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.Dude...
So when someone at your table won't conform to table norms you change the game to fit them and tell everyone else to suck it?
No. I would see if we can accomodate the game so everybody is happy, and if we can't, I'd tell him to stop playing the game. Nothing wrong with that. It's just like if everybody want to play Pathfinder and he wants to play world of darkness, or a superhero game.
But I wont treat his character different than the rest of the players. Either I admit him in the game, or I don't. But I won't tell him he is in the game, and then treat him with different rules than my girlfriend, my brother, my old time friend, or the guy who owes me money.
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.Dude...
So when someone at your table won't conform to table norms you change the game to fit them and tell everyone else to suck it?
No, genius, actually at my table we dont do that 'gms word is law' bs...
The whole table decides what the right thing to do is so everyone is accountable for everyone's fun.
Its sort of how that 'friend' thing works
Which is a philosophy that would have worked great in this scenario since it sounds like the entire table was against him.
Which is why its a blessing that they sent him away.
I wonder how the other players at the table feel about this? All this talk of GM Vs Player, and little about the other players.
Were they upset that he died? Found it unfair?
A good example of this philosophy that worked in a 'wierd unconventional way'
Our healer is one of those guys who's in a bad situation in the real world so making it to game day each weak is tenuous at best. One weekend he cant make it, so we adventure on without him. A day of adventure without the healer is not an easy day. Next week he shows up and everyone leveled. Our gm's instinct is to not give him any xp because he didnt make it. 'Wouldnt be fair' to us as players to award xp to the guy who didnt show and doesnt really create an environment that 'motivates him to show up more regularly', which the whole table would argue would be a good thing.
1. He's our friend. Its not our job to 'motivate him though punishment' to show up more. His life is punishing him enough to where he can't show. He's being punished by not being able to share the gaming experience with us.
2. If he doesnt gain a level with the rest of us then our healer is always weak, and if the scenario continues it'll just be progressively worse. Now giving him free levels may not be fair to those of us who showed up, but we were already punished by having to survive adventures without him and now we're going to get punished again by having to travel with a healer who's not up to CR?
So with the only dissenting vote being the gm himself, we gave the healer a free level. It wont make him any better at getting to the game, but thats not our job. Our job is to make the time we do get as fun as possible even if it doesnt 'make sense'.
Our current gm learned to gm from a guy who was a diehard 'gms vs players' mentality.. That quote from earlier from Lobolusk that it's the 'gms job to kill the party' was the developmental thought process that he was trained for. And its a horrible mindset to have. He's spent months trying to 'unlearn' that horrible mindset, and here we are now once again with a 'new gm' being told by 2/3 of a forum that killing pcs you dont like and treating them differently than the players you do like is AOK buddy!
Now its not even that our gm is a bad guy. He's the best kinda guy. He's the kinda guy who when you call him up and say man I need help moving he says 'is now a good time? I'll be there in 20 minutes..." It's just that he was trained that killing players and gm godmode and fair is what I say fair is" is the right way to do things, and he's been having to unlearn it ever since.
I rally against it because the one thing I believe a new gm should not be learning is to treat players differently just because they dont get along as well as others, and if there were any worse punchline to that it would be 'the correct solution is to tell them gm's rule is law, stow it or get out'...
Its a travesty.
|
Dieing is a part of the game no matter how much you dislike it. He made the wrong calls and the dice weren't with him that night so he died, I don't know how else to state the obvious unfortunate event that can take place in a game. Maybe the player will he more careful with his next character.
Consider it lesson learned.
Maybe the player will he more careful with his next character.
Consider it lesson learned.
Like I say it's not about being protected from death. Thats not the issue.
But to your point it wont be a lesson learned. The player was kicked from the table. If he learned a lesson its that this gm shows favoritism and he should steer clear of that table.
Wouldnt surprise me at all if the player's reaction to having his character die was 'fine, i'll just erase the name off this character sheet and come back as the same thing next week with a new name' and then got banned from the table.
|
|
Maybe the player will he more careful with his next character.
Consider it lesson learned.Like I say it's not about being protected from death. Thats not the issue.
But to your point it wont be a lesson learned. The player was kicked from the table. If he learned a lesson its that this gm shows favoritism and he should steer clear of that table.
Wouldnt surprise me at all if the player's reaction to having his character die was 'fine, i'll just erase the name off this character sheet and come back as the same thing next week with a new name' and then got banned from the table.
