find a way to reconcile those ignorances then you'll need to go your separate ways, and that's okay, some people just don't jive.
Ive been a GM for well, years and made the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder with only a few House rules still in place. I regularly survey my groups and have high enjoyment rate and the players like the way I set things up. They have to think, work for their loot and roleplay though a lot of dangerously overpowering situations. I have recently had a player join the group and it has not gone well. His play style is different which is fine but instead of trying to mesh with the group the player is fighting against it. What to do?
The player recently lead a rather skewed post regarding what I am doing and why... in which I was lambasted. I have run campaigns with characters that range +- five levels and had no problems but it now seems that everything needs to be vanilla the same and equitable. Is this weird?
To me a fighter is good at what they do; a caster is different and good at what they do but they are not the same. faced with the same problem they are likely to deal with the situation differently. Thus players can have different strengths and still enjoy playing no?
Some of my players are richer but physically weak others might be stat strong but magic poor, in that regard I try to find some balance (but not equity) and when the players work together (roleplayed) they share to create a natural instead of a plastic (insert equitable clone character here) balance.
Please help me out here.
If I'm a bad GM then I have been for years developed a group of players that like it and or lie but still show up for years.
Should I simply suggest that the player that doesn't just not come? or change everything for the one (to the likely disdain of the others.. unless they are lying)?
Help.
I cannot judge what kind of GM (or PC for that matter) based on the limited information given.
What in particular is the actual issue?What (from your point of view) has the PC "done wrong"?
What (from the PCs point of view) Have you "done wrong"?
Without both points of view no middle ground can be found.
Are there bad GMs?
Short answer... Yes.
Are you inconsistent with your rulings?
Do you ignore the Players wishes in favor of your own?
Do your games run on rails that require the PCs to act/react a certain way?
if you can answer yes to any one of these then yes you are a bad GM.
If no then the answer is no you are not.
I think what the main issue here is that the 3.x system, and by default, Pathfinder as well is designed with a balanced level party in mind. The entire CR/Encounter system works with that in mind, as does wealth by level.
That aside, I actually miss the olden days when a party might have a 10th level mage, 13th level thief, 11th level fighter and the Druid who was going to be stuck at level 12/13/14 for the next few years of gaming, unless he/she has enormous amounts of exp and can win those duels...*Note these levels are the barest of guesses from vague remembrances of AD&D exp charts.
While that approach made every character class different and unique to play, you also had major stall-points for almost every class. By the time a Druid leveled to 15th just about every other character class would be at level 20+. Then again, a Great Druid, Grand Druid or Heirophant Druid was a freaking monster of spell slots since their class worked differently from the others. Character classes also gain a whole slew of goodies per level that they didn't used to get. Classes always get more, unlike AD&D where HP stopped accumulating by HD after level 9 or 10 and you just got 1/2/3 hp per level thereafter.
Basically though, the system just really doesn't work that way anymore. Not having appropriate WBL or APL in the party and on PCs makes the DMs job much harder at designing appropriate encounters for the party. A very experienced DM might have no issues doing this...but it might also come down to being the players perceptions that matter.
|
Your players are having fun...that means your not a bad DM. What it means is that your a bad DM for the new player (and probably me if I am being honest). But lucky for you, your not DMing for me...or the new player. You have other players that are happy with what is. My only advice would be to try and run a game more in line with what the new player wants for a few sessions. You and your players may like it better...if not, just switch right on back and inform the new player it's just not a style of game for you and he can either join your style or find a new group.
I am not sure the issue is wether you are a bad GM or not, if the player has some issues you can discuss them, maybe ask the other players to chime in and perhaps make some changes to the way you do things.
It might just be that his perception of how a game should be run is too different from yours and the other players, in that case he really shouldnt be gaming in this group of players.
If your players enjoy how you DM- then you obviously aren't a bad DM.
A large part of the "problem" with the boards is that.. every single person here has a different idea of how a game should be run. Some of them are DM's and others are players but we all sit down at a table with our own expectations. We then idealize them when we post on the boards.
