|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair is saying no.Fair isnt saying no because he's saying he'd say yes to anyone else.
Who approached him politely without multiple e-mails about the GM being unfair.
This is the part you keep missing.
It isn't arbitrary. This player is doing things that are causing the GM to treat them in this way.
|
|
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.
Actually some people did. I'm sure they will be apologizing shortly.
|
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.
I want to back up here a moment.
Now, while we are on the subject of fair, I want to point out that giving the player a "do over" is not fair. Unless you specify that you are giving "do overs" then you need to expect to play by default. Default is fair because everyone sings from the same hymm sheet.
With me so far?
Now the rules don't cover rude players, so the GM has to step in and enforce what ever punishment he deems fit. Now most of us are adults so a GM should not have to tell you what may happen if you are rude, common sense will tell you that. If you plan on being rude then be ready to vacate the premises. On that point, if you are going to un invite people for being rude then that needs to apply to everyone.
|
|
Also, a player being a jerk is no excuse for a GM to act as a jerk too.So following the rules is being a jerk at this point?
More that following the rules is not a 100% sure method of non-jerkitude ;-)
An avid ruleslawyer and powergamer who squashes a GM's carefully wrought campaign without a care and prevents his fellow players from having any kind of fun could be following the rules perfectly. That would not mean he is not a jerk.
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.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.
If this same scenario had happened with a different player, would you have ruled, or done anything else, differently?
|
|
I would just like to post an example from my life that echoes some of the sentiments already shown and then i'm out, there is nothing more to be gained from arguing this.
I GMed a campaign a while back where I had 4 PCs. Two of these PCs were experienced players, while two were completely new to the game. Throughout the adventure the experienced players played well, made good calls and admittedly overshadowed the other two simply through experience and not powergaming. The two inexperienced players made some less than informed calls that would have resulted in eventual death, (i.e. wizard wanted to cast fire resistance on himself and then wade into the enemy group and cast fireball at the ground). I tried to gently nudge them away from these decisions or when that didn't work, fudge the rolls a bit so that they didn't die to a fire that burns with the fiery passion of 1000 george forman grills. If the more experienced players put forth this plan though? I would do some nudging telling them that it was a bad idea, but if they did it anyway? I would let them die from their dumb decision as they are experienced players and should know better. Am I supposed to keep a running tally of how many times I rule zeroed a death away so that I can be fair to everybody?
I can understand where you're coming from in the idea that fairness predicates treating everybody the same. I consider being fair to also include treating people based on their experience with the task at hand, otherwise if I was playing with a mismatched group of players I should just let the inexperienced players kill themselves because it would be unfair for me to let them live.
I was with you up till that last point.
Because the fair/unfair you are describing here has nothing to do IMO with what people pushing for the fair=equal treatment in the above posts meant.
I believe it was more a matter of according the same respect to all players and behaving in the most balanced way possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Default is fair because everyone sings from the same hymm sheet.
The OP made it sound like others might have gotten MORE than the default, but not him.
Even one person, getting more than another is not fair. So, either everyone should get the default, or everyone should get more than the default.
If this same scenario had happened with a different player, would you have ruled, or done anything else, differently?
No that could have happened to anyone, he just happend to be the one in the way.
If this same scenario had happened with a different player, would you have ruled, or done anything else, differently?No that could have happened to anyone, he just happend to be the one in the way.
Then that's fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this same scenario had happened with a different player, would you have ruled, or done anything else, differently?No that could have happened to anyone, he just happend to be the one in the way.
Then it was fair. Your sentence about willing to redo it for anyone but him is what started the debate. As long as you treat him just like you will do with your best friend, you are being fair
So following the rules is being a jerk at this point?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.Also, a player being a jerk is no excuse for a GM to act as a jerk too.
No. But it does not precludes being a jerk either.
|
|
Also, a player being a jerk is no excuse for a GM to act as a jerk too.So following the rules is being a jerk at this point?More that following the rules is not a 100% sure method of non-jerkitude ;-)
An avid ruleslawyer and powergamer who squashes a GM's carefully wrought campaign without a care and prevents his fellow players from having any kind of fun could be following the rules perfectly. That would not mean he is not a jerk.
