I had a conversation with a friend about GMing that disturbed me. He was describing some feature he thought would be cool to introduce in a campaign if he were GM. I believe it had something to do with making it more difficult to come back to life.
So I asked him if he would be willing to play in that campaign, and he said no. In fact he seemed surprised that I asked the question. He said –
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
That man sound like a psychopath.
Unfortunately for my players, I pretty much prefer it when the GM hates me.
It takes all kinds?
I guess it works out if he still has players?
Maybe he's a better GM than PC?
Or maybe he has control issues? :)
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
I don't think I can put this nicely...what he is describing is something that would elicit from me the quote, "Dick move!"
If it's not a rule you would play under, why would you possibly want to institute it?
My personal philosophy on DM'ing is that I run the game the players want to play. Before I start a campaign, we vote on house rules. I tailor encounters to play to their style and their strengths.
My job as a DM is to make the game fun for my players. It is not to impose rules and be a powermonger.
I don't pass down judgement and decision from on high. I'll make a call about something at the moment to make the game keep flowing, but if someone isn't satisfied in the aftermath, we'll talk about it, and the future ruling will be what the group decides. Always remember, though, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
So, yeah...making rules that you wouldn't like on the other side of the fence: not cool, bad DM'ing.
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
My thoughts? I agree with you and would probably never play at his table.
His statement seems to indicate that he thinks it's cool to do things to make him have more fun that would make the players have less fun (since he wouldn't want it as a player). That's not good GMing.
Now, I'm not saying that as a GM you should never do anything that the players might not love (it's not kittens and rainbows and free piles of gear all the time in my games), but that ain't the same thing -- and still, I would never do anything as a GM I wouldn't accept as a player.
Maybe he's a better GM than PC?
I think you got that backward. Probably should read: "Maybe he shouldn't GM?" though.
I had a conversation with a friend about GMing that disturbed me. He was describing some feature he thought would be cool to introduce in a campaign if he were GM. I believe it had something to do with making it more difficult to come back to life.
So I asked him if he would be willing to play in that campaign, and he said no. In fact he seemed surprised that I asked the question. He said –
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
Bwahahahaha!
Hit him on the head. With a shovel.
There's something about "Do unto others". I won't repeat the whole shebang, but it translates as: If you do something to your players you wouldn't want done to you as a player, you better hope none of your players ever becomes your GM. Or knows where you live.
Of course, if the players are fine with it, it's OK. I suspect, though, that they're not.
|
There are a lot of post on this and other message boards and things where I stop and ask, "Is this something your group wants to enact?" It seems like it's one of the most important things to ask yourself before coming up with some crazy house rule or campaign idea.
More communication and agreement in a group tends to make for a happier group.
There are a lot of post on this and other message boards and things where I stop and ask, "Is this something your group wants to enact?" It seems like it's one of the most important things to ask yourself before coming up with some crazy house rule or campaign idea.
More communication and agreement in a group tends to make for a happier group.
Right. I see a lot of tendency for GMs to enact rules unilaterally. They want to run something that is just so, and don't seem to realize that it's going to effect the players. This is a group, cooperative game. You don't GM in a vacuum. If the group doesn't want it, you're just going to disgruntle your players.
If it were a employer/employee situation there wouldn't be a question about whether or not he was wrong.
I hope that this person is never put in charge of the care of any other living thing.
I had a conversation with a friend about GMing that disturbed me. He was describing some feature he thought would be cool to introduce in a campaign if he were GM. I believe it had something to do with making it more difficult to come back to life.
So I asked him if he would be willing to play in that campaign, and he said no. In fact he seemed surprised that I asked the question. He said –
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
I wonder if your friend feels that the DM wins if the players die, and loses if the monsters die? That is not a good recipe in my experience. Sets the stage for some pretty ugly exchanges across the DM screen.
Not a very well thought out approach. "I would hate this and quit the game if a DM did this to me, but I'm going to do it anyway!" I'm not following your friend's logic.