I'd advise.. telling the "new player" exactly what you told us. Clear, straight forward, while also not being rude.. A+. He either needs to mesh with the crew or find a new crew. Its really that simple. I would not, under any circumstances, change how you've been doing things for the 5 or so guys/gals who've been enjoying your DM style for years. If they are having fun you are obviously doing something right.
Never let folks on the boards tell you you are doing something wrong if the players who've enjoyed your games for years- and you yourself- are having fun.
-S
I am not sure the issue is wether you are a bad GM or not, if the player has some issues you can discuss them, maybe ask the other players to chime in and perhaps make some changes to the way you do things.
To go along with this, when you talk to the other players, see if they might be in agreement with any of his issues. Perhaps the group as a whole has felt that way and just always accepted it as the way it is or not known how to talk to you about it.
If they don't agree with his thoughts on the matters, then you will know it is JUST the new player, and his playing style and yours (and your group as a whole) won't work out in the long run.
If its only been a session or two since he came into the group, an adjustment period is probably happening, and the situation might get better and it might not. If it doesn't, and the group as a whole is happy with how you DM, you'll need to have the Breakup discussion with the player :-)
Wait a minute....
No one asked WHY some players are five levels ahead of others?
Did all the players start off at the same level and progress in the same fashion with roleplaying experience and ad-hoc experience earning the higher level characters such a grand difference?
OR
Do you award great amounts of experience for out of game purchases and behaviors? Because if THAT is the case, then yes... you are a bad DM. I could honestly relate to the frustration of a new player in a group as he starts his character five levels lower than your "already established within the campaign" close friends. If there is NOTHING within the game that can make up for the vast experience point difference, then you need to start rethinking your method of awarding experience. I am sure the animosity and anger this person is feeling at the table is a direct result of the frustration he is feeling for being one of the weaker characters. He feels unwelcome and it is your job as a DM to make him feel as though he is a contributing member of the group and thereby welcome.
We as a community should know several answers before you expect an accurate answer to your question.
How did your players come to have such a vast difference in experience point totals?
What relation do you have to the higher level characters out of game?
I don't think that equalizing the wealth and level of the party will make the entire group resentful of your actions.
The goal is fun. Give the person complaining what they want. Ask them what they would have you change in order to make the game more fun. Ask them to consider everyone's own fun when making their suggestions.
There's no need to come here and talk about how good of a GM you are and how perfect your game is and lay it on thick with the "I'm apparently a bad GM" schtick.
|
|
Are you inconsistent with your rulings?
Do you ignore the Players wishes in favor of your own?
Do your games run on rails that require the PCs to act/react a certain way?
Also,
Do NPCs take over or outshine PCs?
Do you regularly trump the PCs' abilities or actions?
Are you boring or monotone?
Do your NPCs offend anyone at the table personally?
But ultimately, if everyone, DM and Players alike, are having lots of fun -- then yeah, stick with the group you've got. BE THANKFUL. ...And apologetically ask the new guy to find another group; your playstyles are just different.
I don't know whether I chimed in your Player's Thread but I would have likely agreed with the Player that PC balance is VERY important. It is not good when one PC is so much greater or lesser than the others. That often leads to a variety of table problems.
But if your group enjoys it -- ALL IS COOL.
The player recently lead a rather skewed post regarding what I am doing and why... in which I was lambasted.
This, right here, is the problem with asking for advice with problem players or problem GMs on message boards.
It is easy for the poster to skew events, overlook or "edit" details. One can easily manipulate the board to get sympathy; getting constructive advice that truly pertains to the situation at hand is not so easy. Posters likely find it very difficult to summarize a situation where a stranger on a message board can truly grasp the complexities of the interpersonal issues that go on between players/GMs and issues of various play styles.
SO: Are you a bad GM? Is he a bad player? That's between you and him and the rest of your gaming group. We don't have enough information to judge, and it would likely be impossible to gain it.
Is the general concept of making sure all PCs have something to contribute to the game, even in different ways, a sign of a bad GM? No. That I can say. But as others have noted, it may not be everyone's favorite kind of GM. No one can be.