And if you are a jerk, you aren't going to get people to bend the rules for you.
That is part of the reason you should not be a jerk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even one person, getting more than another is not fair. So, either everyone should get the default, or everyone should get more than the default.
No.
When I go to Chipotle, they generally give me more than other customers.
Why? Because I am a regular and I always say please and thank you.
When I use to frequent bars, at my regular spot I always got stronger drinks? Why? Because I was a regular, I was polite, and I tipped well.
When I post on here and certain people who I have argued with in the past read my post, they will argue against me aggressively from the start rather than give me the benefit of the doubt.
Why? Because I have a well earned reputation on here.
All of these situations are 100% fair.
Even one person, getting more than another is not fair. So, either everyone should get the default, or everyone should get more than the default.
No.
When I go to Chipotle, they generally give me more than other customers.
Why? Because I am a regular and I always say please and thank you.
When I use to frequent bars, at my regular spot I always got stronger drinks? Why? Because I was a regular, I was polite, and I tipped well.
When I post on here and certain people who I have argued with in the past read my post, they will argue against me aggressively from the start rather than give me the benefit of the doubt.
Why? Because I have a well earned reputation on here.
All of these situations are 100% fair.
Th differenc is that the DM is a judge, not a waiter. He is the arbiter of the game, the referee. And he should be fair.
I understand that the waiter gives you more drink if you tip him well. I dont understand that the judge favors you more if you tip him well.
If you see GMing as equivalent to waiting tables then um honestly that explains a lot.
|
|
Usually if my new player tries to do something incredibly stupid such as the fire resistance and fireball i will just explain the rules to them so they can make an informed decision. If they still want to try to fireball the bad guys well i let them do it...and have them make new characters. Because honestly their characters would know that the fire resistance isn't ment for that kind of heat. Plus players will pitch a fit if their character dies because I left out that little bit of information.
There are always going to be moments when you realize that some NPC didn't attack at all or a familiar forgot to use his healing potion on his master and a million other issues that happen in the usual game. I treat it like a sports game. A GM is the referee so once the call is made if there is no challenge at the time it stands and play moves forward.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get what Ciretose is saying about fair and I think people are really oversymplifying it. I know Ciretose is a probation officer, I am a social worker and dealing with the concept of "fair" is part of boundary setting that is required by ethical standards of our professions. I have to maintain a certain level of training on these issues and topics.
If you treat everyone equally, disregarding behaviors of the person, the past history of the person in relating with you, and the needs of the person then you are being unfair.
For instance. I treat my wife, an adult woman one way, I treat adult women, who are my friends, another way. If I treated my adult female friends and my wife the same way, I am willing to be that my wife would find that very unfair. (It would also be creepy).
What makes an interaction fair is if your reaction and behaviors are consistent across people based upon the behaviors they display and the relationship you have (relationships are based on the historic trends of behaviors that this person has had towards you). If someone is being abuisve towards you and someone is being friend towards you, I hope you are reacting different between these two individuals. Not only is it fair, but it is also healthy.
(I know that oversimplyfied some of this, but my brain is partially melted from reading commitment documentation. Legal Jargon, Medical Jargon, and Psychiatric Jargon all balled up into 36 page documents. Good times!)
Actually some people did. I'm sure they will be apologizing shortly.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.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Such an optimist. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread makes me appreciate my table top gaming groups even more.
Ye gods I don't miss gaming group drama.
-TimD
|
|
Th differenc is that the DM is a judge, not a waiter. He is the arbiter of the game, the referee. And he should be fair.
I understand that the waiter gives you more drink if you tip him well. I dont understand that the judge favors you more if you tip him well.
As someone who works in Law Enforcement, I can assure you that prior record is taken into consideration at sentencing.
I get what Ciretose is saying about fair and I think people are really oversymplifying it. I know Ciretose is a probation officer, I am a social worker and dealing with the concept of "fair" is part of boundary setting that is required by ethical standards of our professions. I have to maintain a certain level of training on these issues and topics.
