Because he describes the player as whiney, the decision as stupid and the players character as broken. its pretty clear he has already made up his mind and wants validation.So you think that because he is upset with the way the player is dealing with the situation he came here and lied about the situation to get his ego stroked? I don't understand why there are so many people so put off by what this GM has said that they automatically assume that he is in the wrong and lied about the situation just to feel validated. I have been a similar situation before where somebody pissed me off horribly and I thought I was totally right about how I acted but was legitimately confused as to why this other person acted the way he did so I asked someone else to weigh in fully expecting them to say "yeah he's a dick, here's what you should do" only to have them turn around and say "actually you were being a pretty big douche there". I don't know, maybe because I can empathize with the OP I am more inclined to beleive he is telling the truth instead of outright assuming he is lying to my face like so many people seem to think he is.I don't think he is outright lying. I think he is coloring the truth with his own bias. If his account is fully accurate, then it would be obvious to the rest of the party and the GM that this player is wrong. Most likely, the player would have a very different account of events.
On the contrary, I think people are far too trusting of the OP most of the time. Just because this guy is the one posting the thread on the forums, doesn't mean he is the one in the right.
See, I get the impression that in a lot of threads dealing with GM/PC interactions people feel the need to vilify either the OP or the target of the OP's frustration, and it spirals out of control with opposing views in favor or in opposition to the OP. Too often I see people take the attitude of "guilty until proven innocent, and even then I am not too sure", in addition to reading into the OP's statements far more than what is justified and adding their own twist to it. Often it seems like who gets favored is more a factor of a poster's personal experience than the facts being presented by the OP. Heck, there have been more than a few times I have seen someone's comment and had to double check that we were reading the same thread because the conclusions they came to regarding the OP were so radically different than mine.
I like to believe that when someone posts on the forum, they are being on the level. I agree that their account may not be 100% accurate and will be shaped by any bias they have, such is the way people work, but they are not coming here just looking for people to stroke their ego, or to get other people to bash their player/GM with them. Rather, they are coming here for constructive feedback. This may be naive, but I like to believe in the general goodness of people, even on the internet.
To that end, the more we read into the situation, the less constructive the feedback is. Saying the OP is a horrible GM who is completely wrong will not help. The facts we have are: There was a questionable ruling, that in the end most people seem to agree was correct mechanically barring personal judgement regarding how Aqueous Orb would work (thus entering house-rule territory). The player's conduct grates on the the GM's nerves, both in this situation and during character creation. Any feedback we give saying "you are clearly targeting this PC looking for a chance to kill him" is silly, as we only have two datapoints. One where the player annoyed him and he relented during creation, and one where the player annoyed him and caused him to come here for verification of some rule questions to make sure he is being fair in his ruling. On the same token, saying "the player deserved it because he was being annoying" is not constructive feedback. We don't know if the player is always annoying, or is just reacting poorly to character death. We don't know if the player is truly annoying, or the OP just has thin skin. What matters is that the ruling happened and the GM feels that the player is being whiny. We can give advice on the ruling, we can ask what the player is doing to be annoying and suggest ways for the GM to deal with it, but we should avoid making sweeping declarations when the information we have can't fully support those claims.
lol this has spiraled out of control..... I think every body is vilifying somebody Master trip is a fair Dm.
has a player you should always feel free to bring any grievence to the Dm but once he rules on it you should not push the issue it breaks the balance and relationship. in my opinion form the emails I have seen after the fact and knowing the Master trip i would say the PC is being inappropriate and needs to either leave the group or man up and take the ruling like a boss. I have had the pleasure has a Dm of having one players Bully me and yell at me and plain out right make my experience has a DM miserable. it is no fun at all.
yes I think the Dms job is tp provide a challenge and try to killl the party The est feedback I ever got has a Dm was when I sent my party agianst a crazy aisian vampire that nearly killed them they all came up to me after the game and were quite pelased they had barely survived.
but in this instance the player brought it upon himself. he jumped out a frickign window! 300 feet while grapplign with a corpse who was trying to kill him what part of that doesnt scream this will end badly? even if Master trip has a bias he is still not lettign it get in his ways he would of allowed the guy to escape the grapple if he had rolled correctly he says he did. the math says he didn't. it is the DMs job to be the arbitrator unless we need a 3rd position "dice lawyer". so I dont understand how you think he was being vindicive or arbitrary at all? please giv eme one example did the DM raise the DC at the last minute did he use DM magic to have ben franklin appear and hit the player? not to my knowledge.
