Fair. What is "fair" as a GM? I think after 254 posts it is safe to say that there are a lot of different opinions as to what is being "fair" as a gamemaster.
I work 40+ hours a week. One weekend a month and two weeks a year (ha! right, I wish!) I serve in the Army Reserve. I have three children and a very understanding, beautiful wife that I don't spend enough time with. My "honey-do" list and my "honey-you-better-do" lists is long than I like.
Still, I fine time to prepare my game and run a weekly game. I have players, who give me detailed backgrounds, design floor plans and who contact me via email, texts and phone during the week. I have players who I only hear from as they are walking in the door to play the game.
Do I treat them differntly? Darn right! Is that fair? You better believe it, pal! If you whine, rules layer and take away from the enjoyment of others, I am going to give you the bare minimuim back as a Gamemaster. You are not going to be a key player, and the plot isn't going to center on you.
Gasp! So unfair....not! My time is valuable, I have other things that I could be doing, if you waste that as a player I am going to treat you differently....and, guess what, it is completely FAIR!
I as a GM, will invest into you as a player as much as YOU as a player invest into my game. If you whine, rules layer and make my game time unfun, I am not going be partial to you as a player or a character.
Why is it "fair" for you as a player/character to waste my time and the other players time?
This comment has recieved one "favorite" vote. I feel that i must give a different viewpoint.
You sure you want to go that route?
Assuming that the player does not leave, it encourages players to build completly out of control legal builds that will disrupt your story.
Or it will encourage the player to cheat. You not fair with me, I'm not fair with you.
I mean the players time is valuable as well, right?
Step back from this abyss that people seem to want to jump in.
The only way to win thermo nucklear war is not to play.....
Or it will encourage the player to cheat. You not fair with me, I'm not fair with you.
I mean the players time is valuable as well, right?
We have experimented with this concept at our tables before. Its another good example of a version of 'fair' that is very human and understandable, but still resulted in people quitting. Could have been a lesson learned but sometimes showing a guy their version of fair isnt good enough for the rest of the table doesnt result in learning to operate under a different social contract but instead quitting. In my 3 step intervention process this would have fallen in at about step 2... We tried negotiation, we tried this which was our way of saying 'we're sorry, we cant let you do that'...
By the time we decided to use that tactic we were pretty much ok with the possibility that it would make him leave.
So to some folks having a cheater at the table is better than no player at all, I guess.
Part of what makes this conversation difficult is that the terms we're using keep changing... Fair, more than fair, respectful.
At the end of the day your tactics are results oriented, and the results determine your technique.
I think if you dont care if the guy leaves or if you believe he's never going to change, then it's fine to treat him however you like. He'll be peeved and pack his bags or you'll pack his bags for him and his departure will be great for everyone in the long run.
If you want him at your table you try your best to make a better gamer out of him.
We're not all born perfect gamers, and some tables dont have the chops or the desire to nurse a good gamer out of a bad gamer.
To clarify yes. The gm we had was a cheater, but the players at the table wanted to prove to him that cheating isnt the way to go, but since telling him it doesnt work wasnt working, we wanted to prove it didnt work by example. When he found out what we were doing he got the lesson. Then he quit. By the time we were willing to cheat to prove a point we as a table were also willing to accept the possibility that he wouldnt be willing to change his ways when he saw how badly it goes, at which point he'd have to leave. This is an example of how we didnt necessarily want him to leave. We wanted him to learn a lesson and grow as a gamer. Only when he decided that wasnt a possibility did he leave.
Some tables would have just given him the boot. As gamers we try our best to have a good time, sure, but at least at our table we feel some responsibility to help a bad gamer get better.
I thought for sure thats what these forums were all about.
Personally, I would rather watch TV than put up with some of the silly crap I read here. I really have fun running games as a GM, but when I have players sucking the fun out of it for me, then I can't see how I am putting in a good enough effort for it to be fun to the rest of the players. I have walked away from promising campaigns because of things like this. No, my vote is NOT for a lousy player is better than no player at all. Rather have NONE.
I dont condone it as a proper way to game, but as a teaching tool to help illustrate to cheaters that cheating doesnt work? I entirely approve of it. The campaign itself is certainly disastrous but it can be quite illustrative to the original offender. Its a completely different kind of adventure, thats for sure.
|
The terms have not changed. More than fair was in the OP. As in, he would be more than fair to a normal person who wasn't being an entitled jerk, but in this instance since he was dealing with someone being an entitled jerk, he wanted to make sure he was being fair. As in, following the rules.
And the OP was trying to make a better gamer out of him by not letting him make up rules and bully him. Unfortunately, the player thought he was already a great gamer and knew the rules better than the GM. And he told the GM so. In 50 pages of e-mails telling the GM how unfair he was.