Why was he kicked from the table? I must have missed that part.
Why was he kicked from the table? I must have missed that part.
I think I missed that part too. I thought he was invited to roll up a new character that the GM would somehow incorporate back into the campaign. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
he is not allowed at teh game any ways because the guiy who runs the game has univited him
Why was he kicked from the table? I must have missed that part.I think I missed that part too. I thought he was invited to roll up a new character that the GM would somehow incorporate back into the campaign. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
no the game is run at someone eases house not the DMs.he was so abusive in his emails to the whole party because of the situation he was uninvited BY THE GUY WHOS HOUSE THEY PLAY IN NOT THE DM.
but I guess now we can make an effigy of him and burn him because we hate him so much. I may kidnap his dog and force it to love me instead. because apparently I am a powergaming hating killer who will stop at nothing to trample on the rights of this poor misunderstood soul.
and dont even get me started on Master trip now we have to stop plans for our underground base and secret society.....so sad
well I guess he can just unfairly force the next player to make a bad decisions like wrestling a red dragon and when he dies ask for advise on how to handle it and then take that advise and laugh has the poor players PC gets destroyed.
Maybe the player will he more careful with his next character.
Consider it lesson learned.Like I say it's not about being protected from death. Thats not the issue.
But to your point it wont be a lesson learned. The player was kicked from the table. If he learned a lesson its that this gm shows favoritism and he should steer clear of that table.
Wouldnt surprise me at all if the player's reaction to having his character die was 'fine, i'll just erase the name off this character sheet and come back as the same thing next week with a new name' and then got banned from the table.
all jokes aside I don't understand where you are coming from or how you are seeing the situation? it like we are reading completely different posts.....it kind of freaking me out
Why was he kicked from the table? I must have missed that part.I think I missed that part too. I thought he was invited to roll up a new character that the GM would somehow incorporate back into the campaign. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No, he was uninvited to the game by the one who runs it (which is not the novice GM, it seems. I guess it means the owner of the house where they play, or maybe the owner of the books).
So, unless the player was *really* a *big* jerk, enough to start insulting everybody because of a character death (which might be, but we don't know), it seems it was some grudge that was longer and previous to this incident (which migt or might not be, we don't know either)
EDIT: ninjaed.
no the game is run at someone eases house not the DMs.he was so abusive in his emails to the whole party because of the situation he was uninvited BY THE GUY WHOS HOUSE THEY PLAY IN NOT THE DM.
Did any of you have any argument with him before that game? Like, for example, about the fact he was an aasimar synthesist? There was some kind of grudge?
Why was he kicked from the table? I must have missed that part.I think I missed that part too. I thought he was invited to roll up a new character that the GM would somehow incorporate back into the campaign. Please correct me if I'm wrong.no the game is run at someone eases house not the DMs.he was so abusive in his emails to the whole party because of the situation he was uninvited BY THE GUY WHOS HOUSE THEY PLAY IN NOT THE DM.
but I guess now we can make an effigy of him and burn him because we hate him so much. I may kidnap his dog and force it to love me instead. because apparently I am a powergaming hating killer who will stop at nothing to trample on the rights of this poor misunderstood soul.
and dont even get me started on Master trip now we have to stop plans for our underground base and secret society.....so sad
well I guess he can just unfairly force the next player to make a bad decisions like wrestling a red dragon and when he dies ask for advise on how to handle it and then take that advise and laugh has the poor players PC gets destroyed.
Just because you were there, don't think that you know better than the rest of us. 8P
I don't play in the game.
A couple things that cross my mind ... have your group been playing these characters for a long time? Is there some sort of expansive history with the characters? Or were they just rolled up as Epic characters a relatively short time ago? If there's a long history with the characters, I could see trying to help the fella out a bit and let a divine intervention happen, any chance any of your guys had hero points to use? If these are relatively newish characters and he just doesn't want to lose this 'awesome dude' of a character, I would probably be a bit more bullheaded about making him re-roll a new character. After all, you don't really sound like you were wanting to let that particular combo of character in the game to start with.
Lastly, while being as mature as possible, be a man! Stand behind your decisions! Explain to your players that they should strive for the same thing. Dieing isn't the end, it is simply the beginning of a new chapter.