Some general commentary:
In my opinion, one of the most important roles of the GM is to ensure the players are having fun. Of course, this does not mean to sacrifice your GMing style just to please one person. What it does mean is this:
Talk to your players--both the ones who seem to be having fun and the one who is not. (And it's GREAT that you are already aware of your one player's displeasure and are trying to do something about it. That's a good sign.) Solicit feedback, now and regularly in the future. Ask your players for what they feel you are doing RIGHT as well was for what they are struggling with or upset about.
The problem player you need to particularly talk to this about in person. Hear him out--but also ask him to hear out your concerns.
It's possible there may be a problem with perception--he may be misunderstanding something which is leading him to overreact to the way you run games. This will give you the opportunity to clear that up. You may also find ways where he may be able to concede certain power struggles if you are also willing to make minor adjustments to your game (as long as you and your other players are genuinely willing to go with it).
If he makes it clear that he expects the GM to behave in a very specific way--which would be difficult for you to adapt to and likely discomfit your other players, at the very least--and refuses to try to work with you and compromise, then it's probably time for: "I'm sorry, but I cannot give you what you are looking for as a GM. I suggest you find another GM who can work with you to your satisfaction."
Of course, I'm just a dork on a message board you've never met who likes to talk too much. It doesn't really matter what I say or anyone else on these boards say. What does matter is what your players say--all of them--so have this discussion with them and see what happens. Good luck.
I think before anyone can even intelligently answer the question, we'd need more details. For example, where is this message post of the disgruntled player?
You didn't give us a single example of your player's complaint. You just posted praises to your ability as DM. Of course we're going to say you're fine!
In my experience, people often post very one sided stories in message forums. This sounds like a post just to make you feel better, because if you knew you were doing nothing wrong, you'd just shrug it off.
|
|
It is easy for (a) poster to skew events, overlook or "edit" details.
True, but I would posit that most cases here (I think) are more a result of an inability to thoroughly explain the game situation in less than a million words. I know that many of my posts on topics like these fail to comprehensively detail my opinionsor advice. It's just easier to shoehorn ideas quickly into a post.
I want to know you the DM, plan to have a character in such a situation not be worthless?
He can't really contribute to combat, and his skill modifier won't be high enough to do much outside of combat, unless you wait until he rolls and arbitrarily lower the DC's so he succeeds. At that point his character is 100% at your mercy, and he may as well just ask can he succeed at something instead of even trying bother to roll the dice.
Not sure I'm following the whole gist of this, and I'm not sure exactly what the player complaint is, but I would say in 99.9% of cases, having PCs range in level by up to five levels difference is a major problem for game play.
I will almost never have characters more than one level different, and frankly, in the past year, I've decided that leveling the group according to plot is a more natural, equitable and manageable process than experience point awards. So now all characters level up at the same time regardless.
Having someone five levels below other characters is pretty "out there" since your higher level characters can actually have minions that are higher level than the lowest level character.
All other issues aside, this alone is enough of a reason for me to say that I'm not sure I'd appreciate playing in a game where my character was effectively useless, and/or at the mercy of DM fiat to have any impact on the outcome of any battle or skill check. I'd probably decide to find another game to play.
|
My suggestion is to talk to the rest of the players separate from the new guy and see how they feel. Ask them how they feel about changing things up or if it's worth hanging on to a new player who wants to rock the boat.
The opinions of 100 armchair GMs on the forums aren't worth the opinion of one of your players because you don't have to play with the folks on the forums. Trust your home team.
.
.
I didn't see the other post so I have no idea what was said but if someone blasted me on the forums behind my back there is a pretty good chance that I would un-invite regardless.
A few observations that may or may not be useful to you.
-- I am always very leery of threads begun by players complaining about GMs and GMs complaining about players. Even assuming that the original poster is trying to be balanced in their portrayal of things, they are limited by their own perspective.
-- Many of us completely forget that (I have been guilty at times) in our rush to provide "helpful" advice. Also, way too many of us on this forum are way, way too quick to throw around harsh judgments on players and GMs we've never met based on very limited information provided from a single source.
-- Every poster on these boards also brings their own "baggage" based on their own experiences and preferred style of play. Some tend to think the worst of GMs in every situation. Others, like me, tend to defend them. Never treat anything any of us says here as anything more than, at best, an educated and well-meaning opinion.