and after the fact the player still refuses to accept the descision and has managed to piss off and insult the whole table so he is not allowed at teh game any ways because the guiy who runs the game has univited him so I think the Dm is justified and calling this guy a "oppresed" is hilarious to me.
any way I have said my peace and have defended my BFF Master trip like a true gentlemen. my duty is done.
|
I think if whining leads to getting what you want, you get more whining.And whining makes the game less fun for the rest of the table. Including the GM.
So if you have a player can't play without whining, rather than reward a behavior that makes the game less fun for you and the rest of the table, let them go and find someone who can.
I think my biggest issue, is the definition of 'whining'.
The OP stated the player emailed him numerous times and a pain in the butt....
What context does this have? We don't really get the 'CONTENT' of these emails to determine if he's actaully WHINING or not.
The GM described him this way, and apparently he said the GM was being unfair when all of the mistakes were made by the player.
That is the information at hand.
As I said before, if I formulated a plan this stupid, I wouldn't have the gall to call anyone unfair if I died.
The OP explicitly states that the GM considers his call unfair and that he would change it except he dislikes the player personally.
That is also the information at hand.
@Lobolusk: Vilifying schmilifying.
I don't decide if I think he's a fair dm just because you say he is. I look at the tone of his posts and his word usage. Then I look at yours. And I come to the same conclusions.
If you want me to believe you're a 'more than fair gm' you dont need to tell me. You need to show me. Oh. He let the player make a character that he thought was overpowered and thats it? Well why don't we just put the old 'forever known as a fair gm' stamp on his forehead? Sounds good to me.
he is not allowed at teh game any ways because the guiy who runs the game has univited him
This is the punchline I was waiting for.
If you ask me the gm telling this player 'this is not the table for you' is doing him a huge favor. Your tone is such that I wouldnt be at all surprised if this 'novice gm' came to work and asked you how you'd handle this 'powergaming whiner' and you advised him 'let him make the character then kill it off'...
In its purest sense the OP's original intent was to decide if all the rules were being followed and all the variables were being accounted for, and the resolution to those discussions is 'no, the player messed up some numbers and the gm messed up some numbers'.
Now there's a chance to 'show' you're a more than fair gm, and the only 2 people we've heard from who are close to the situation are him and you, and both of you seem to be 'kill the whining powergamer' types. Its not a bad thing to be. Perfectly legitimate. But you don't get to say you're a "more than fair gm" for being that way.
As I said before, if I formulated a plan this stupid, I wouldn't have the gall to call anyone unfair if I died.
Ohhh it was a bad plan alright!
However one person's stupid plan... is another persons Awesome Cinematic 'hero' moment.
Fantasy media is FULL of stuff that absolutetly should NEVER work... but is memorable for decades.
Just because a plan has a 98% chance of certain death... doesn't meant that it doesn't ALSO have a 2% chance of being AWESOME ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP explicitly states that the GM considers his call unfair and that he would change it except he dislikes the player personally.
That is also the information at hand.
You're going to have to cite that one because I can't find it. The OP is the GM and doesn't seem to think his call was unfair. Although I suppose I could say that since he admits he didn't factor in the additional entangle because of the aqueous orb he's unfair in the PC's favor...
You're going to have to cite that one because I can't find it.
I would normally make a more than fair call if he wasn't such a whiner and calling me unfair.
And in another post he also said the PC would have been allowed to survive except he doesn't like the PC's class/race combination.
There's some nice Catch-22 at work here, too. "Yeah, my call is unfair, but if you tell me it's unfair, I will refuse to fix it." (But if you don't tell me it's unfair, I won't address it at all so it will remain unfixed anyhow.)
If not the fact that she decided to tackle the character the gm wants to kill the most to the exclusion of pursuing the object of wrath that created her revenant status in the first place might be 'not so unbiased' as well, and frequently gms kinda skip such nuances in favor of 'initiative rolls! lets get it on!' particularly when they're trying to find ways to kill off a party member they dont want to have in their game...