And despite this, he still offered a more than fair solution of another roll, which was denied by the player because he wanted the rules as he read them.
You could just say you were wrong. You don't have to defend this guy and the untenable position you are now arguing for. You could say to the OP "Wow, sounds like you were right about that guy, sorry I accused you of being unfair."
And yet...
|
There are 2 definitions of "fair" at play here:
1) Fair is when everyone is rewarded the same.
2) Fair is when everyone is rewarded according to their efforts.
I prefer #2. If I put a lot of energy into something, I expect to get more out of it. If I put very little effort in, I don't expect to (or care if) I get much back.
-Skeld
You could just say you were wrong. You don't have to defend this guy and the untenable position you are now arguing for. You could say to the OP "Wow, sounds like you were right about that guy, sorry I accused you of being unfair."
And yet...
If you want to believe that I accused the gm of being unfair then i'm giving you permission to believe that i've apologized for it. Authority being an illusion and all. I want to believe that I suggested a 3 step process for how to handle it and 5 pages later we found out thats exactly what the table did. I wasnt gonna, but I give you permission to believe that happened as well. hows that?
|
|
Rewarded is an interesting word choice.
Rewards are incentive based. You receive a reward for doing something. If you do this, you are rewarded with this.
What we have here is fairness in the form of a GM should follow the rules of the game. Making something bad happen to players beyond the rules would be punishment, but following the rules is just following the rules.
Now doing something positive for players beyond the rules would be a rewards. Which is what the player was seeking.
And what in no way did his play or behavior indicate he deserved.
The player was entitled to neutral and fair adjudication. He got that.
He sought a reward. Other players in the game demonstrated behavior that made them eligible for rewards.
He didn't.
If the GM killed him outside of the rules (Which several people accused him of) the GM would be wrong.
He didn't.
The GM adjudicated the rules properly and the players actions led him to die. The GM heard the appeal, and saw no reason to reward the player with something outside of the rules.
|
|
If you want to believe that I accused the gm of being unfair then i'm giving you permission to believe that i've apologized for it. Authority being an illusion and all. I want to believe that I suggested a 3 step process for how to handle it and 5 pages later we found out thats exactly what the table did. I wasnt gonna, but I give you permission to believe that happened as well. hows that?You could just say you were wrong. You don't have to defend this guy and the untenable position you are now arguing for. You could say to the OP "Wow, sounds like you were right about that guy, sorry I accused you of being unfair."
And yet...
You did accuse the GM of being unfair. That is a fact. Unless someone took over your computer and has been typing your posts for you.
If you aren't sorry for that, you don't have to be.
At this point, I kind of feel like your philosophy of cheating to teach the GM a lesson is helping my argument more than anything I could type, so I might just get out of the way and let you keep going.
rocks fall everyone dies.
From what i read, i was under the impression that people were calling for not aplying the rules to everyone in the same manner.
Did I read that wrong?
Did people not state or imply that the rules were different depending on how well the player and the DM got along?
Lets be clear, i dont think i have a problem with the character who died. The mechanics seem clear. What bothers me here is that people are saying that becuase he disagreed and argued after the game the character deserved to die, no matter what the rules say.
Thats not good.
I hope the player never reads this thread.
rocks fall everyone dies.Reflex save!
Ok you take half damage from the rocks falling so instead of being dead you are only half dead as you lie there and bleed out, taking crushing damage each round from the rocks that are covering you..... mmmkkk?
|
|
Ok, let me get this straight. You advocate the ideal of being kind to someone when they are not being kind to you, because MAYBE they will see the errors of their ways and act differently.
Then, you cheat in a game, indeed advocate all the players to cheat, because the gamemaster is cheating and we all know the kind way to treat a cheater is to cheat him?
I am I missing something here?
My favorite part is that the GM is the guy everyone at the table has agreed to put in charge of running the game. So if that guy is cheating to the point there is a table mutiny against him, how much must everyone else mistrust each other that they didn't just have someone else who was playing run the game.
I mean, they decided to all come to the game in order to sabatoge that game, rather then just pick a new GM.
That happened.
1 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...
2 I think this is an awesome example of how you chase a gamer from the game.
3 I'm sure everyone at the table is thankful this whining powergamer is no longer crowding their gamespace.
4 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?"
5 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."
6 "If you ask me the gm telling this player 'this is not the table for you' is doing him a huge favor.
7 I wouldnt be at all surprised if this 'novice gm' asked you how you'd handle this 'powergaming whiner' and you advised him 'let him make the character then kill it off'..."
So let me summarize all these quotes of mine... cherry picked by you (ciretose) about my supposed 'accusation'
1 The player probably wishes not to be abused
2 People quit gaming because of this
3 It appears the whole table is happy that he's gone
4 If your table doesnt care if he leaves then who cares
5 Your opinions are not my opinions
6 Setting a player free when you cant come to an agreement is a good thing
7 Aggressive tones only make me more likely to think this is being handled badly.
Tell me which one is me accusing the gm of being unfair?