-- Any player or GM who tries to use advice provided on this forum to "win" an argument at his own table or make someone else look bad is being kind of a jerk. My advice to all, worth what they paid for it: be a man (or a woman) and deal with the problems at your table directly (I recommend over a beer between game sessions) rather than running to Mommy (the boards) for support.
General stuff aside, a couple of more observations:
-- I too have GMed for many years, through every edition, and have had to adapt my style with each significant change in the game. Pre-3.0 it was very common to have party members of significantly different levels, and it wasn't a problem. It certainly can be in PF/3.X.
-- The game is much more high-powered, and the math plays a far greater role than before, so dramatic differences in level and/or gear can have much greater impacts. I don't think that is a particularly good thing, overall, but there is no turning back the clock.
-- Pre-3.0 there was a steeper penalty for character death, so players were frequently tempted to create a new character rather than have a character raised and pay that penalty. I think the tradition of bringing new players in at a lower level may have some roots in this, as a disincentive for throwing an existing character aside in favor of a new one. That death tax has been heavily neutered now.
-- I knew some older groups who would resent having a new character come in and be "given" everything their characters paid for in blood, sweat and tears, perhaps over years of gaming. Conversely, new players did not have an expectation that they would start at the same power level as existing players, and accepted that it might be some time before the power gap closed. Given the way the XP tables worked, the gap could actually close pretty fast. I don't think the same things are true in PF/3.X, at least for the majority of the gaming community.
Finally, my bottom line:
-- If you and your group are having fun, you're doing it right.
-- However, despite your experience and success, every GM can always get better, and we learn from listening and taking seriously those who criticize the way we do things, hard as it may be to hear that criticism.
-- So I recommend taking the newbie seriously, thinking about what he has to say, and considering if some changes in your style are called for.
-- In the end, compatibility of play style is extremely important, and some people just won't ever fit with some groups if they are unwilling to adapt to the table's style.
-- While generally it is the responsibility of the minority to adjust to the majority, sometimes the minority has some good input and accommodations can be made to improve the game for everyone.
I think before anyone can even intelligently answer the question, we'd need more details. For example, where is this message post of the disgruntled player?
You didn't give us a single example of your player's complaint. You just posted praises to your ability as DM. Of course we're going to say you're fine!
In my experience, people often post very one sided stories in message forums. This sounds like a post just to make you feel better, because if you knew you were doing nothing wrong, you'd just shrug it off.
I was debating whether or not I should link to it, but I decided that those who hadn't read the what I assume was the other thread being referred to should have a harder time weighing in than those of us who did read it. So here is the link to what I assume is the thread in question. If I'm wrong, I apologize to fatouzocat for the misunderstanding.
Assuming the link is the correct one. First I will say I only read the first post.
I under the need to force players to earn their keep, but they must be given a decent chance at survival. I don't know if you fudge to help players out, but by your first post it seems that you don't. With that being the case starting someone off at the same level as the party with 60% of the gear they have would be preferable to a big drop in levels and almost no gear. I can't see anyone surviving under such conditions unless. Of course such information as to how someone can survive has not been given. I won't say you are a bad DM, but I will say if you expect for a PC to survive you are being unrealistic. If you don't expect them to survive, well, I don't really know what to say to that.
Long story short we need more info.
As far as players liking your style, many players will put up with a lot just to game, so lack of complaining does not equal quality.
Invite one of your players to this discussion if you want too. From what I have read so far it does not seem like fun though.
I just went through a sort of self-realization in regards to my GMing style. I was dismayed to discover that my group was having more fun in two other games in which they were participating with two different GMs. Now I'd been questioning myself for some time as a GM, and what I was seeing with myself was exactly what my player's were frustrated with. The discoveries I made are (well 3 out of 4 reasons anyway) why I am stepping down as GM, for a good long time, perhaps evena permanent GM retirement, and just play to get some perspective.
My GM Flaw 1: The story is more important than the player's choices. I covered this by being avery generous GM...only so long as the choices supported the furthering of the story.
My GM Flaw 2: Story not detail. My group, transformed into the opposite.