It doesnt necessarily have to be a malicious mistake not to let the pcs in on the fact that the revenant actually doesnt give 2 shakes about the party as long as they stay out of the way... Its easily arguable that a 'novice gm' might not understand that being 'more than fair' might entail giving such sense motive/knowledge checks to the party... Having not allowed said checks might be seen as railroading/bias and lend some weight to the idea that lynching the character you hate most into a save or die scenario this early on is maybe not 'more than fair'.
I wonder how a 'more than fair gm' would handle a retcon of this, having discovered they might not have handled 'that' part of the encounter correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's some nice Catch-22 at work here, too. "Yeah, my call is unfair, but if you tell me it's unfair, I will refuse to fix it." (But if you don't tell me it's unfair, I won't address it at all so it will remain unfixed anyhow.)
I love you pointing this out because it reminds me of one of Eddie Izzards best bits...
.Church of England! Cake or death!
Uh... I'll have the cake!
Sorry. we're all out of cake. We only had 3 pieces and we didnt expect such a rush!
So my choices are 'or death?'
|
|
The OP explicitly states that the GM considers his call unfair and that he would change it except he dislikes the player personally.
That is also the information at hand.
"He is being a pain in the butt and I would normally make a more than fair call if he wasn't such a whiner and calling me unfair."
In other words, fair would be to let him die for being dumb, if he weren't a pain in the butt I might consider being MORE than fair.
But he is a pain in he butt.
Selective reading from the player entitlement society. I'm shocked...
Let me say this one more time. He told the Wizard to knock him out of a window overlooking a 300 foot drop off, while grappled by something he had failed to escape the grapple of multiple times.
And he thinks it is unfair that he died.
Seriously? Seriously?
It there any scenario where players die in some peoples game, or are the dice just for show and nothing bad ever happens?
|
|
As I said before, if I formulated a plan this stupid, I wouldn't have the gall to call anyone unfair if I died.Ohhh it was a bad plan alright!
However one person's stupid plan... is another persons Awesome Cinematic 'hero' moment.
Fantasy media is FULL of stuff that absolutetly should NEVER work... but is memorable for decades.
Just because a plan has a 98% chance of certain death... doesn't meant that it doesn't ALSO have a 2% chance of being AWESOME ;)
Yes, but when the 98% happens, don't throw hissy fits about fairness.
|
|
You are now my favorite person in here for knowing that.There's some nice Catch-22 at work here, too. "Yeah, my call is unfair, but if you tell me it's unfair, I will refuse to fix it." (But if you don't tell me it's unfair, I won't address it at all so it will remain unfixed anyhow.)I love you pointing this out because it reminds me of one of Eddie Izzards best bits...
.Church of England! Cake or death!
Uh... I'll have the cake!
Sorry. we're all out of cake. We only had 3 pieces and we didnt expect such a rush!
So my choices are 'or death?'
He's covered in bees.
There Bill right out of the OP.He is being a pain in the butt and I would normally make a more than fair call if he wasn't such a whiner and calling me unfair.
ciretose has it right. "More than fair" would pretty much be giving more than is fair on the PC's behalf. And that's not really fair. Fair means you get the ruling you deserve even if it's negative and the PC seems to have gotten just that assuming the OP isn't blatantly misrepresenting himself. And I have no reason to believe he is doing so.
No I definitely don't expect this gm to bend over backwards. Quite the contrary in fact.
I'd like this gm who says in his own words that he'd let "anyone else at the table survive except this guy" to use that fairness even on 'this guy'
And I'd like that anyone who reads those kind of comments to think this is a clear admission of bias.
And i'm sure the player that got kicked out of the campaign would like for the people he's gaming with not to personally single him out for a mudhole stompin...
I just dont think any of that happened here. I think this is an awesome example of how you chase a gamer from the game and in support of my hobby and the industry of my hobby I say thats wrongba.... I say thats just fine for a table of this calib... I say thats just a sad sad thing.
I'm sure everyone at the table is thankful this whining powergamer is no longer crowding their gamespace. They're all heroes and i'm proud to count myself among such generous, understanding, mature, fun oriented, individuals.