If it were a employer/employee situation there wouldn't be a question about whether or not he was wrong.
I hope that this person is never put in charge of the care of any other living thing.
Slightly harsh without knowing the person, but I can back up the sentiment if it's warranted.
Years ago, the "killer DM" was basically the standard. The DM guide pretty much encouraged it. There's something weird about a person who takes pleasure in making players suffer constant TPKs, IMHO, but it's not so common now, and I don't miss it.
I always try to see things from the players' perspective. I know it can be dangerous, and players can do everything right and still get killed, but it's not something that inspires evil grins on my part.
It takes all kinds?
I guess it works out if he still has players?
Maybe he's a better GM than PC?
Or maybe he has control issues? :)
He does not run a campaign right now. But I had recntly tried to convince him to run a one-on-one game with me as the player. from our conversations about my game, I could see that he had a lot of cool ideas in his head (mostly builds). I wanted to give him an opportunity to use themm but we shelved the idea until later.
Now I will have to find a graceful way to kill that idea.
There's something about "Do unto others". I won't repeat the whole shebang
That is exactly what I was thinking. It is like common sense.
I had a conversation with a friend about GMing that disturbed me. He was describing some feature he thought would be cool to introduce in a campaign if he were GM. I believe it had something to do with making it more difficult to come back to life.
So I asked him if he would be willing to play in that campaign, and he said no. In fact he seemed surprised that I asked the question. He said –
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
I think your GM has been thoroughly flogged for being a tool. For the most part rightly so.
However, that doesn't mean what kind of campaign you would like to play in has to be the type of campaign you GM.
It could be perfectly fine for a GM to want to run a campaign that makes bringing back the dead hard for players. Provided that is the campaign the players want.
From what I can see with the little insight we have to the GM is he wants to be a opponent rather than judge. I tend to see bad things when a GM considers himself an adversary.
communication and compromise between player and dungeon master is a 2 way street.
don't do unto others as you wouldn't want done to you
there is a reason i don't use save or die spells, nor most save or sucks either.
because i hate having them used against myself. and because i feel it's unfair to the other PCs for me to take out the boss with a single die roll. i may use glitterdust to reveal an inivisble foe. but i would never outright cast fear or even phantasmal killer.
but weekly william loves his save or dies.
I had a conversation with a friend about GMing that disturbed me. He was describing some feature he thought would be cool to introduce in a campaign if he were GM. I believe it had something to do with making it more difficult to come back to life.
So I asked him if he would be willing to play in that campaign, and he said no. In fact he seemed surprised that I asked the question. He said –
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
That is terrible IMHO. I am a GM and a player, and I would never subject someone to a rule I would not accept as a player, not would I try to get a GM to approve something I would not allow as a GM.
There's something about "Do unto others".
This is in essence my entire philosopy on being a good Dungeon Master. If I wouldn't want to play under a certain rule or style than why would I think my players would?
Yes, there are things that as a Dungeon Master I would like to do that as a player would make me less than happy, but I don't do them. A Dungeon Master needs to have at least some respect for their players.
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”That man sound like a psychopath.
Sociopathy / Psychopathy (the so-called "Anti-Social Personality Disorder") is a current research interest of mine, and I agree with kikanaide 100%.
Dren Everblack, if the statement "That man sounds like a psychopath" does not send chills down your spine, you need to read The Sociopath Next Door right away.
(It isn't the greatest book on the topic, but it is one of the most accessible to those unacquainted with sociopathy.)
Your friend may or may not be a sociopath, but this lack of empathy for other people is one warning sign.
Another warning sign is lying constantly and for no reason.
Another warning sign is that the person will actively work to make people feel sorry for them, because those who do are the easiest to manipulate and exploit.
If any of these signs ring a bell, then you really need to read that book.
Good luck!