My GM Flaw 3: I run games in which, in any single enounter, if the group is not the underdog, then it's not worth the time to be an encounter. For instance, in my Star Wars Saga game that I am ending this weekend, the group - 7 Players, are all 16th level. They're wanted by the Empire. I won't send a bunch of red shirt scrubs after the group. My stance being that, no one that is 4 or more levels lower than anyone in the group, even with friends to help, is going to be dumb enough to go after the group. My group disagreed.
My group see the next as a flaw, I do not and never will.
Group Persepctive of what is a flaw: I will not open a book during a game to look up a rule. I will make a call in the moment and then consult the book later. This goes for whether or not the ruling goes for or against the player. I see the job of the GM as keeping the game moving and with 7 players in my group, everytime there is a rules question in the middle of combat, if the book was opened, the group would lucky to see one encounter a night or see more than 3 or 4 "rounds".
2 things:
1. I think all DM's should get to play so they don't lose what I call "player perspective". It also helps to keep us sane. :)
2. Keeping the story moving is not the end all be all. It is a factor in keeping the game fun and interesting which is the end all be all.
What point does it serve to keep the story/game moving if it is to the group's dismay?
Now of course if your group wants to question every ruling which is what it sounds like then it may be better to wait until the end(of the session).
Everyone learning the rules will cut down on this though. I think this(not looking rules up) should be reconsidered if you ever run for a smaller group where you have time to look rules up. Most people would like to think that their character is worth the 30 seconds it takes to look a rule up.
PS:
On Flaw number 1: The game is not a novel and players merely actors. The players should help to define the story not just act in it.
2:I don't know exactly what that means.
3:The bad guys don't know what levels are, and can't really know what the power level is of a group except by DM metagaming most of the time, and even so nobody is immune to death, and the bad guys know that.
Even if they realize they are fighting a losing battle, once combat starts, running away is still an option sometimes. At least then they will have knowledge of PC tactics. The bad guys may also just be fanatically loyal, and or willing to give their lives for a greater cause if they think it will matter. Make your bad guys people, and not just stat blocks, and give them a reason to fight. :)
edit: I just realized you were not the OP, but I think my post still makes sense.
|
|
-- Every poster on these boards also brings their own "baggage"
I HAVE NO BAGGAGE!
What are you some kinda political conservative, WotC-lovin' red-headed step child freak who still lives with your parents and
How dare you!
I bet you shop a Walmart and support the government!
You probably like Manchester United and the friggin dallas cowboys!
You are wrong you
.
.
.
.
EDIT:
Koodos.
My group see the next as a flaw, I do not and never will.
Group Persepctive of what is a flaw: I will not open a book during a game to look up a rule. I will make a call in the moment and then consult the book later. This goes for whether or not the ruling goes for or against the player. I see the job of the GM as keeping the game moving and with 7 players in my group, everytime there is a rules question in the middle of combat, if the book was opened, the group would lucky to see one encounter a night or see more than 3 or 4 "rounds".
This is not inherently a flaw - keeping the game moving rather than stopping to look up the rule is a good thing. However, you have to do two things in order to prevent this from becoming a flaw. You need to look up each and every rules call you make in the downtime between sessions and share the "as written" rule at the start of the next, and you need to stick to the rule you looked up afterwards.
If you just fiat a ruling and don't bother to look up the correct application afterwards, you've just created a house rule that isn't documented anywhere. If you're not consistent about applying the rules, your players don't know what to expect. In some systems (World of Darkness, for instance), Storyteller fiat is expected. In D&D and Pathfinder, there's a defined set of rules your players expect to be followed. They build their characters using those rules. If those rules are then thrown out on a regular basis, then why should they care what they are when building a character?
Related to that, unless you read every feat, spell, and class ability as a player takes it, you should never overrule them about how one of their feats, spells, or class abilities works without actually looking at the rules.
-- Every poster on these boards also brings their own "baggage"
I HAVE NO BAGGAGE!
What are you some kinda political conservative, WotC-lovin' red-headed step child freak who still lives with your parents and
How dare you!
I bet you shop a Walmart and support the government!
You probably like Manchester United and the friggin dallas cowboys!
You are wrong you
.
.
.
.