Ok, please help me understand this. You have experimented with cheating at your tables when the GM does not reach your definition of fair? I really don't understand the comment and wish clairfy.We have experimented with this concept at our tables before. Its another good example of a version of 'fair' that is very human and understandable, but still resulted in people quitting.Or it will encourage the player to cheat. You not fair with me, I'm not fair with you.
I mean the players time is valuable as well, right?
My definition of fair can be summed up as this:
A 10 level wizrd casting fireball rolls 10d6.An outgoing wizard casts 10d6.
An incomming fireball from an equivalent wizard is 10d6.
Anything wrong with that?
|
|
Most of have been advocating not going out of our way to help someone being a douchenozzle. We weren't saying "forget these rules when dealing with this guy because I don't like him and it will hurt his character" we were saying "you died completely withing the bounds of the rules but because you're being a ninny I am not giving you a mulligan."From what i read, i was under the impression that people were calling for not aplying the rules to everyone in the same manner.
Did read that wrong?
Did people not state or imply that the rules were different depending on how well the player and the DM got along?
More than that, the GM actually did give him a mulligan, but the player still complained it wasn't enough of a mulligan.
What the OP was saying from the beginning was "I want to make sure I ruled correctly so here is what happened. If this guy was polite and considerate like everyone else at the table rather than being a jerk I might have considered giving him a mulligan, but he is being a jerk and so I just want to adjudicate the rule properly."
|
|
1 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...2 I think this is an awesome example of how you chase a gamer from the game.
3 I'm sure everyone at the table is thankful this whining powergamer is no longer crowding their gamespace.
4 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?"
5 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."
6 "If you ask me the gm telling this player 'this is not the table for you' is doing him a huge favor.
7 I wouldnt be at all surprised if this 'novice gm' asked you how you'd handle this 'powergaming whiner' and you advised him 'let him make the character then kill it off'..."
So let me summarize all these quotes of mine... cherry picked by you (ciretose) about my supposed 'accusation'
1 The player probably wishes not to be abused
2 People quit gaming because of this
3 It appears the whole table is happy that he's gone
4 If your table doesnt care if he leaves then who cares
5 Your opinions are not my opinions
6 Setting a player free when you cant come to an agreement is a good thing
7 Aggressive tones only make me more likely to think this is being handled badly.Tell me which one is me accusing the gm of being unfair?
Those were the examples of things you said that I thought you might want to apologize to the OP for saying.
Apparently, you don't.
As to you specifically saying the GM was being unfair.
Go to will this do?.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved evasion! :)rocks fall everyone dies.Reflex save!Ok you take half damage from the rocks falling so instead of being dead you are only half dead as you lie there and bleed out, taking crushing damage each round from the rocks that are covering you..... mmmkkk?
Hey this my narrative, i dont want dice rolls interrupting it, or altering it in any way.
|
|
My favorite part is that the GM is the guy everyone at the table has agreed to put in charge of running the game. So if that guy is cheating to the point there is a table mutiny against him, how much must everyone else mistrust each other that they didn't just have someone else who was playing run the game.
I mean, they decided to all come to the game in order to sabatoge that game, rather then just pick a new GM.
That happened.
To be fair, maybe none of them wanted to be the GM? Maybe they were invested in their characters and wanted to continue playing them.
Also, he did say that they talked the GM beforehand and that the GM still didn't understand why him cheating was a problem so they decided to SHOW him why it was a problem.
And that was the solution they came up with?
If they were that invested, none of them could be unselfish enough to just take over the game?
How twisted a table dynamic do you have to have that group cheating to "teach the GM a lesson" makes sense.
You picked the GM. You agreed to play with the GM. He is presumably your friend, and this was the solution.
And to do that and then to have the gall to criticize a GM who didn't bend the rules in a single disruptive players favor?
Yeah...
@vinocent: I almost saw a slight possiblity of seeing your side, right up til you threw your ideal aside and advocated the unkind act of cheating in a game to show a Gm the errors of cheating.You have just invalidated your whole arguement, and destroyed your creditability.
If different teaching styles is all thats all it takes for you to disbelieve my philosophies then you're free to it. That doesnt discredit them but you are free to believe that it does. It doesnt destroy my argument or my credibility, but if it does for you then thats the way it is.
You're always free to decide what the right and wrong way to disagree with your gm is. Even if authority is an illusion, personal authority is not. If you cant believe your own beliefs then what can you believe in.
My favorite part is that the GM is the guy everyone at the table has agreed to put in charge of running the game. So if that guy is cheating to the point there is a table mutiny against him, how much must everyone else mistrust each other that they didn't just have someone else who was playing run the game.