If you treat everyone equally, disregarding behaviors of the person, the past history of the person in relating with you, and the needs of the person then you are being unfair.
For instance. I treat my wife, an adult woman one way, I treat adult women, who are my friends, another way. If I treated my adult female friends and my wife the same way, I am willing to be that my wife would find that very unfair. (It would also be creepy).
What makes an interaction fair is if your reaction and behaviors are consistent across people based upon the behaviors they display and the relationship you have (relationships are based on the historic trends of behaviors that this person has had towards you). If someone is being abuisve towards you and someone is being friend towards you, I hope you are reacting different between these two individuals. Not only is it fair, but it is also healthy.
(I know that oversimplyfied some of this, but my brain is partially melted from reading commitment documentation. Legal Jargon, Medical Jargon, and Psychiatric Jargon all balled up into 36 page documents. Good times!)
This is a bad example. Your wife is not equal to your friends bt her very nature. None of the players are inherently more deserving than the others.
In other words your friends are in a way interchangeable. You could not exchange a friend for a wife. Your players may all be unique as people, but they all share the rank of "player". There's no "super player whom I like better" and if there is, that's a problem.
I assume you treat your female friends, basically, the same accounting for how they wish to be treated. If Karen asked you to help her move, and you said no, then Jill asked you to help her move and you said yes, Karen would probably not be very happy.
For instance. I treat my wife, an adult woman one way, I treat adult women, who are my friends, another way. If I treated my adult female friends and my wife the same way, I am willing to be that my wife would find that very unfair. (It would also be creepy).
Bad example. I'm not saying that you should invite the guy to your birthday party like you do witg your friends, or that you should have sex with him like you do with your girlfriend.
We are talking about DMing. And using your example, if you are the DM in a game where the players are your wife and three other adult women, you should treat your wife lije you do with the others. Anything else would be unfair
|
|
If you see GMing as equivalent to waiting tables then um honestly that explains a lot.
You know what is funny. I was going to say "Judge" or "Referee" but I thought people would say "This isn't court!"
So I said, what is the analogy that people who feel entitled to being served by a GM would best associate.
And I thought, of course, the service industry. Because the GM isn't there to have fun, they are there to serve the player. So I said to myself, even when dealing with a server you have to show basic respect if you expect good service, right?
And yet, even that was to much...
So back to the analogy I was going to use, tell a judge or a ref they are being unfair, cite the rules wrong, demand they follow the wrong rules you cited and see how far that gets you.
Good luck with that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of the players are inherently more deserving than the others.
Actually the ones who aren't being jerks are more deserving than the ones who are being jerks.
The ones who make the game fun and work together with everyone are more deserving than the ones who are rude and inconsiderate.
Not being a jerk is a good thing, and should be rewarded.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*stuff*This is a bad example. Your wife is not equal to your friends bt her very nature. None of the players are inherently more deserving than the others.
In other words your friends are in a way interchangeable. You could not exchange a friend for a wife. Your players may all be unique as people, but they all share the rank of "player". There's no "super player whom I like better" and if there is, that's a problem.
I assume you treat your female friends, basically, the same accounting for how they wish to be treated. If Karen...
I actually think this is not as bad of an example as you think. Not a perfect one by any means, but there are parallels.
What is his wife, if not a regular female friend with whom his past experiences are different? Presumably, at some point in the past his wife, Karen and Jill were all at about the same level. What makes his wife, once a regular female friend, deserving of the special treatment she enjoys as his wife? Well, her past conduct and interaction with him has elevated her to a place where she enjoys preferential treatment over the average friend. They went on dates, shared interests, formed a bond that is not present with Karen and Jill. Really, if you remove the "wife" label, is she not just the best of female friends whose history with him grants her benefits outside the reach of other female friends? Now to stop awkwardly talking about someone else's wife like an object . . .
The same general principle can be applied with gaming, albeit to a lesser degree. All players may have started at the same level, but their conduct over the course of time can shift what each "deserves". If you are constantly harassing the GM to get special privileges and bend the rules, then what is "fair" may be different when compared to the guy who always brings snacks and volunteers to retcon negative things for his character upon realizing mistakes. Past conduct is taken into account when making future determinations. Now, when a particular player is as separate from the rest of the group as a wife (hopefully) is from the rest of the female friends, there is indeed a problem. That is where I see the metaphor breaking down.