Hmm, while I agree with the fact that as a GM he shouldn't be out to get the players, I think it is ok to have a double standard for what you will GM compared to what you will play. Here's an example that I think will explain why I feel this way.
I, about a year or so ago, started up a play by post campaign for a group of players online. The game was gestalt and used 5d6 drop 2 for stats, basically making it to where the PCs are nigh-godlike. As a player, I don't think I would ever join my campaign. Gestalt is ok since it's a 3 person game, so I'd be able to handle that as a player, but I prefer lower stats for PCs so that they have genuine weaknesses that can't be ignored. However, I am having fun DMing for the players and throwing high level opponents at them that they can tackle and occasionally steamroll with ease.
Anyways, just pointing out that having different ideas of what you like as a GM compared to as a player doesn't make someone a sociopath. Also, I would happily play a PC in a game where coming back from the dead was hard or nearly impossible, but as a DM I run with the rules for raising as written or with minor changes since most people don't want to have permanent character death be the norm rather than the exception.
Heck in my Kingmaker game I let the party do a ritual to return an NPC to life after he died saving them. They were well below the level to cast a raise dead spell and didn't have any of the diamonds needed but they were determined to find a way so I let them find one because that made it more fun for them. I'd prefer as a player for heroic sacrifices to stick and be a bit of a tragic memory for the character but as a DM I was happy watching the players come together to try and find any way of saving the NPC.
Hmm, while I agree with the fact that as a GM he shouldn't be out to get the players, I think it is ok to have a double standard for what you will GM compared to what you will play. Here's an example that I think will explain why I feel this way.
I, about a year or so ago, started up a play by post campaign for a group of players online. The game was gestalt and used 5d6 drop 2 for stats, basically making it to where the PCs are nigh-godlike. As a player, I don't think I would ever join my campaign. Gestalt is ok since it's a 3 person game, so I'd be able to handle that as a player, but I prefer lower stats for PCs so that they have genuine weaknesses that can't be ignored. However, I am having fun DMing for the players and throwing high level opponents at them that they can tackle and occasionally steamroll with ease.
Anyways, just pointing out that having different ideas of what you like as a GM compared to as a player doesn't make someone a sociopath. Also, I would happily play a PC in a game where coming back from the dead was hard or nearly impossible, but as a DM I run with the rules for raising as written or with minor changes since most people don't want to have permanent character death be the norm rather than the exception.
Heck in my Kingmaker game I let the party do a ritual to return an NPC to life after he died saving them. They were well below the level to cast a raise dead spell and didn't have any of the diamonds needed but they were determined to find a way so I let them find one because that made it more fun for them. I'd prefer as a player for heroic sacrifices to stick and be a bit of a tragic memory for the character but as a DM I was happy watching the players come together to try and find any way of saving the NPC.
With all due respect, this is not a case of "different ideas".
In your example the GM helped you(players) out due to a lack of players. That is not the same as making someone jump through hoops you don't think would be fun just because you can.One is "Hey this 3-person party thing sucks, let see what I can do to fix the issue". You on the other hand may have used a different fix.
This guy is more like "That sucks. I would never let someone put me through crap like that. Oh well at least I am GM so I can do it others. Who cares if they don't like it."
Should you GM the kind of game you would want to play in? That is the question I will try to anwer briefly: Yes. Unless you have explicit permission to fiddle with 'reality' of the game. (such as Iron Kingdoms resurrections...) If there is an element of the game that you want to add (as GM) make sure it is not aggravating or offensive to your Players.
I hope that makes some sense: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Unless the others likes it rough...
GNOME
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If i am going to "make" (ask) players to abide by whatever rules/things i change based on my concepts, then i'd better be prepared and willing to do the same when it's one of their turns to DM.
With all due respect, this is not a case of "different ideas".
In your example the GM helped you(players) out due to a lack of players. That is not the same as making someone jump through hoops you don't think would be fun just because you can.One is "Hey this 3-person party thing sucks, let see what I can do to fix the issue". You on the other hand may have used a different fix.