EDIT:
** spoiler omitted **
Alright, you had to go and get personal with that Cryboys crack. It's Black and Gold forever, baby. I'm such a Steelers fan I'm even watching Dancing with the Stars just 'cause Hines Ward is on it.
And I personally have enough baggage after 34 years of gaming to fill a U-Haul.
|
|
I was debating whether or not I should link to it, but I decided that those who hadn't read the what I assume was the other thread being referred to should have a harder time weighing in than those of us who did read it. So here is the link to what I assume is the thread in question. If I'm wrong, I apologize to fatouzocat for the misunderstanding.
Can't see how it can be that thread, since the OP here said the player had started a biased thread against him, while the thread in that link was started by someone with Stockholm Syndrome, who bends over backwards at every opportunity, to invent excuses and justifications for the way he was treated.
"No, I totally deserved everything I had coming to me..."
"Everyone's been more than fair..."
"I'm just clumsy, I guess, I just can't help walking into doors..."
"I'm so lucky to have found a group that cares enough to give me a good thrashing..."
Usually the bad player or DM, is one that won't adapt, so everyone enjoys the game, but I do agree with Bobson about being consistent and take the time to understand the rules. 9 times out of 10, most arguments are based on rules interpretations, but you do run into 1 person on occasion that does not fit the game style of the group. The same thing could happen when a new DM takes the place of another.
It is easier for me to see all this after playing for a while, but in my early years, I almost lost friendships over gaming issues. You have to admit that sometimes if the game is good, your character becomes very personal and some of your own personallity may come out in the character.
I was debating whether or not I should link to it, but I decided that those who hadn't read the what I assume was the other thread being referred to should have a harder time weighing in than those of us who did read it. So here is the link to what I assume is the thread in question. If I'm wrong, I apologize to fatouzocat for the misunderstanding.Can't see how it can be that thread, since the OP here said the player had started a biased thread against him, while the thread in that link was started by someone with Stockholm Syndrome, who bends over backwards at every opportunity, to invent excuses and justifications for the way he was treated.
"No, I totally deserved everything I had coming to me..."
"Everyone's been more than fair..."
"I'm just clumsy, I guess, I just can't help walking into doors..."
"I'm so lucky to have found a group that cares enough to give me a good thrashing..."
Maybe because the audience started to go against the DM the OP(of this thread) is transferring the blame to the OP(of the other thread). It is the closest one that seems to fit.
I always love reading posts that provide a soapbox for people to vent about and brag about their DM skills, or player skills.
I'll do my bit. :)
As regards the comment about the first priority of the DM is for the players to have fun....
Yes.... but. And here are the buts....
It is not possible to run any sort of social endeavor and promise that everyone will have fun all the time. Some people are not going to have fun sometimes. Just because someone in the group, or even the group as a whole is not "having fun" right NOW does not mean the DM is bad or the campaign is bad. This is a comment that must be taken holistically.
In life the most rewarding experiences are usually the ones in which we have to work hardest to achieve success. That means overcoming setbacks, taking risks and struggling to overcome difficult odds. None of that is "fun" when it's looking bad, but the more bad it looks, the eventual success is more rewarding.
Some people have a problem with priorities when it comes to group activities. Some players focus on their individual stats, magic items and abilities and overlook the importance of teamwork and shared sacrifice. For these people it is sometimes very difficult to have "fun" unless they are the star of the show, in a game that is not supposed to have "stars." DMs which accommodate these players to ensure everyone "has fun" are punishing the players whose priorities are correct. I tend to try to reward the "right behavior" when it comes to group social dynamics and so it may well be that a player like this has less "fun" in my campaigns than in someone else's. That's not my problem as the DM that's their problem as a player. Eventually they will either adapt and adjust their priorities or go find another game to play. I consider either solution a win-win.
Just my $.02 on the "fun is the first priority" comment.
I always love reading posts that provide a soapbox for people to vent about and brag about their DM skills, or player skills.
I'll do my bit. :)
As regards the comment about the first priority of the DM is for the players to have fun....
Yes.... but. And here are the buts....