If everyone at the table had fun watching the whiney powergamer get shot out of a window to his death and upon having any other opinion than 'thank you that was fun' get kicked from the table... Well we're all good then aren't we?
"He is being a pain in the butt and I would normally make a more than fair call if he wasn't such a whiner and calling me unfair."
In other words, fair would be to let him die for being dumb, if he weren't a pain in the butt I might consider being MORE than fair.
But he is a pain in he butt.
Selective reading from the player entitlement society. I'm shocked...
Let me say this one more time. He told the Wizard to knock him out of a window overlooking a 300 foot drop off, while grappled by something he had failed to escape the grapple of multiple times.
And he thinks it is unfair that he died.
Seriously? Seriously?
It there any scenario where players die in some peoples game, or are the dice just for show and nothing bad ever happens?
I agree with ciretose. The player should suck it up, stop whining and reroll a new character.
|
|
ciretose has it right. "More than fair" would pretty much be giving more than is fair on the PC's behalf. And that's not really fair. Fair means you get the ruling you deserve even if it's negative and the PC seems to have gotten just that assuming the OP isn't blatantly misrepresenting himself. And I have no reason to believe he is doing so.There Bill right out of the OP.He is being a pain in the butt and I would normally make a more than fair call if he wasn't such a whiner and calling me unfair.
Sorry Bill but you're wrong there are two fair's here the first idea of "fairness" is that of following the rules which I've shown definitively that he violated by not allowing fly checks when they are allowed.
And then we have "fair" treatment of a group of people namely treating everyone in the group with the same set of standards. And he is not doing that at all.
He was grappled and uses wings.
And under Avoid Falling Damage: "You cannot make this check if you are falling due to a failed Fly check or a collision."
Like, you know, being hit with and orb and thrown out a window.
Hence, it would be more than fair to say that it didn't apply, just as it would be more than reasonable to prefer to play with people who were less than unreasonable...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All nuances about bias aside, lets look at the situation purely from an event during a game.
During a game, the DM had a situation arise and allowed the player multiple opportunities to resolve it. The player failed, not because the DM fudged things to make it impossible, but because the player didn't play their own character properly.
Additionally, having failed twice to escape, the player calls on a plan that effectively pins him and throws him out a window into a 100 metre drop. This isn't playing his character wrong, it's pretty much just very bad tactics.
All of this happened based on the players end, and had nothing to do with the DM.
The DM doesn't get to go back after a fight where he bbeg is killed and say " oh wait, i forgot to use those feats in conjunction with such and such power, I'm ret conning the fight and the guy is still alive, we're starting from round 2 again." Certainly not after the game is over. This is despite the fact he DM has to run multiple characters with often complex stat blocks and an ever increasing load of splat books.
The player only has to run his 1 character. If he can't get that right in the game, and doesn't catch the mistake early enough, then he wears the consequence, just like everyone else does.
Also, for those arguing breaking surface tension will save you, it has nothing to with surface tension at that height. It's all about the speed at which your buoyant displacement of water stops your deceleration. The force of rapid deceleration causes the internal organs to compress and rupture through momentum. The brain in particular suffers as it floats so freely in the cranium, so even mild levels of momentum changes can cause compression of it. As the saying goes, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
If you don't want to read up on the physics of all that, myth busters did an episode on it once I think.
Cheers.
|
|
No I definitely don't expect this gm to bend over backwards. Quite the contrary in fact.
I'd like this gm who says in his own words that he'd let "anyone else at the table survive except this guy" to use that fairness even on 'this guy'
And I'd like that anyone who reads those kind of comments to think this is a clear admission of bias.
Not making special accommodations for someone being unreasonable isn't showing bias. It's being reasonable.
What the GM is saying (as backed up by people who know him...) is that he is a reasonable guy who generally is more than fair to his players, but this guy is being unreasonable.
And frankly, rude.
Why should anyone want to be "more than fair" to anyone who is being less than reasonable? Why shouldn't you be more accommodating to a player who is being more reasonable and making the game more fun for the entire table, including the GM, who by the way is also there to have fun, not to be called "unfair" by problem players.
Key line
"Any other member would have accepted an epic hero dieing in an epic way and I wouldn't have to make this decision because they would just reroll."
This guy is the problem at the table. Everyone else is reasonable and conforms to table norms.