Good Luck
Yes, I allowed a roll for a divine intervention from his god. It's not like I said their is no absolute way for you to live. I tried coming to an agreement with him but he simply wont meet me half way. Its his way or the highway and that crap wont fly just like he wont in the next game session. And no they have not been gaming for long, they were all barely lvl 6.
all jokes aside I don't understand where you are coming from or how you are seeing the situation? it like we are reading completely different posts.....it kind of freaking me outMaybe the player will he more careful with his next character.
Consider it lesson learned.Like I say it's not about being protected from death. Thats not the issue.
But to your point it wont be a lesson learned. The player was kicked from the table. If he learned a lesson its that this gm shows favoritism and he should steer clear of that table.
Wouldnt surprise me at all if the player's reaction to having his character die was 'fine, i'll just erase the name off this character sheet and come back as the same thing next week with a new name' and then got banned from the table.
No doubt. Its as if half the forum have spent the past 2 pages pretending I said you should always protect pcs from death... From my very first post and every post after it I havent said word one about bringing characters back from the dead or protecting them from death. My whole point this whole time has been how suspicious it sounds to me that a person would say he's more than fair, then immediately turn around and say he'd bring any character back from the dead but the guy it happened to happen to. Who the gm just so happens to not like. Who's a whiner. Who builds characters that the gm doesnt like.
Thats a cognitive disconnect. If you admit to bias, then you are defacto not fair or more than fair. The person who is nice to you but not nice to the waiter is not a nice person. They're just nice to whoever gives them what they want. And its a horrible kind of person to have in charge of your table no matter how you slice it. If he's willing to admit that he'd be willing to bring anyone else in the party back from the dead except the dead guy who's a whiner then there is no reason not to suspect that he might 'accidentally' go the extra mile to kill that player off in the first place. I'd like to think I could trust my gm more than that, but he admitted himself that he cant be trusted to be fair unless the player across the table isn't asking for it. Which makes no sense.
You cant guarantee that this gm wouldnt find something he doesnt like about your character next and if suddenly you start feeling more heat than the rest of the party and find yourself in a save or die situation and you miss it by 1 he'd let you live. Which is fine right up until he says 'I'd let the character live if it were being played by the person next to you, but since its you, sod off."
|
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.Dude...
So when someone at your table won't conform to table norms you change the game to fit them and tell everyone else to suck it?
No. I would see if we can accomodate the game so everybody is happy, and if we can't, I'd tell him to stop playing the game. Nothing wrong with that. It's just like if everybody want to play Pathfinder and he wants to play world of darkness, or a superhero game.
But I wont treat his character different than the rest of the players. Either I admit him in the game, or I don't. But I won't tell him he is in the game, and then treat him with different rules than my girlfriend, my brother, my old time friend, or the guy who owes me money.
He did. He let him play an Aasimar Summoner. Then his character died because he did something really dumb and now he is asking for special privileges.
Because by the rules he is dead.
The GM is saying he might consider special privileges if they guy wasn't calling the GM unfair.
If the player would act like the other players, he would be treated like the other players.
Even now the GM is checking before just saying no. And he is being attacked for it.
|
|
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.Dude...
So when someone at your table won't conform to table norms you change the game to fit them and tell everyone else to suck it?
No, genius, actually at my table we dont do that 'gms word is law' bs...
The whole table decides what the right thing to do is so everyone is accountable for everyone's fun.
Its sort of how that 'friend' thing works
Which is a philosophy that would have worked great in this scenario since it sounds like the entire table was against him.
Which is why its a blessing that they sent him away.
Do you also make the GM tell you what you will be fighting, and if it is too hard you pick your opponent by committee.
Sounds wonderful...
The entire table is against him because he's being selfish.
|
|
Maybe the player will he more careful with his next character.
Consider it lesson learned.Like I say it's not about being protected from death. Thats not the issue.
But to your point it wont be a lesson learned. The player was kicked from the table. If he learned a lesson its that this gm shows favoritism and he should steer clear of that table.
Wouldnt surprise me at all if the player's reaction to having his character die was 'fine, i'll just erase the name off this character sheet and come back as the same thing next week with a new name' and then got banned from the table.
I wouldn't be surprised either, because that would be a jerk move.
And the group would be better off without someone like that at the table.
As someone who was "that guy" for a little while when I first started and almost got kicked out of a great group, "that guy" is easily replaced with someone a lot more fun to game with.