The big disconnect is there are two definitions: "fair = everyone treated equally" and "fair = everyone being treated as they deserve to be treated based on past conduct". I don't think there is really a wrong definition here, except to say the former is an ideal, and the latter tends to be the reality of things. This is in large part due to human nature and our tendency to, sometimes subconsciously, inject personal bias into things.
I see ciretose's arguments as stemming from using the latter definition, and many who are arguing with him seem to be using the former definition. I do see his point as being valid. Super-extreme example: if someone shoots me and then asks me for a dollar, I am much less likely to give him a dollar than if a guy compliments my hat and asks for a dollar. I mean, hypothetical me is a really generous guy and willing to give just about anyone who asks a dollar. So if the first guy just didn't shoot me, I would have given him a dollar. Is it unfair for me to penalize him just because of his past conduct?
Yes, you can argue that the example is too extreme and doesn't apply to a gaming group. But really, a gaming group is in many ways a microcosm of society. The core rules of human nature,the social contract, and the rules of civilization in general don't get radically altered just because you are sitting at a table rolling dice. The expectations of conduct within the social contract may shift due to different expectations of conduct at a gaming table with friends versus everyday life, but human nature and the most fundamental rules of civilization will not.
Well said, Scaevola77.
I will say that knowing ciretose is in law enforcement totally clarifies for me why he thinks the way he does, and they definitely follow the same ethical principal as a food service agent which is 'you be nice to me and i'll be nice to you'
Even judges arent held to a higher standard since they're allowed to impose arbitrary penalties on a person they deem to be disrespectful.
I'll admit that its almost impossible for this not to play out his way at any table with drama, but I wouldnt call this philosophy something to aspire towards though.
I agree with Roberta Yang that basically ciretose's role as a gm is to be a police officer of the group, or the social worker of the group, or the judge of the group, or the waiter of the group. I'd argue that a police officer is strongly encouraged to never 'match' someone's level of behavior unless its life threatening. Parole officer has got to be one of the worst examples of this dichotomy because you ONLY get treated fairly if you do what they say. They're encouraged to treat disrespect like a light switch... "You give me attitude. Bang. You're back in the can." You're literally training yourself to ONLY be able to cope with people who are pleasant.
I tend to think police officers should do well to remember their position is that of public servant not judge and jury. I, on the flip side, come from a tech support environment and its strongly discouraged as a service provider to respond to angry customers with anger, and depending on what company you work for it is indeed encourage to grease the squeaky wheel. Some people demand a higher standard from you and some people don't.
Whats never encouraged in a true customer service position is treating a person worse than anyone else even if their attitude is bad. Even your waiter is probably going to get fired if the service he gives to an angry customer is bad enough. Even something as subtle as saying 'you know that guy's a jerk maybe I just wont refill his drink at all' is fine for the ethically shallow but if that wheel squeaks your boss is gonna let you know that behavior reflects poorly upon you.
You're right that as a customer support person I try to make people better people by showing them unilateral fairness to diffuse a situation and ciretose likes to make people better people by showing them that a bad attitude will beget a bad attitude. Its the difference between boxing and aikido. In my scenario the best case is an unhappy person gets less unhappy through the realization that he's being treated fairly after all and in ciretose's situaion an unhappy player only gets less unhappy because he's gonna get the boot if he doesnt.
A law enforcement officer HAS to use both according to situation but if you asked your commander at the police station which of the two he'd prefer you use i'd hope his answer is 'use the first until its not safe to do so.' Whether you're in food service or public service your boss always expects you to hold yourself to a higher standard.
My philosophy is gm like a BOSS.
While just because the guy on the other side of the table isnt being as polite might be a licence for you to treat him unfairly, it doesnt mean you have to. You can choose a higher standard. You can choose the higher path. You can lead by example.
As a tech support agent its also my job to explain things many different ways because some people wont understand one explaination but they will understand it clearly if you rephrase it... I understand if you dont get what i'm saying because you're your players social worker, or parole officer, or waiter...
