I would talk to this guy alone and explain your issue. If he doesnt see that he's being a dick just for the sake of being one then I would quit playing with him. It doesnt sound like fun at all and any GM that has the 'I can just kill off any one you PC's that I dont like' no matter how you build your PC will never be fun to play with unless youre willing to make and play characters that he likes. Your reasons are your own but I dont see any reason why you 'have' to play with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intellectually lazy. It is not just a d1ck move, it is laziness. So you can trip deities. BFD. Plan around it, learn the game. Simply killing a PC because it is min/maxed is just bad form. The issue is that many old school gamers hold two things holy: the immutable prophecy of dice and the autocratic authority of the GM.
The game is for all the players, not just the GM. Player's styles can make a group untenable. Discuss (with a mind to his POV) each of your gaming philosophies. Not gaming •is• an option. Or, you can do something drastic: ask the GM to kill five of your PCs in rapid succession in the funniest most dramatic way. You will either quit, or you will not worry so much about making a superior character. You win either case :)
GNOME
he calls me a minmaxer, and says "i would kill that character"
This shows a fundamental lack of intelligence. Most tripmeisters use attacks of opportunity, so a monk or rogue can close with them easily, skills scaling up faster than CMB. Then you have a reach weapon, with a foe on your toes with an awesome CMD, trying to kill you. At this point you have to drop the reach weapon and go for something else.
I would just GM yourself, run a full-length 6-month campaign and if he has a fit about it, let him walk. He'll be back soon enough when he has no-one else to play with.
i dont want to say why, but i cant quit the game. and talking to him usually results in him talking over you, digressing the conversation, or a pissing contest.
but i guess talking to him is the best, most mature, option available...
Then don't quit the game. Run it, as I said above. What does it matter if he walks? You are better off with him absent.
|
I see this as a player issue and not a GM issue.I find this statement ironic, seeing that the issues are still there even when the 2 guys swap their roles.
And the situation described makes it his issue not the GM's.If he left the game there would be no issue. It might be the GM's issue if the entire group has a issue with him but it has not been said if it is just a issue with him and the Gm or the other players as well.
IMO its the players job to find a GM that they can work with, if they have issues they need to adapt or find a new game.
I see three separate issues here:
1. GM insists on GMing, will not be a player
While on one hand, it's nice to have someone who's always willing to GM (it's usually much easier to find players than GMs), it sounds like other people want to GM.
The group should sit down and talk about it together, with the other people wanting to GM identifying themselves. With a civil tone and friendly intent, explain that if a number of people want to GM, it is not fair to anyone to let one member of the group monopolize that spot. It should be easy to come up with a GM rotation -- agree to a campaign that is roughly X number of sessions long, and then a new GM will take over. Once everyone agrees to the ground rules, they do not change.
I would plan this meeting with your fellow players (I am assuming they generally feel the same way, and if they do not this may require more political juggling) before bringing it to GM-guy so that you have prepared to deal with the situation together as a group. But at the same time, do your best not to appear as to ganging up on him--keep it assertive, but not aggressive (i.e., be clear about how you feel, but no name calling or belligerent behavior). Plan ahead of time with the rest of the group what you think you should do if GM-guy utterly refuses to go along with this.
If GM-guy does refuse to go along... I get the gist from your post that your leaving or his leaving is not an easy option for personal reasons, but if generally speaking, GM-guy is ruining everyone's fun and is refusing to cooperate, then he is not mature enough to be part of a cooperative group and needs to go---or at least needs a good long break.
2. GM-guy keeps switching systems
In my groups, a willing GM certainly says what system they want to run, but the group also agrees to it. If the players aren't interested, the proposed system isn't run, or if it's only one player or two that don't want to play that system but others are enthusiastic, they just bow out of the campaign and go do something else (of their own free will, with no harm done or hard feelings).
This isn't a big deal--we all want to have fun, and if something doesn't look fun (OR would cost a lot of money...) then we avoid the thing that isn't fun.
GM-guy seems to have a short attention span and may be distracted by shiny new system he discovered. Kindly, gently rein him in and remind him you're not done with the current campaign.
This is also fuel for the fire for your discussion about cycling GMs. You have a bargaining chip -- "look, you're never interested in running the same system for more than 5 sessions or so. Let us cycle in GMing between your turn to GM, and we'll try the new system you want to try when it comes back to you."
3. A big ol' conflict of playstyles, philosophy about the role of GM, and battle of egos on top of that
The OP's account here that GM-guy is a bit insecure. His insistence on being GM shows he wants an unfair degree of control, and that his philosophy on GMing is that "GMs can get to win" suggests he wants to be GM to go on a power trip, even if he doesn't pull the dick moves he threatens a GM can pull off. That he is inconsistent in what he wants to run suggests his confidence in actually running is not that high--he moves the goalposts so he can feel like he has the most system mastery once a player with more system mastery shows him up in the current system. He's also got some generally differing views about how you build a character that aren't wrong, but conflict with the OPs view.
The OP is proud of his ability to build a strong character, and the GM builds his arguments about breaking the OP's pride down.
OP, what you need to do, first, is DISENGAGE. The argument is not about you. GM-guy is trying to prove his argument is more awesome than yours, and he'd do the same thing to his potted plant if his potted plant was a gamer.
Don't let him get up your nose about the fact he thinks he can beat your tripper fighter. Whether he can or not--if you're proud of your character, let that be enough. Let it be sufficient. If you're secure in your own abilities and enjoy your playing, it will be.
When he starts making his claims, say, "Obviously from our past discussions, we see things very differently. I'm agreeing to disagree, and I don't want to discuss it any more."