I learned my lesson when I GM'ed for the first time. After that, I became a great player.
Even now the GM is checking before just saying no. And he is being attacked for it.
Uh actually what he did wasnt asking should he or shouldnt he. What he was asking was how can I make my defense ironclad so i dont have to even consider it.
Which as I say was fine right up to the point he said 'i'd do it for anybody else but this dude'
Do you also make the GM tell you what you will be fighting, and if it is too hard you pick your opponent by committee.
Sounds wonderful...
The entire table is against him because he's being selfish.
As usual your closed ears and huge hyperbole do not disappoint.
|
|
Even now the GM is checking before just saying no. And he is being attacked for it.Uh actually what he did wasnt asking should he or shouldnt he. What he was asking was how can I make my defense ironclad so i dont have to even consider it.
Which as I say was fine right up to the point he said 'i'd do it for anybody else but this dude'
He actually posted the players argument to see if it was valid, because he has gotten e-mails (plural) from this player.
And it wasn't.
Have you been asked to leave groups before, is that where this is coming from?
Pot says hi Kettle.As usual your closed ears and huge hyperbole do not disappoint.Do you also make the GM tell you what you will be fighting, and if it is too hard you pick your opponent by committee.
Sounds wonderful...
The entire table is against him because he's being selfish.
I can only hope to presume you understand the nature of my argument.
I want to say I find it hard to believe that you're arguing FOR a gm thats biased.
But I don't find it surprising at all.
Pot says hi Kettle.As usual your closed ears and huge hyperbole do not disappoint.Do you also make the GM tell you what you will be fighting, and if it is too hard you pick your opponent by committee.
Sounds wonderful...
The entire table is against him because he's being selfish.
I can only hope to presume you understand the nature of my argument.
I want to say I find it hard to believe that you're arguing FOR a gm thats biased.
But I don't find it surprising at all.
Vincent what would you have done in the situation? i havent played rotr
|
|
Pot says hi Kettle.As usual your closed ears and huge hyperbole do not disappoint.Do you also make the GM tell you what you will be fighting, and if it is too hard you pick your opponent by committee.
Sounds wonderful...
The entire table is against him because he's being selfish.
I can only hope to presume you understand the nature of my argument.
I want to say I find it hard to believe that you're arguing FOR a gm thats biased.
But I don't find it surprising at all.
Arguing for the person that the rest of the group has decided will lead the adventure, and who has the cited rules on his side.
Yup. That is what I am doing.
Well hondo. I guess that makes you my hero
|
|
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 are confusing just with fair. A just ruling is what the player deserves. A fair ruling is one that is consistent from player to player. "More than fair" isn't a literal fair. If you give the player a more generous ruling then you would other players, its still unfair.
You might be able to say what he did was justified, but it definitely wasn't fair.
If I come to you and ask to borrow money, you may lend me money or you may not.
If I don't pay you back right away, you will take that into consideration next time I ask to borrow money.
If I ask you nicely to reconsider a ruling, I am more likely to do so then if you send me multiple e-mails with incorrect rules interpretations calling me unfair.
More than fair is more that fair. Fair is saying no.
He is not getting more than fair because he is not earning more than fair.
Treating people equally assumes people behave equally. No one else in the group would ask for this. If, for some reason, they did ask for it, they wouldn't call the GM names in multiple e-mails and make up rules for why they were wronged.
If you can't behave like someone who deserves special treatment, you don't get special treatment.
You would have an argument if the GM was doing anything against the rules.
But he isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair is saying no.
Fair isnt saying no because he's saying he'd say yes to anyone else.
You cant sucessfully argue the point because you do not seem to have a clear understanding of the nature of the point.To defend this point is to say 'I'd let his character live if he ordered me pizza.'
Or "I'd let his character live if his hair werent so brown"
Or "I'd let his character live if he was a she and we were dating"
Or "I'd let his character live except his name is ciretose"
Any version of "I would except or I would if" is bias and it seems like you're fine with the bias as long as no pathfinder rules are being broken? This is fundamentally farkled.
Fair is saying no.Fair isnt saying no because he's saying he'd say yes to anyone else.
You cant sucessfully argue the point because you do not seem to have a clear understanding of the nature of the point.
but he is not saying no to any body else he made the call by the numbers using RAW allowing the Dice to determine the outcome? how is he being unfair?