It is not possible to run any sort of social endeavor and promise that everyone will have fun all the time. Some people are not going to have fun sometimes. Just because someone in the group, or even the group as a whole is not "having fun" right NOW does not mean the DM is bad or the campaign is bad. This is a comment that must be taken holistically.
I think everyone knows that though. I think as long as you enjoy most of a campaign it is a good one. I have yet to meet anyone who always likes the ways things go.
In life the most rewarding experiences are usually the ones in which we have to work hardest to achieve success. That means overcoming setbacks, taking risks and struggling to overcome difficult odds. None of that is "fun" when it's looking bad, but the more bad it looks, the eventual success is more rewarding.
That depends on why it is "bad". You being in a bad situation due to a challenge is not the same as bad due to unfairness on part of a DM or incompetence by a DM, whether the incompetence is real or not.
Some people have a problem with priorities when it comes to group activities. Some players focus on their individual stats, magic items and abilities and overlook the importance of teamwork and shared sacrifice. For these people it is sometimes very difficult to have "fun" unless they are the star of the show, in a game that is not supposed to have "stars."
This I can agree with.
I would not describe you as a bad GM. That being said, I would not play in your game. This is not a negative.
You said what I was thinking.
|
|
If your players enjoy how you DM- then you obviously aren't a bad DM.
Never let folks on the boards tell you you are doing something wrong if the players who've enjoyed your games for years- and you yourself- are having fun.
-S
Not to pick on you, Selgard, but you just happened to draw the short straw;
There's a lot of posts that imply, or outright state, that in any conflict between one player vs a whole group, it must be the new player's fault.*
To which I could link to a lot of posts, but I will settle for Exhibit A.
*(Don't forget to check on the rest of that thread, for examples of exactly what I'm talking about.)
Is the new player a rogue or bard?
If the campaign is all about the combat, they can feel left out.
The fighter types should make sure they get the proper gear(cloak of displacement, magical musical instraments, and maybe magic thieves tools). The PCs might go on an occasional non-combat mission. Attending parties, going to a performance, ect. In another thread, I went into more detail about that.
|
|
There's a lot of posts that imply, or outright state, that in any conflict between one player vs a whole group, it must be the new player's fault.*
My feeling on group dynamics is simple, what works, works. I see all sorts of things on the forums that I think are nuts and yet the people in those groups have a blast. So when I see someone say a successful group is doing it wrong and the whole group needs to change to suit a new player I'm pretty skeptical.
I don't much care about 'fault'. You have a group who are working together well and new person comes and isn't getting along well. Maybe the new person isn't suited for your group?
This is why I suggest the GM talk to the other players, maybe he *IS* screwing up, if so it's likely the group will side with the new player at least some. It's also entirely possible the GM is way out in left field with regards to rules or play style but that's the way the group likes to roll.
Alright, you had to go and get personal with that Cryboys crack. It's Black and Gold forever, baby. I'm such a Steelers fan I'm even watching Dancing with the Stars just 'cause Hines Ward is on it.Word up, me too.
Same
I was debating whether or not I should link to it, but I decided that those who hadn't read the what I assume was the other thread being referred to should have a harder time weighing in than those of us who did read it. So here is the link to what I assume is the thread in question. If I'm wrong, I apologize to fatouzocat for the misunderstanding.Can't see how it can be that thread, since the OP here said the player had started a biased thread against him, while the thread in that link was started by someone with Stockholm Syndrome, who bends over backwards at every opportunity, to invent excuses and justifications for the way he was treated.
"No, I totally deserved everything I had coming to me..."
"Everyone's been more than fair..."
"I'm just clumsy, I guess, I just can't help walking into doors..."
"I'm so lucky to have found a group that cares enough to give me a good thrashing..."
Honestly, THAT player (if it's the right one or not...) Seems to simply be having trouble with the new system. He said the last game he played was 2E.... and having just come from that system myself, the characters are VERY different.
Stats are universally lower... Hps are lower... opponents are tougher. In short it's a LOT more balanced. I went two months here recently (playing 1 to 2 times a week...) NOT ending up in negative hit points hoping for someone to save him...
Three seperate games...
It was.. Amazing... O.o
He just sounds like he needs new expectations and a little better luck ;)