Yeah. You sometimes let the new guy gm. It happens at tables all the time. We tried pulling the rip cord and saying no, no.. thats not right... Didn't work. We could have pulled the rip cord and all quit his game, but at the time we didnt want to just unilaterally kick him out of the group but instead prove to him why his deal wasnt workin out. It happens. Practice makes perfect and we wanted him to have some practice because he could learn from it. We could have taken over as gm but its a good teaching opportunity to roll with it. We're a table full of gms. That can be quite a recipe for 'opinions on how a rule should be handled' especially in a system as loosely written as pathfinder but we do it. Because you do. Or your don't. But we do. Its no less fun to 'create' another great gamer than it is to have a good campaign. We dont flush 'em down the toilet because they werent born a Gygax.
If that philosophy is enough to make a ciretose or a thalandar not want to sit at our tables then its probably for the best.
You dont necessarily want to yank the reigns from them either. Sometimes you want to let that chariot roll right off a cliff so you can talk about it later. Because at a table full of gms who are 1 Friends 2 Philosophical 3 Intelligent 4 interested in improving their craft, sometimes the conversations about the game last longer than the game itself.
If thats not you then stay away from my table. Its cool. We definitely dont need ya and you definitely wouldnt like us.
You either have the patience to work with tough cases or you don't. Nobody is saying you have to. Just happens to be something our table full of gms does because it can be just as fun as anything else. I totally get why other tables wouldnt do it, or couldnt do it, but when the issue comes up that a new guy wants to try the gm chair, you dont kick him out of the group just because he doesnt do a stellar job on day 1. And so you try to fix it... And if he's able to learn it then great! You've got a new dm! If he can't be trained then maybe you dont wanna treat him so bad that he wants to leave, so using his own tactic against him is a good 'fair' way to show him his own policies at work. If he still cant roll with it then you cut him loose. 3 stages.
I know this might totally break versimilitude between some people and the real world, but I feel its my duty to inform you that other gaming tables...
they handle gaming...
different than you...
I know! I know. Its bad. Thats why you can feel safe and nested into what they call the pathfinder society where everything is settled for you and every table does things the same way... (dont think i havent noticed both of you are society members)
Some of us though... Some of us game... outside those safely defined boundaries. And though I wont promise it works as smoothly... It can work! Admittedly by certain peoples experience the probabilities are around 0% or so but still!
Would you believe our table has played a game called heroes unlimited where, get this, your one single character can be invulnerable, intangible AND immortal? What kinda fun could that game possibly be. What kind of table could find a way to make that character's story exciting and challenging.
But it happens. In the dark corners of gaming. Out here. On the fringe. We game in the fires that Gygax was forged in.
I shake my fist at the universe while I bleed out, and I believe the GM is cheating so its ok that I forgot to tell you I have the specail power of "defy gamemaster damage" so I am really fine.Improved evasion! :)rocks fall everyone dies.Reflex save!Ok you take half damage from the rocks falling so instead of being dead you are only half dead as you lie there and bleed out, taking crushing damage each round from the rocks that are covering you..... mmmkkk?
True story, I cant tell you how many times i have died because I forgot a racial bonus to X save, in Y circumstance...
Or something to do with a +2 to a skill check put only while wearing ballerina slippers.... dOH, I was wearing ballerina slippers....IF ONLY!so much easier just to play human....sigh.
Most of have been advocating not going out of our way to help someone being a douchenozzle. We weren't saying "forget these rules when dealing with this guy because I don't like him and it will hurt his character" we were saying "you died completely withing the bounds of the rules but because you're being a ninny I am not giving you a mulligan."From what i read, i was under the impression that people were calling for not aplying the rules to everyone in the same manner.
Did read that wrong?
Did people not state or imply that the rules were different depending on how well the player and the DM got along?
well i would think that either everone gets a mulligan or none.
That is fair.
Half-elf, master of having forgettable bonuses, I choose you!
|
I would like to interject something into the conversation that comes from the op's first post. This may resolve something for this thread so people aren't just yelling abuse at eac other any more.
The op stated that the other players at his table would not have asked for a mulligan. He states they would have accepted the heroic death of their characters and moved on.
This means, the player in question is not asking to be treated the same as everyone else, he is asking to be given special treatment.
When people are asked to do something above the normal standards of fair for a group, they apply social considerations to it. If the person asking for the special favour is polite and well mannered, you're more likely tyo aquiesce to their request. If they're rude and belligerent you tend to say no. Because it is a personal favour.
Interestingly, if the situation had occurred before and the GM had said yes to one player, but no to another, then this would seem a bit unfair. However, it was the first time. Nw that precedent is set, I would assume this GM will consistently say no in situations like this.
Now we can all stop talkng about what is fair and what isn't, since this was never a question about someone being treated worse than others. It was always about someone asking for more than others.