For the billionth time fair isnt 'following the rules'
Fair is treating every player at the table equal, which the OP specifically said he wasnt.
If he had posted "the guy asked me to retcon his death and I told him no. I dont do that for anybody ever" thats fair.
Thats not what he said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remind me to never ask for advice from Vincent Takeda. I think I would then be transformed into the BBEG-GM. =\
Oh yeah. I'm the bad guy because i think gms should be unbiased.
Whatever bub
For the billionth time fair isnt 'following the rules'
Fair is treating every player at the table equal, which the OP specifically said he wasnt.
If he had posted "the guy asked me to retcon his death and I told him no. I dont do that for anybody ever" thats fair.
Thats not what he said.
that is exactly what happened.... he clearly was going to do that but decided to maybe bring it to the boards and double check and now he is a bad DM apparently? and the player is refusing to work with him unless he gets his way and his character lives.....
If on the other hand you're saying I've spent far too much time in the futile belief that anything I say might produce a paradigm shift in someones mind then yeah. You're right. I need to stop thinking people ask for opinions on here because they actually want opinions.
The OP's question is how should I handle this.
I'm not allowed by forum rules to say that how he handled it was wrongbadfun. My answer is 'do exactly what you did but dont tell me you'd do it different for someone else or you're going to get 3 pages of describing wrongbadfun without saying it.
I'm done here. This thread has officially exited the logic bucket.
If you cant understand the fundamental difference between 'following the rules' and 'treating people equally' then theres no point in me continuing to try and clarify it.
|
|
Remind me to never ask for advice from Vincent Takeda. I think I would then be transformed into the BBEG-GM. =\Oh yeah. I'm the bad guy because i think gms should be unbiased.
Whatever bub
I get what you're saying!
You're not trying to address the whole issue. You're trying to isolate a single point, but others are trying to make out that you are making a general point, when that is not your intent.
e.g. One-Eyed Jack is DMing for three players: Ace, Deuce and Trey.
Trey's PC bites the big one. Asks if he can have a mulligan, even though mulligans aren't in the rules.
Jack says, 'I would be prepared to give Ace or Deuce a mulligan, but not you, because I don't like you! And you smell.'
Jack is following the rules by denying the mulligan, but he is not being 'fair' to Trey in the sense that he is treating Trey worse than the other players because of personal feelings, and a 'fair' DM would make a ruling without consideration of his personal feelings towards a particular player.
Is that a fair reading of your intent, Vincent?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He did. He let him play an Aasimar Summoner. Then his character died because he did something really dumb and now he is asking for special privileges.
How do you know that? I mean... besides from the POV of one of the sides of the argument?
Because by the rules he is dead.
By the rules, he is dead, but the GM will allow to revive to everybody, except him.
Let's see it this way: it's not that I'm biased against guys from Minnesotta and don't allow them to buy magical items. I forbid to buy magical items to everybody. But then I'm extra generous and allow some people to buy magic items. To everybody, but the guys from Minnesotta.
We *don't* know the other guy version. We only know one side's version, and by that side own admision, there are a few things that make me to supspect that the grudge was *before* the fall from the cliff.
1) the group banned him.
2) the DM already admits he disgusted his character
3) the DM already admits his patience was already spent, because of the PC being a synthesist
4) we know, by a witnessed, that the player "deserved it". So there was a grudge, before the fall from the cliff.
5) we know the guy felt mistreated. With or without reason, he felt mistreated enough to write an email after it.
We don't know who is right or wrong in this previous grudge. Maybe he is a jerk. Maybe the rest of the group are being a jerk with him. Maybe it's not about anyone being a jerk, but having fun in different and not compatible ways. We don't know, except for what it has been told to us. Which is, once again... one version
Do you realize that someone could came to the forums, open a different thread, and tell us how he has been bullied in a game, because the DM didn't like him, then the DM killed it in a DM-fiat grapple with no roll involved, with other player casting aqueaous orb to him (without being called for help) and then the DM wrote emails to him and told him he could never play again? Why would you choose to believe one side instead of the other?
I'm not saying it is impossible the player is a jerk. I've met jerk people before, just like every other guy in the block, so of course it is perfectly possible. What I'm saying, is that we only have a side of the story, and that side admits somewhat that the problem was not only this particular grapple in that particular cliff, but that the argument was longer ("he deserved it", "didn't like that synthesist", "I would had revived any other player but him", etc).