Lets try something else.
Its like that old Patrick Swayze movie Roadhouse.
You have to be nice. Until its time not to be nice.
Sure sometimes that means the farmhouse where you're staying at gets burned to the ground and all of the decent folk in town are made subservient to the whims of one rich jack@$$ who owns everything and makes the whole town live in fear.
And sometimes it means your best friend and mentor has to be stabbed in the chest and left to die on a bar while you check to make sure your girlfriend is ok.
But that just means you're extra justified when you tear out his henchman's throat with your bare hands and by the end of the movie everybody pretends like they didnt see you do anything illegal and everybody loves you.
What were we talking about again?
IF I just saw you tear someones throat out with your bare hands Id pretend I didnt see that too.
That and swear off Johnny Walker Red for LIFE!
I also seem to be missing something... this guy was an Aasimar summoner?
I missed that, where was his eidlon?
Where were the other party members?
All we hear about is this assimar, the revenant and the wizard that orbed him out the window...
So the fighter didn't pound on it, the cleric didn't turn it, everyone just watched it crush their buddy unit he shouted "Blow me away Wizzy!"
It just seems like something more is missing?
IF he was a synthesist, doesn't it seem odd he couldnt have done more about the situation? Most of these builds are half way to the house of broken, and he couldnt get out of a grapple?
Usually, when something grapples someone in our group it just makes it an easy target for us to pound on.... would think there would have been more options here... just saying
I'm almost positive I'm not recommending you be nice to a player who's rude to you for a little while and then tear his throat out with your bare hands.
Almost.
I just find it ironic that
- while a parole officer is trying to 'reform bad behavior' by putting baby in a corner until baby shows him some respect first, so the baby learns the stage one lesson of 'people who treat people badly get treated badly' (and I abjectly hate the subversion of this trope which is 'if you give me any lip you get treated badly which just encourages a whipservant slave mindset)
- even a judge isnt necessarily required to perform above this stage-one-level of dialogue
- having mastered that level of interraction could still get you fired if you use it to justify not refilling the drinks at table 3.
Even the guy pouring drinks at abblebees is held to a higher eithical standard than that.
As much as I like shallowsoul I do cringe when i see a post that says
'so the GM has to step in and [enforce] [what ever] [punishment] [he deems fit]'
Brackets added for each piece of the concept i strongly disagree with. Boy does that ever raise a blip on my oh-no-radar of a 'law enforcement' approach to gming.
|
|
First problem with the Patrick Swayze analogy.
Bouncers are paid to be at the bar and put up with you. They are employees and that is their job.
The GM is not the players employee. He or she are playing the game as well, from a different position. A position, I might add, they were chosen for by the players who decided to sit down and let them run a game.
When the player is sending pages and pages of e-mail, it is no longer time to be nice. The player is, metaphorically, wrecking the bar that is the game.
As to judges, I wear a suit and tie to court. Not because I want to, but because that is the expectation of the court. I encourage the kids I work with to do the same by explaining it this way "Yes ties suck. I hate wearing this tie. But if the person I'm going to see has the power to lock me up, and they would prefer I wear a tie, I'm wearing a tie. And I'm not the one going into court having committed a crime...so...you know...your call but if I were you."
The issue at play here isn't a God complex GM. Those exist, but in my experience it is generally a self correcting problem as who is going to want to come back to that table?
The issue at play here is a player who has a God complex. He starts by creating a character that is causing some conflict at the table and he follows it up by telling the GM he doesn't know the rules and is being unfair.
That player is a problem.
The GM is trying to work with him, specifically because the GM is not a God complex GM. He's offering options above and beyond what the rules allow just to try and keep the peace and the guy is complaining because he's not getting the full Burger King treatment.
This player has successfully alienated the group and even the owner of the home where they game.
And you are blaming the GM.
Problems with authority much?
Problem with improperly wielded authority
Having authority and being good at it are two entirely different things.
In my experience it is generally a self correcting problem as who is going to want to come back to that table?
It would be nice if it didn't come to that but this is totally how I game. Bad gms wont need a chair for me.