This guy is more like "That sucks. I would never let someone put me through crap like that. Oh well at least I am GM so I can do it others. Who cares if they don't like it."
Well, I was the DM in that example, and it was 4 players at the time and the players wanted 5d6 stats and gestalt. We lost a player later so it was more reasonable, but at first I wasn't thrilled with the idea. I couldn't play that type of game as a player, superheroes are boring to me, and I originally planned on them being regular 4d6 stat characters but I ran with what the players wanted even though I would've not liked a DM running that for me.
Anyways, I think people are overreacting by calling the guy a psychopath. I, for one, would love as a player to be in a game where death matters, so if he ran a game for me that was nearly impossible to return from the death from I'd be happy even if he, as a player, would never do that.
Whether I want to play a game of emo vampires, my players might, and I would be happy to indulge them, at least for a little while. Even if emo vampires make me nauseous.
I don't see a crime in that.
I'd like to play devil's advocate here for a moment and say I think this GM has a point. Now, without hearing more on his policy, I cannot make a definite condemnation of it, nor can I praise it, but these days a lot of players seem to want immediate gratification for their characters, and it's not always the right choice to give it to them. Sometimes, a rule that seem harsh now (such as difficult resurrections) may create a play experience that you look back on fondly later.
Case in point would be a Ravenloft game an old buddy of mine ran. He tracked our hit points for us in combat, he didn't tell us when we made or failed our saves (we had to figure that out based on the effect, but it was usually apparent), he made liberal use of ability damage, and access to healing, resurrection, and restoration magic was fairly limited. Our PCs were brutalized, and to this day is is one of the most talked about campaigns we've ever played in (in a good way).
He stacked the odds against us, but always gave us the opportunity to triumph if we played smart. We bled for those characters, and the feeling of triumph we got just from surviving the games is something I just haven't gotten from a campaign sense.
That's not to say this is the only appropriate style of gameplay, because I'd certainly get tired of it if ever game I played in took this approach, but sometimes, it's best for a player and GM both to approach such proposals with an open mind, with the players willing to try it out, and the GM willing to scrap it if it cuts into the long-term fun.
With all due respect, this is not a case of "different ideas".
In your example the GM helped you(players) out due to a lack of players. That is not the same as making someone jump through hoops you don't think would be fun just because you can.One is "Hey this 3-person party thing sucks, let see what I can do to fix the issue". You on the other hand may have used a different fix.
This guy is more like "That sucks. I would never let someone put me through crap like that. Oh well at least I am GM so I can do it others. Who cares if they don't like it."
Well, I was the DM in that example, and it was 4 players at the time and the players wanted 5d6 stats and gestalt. We lost a player later so it was more reasonable, but at first I wasn't thrilled with the idea. I couldn't play that type of game as a player, superheroes are boring to me, and I originally planned on them being regular 4d6 stat characters but I ran with what the players wanted even though I would've not liked a DM running that for me.
Anyways, I think people are overreacting by calling the guy a psychopath. I, for one, would love as a player to be in a game where death matters, so if he ran a game for me that was nearly impossible to return from the death from I'd be happy even if he, as a player, would never do that.
Ok. I read it again, but my point stands. Doing something to be helpful, and doing something you would not enjoy just because you can are not the same thing. I only saw one person call him a psychopath, and I do agree that is a huge stretch. I would think the person is inconsiderate, but not a threat to my life.
If the players asked for such a game sure. I just don't handle double standards well.
Don't. Tell him straight what bothers you and why you don't want him to GM for you. Be patient enough to talk to him. That will at least give him the chance to reevaluate. This is the only way we learn and grow.
Now I will have to find a graceful way to kill that idea.
It's A way, not the only one. Trial and Error is another, less efficient one.