Fairness is not about treating right the people you like. It's about treating right the people you don't like also. If I go to a Court, and it happens that I'm a Miami Heat fan and the judge likes Boston Celtics, I hope to be treated exactly like every other citizen, despite the judge hates Lebron James.
|
|
Way I read this, you had a grudge against the player for "forcing" you to allow him to play an Aasimar synthesist summoner.
You jumped at the first opportunity he gave you to "fairly" kill this character that you did not like.
When he realized later on that he might have a chance at survival, you happily squashed his hopes.
And now you are coming here asking for a validation of the way you handled this "arguing player". And you get it of course since there is a HUGE bias on these boards in favor of the poor misunderstood altruistic overworked GM against the lazy whiny selfish powergaming player.
Next time, do you both a favor and stick to your decision. Making the player pay because YOU accepted something you did not want in your game is NOT fair.
Bias works both ways sir, you oviously have a HUGE bias in favor of the oppressed player who has a power hungry GM who doesn't listen to reason.
How exactly did this player "Force" the GM to do anything? He is the GM, he makes the final call regardless. I had a GM who wouldn't allow gunslingers in his campaigns ever. He thought they were too overpowered. When I pointed out that I could make a Ninja that could hit just as consistently and do double the damage of the Gunslinger he still said no, and that's fine, that's his call.
Note, the GM did not decide to jump out the window the PC did. Unless he was their only damage dealer they should have been fine against that monster as it was effectively just standing still while it tried to kill this PC. The PC might have dropped sure, but he probably wouldn't have died, just been in the negatives. It seems to me the GM didn't "jump" at the opportunity to kill the PC and I have no clue how you reached that conclusion.
Cute
Too bad that the "clues" were in the OP's quote that you deleted when quoting my post. It might have helped.
Too bad also that I am far from the only poster who felt the GM only wanted vindication and not any kind of advice (or even any opinion that did not vindicate his). Really this thread's title should be "PC arguing with me (GM) and how I handled this". Hope you notice the difference.
The OP complains that he let the player have his wet-dream character even though he (the OP-GM) did not want it at his table.
It is far different from your GM banning Gunslingers. In fact, what your GM did and the stance that you seem to support (ie, a GM should stick to his decisions) is exactly what I believe the OP SHOULD HAVE DONE.
|
|
Remind me to never ask for advice from Vincent Takeda. I think I would then be transformed into the BBEG-GM. =\
When you post on the Advice forum, you do not get to select who will answer. Nor do you get to select only posts that agree with your take on things. Of course, that can be a problem if you only accept one-sided threads.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, let's put this into perspective for those arguing the "fairness" of the situation.
The facts that we have been given say that this player was an "unruly" person to GM for. We don't know the opinions of the other players directly but that really doesn't matter. Let's look at this using a real life analogy:
GM = bar owner
dead PC = patron #1
any other PC at the table = patron #2
Patron #1 comes to this bar all of the time and seems to cause problems on a regular basis. The bar owner has talked to him about this because he wants his business. One day this particular patron crossed the line and got banned from the bar. He argues with the bar owner to unban him but because he refuses to act appropriately his request is denied. Now, patron #2 has never caused any problems but one day has a bad day and the owner kicks him out, maybe even bans him. He talks to the owner in a civilized manner and agrees to not do it again and gets let back in.
Was the owner biased? Of course he was, but rightfully so. If someone has shown that they are a consistant problem, then why would let it continue? It is not possible to be fair to everyone all of the time. You should want to, but it's not always going to be that way. People are different and some need to be put in their place, even if it's passively.
The game should be fun for EVERYONE, including the GM. If one player is ruining the GMs fun (and potentially the other PCs), then a remedy is needed.
P.S. Before someone decides to pick apart this post and read into it what they want, I am not going to post any more replies here. I tried to offer a realistic perspective to the situation. You can chose to agree or not agree but don't start another flame war, which it seems this thread is heading.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He did. He let him play an Aasimar Summoner. Then his character died because he did something really dumb and now he is asking for special privileges.How do you know that? I mean... besides from the POV of one of the sides of the argument?
Because by the rules he is dead.By the rules, he is dead, but the GM will allow to revive to everybody, except him.