This guy is being "that guy"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how your argument against a person wanting to be more than fair to someone who is being unreasonable is
Why should he...
Other than the fact that he's a gm and maybe as a result of being a gamer he might find the tenet of making the experience a positive one for even the folks who dont just step in line like good little soldiers a refreshing fringe goal for his own personal growth as a gm.
I'm probably wrong though. Probably the statement 'i'd do it for anyone but this guy' doesnt mean anything at all. I'm sure his real intent was to find any possible answer besides 'thank god he's out of my hair'. We simply dont have the wisdom or experience to solve these kinds of issues without killing off annoying party members and tellling them to pack their bags... Maybe some day...
I'm probably just jealous that I don't get to sit at this table because it sounds awesome. I'm not sure why paizo has to publish a whole book called ultimate campaigns... All they really have to do is publish this thread, because if you want the ultimate campaign, well... This is it right here. This is how you do it.
I'd say right to say no to bad DMing and knuckling under when accused of not being fair when, as far as we can, he is being fair - that would be bad DMing.
It is fair, if he would treat the player like he would with any other of the players.
It is not, if he is treating the player differently because he doesn`t like him by some reason (including, but not limited to, the fact he is upset because being called unfair).Remember, we don't have the full record of the game. We don't know how many times they have argued before, by which reasons, and who was right then. The comment about "being told not to build a synthesist aasimar" sounds like they already had some kind of grudge about the character. We don't know what, how, or when that arised.
What we do know is that, from the player perspective, the DM is being unfair with him. We don't know why. Maybe he is wrong, maybe he is just a whiner, or maybe he is sick that his aasimar sythesist get much more attention from enemies than other PC in the party just because the DM doesn't like his PC. Maybe he is upset because the revenant grappled him when there were other PC closer that would make for a more obvious target, but the DM decided he should "punish just a little bit" to that "whinny player that build OP characters".
For whatever reasons, the player is feeling he is being mistreated. EVEN IF HE IS WRONG, (which we can't know), being argumentative and confronting him is NOT going to make him happier, so it won't help the advancement of the game.
If I were the DM, I would try to be honest to myself. Do I dislike to retcon? Or do I dislike to retcon *to this particular player*? Do I mistreat his sythesist aasimar because I feel it is too powerful? Then I'd try to be as fair as humanly possible, treating the player just like I'd do with the other PC who is a lovely gnome bard played by my girlfriend.
As somebody already said, either you are fair, or you are not. You can't say you are fair to everybody execept the ones who claim you are unfair, and pretend you are still fair. Give the player the same treatment you would give to any other. If you would retcon for someother player, retcon it. If you wouldn't retcon for anyone, don't retcon for this one either.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
More than fair. You keep missing that "more" part.
Fair would be to say "We've left the table, the dice gods ruled in, it is over. Sorry."
More than fair is, by definition MORE than fair.
There is a reciprocal relationship in MORE than fair. Fair is what you must be. More than fair is what you could be if you bent the rules in the players favor.
If you are more than fair with me, I will be more likely to be more than fair with you. If you are less than fair with more, all you are getting out of me is fair.
Giving more than fair to someone being less than reasonable means that person will continuing being less than reasonable going forward, because he knows he will be rewarded for it.
Meanwhile, every other player at the table who was being reasonable will get only "fair" in return, because they aren't whining and complaining.
You can't say you are fair to everybody execept the ones who claim you are unfair, and pretend you are still fair.
Thank you sir... As a matter of fact in the spirit of such hypocrisy I will indeed defend my own position..
I mean you know. I'm a fair guy. I'd even go so far as to say i'm more than fair. If it were any other gm at any other table i'd probably say 'yeah. killing his character and running him out of your game was the right thing to do...'
But not this guy. Not this time. Because his gm style kind of annoys me and I think a guy who flat out admits he isnt fair to everyone is probably needing a break from the gm chair. If it were like ciretose... We wouldnt be having this conversation. It'd totally be the right thing to do. But not for this guy. Why should I be more than fair to a guy who simpers about how to handle whiney players.
Sound fair?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He died the night of. It was over. Every other player would have let it go, he says.
Then this guy send emails saying the GM was unfair.