Though I do think honesty is usually the best policy. It just sometimes takes considerable amounts of tacts, which some people won't have.
|
Don't. Tell him straight what bothers you and why you don't want him to GM for you. Be patient enough to talk to him. That will at least give him the chance to reevaluate. This is the only way we learn and grow.
Now I will have to find a graceful way to kill that idea.It's A way, not the only one. Trial and Error is another, less efficient one.
Though I do think honesty is usually the best policy. It just sometimes takes considerable amounts of tacts, which some people won't have.
For Trial and Error you must know that you err. I no one tells you you are doing it wrong but always finds graceful and elaborate excuses why he leaves your presence, that doesn't help.
P.S. I meant reevaluating is the only way we learn and grow, regardless of how we come to reevaluate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
That is exactly what I was thinking. It is like common sense.
There's something about "Do unto others". I won't repeat the whole shebang
Ah! Common sense. The least common of all senses.
There is a game called Descent: Journeys in the Dark which is very dungeon-crawley and where the GM is a player who is actively trying to kill the other players. Give it a try! It's pretty fun- if you're into 6 hour board games with over 200 pieces.
Since 1981, I have been the DM/GM with only a few short, small half-campaigns to enjoy myself as a player. For a good chunk of that time, I gamed with somebody who liked to posit out loud at the table, that the DM was essentially a slave to the players, and that his fun was less than secondary; that, in fact, the DM was not entitled to enjoy himself at all.
That player, over time, made my job as DM pretty hellish. More and more, he put this theory into practice, until ultimately everybody agreed it was time he move on.
For my part, I have never treated players in any way other than I would prefer to be treated. And I have also never done anything to their characters that was out of line with the current situation in-game. True, some bad guys have tried to kill a PC or two, and have even succeeded on occasion, and one time an upset player accused me of doing so on purpose because she was... well, upset. But the other players were quick to come to my defense and calm her down, because they knew me well enough to know that it was the NPC, not the DM, who killed the character.
Trust is essential as a GM. It's probably the most important thing. Getting back to the meat of the OP, I do think there are all sorts of variations on challenge, and limiting certain things, like magic or type of magic is one tool to mix the game up and make it different. But a good GM outlines those plans ahead of time and sticks to his own guidelines. It's essential he do so to maintain trust amongst the players.
That said, I mention my wayward player at the top of my post, to point out that the opposite form of wrongheaded thinking also exists: there are players out there who think the GM is a computerized piece of meat, there for no better reason than to serve unhappily.
PS: I think the title of the thread is misleading. Some people are responding to the subject of a DMPC/GMPC, which is a totally different phenomenon from the subject matter here.
I had a conversation with a friend about GMing that disturbed me. He was describing some feature he thought would be cool to introduce in a campaign if he were GM. I believe it had something to do with making it more difficult to come back to life.
So I asked him if he would be willing to play in that campaign, and he said no. In fact he seemed surprised that I asked the question. He said –
“There are things that are enjoyable to a DM that are not so to players. There are things I like doing to others that I don’t like being done to me, and there are things I like done to me that I don’t like doing for others. Your response speaks out like there should be equity between what I like as DM and player. That is not so for me.”
Just to make it clear, I do not agree with this statement.
Any thoughts?
Yeah...I would have problems with that. I mean I run my games with the mind of what I would find fun for as a player. I will even bend things a little for the sake of my player having fun...but generaly when I make a ruling I ask would I like this rule as a player.
Anyways, I think people are overreacting by calling the guy a psychopath. I, for one, would love as a player to be in a game where death matters, so if he ran a game for me that was nearly impossible to return from the death from I'd be happy even if he, as a player, would never do that.Ok. I read it again, but my point stands. Doing something to be helpful, and doing something you would not enjoy just because you can are not the same thing. I only saw one person call him a psychopath, and I do agree that is a huge stretch. I would think the person is inconsiderate, but not a threat to my life.
Two things to clear up here:
1. "Psychopath" =/= "Threat to my life"
This is the common view of the sociopath that stems from popular movies like Silence of the Lambs or any number of made for TV movies about serial killers.