He was offered a raise or re-roll. He insists he is entitled to "5 more rounds of reflex saves (for orb), grapple checks, and open wings to fly" all while falling a mere 300ft. He is indeed a synthesist summoner who extremely overshadows the other players, and the game has been nothing but fun until this first death occurred. The player blames me for not spending 20 min in game looking for rules (which they did have 20 min to meta game, again more than fair on my end) instead of looking at his mechanics, numbers, and rules went with "okay wiz, throw us out the window I have a plan"
I did not kill this guy because I dont like him. He's a good person. He's just not very good at dying I guess?
When I say numerous emails, I mean like 5 50 page essay emails. He pissed of the owner of the house who has been more than generous letting us use his home, picking up this particular PC every week from the other side of town, and he thanks him with accusations of cheating and being on a power trip.
I'm sorry it went down the way it did but it was just more damaging than it was constructive.
Thanks you all for your feedback.
Remind me to never ask for advice from Vincent Takeda. I think I would then be transformed into the BBEG-GM. =\Oh yeah. I'm the bad guy because i think gms should be unbiased.
Whatever bub
I get what you're saying!
You're not trying to address the whole issue. You're trying to isolate a single point, but others are trying to make out that you are making a general point, when that is not your intent.
e.g. One-Eyed Jack is DMing for three players: Ace, Deuce and Trey.
Trey's PC bites the big one. Asks if he can have a mulligan, even though mulligans aren't in the rules.
Jack says, 'I would be prepared to give Ace or Deuce a mulligan, but not you, because I don't like you! And you smell.'
Jack is following the rules by denying the mulligan, but he is not being 'fair' to Trey in the sense that he is treating Trey worse than the other players because of personal feelings, and a 'fair' DM would make a ruling without consideration of his personal feelings towards a particular player.
Is that a fair reading of your intent, Vincent?
It is sir! Thank you!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was offered a raise or re-roll. He insists he is entitled to "5 more rounds of reflex saves (for orb), grapple checks, and open wings to fly" all while falling a mere 300ft. He is indeed a synthesist summoner who extremely overshadows the other players, and the game has been nothing but fun until this first death occurred. The player blames me for not spending 20 min in game looking for rules (which they did have 20 min to meta game, again more than fair on my end) instead of looking at his mechanics, numbers, and rules went with "okay wiz, throw us out the window I have a plan"
I did not kill this guy because I dont like him. He's a good person. He's just not very good at dying I guess?
When I say numerous emails, I mean like 5 50 page essay emails. He pissed of the owner of the house who has been more than generous letting us use his home, picking up this particular PC every week from the other side of town, and he thanks him with accusations of cheating and being on a power trip.
I'm sorry it went down the way it did but it was just more damaging than it was constructive.
Thanks you all for your feedback.
Ouch. Then you are well shot of him, if he's being this much of a pain.
|
|
I did not kill this guy because I dont like him. He's a good person. He's just not very good at dying I guess?
Ain't we all ?
Oh, do you mean killing the player or killing the PC ? Careful here, the former might be construed as BADWRONGFUN ;-)
I do not know that anyone said that you killed the PC because you did not like the player. I stated that I believed you let the PC die because you did not like the PC.
I believe that a PC's death should be an important event and should respect the player's choice as much as possible. If only because a player spends hours (even days) of RL time creating and playing his/her PC.
I did not kill this guy because I dont like him. He's a good person. He's just not very good at dying I guess?Ain't we all ?
Oh, do you mean killing the player or killing the PC ? Careful here, the former might be construed as BADWRONGFUN ;-)
I do not know that anyone said that you killed the PC because you did not like the player. I stated that I believed you let the PC die because you did not like the PC.
I believe that a PC's death should be an important event and should respect the player's choice as much as possible. If only because a player spends hours (even days) of RL time creating and playing his/her PC.
Yeah I wasn't a fan of his aasimar to begin with, but it grew on me and I really enjoyed his PC in a RP sense. The overpowered part got a little frustrating for a couple of the players and myself as well. Fact is I didn't purposely do anything to take his PC out of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I say numerous emails, I mean like 5 50 page essay emails. He pissed of the owner of the house who has been more than generous letting us use his home, picking up this particular PC every week from the other side of town, and he thanks him with accusations of cheating and being on a power trip
So the player had accusations and grudges against other people besides the DM, and for other reasons besides the argument about the grapple and fall?
Well, the best thing it could happen is that you don't play together more. You obviously are both going to have more fun in different groups.