The issue at play here is a player who has a God complex.
The issue at play was if the gm had even given him fair options, which we finally found out he did on page 5 of the thread.
The issue at play between the two of us is still that you dont feel it necessary to give fairness to people based on comprimised emotional state. Problem with free will much?
I realize you'll never change your perspective and i'll never change mine so that conversation is done. I'm not saying your path is wrong and I don't bother trying to convince you of anything. I'm just trying to clearly outline and frame the rationale behind our different approaches so that other GMs can decide what kind of gm they want to be.
And trust me, you're right. Your type is clearly the majority. I just happen to wish it werent
|
|
In my experience it is generally a self correcting problem as who is going to want to come back to that table?It would be nice if it didn't come to that but this is totally how I game. Bad gms wont need a chair for me.
The issue at play here is a player who has a God complex.The issue at play was if the gm had even given him fair options, which we finally found out he did on page 5 of the thread.
The issue at play between the two of us is still that you dont feel it necessary to give fairness to people based on comprimised emotional state. Problem with free will much?
The GM gave him fair options the night of the game and was rewarded with a tirade against his fairness.
Here is what I know about the GM. 4 people sat down to allow him to run a game. They said "I think this guy will make fun use of several hours of my life each time we sit down to play, and I trust him to run the game."
Here is what I know about the player. A group of people are tired of his crap and want him to stop being a jerk or leave the game. Including the guy everyone picked to run the game.
Free will is wonderful. And actions have consequences. Two things I do know from my job is that authority is an illusion and respect is a trade not a purchase.
I worked customer service to pay my way through college, mainly answering phones in call centers, eventually working my way up to supervisor. I was a snot nosed college kid not even old enough to drink, but when someone wanted to "speak to a supervisor" they got me and 9 times out of 10 just the act of someone in "authority" speaking to them resolved the problem, as long as I acted like I wasn't the snot nosed college kid that I am. In my job, I have absolutely no authority over the people in the schools and courts where I work. But I get what I need from them because I am polite, respectful, and even when I don't know what the hell I am doing, I act like I belong where I am at, doing what I am doing.
And when I am walking alone through questionable neighborhoods checking on kids without any kind of weapon, the reason no one messes with me is everyone in the community respects me because I don't treat their kids like criminals and I don't treat them like crap. I come to the homes to solve problems, specifically the fact that their kid is on probation.
I don't call the parents jerks, start pointing out whatever I think they are doing wrong, demand they do what I tell them, etc...I explain the process, I answer questions, I troubleshoot and I problem solve.
Now, if a kid is immediately defiant, I remember that authority is an illusion. I have no real control over a kid. And I tell them that, usually by saying "I can't make you do anything. I really can't. If you want to keep doing what you are doing, I can't stop you. But I will point out that it isn't working out so well for you at this point, considering you are on probation. I want you to be successful. I look really good if you are successful and I fail at my job if you get new charges and have to go back to court."
On the topic, we have a guy who was mildly disruptive from the very beginning of the game, and a GM who was working with him to try to make it work. Then the player threw a fit when the players actions led to consequences.
He treated the GM like garbage. And the GM isn't God. He's just a guy trying to run a game and have fun. Just like the players, only with more responsibility.
The player was being selfish, childish, and as a result he is out of the game.
And you are blaming the GM.
How patronizing of you with regards to the player.
Sorry to everyone for the wall of text... Somewhere along the line you seem to have lost perspective. What I said was
If the fact that he's a whiner is the only reason you're considering not doing what you'd normally do by making a more than fair call then do yourself a favor and ignore the fact that he's a whiner and do what you'd normally do and make a more than fair call.Otherwise you're singling him out, which is going to make him into a whiner. :P
The best gauge of whether I'd ref in favor of you or him would be an unbiased perspective of how badly his asimar synth summoner has been playing up to this point. If he's been laying waste and hogging spotlight and you just wanna kill him off then thats one thing.
If he's been doing a good job of keeping himself from going all powercrazy then i'd give him some props for keeping synthesis summoner from getting out of control which is, for certain players, a feat in itself.