The GM wasn't unfair. The GM is saying if the guy wasn't being a jerk, he would be more likely to work with him on this.
But, the guy isn't being reasonable.
Everyone shouldn't be treated the same if they are unwilling to be held to the same level of accountability.
No one else at the table would ask for this. Just like no one else at the table would ask for the build he produced.
This guy isn't conforming to table norms.
In my game we have a guy who turns himself in constantly for mistakes. He has literally offered to ret-con death for his character when he messed something up.
When that guy comes to me with this kind of thing, I am going to be more than fair. He has earned more than fair.
When this guy comes to me, he only gets fair.
And fair is, he had a wizard fling him out a window while grappled off a 300 foot cliff and he died.
The End.
After reading Lobolusk post, I'm pretty sure right now that it doesn't really matter if the DM was being fair or unfair.
The table didn't like the guy, for whatever reasons. The table didn't like the character, for whatever reasons. The table goal was to punish the player for having "badwrongfun" and liking a different kind of character than the rest of the group.
So the DM got exactly what he wanted. I don't know why he posted it here. Did he needed some kind of reafirmation? He wanted to punish the "whinny player who build aasimar synthesists". He got him out of the game. Ergo he won the match and got what he wont. Why does he need to post it in the forums?
|
|
After reading Lobolusk post, I'm pretty sure right now that it doesn't really matter if the DM was being fair or unfair.
The table didn't like the guy, for whatever reasons. The table didn't like the character, for whatever reasons. The table goal was to punish the player for having "badwrongfun" and liking a different kind of character than the rest of the group.
So the DM got exactly what he wanted. I don't know why he posted it here. Did he needed some kind of reafirmation? He wanted to punish the "whinny player who build aasimar synthesists". He got him out of the game. Ergo he won the match and got what he wont. Why does he need to post it in the forums?
Is the player entitlement society going to make this guy into the Rosa Parks of the movement for going into a game with lots of content players and refusing to play in a way that made it fun for everyone at the table, rather than just for him.
Oh the oppression...
Yeah. At this point the issue is resolved and when ciretose asks the question
'Why should I [work with a whiny player]'
He's not looking for an answer... He's saying that you shouldnt.
He died the night of. It was over.
So, was it the final encounter of the night? Did they play on without him? Did they break up just after this, giving the player no chance to 'whine'?
Then this guy send emails saying the GM was unfair.
The GM wasn't unfair. The GM is saying if the guy wasn't being a jerk, he would be more likely to work with him on this.
Well, it's not like we are judges. But that's not true. We don't know that. We know that the DM feels the emails are unfair And we know that they already had issues with the player At the very least, because he built a synthesist summoner. We don't know what the emails say, or what the player is whinning for. Maybe this whole "falling from the cliff" is just the drop that made the glass full (I don't know if that has sense in english, it's a spanish saying). Maybe he feel mistreated long before that, and for different things. Maybe he was even right, you know.
You are taking the word of one of the sides as if it were gospel.
|
|
You can't say you are fair to everybody execept the ones who claim you are unfair, and pretend you are still fair.Thank you sir... As a matter of fact in the spirit of such hypocrisy I will indeed defend my own position..
I mean you know. I'm a fair guy. I'd even go so far as to say i'm more than fair. If it were any other gm at any other table i'd probably say 'yeah. killing his character and running him out of your game was the right thing to do...'
But not this guy. Not this time. Because his gm style kind of annoys me and I think a guy who flat out admits he isnt fair to everyone is probably needing a break from the gm chair. If it were like ciretose... We wouldnt be having this conversation. It'd totally be the right thing to do. But not for this guy. Why should I be more than fair to a guy who simpers about how to handle whiney players.
Sound fair?
I don't think you would be posting in this thread if the last paragraph were not true.
You are being only "fair" to his position because his position doesn't conform to your table norms. Were he arguing for a playstyle you advocated, you would be more than fair to his position.
There are 5 people at the table. 1 person is causing problems. Who should be accommodated?
There are 5 people at the table. 1 person is causing problems. Who should be accommodated?
Everyone. Its you know.. How we grow as gamers, and as people... Sometimes like having to fight a biased gm's revenant with a hail mary tactic that might get you killed is dangerous, but we do it because we have to... Not everything is easy...