If he pushes, ignore him. Start a conversation with another player, get up to get snacks, start reading your gaming books. Once he sees he is not going to get satisfaction from riling you up or proving he's right, he'll back off.
If there's a deeper issue of conflict of play styles that prevent either of you from having fun, again, it may be ultimately better for each of you to find gaming groups that suit your own play styles better--or either of you aren't going to have any fun, and fun is what gaming is about. Again, I get that this is not an easy option. I don't know the complex inner workings of the group. But you need to think in the long term about what's best for you--and him--and whether it's worth strife in the short run to find a better situation for yourself in the long run.
Good luck.
I know you said that you can't quit but the only thing i can say is RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.
You and your GM have mutually incompatible playing styles. You're playing a wargame, he's playing a role playing game. You're seeing a contest, he's seeing a shared experience. I personally go down your GMs line but some people very dear to me prefer the contest/wargame so I adapt to that as a GM and my players adapt to me. When one of my players realises that their optimisation is beginning to p*ss me off they pull back a little bit. I regard optimisation as a zero sum game because in order to keep the game fun the opposition has to be challenging. If a PC is optimised (in your case to control the battlefield) the GM has to optimise and it gets boring fighting purple worms all the time. But if anything with legs falls over and gets killed who's having fun? My current challenge is to balance encounters where the tank optimised fighter has an AC seven points better than the next fighter and fifteen points better than the druid. Anything that can realistically hit him will never miss anyone else in the party. This means a lot of touch attacks, area effect damage, grenades.... That's me adapting to him. His recognition of his impact on play balance is that he's swapped combat expertise out for dodge reducing his AC by 2.
If you can't adapt to a story teller, and your GM can't tell a story with an optimised character in it then you can't play together. Don't get to upset about this - it happens. Neither of you is at fault, although I'd personally be far more critical of your style of play than of his that's my own irrational prejudices. Effectively you're playing different games - like the Welsh rugby team playing the Redskins. Both rugby and American football are great games, but you can't put them together on the same patch of turf.
|
Anytime you're referring to one of your fellow gamers as a "retard," even out of frustration, there's something toxic in the group. I like the gamers at my table and would never imagine we'd still try to play together if we're feeling that hostile to one another.
I wouldn't game at the table until the matter is resolved between you as to what each of you wants to get out of a gaming experience. As a DM, I can get annoyed at one-trick pony characters that are optimized to a sometimes ridiculous (but effective concept), but I don't punish my players for it. Rather, I look to see if the rest of the group is still having fun. If they are, then I've done my job.
It sounds to me he is trying to write a book, not role play (= the story is in his mind very clearly & all the player actions just disturb it). But since it also seems to be hard to convince him to change his style, I would:
Ask him to make me a pre made character. Then try to discuss (and write down) the character personality & a bit of history (if not already done).
Please, Karkon. Not "ruin every game they play" but "spoil the game for those that don't share their style".
Sounds to me like you're both crazy. You need to grow a thicker skin and your GM needs to tone down his ego. In the pseudo-conversation you quoted, you guys are clearly talking past each other from the very beginning, not even really on the same subject. Somehow, it ended up in a pissing contest.
Listen to DeathQuaker, he knows what he's talking about.
The small group that i've gamed with for years has learned one very important lesson:
Do not let any one person take the gaming group hostage.
Get a new group. No, I'm dead serious, don't just dismiss this advice out of hand.
Get. A. New. Group.
As I've gotten older, I have come to realize that A.) it is vitally important to have mutual respect among everyone at the table, B.) everyone has to able to mesh they're play-styles with everyone else, and C.) continuity is everything.
It's nothing short of awesome to play with adults who want the same things that I do. We complete campaigns and we do some roleplaying and some rollplaying as well. The DM has the final say on things, but that's only after table discussion.
/ life is to short to play with dicks. Don't do that.
"the retard called him self a dick without realizing it"
I thought the same thing...for different reasons.
A bunch of insight
The common sense is strong with this one.
I removed the original post for offensive language.
Listen to DeathQuaker, he knows what he's talking about.
Thank you kindly (to Kryzbyn and zrandrews too). :)
Aside, for the record: "she."
I see this as a player issue and not a GM issue.I find this statement ironic, seeing that the issues are still there even when the 2 guys swap their roles.And the situation described makes it his issue not the GM's.If he left the game there would be no issue. It might be the GM's issue if the entire group has a issue with him but it has not been said if it is just a issue with him and the Gm or the other players as well.
IMO its the players job to find a GM that they can work with, if they have issues they need to adapt or find a new game.
Normally the phrase refers to the person that is causing the problem, not the victim of the problem. You are free to use it however you want, but using a phrase in an atypical manner only causes confusion.
Listen to DeathQuaker, he knows what he's talking about.
I totally agree. DeathQuaker is one of the great people online who know exactly what they're talking about :)
Normally the phrase refers to the person that is causing the problem, not the victim of the problem. You are free to use it however you want, but using a phrase in an atypical manner only causes confusion.I see this as a player issue and not a GM issue.I find this statement ironic, seeing that the issues are still there even when the 2 guys swap their roles.And the situation described makes it his issue not the GM's.If he left the game there would be no issue. It might be the GM's issue if the entire group has a issue with him but it has not been said if it is just a issue with him and the Gm or the other players as well.
IMO its the players job to find a GM that they can work with, if they have issues they need to adapt or find a new game.
Plus depending where oyu live there may not be that many people close to you. Personally, the cloest guy who DMs is the only one who DMs, yet he gets so many rules wrong and he hates high level characters which pisses me off what he makes up some BS what my powers don't work for whatever reason.
I've found there's no one else within range who is playing pathfinder close to where I life, nor any other system I have a interest in.