The truth is 4 out of every 100 people (1 in 25) is a sociopath. Some of them engage in more extreme behavior (i.e.: serial killing) than others, but most of them are hiding in plain sight amongst us.
In the US, the prison population is ~1 in 100 people, so even if every single person in prison was a sociopath, there would still be 3 of them at large.
Sociopathy is a brain condition that results in an utter lack of attachment or empathy. They do not possess feelings to be hurt, and do not intuit how other people feel.
Depending on their socialization, they can be very adept at both recognizing and faking emotion.
For example, they may see a woman crying and recognize her as someone emotionally vulnerable and therefore easier to trick into sex with lies and pretending to care.
(This example, not serial killing, is indicative of the level at which most sociopaths operate.)
Sociopaths have absolutely no conscience whatsoever and actually do things that 96 out of 100 of us would never even consider.
For example, drowning a pet dog in the bathtub, because it's easier to dispose of it in the dumpster rather than take to the pound.
To a sociopath, this is an easy and obvious solution to the problem of an unwanted pet dog.
2. "I ... would love as a player to be in a game where death matters"
The warning sign of the person possibly being a sociopath has nothing to do with gaming. The OP's quote boiled down to this:
"The golden rule doesn't apply to me."
It's not that they are saying "I'd like to do X in a game", it's the complete lack of empathy:
The players may not enjoy it, but I would, so I don't care.
The OP's friend could have said:
"I don't think it's everybody's cup of tea, but I bet there are some people who would like to play that." or
"You're right, I wouldn't enjoy that, so I better not run a game with that rule."
or any number of other responses.
No, this person responded with:
I do things to people that they don't like, and you seem to think I shouldn't. That doesn't apply to me.
It is disturbing because this is a sociopathic response to the question the OP asked.
Different players have differents play styles.
Different DMs have different DM styles.
Not everything I enjoy as a player, do I enjoy, or do well, as a DM.
As such, I don't think that what matters is if you would enjoy playing in a game. What matters is if the players are on board with it and enjoy it.
|
|
Two things to clear up here:
1. "Psychopath" =/= "Threat to my life"
This is the common view of the sociopath that stems from popular movies like Silence of the Lambs or any number of made for TV movies about serial killers.
The truth is 4 out of every 100 people (1 in 25) is a sociopath. Some of them engage in more extreme behavior (i.e.: serial killing) than others, but most of them are hiding in plain sight amongst us.
In the US, the prison population is ~1 in 100 people, so even if every single person in prison was a sociopath, there would still be 3 of them at large.Sociopathy is a brain condition that results in an utter lack of attachment or empathy. They do not possess feelings to be hurt, and do not intuit how other people feel.
Depending on their socialization, they can be very adept at both recognizing and faking emotion.
For example, they may see a woman crying and recognize her as someone emotionally vulnerable and therefore easier to trick into sex with lies and pretending to care.
(This example, not serial killing, is indicative of the level at which most sociopaths operate.)Sociopaths have absolutely no conscience whatsoever and actually do things that 96 out of 100 of us would never even consider.
For example, drowning a pet dog in the bathtub, because it's easier to dispose of it in the dumpster rather than take to the pound.
To a sociopath, this is an easy and obvious solution to the problem of an unwanted pet dog.2. "I ... would love as a player to be in a game where death matters"
The warning sign of the person possibly being a sociopath has nothing to do with gaming. The OP's quote boiled down to this:
"The golden rule doesn't apply to me."
It's not that they are saying "I'd like to do X in a game", it's the complete lack of empathy:
The players may not enjoy it, but I would, so I don't care.
The OP's friend could have said:
"I don't think it's everybody's cup of tea, but I bet there are some people who would like to play that." or
"You're right, I wouldn't enjoy that, so I better not run a game with that rule."
or any number of other responses.No, this person responded with:
I do things to people that they don't like, and you seem to think I shouldn't. That doesn't apply to me.