Unless you're the kinda gm that throws players under the bus and then puts their mashed carcass on the bus and sends the bus away because that player 'annoys you' takes 'too much effort.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are 5 people at the table. 1 person is causing problems. Who should be accommodated?
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting the menu.
There are 5 people at the table. 1 person is causing problems. Who should be accommodated?Everyone
In the real world the GM cannot always be a carebear to all his players. It just doesn't work out that way. The whiny player should just role up another uber build of monstrosity and get back in the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then this guy send emails saying the GM was unfair.
The GM wasn't unfair. The GM is saying if the guy wasn't being a jerk, he would be more likely to work with him on this.
Well, it's not like we are judges. But that's not true. We don't know that. We know that the DM feels the emails are unfair And we know that they already had issues with the player At the very least, because he built a synthesist summoner. We don't know what the emails say, or what the player is whinning for. Maybe this whole "falling from the cliff" is just the drop that made the glass full (I don't know if that has sense in english, it's a spanish saying). Maybe he feel mistreated long before that, and for different things. Maybe he was even right, you know.
You are taking the word of one of the sides as if it were gospel.
"Drop that made the glass full" works, we would probably say something like "straw that broke the camels back". And that being the case only makes me more likely to go with the GM on this. This has been a problem player from the beginning, why would you reward a problem player for problem behaviors?
Unless the OP is flat out lying, the player said the GM was being unfair in the email and wanted accommodations that he isn't entitled to (3 rounds while falling, etc...)
The GM's response was I believe on page 2 of this thread, basically "I'm sorry it went down the way it did, but you died" and then posted questions on the messageboard to see if he messed up and should give in to a player who he thought was being a jerk.
He sought a 2nd opinion.
Turns out based on what he posted, the player correctly died.
There is no reason for the GM to break the rules and bring the player back. It wasn't a random death that wasn't the players fault (it was completely the players fault) the player isn't key to the plot, really nice and accommodating, etc...
He let the player build the summoner, he said he didn't like it but he went ahead and allowed it to be nice and it is allowed in the rules.
Now that kindness is being rewarded with more demands, this time accommodations outside the rules.
Because this guy fell off a 300 foot cliff, while grappled, after being hit with an orb.
At. His. Request.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are 5 people at the table. 1 person is causing problems. Who should be accommodated?Everyone. Its you know.. How we grow as gamers, and as people... Sometimes like having to fight a biased gm's revenant with a hail mary tactic that might get you killed is dangerous, but we do it because we have to... Not everything is easy...
Unless you're the kinda gm that throws players under the bus and then puts their mashed carcass on the bus and sends the bus away because that player 'annoys you' takes 'too much effort.'
We grow as gamers?
How about the guy who died "grows" as a gamer and realizes he did something dumb and he is irritating the rest of the table with his selfishness?
In the real world the GM cannot always be a carebear to all his players. It just doesn't work out that way.There are 5 people at the table. 1 person is causing problems. Who should be accommodated?Everyone
It is not about being carebear or killerDM. It's about being fair. If you are a DM who play tough challenges and is unforgiven to player mistakes, so be it. But you can't do that to everybody except to your girlfriend, and pretend to be fair.
In the same way, you can't be a carebear to everybody except the guy who vote a different political party, and pretend to be fair. And in the same way, you can't be a carebear to everybody except the guy whose playstile you don't like, and pretend you are fair.
You can treat everybody in a way, and your girlfriend in a different way if you want. Or the guy who owes you money. Just don't pretend you are fair.
In the real world the GM cannot always be a carebear to all his players.
And this is the crux of my argument. Based on the details and language used by the OP and the 'over the top whiny reaction of the player' that resulted in the gm eventually having to kick the player out of the game entirely, I do not feel like this has ever been a conversation about the gm having to be a carebear. It sounds like a lynching and the gm just got lucky that he managed to get the player into a save or die situation that the player was unable to fight his way out of.
For me its not about 'retconning death to be a peachfuzzy happytimes rainbow gm'
Its about not being the kind of gm that targets the players you dont like, especially under the auspices of being a fair guy. (ninja'd by Gustavo!)
It is absolutely and exclusively about the OP stating that he'd treat anyone else differently.