I didnt blame the gm. I said if he's being unfair and has doubts about it then he should solve his doubts by not being unfair.
Then between the 2 of us we've decided to outline our opposing viewpoints of 'what is the meaning of the word fair.'
You are painting a strawman and seem to be implying that I don't think you're polite or that I think you're a jerk to the people you work with. This is neither true nor germaine to the conversation.
'I cant make you do anything' is a perfect sentiment for a gm to have. "I troubleshoot and i problem solve" are super awesome things for gms to be doing. This isnt the point i'm arguing. If however your parolee were being a jerk so then you decided 'I'm not going to be as helpful to this guy as I ought to be as part of my job' that would be a big big problem.
Again i'm not saying you do this at all. I'm saying when a gm decides 'I'm changing how I behave because I don't like your attitude' it would be just as wrong as if you did that at your own job, which you clearly don't do and clearly agree you don't do. Now the question that comes up is do you advocate changing this admirable philosophy when it comes to the people at your table.
My philosophy is if I dont think you're a fair gm I leave the table. We seem to agree about this point. My philosophy is the whole table gets a vote and if they vote your character shouldnt be brought back from the dead then you live with it or leave the table. I'm pretty sure we agree on this point too. Our rift seems to be on what to do with angry players who wont listen to reason. I believe the proper proper stages are
- 'try to make him happy if you can,
- try to explain to him why you can't but its nothing personal, (4 pages my opinions on this thread were dedicated to the possibility based on the op's admission that he wasnt doing this because the op implied that he could but he wouldn't)
- and if all else fails don't let him game at your table.
In that order.
I'm under the impression based on your posts that you prefer either skipping step 1 under the pretense that a guy with a bad attitude doesnt deserve it even if you'd otherwise be willing, or that you love the idea that its ok to do the 'i could but i wouldn't' part of step 2. Dont let me paint a false opinion on you though.
Nothing would make me happier than knowing that when this player puffed up an insulting 250 page dissertation on how much of an @$$h@7 everyone at the table is his reply from the table was the level headed proper step 2 that you state that you use in your work environment. On page 5 of the thread we learn that this is indeed what happened. You are correct that my philosophy of how things should be handled is how it actually played out at the OP's table.
Despite your level headed philosophy at how to handle people at your job you imply to me that your response to the 250 page dissertation wouldnt involve a step one or two just out of spite, but like I say. Don't let me paint a false picture of you either.
---
If there is a cognitive dissonance between how you behave at work and at the table then the question is why?
Is it because you're not being paid to use steps one and two?
Is it because you've got a big 'I'm the gm so I dont have to' staped on your forehead?
If this is true I'd find it interesting that you'd treat the gamers at your table worse than the people you have to deal with on the job and may, as a result form some less than stellar opinions of you. No offense.
---
Contrariwise if there is no cognitive dissonance between how you treat your parolees and how you treat your players then the queston is then why do I think so? Is it because you truly do use steps 1 and 2 and I've somehow been led astray into believing that you don't? I will admit that if what you've been saying all along is that the players should do those 3 steps in order this whole time then I'm glad we've had a chance to clarify it.
Wow. This has turned into something too much personal for my taste.
Farewell to all
|
This is a social game, not a job. As such, social norms need to apply at the table. If everyone at the table is acting respectfully and accepting of "heroic deaths" despite them making mistakes during the game, then that becomes the social norm for tha group. It's part of the often uncommunicated social contract. Under this contract, people expect to be treated equally. Seems the DM was doing just that.
Now if one person in the group acts against that social norm, by being antagonistic and unaccepting of consequences during game play, then they have broken the social contract. Sometimes this is minor and requires a mild warning. Sometimes it becomes a major issue and the person loses all hope of repairing the original social contract. They get booted. In either case, by breaking the social contract everyone else is abiding by, they lose the right to be treated equally. That's the way social situations work.
As my attempt at an analogy, I am a teacher of students from 12 to 18 years of age. In my job, I regularly get treated both with disrespect and abuse. Despite this, I must treat those people with the same standards of etiquette and ethics as I do the students who treat me respectfully, because that is my job.