It is disturbing because this is a sociopathic response to the question the OP asked.
Miss Stout, the Author of Sociopath next Door presents numbers 10 to 12 times higher then most social statistics. The book contains a lot of stuff to think about, but it is not the only and probably not the "one true" book on sociopathy out there.
Telling someone, he should treat another as a sociopath, based on a single quote you didn't even witness yourself is, imo, unacceptable. Not every case of missing compassion is a case of dissocial behaviour, not every case of rude behavior is a treatable psychological disorder.
Dismissing somone you don't know on a professional or personal level as as sociopath (or psychopath or asperger, those three sseem to be most common on messageboard diagnostics) and even advising other to do the same is a very ugly thing to do.
I'd rather continue the discussion without resorting to something like this.
Since 1981, I have been the DM/GM with only a few short, small half-campaigns to enjoy myself as a player. For a good chunk of that time, I gamed with somebody who liked to posit out loud at the table, that the DM was essentially a slave to the players, and that his fun was less than secondary; that, in fact, the DM was not entitled to enjoy himself at all.
That player, over time, made my job as DM pretty hellish. More and more, he put this theory into practice, until ultimately everybody agreed it was time he move on.
Ultimately? The first time someone mentions that I'm his slave is the last time he is in my game. Unless I'm absolutely sure he's joking, he'll be thrown out immediately.
Regarding psychopaths: It's the lack of empathy that is the central issue for how these people function. Psychopaths, or people with antisocial personality disorder as is its medical name, do have such a lack. But while they are the most well-known, it's only part of the picture.
Personality disorders come in many different forms, and there are three more in cluster B: narcissistic, histrionic and borderline personality disorders. All these are defined in some way through their lack of empathy. Narcissistic people have a generally weak self-image, and express this as an insistence that they are Special, and deserve better than all around them. They are best known for reacting very badly to the slightest form of criticism, the narcissistic rage. Histrionic people only truly feel alive when at the center of attention. They have short relationships, because they quickly get bored and need new attention. Finally, borderlines tend toward self-destructive behaviour and are commonly seen as manipulative since they divide the world into good and bad people.
Note also that there are also various neuropsychiatric disorders, such as Asperger's syndrome, that cause a lack of functioning empathy.
Finally, empathy is not an all-or-nothing concept, nor is any of the personality disorders. Everyone has more or less on the scale, and those who approach the extreme points of humanity for a certain variable are said to have a personality disorder, or a significant lack of empathy. The effects of a person's lack of empathy are defined generally by their general functioning. Someone who is smart enough, have a relatively mild lack of empathy, and who has been firmly taught to act well to others might not behave in a destructive way at all.
All of this is diagnostics done through rather complex processes, and not something you claim about people lightly.
Histrionic people only truly feel alive when at the center of attention. They have short relationships, because they quickly get bored and need new attention.
I knew someone like that. I think her average relationship time was one week. And she had mental problems of one sort or the other. I think she was diagnosed with borderline or bipolar.
She was weird. I remember one talk with her which I was only told about. I think the topics of the talk were, in that order: Sex, her father, sex again, how her life sucks, more sex, dead pets and sex. I might have forgotten a few weird topics, and several iterations of sex.
We also went for a walk the day I met her and she just told me a few of the things that happened to her. They involved her being raped at the age of 13, getting pregnant from that, struggling with the decision whether to keep or abort the child, deciding to keep the child, and having a stillbirth.
Being told stuff like that by others isn't an everyday occurance. (If I had ever been raped, I probably wouldn't tell anyone except some shrinks and close family members. But I can't really judge that). Being told by someone who's basically a stranger, in the first actual conversation you have, now that's really weird. Throws you way off balance.
But then, people tried to guess my job and said "priest", so maybe I instil a sense of trustworthiness in people. If so, that really does not bode well for mankind ;-P