However, when in social situations, if I am treated like that, I tell the person exactly what I think and treat them far far differently to the respectful people I know. If a student asks me for a reference for a job, I refer to their behaviour and attitude in my classes over the time I've thought them. Writing a reference is not something my job requires, but I'm often asked to do so by students. It seems many workplaces are interested in teachers opinions of the person asking them for a job. I happily write references for kids who've treated me fairly. I refuse those who haven't.
Unless your being paid as a DM, or perhaps working a con, then social rules trump anything else in terms of what is fair.
Cheers
Except for one thing, Shini in the case of a GM a GM doesn't have the power, not in an absolute sense. There is no framework which ensures that the GMs word is law, no other cops running around with tasers and nightsticks to beat the everloving hell out of somebody who ceases to follow the rules etc..
A GM is rather given power by his players, and he has that power only by virtue of the players accepting his authority. In that sense he is entirely culpable and has a strong incentive to not treat his players like the dirt he wiped off of his shoes. Sometimes this means a DM has to swallow his pride when dealing with his players but that's just life.
I was going to say more but honestly I didn't feel like arguing for no reason, besides it's late.
And while in this case given the information the DM put up 5 pages later(which by the way I really hate, If you ask for advice put the pertinent info into your damn OP people) he may have made the right call on this one. But at the same time it's still possible that he made the right call for the wrong reasons and some of that stuff needed to be addressed.
Pretty much sums up my say on this.
This also reminds me of some past scenarios...
As a tech support agent its also my job to explain things many different ways because some people wont understand one explaination but they will understand it clearly if you rephrase it... I understand if you dont get what i'm saying because you're your players social worker, or parole officer, or waiter...
Lets try something else.
Its like that old Patrick Swayze movie Roadhouse.
You have to be nice. Until its time not to be nice.
Sure sometimes that means the farmhouse where you're staying at gets burned to the ground and all of the decent folk in town are made subservient to the whims of one rich jack@$$ who owns everything and makes the whole town live in fear.
And sometimes it means your best friend and mentor has to be stabbed in the chest and left to die on a bar while you check to make sure your girlfriend is ok.
But that just means you're extra justified when you tear out his henchman's throat with your bare hands and by the end of the movie everybody pretends like they didnt see you do anything illegal and everybody loves you.
What were we talking about again?
SLOW CLAP .....CLAP......CLAP one of my favorite movies and a major inspiration for most of my Unarmed fighter builds
|
|
@Vincent - This is what I was saying about authority being an illusion.
The GM can't make that guy stop causing problems at the table. He really can't.
The only power the GM has is to tell the guy no and hope he listens.
And the player didn't. The player threw a fit.
You accused the GM of being unfair. You continue to accuse him of being unfair. He is not being unfair.
He is being fair.
He has a player who is causing problems for himself and other players at the table and he is asking the player stop doing so.
The player is refusing to stop. He is writing 50 pages of e-mails accusing the GM of being unfair to him.
This isn't a strawman. This is what is actually happening.
If a player isn't going to play the game as the rest of the people at the table want the game to be played, the player is trying to assert authority over the table. He is currently trying to assert authority over the GM as to what the rules are.
Why would anyone reasonably or rationally defer the decision of the outcome to the least reasonable person involved?
That is what you are asking for. You are saying to appease and accomodate the player? To what end? Because it will make him stop? Clearing that isn't the case. Clearly he will continue to do this each and every time, because he got what he wanted.
He is asserting authority. Because authority is an illusion. Who is in charge is the person people are willing to defer to. He is demanding the GM defer to him. Titles are meaningless if the player is the one who is actually GMing.
And this can be a good thing. Lord knows when I run with my group I am playing with people who have played and run longer than I have, and so when they know the rule better, and have shown they are reasonable people, I will likely defer to them.
This guy isn't reasonable. This guy doesn't know the rules. The only reason to defer to this guy is if you are trying to get him to stop complaining.
The GM offered a compromise, it was refused. The player wants it his way, no negotiation.
He is trying to run the show, and your suggestion is to accomodate him running the show, despite the fact it is upsetting everyone at the table but him.