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.
Roberta Yang I think actually tackled this issue several pages ago, but thank you.
Still didnt stop the tide but its been one of the big talking points in some versions of the definition of the word 'fair' since its its a logical inconsistancy to say 'i'd have raised the other players but the players wouldnt have asked for it in the first place' creating a false generosity that never has to be called upon, or a real generosity that when called upon doesnt work or only works situationally.
I'm nearly 40. Been gaming since 1982. Started with redbox, went through goldbox, ad&d2e. heroes unlimited, rifts, cyberpunk 2020, Spent most of my time as a gm and very little time as a player. Maybe 6 months or so as a player. I also ran because nobody else wanted to. You're probably right about entitlement camps as a function of age. Our table tries super hard not to have any entitlement at all.
I never used to be a 'game master is always right' kinda guy and knowing now how these younger game masters run things I'm staunchly opposed to 'game master is always right'...
Knowing that a game with no players is no kind of game at all its been much more successful for us to take the democratic approach at our table. If a rule is in question our a houserule is suggested, the table votes. Since every player at our table has been a gm for some time they have a pretty good idea what they're doing. I'm not sure if its an advantage that I'm the one at our table with the most experience but its undebatably true. Only our warhammer gm comes even close and I think I remember him telling me that he was on the development team for warhammer 1e. Not sure if I believe him though.
The more your players are on board with how the game is being run the more likely they feel a sense of ownership of the campaign and a more vested interest in its success. Game master starts cracking whip and its true. People either stay but screw around or leave.
Its funny how we're both old school gamers, but you gravitate towards gm is always right and I gravitate away from it. I guess I gravitate towards it when its a table full of gms achieving a consensus like my table does, but as this thread points out a lot of times that can and often does go in the opposite direction instead.
I know being nice to mean people doesnt create a realistic utopia but I know that 'nobody ever gets to get angry or disagree at our table' is an equally unrealistic utopia. You just do what you can to keep the game goin'. I'm definitely not a POS player or gm. They set the rules instead of me, and I dont agree with the rules they set, so it'll never work for me to be in POS.
Vicent,
You and your group got together and decided to cheat en mass against your dm, yet you have championed for this problematic player by stating the dm/group was being "unfair" to him/treating him unfairly. He came on here stating he had a problem with this guy and he wanted to be sure he was ruling fairly apparently regardless of how he felt towards the player. How are your actions more "fair" than his? You feel what you group did was just fine, yet you don't even give this OP the benefit of the doubt when your group apparently had no other option than resorting to cheating. His supposed "perceived" slight was just that perceived, mostly in part due to the fact *we* as a group read what we want to read into something and not all of us are english majors and can post exactly what we need to w/o there being some misunderstanding. You keep trying to rally your point but when put in a situation that you and your group did not like you deliberately cheated. At what point does your actions become acceptible and the OP's does not? Especially when you could have said to your DM "Dude, this isn't going to work out. We think you need to find a different group as your playstyle doesn't match ours"
Me and my group decided to cheat en masse against our dm as a teaching tool about the things in his campaign that were not right, only to illustrate a point and only after discussing it with him and only with the intent of illustrating the point, knowing he could handle it.
The OP's table had an angry player with a gm that admitted bias directly unqualified and unprompted. My only suggestion was that he remove his bias from the equation. As an added piece of advice I recommend further that trying to fix an angry or whiny players behavior by the definition of 'treating him the same' as fairness and 'treating him differently' as fairness are distinct methods and like everyone else on these boards I have a preference for the method that does the most to diffuse the situation and educate the player. I presume this table believes they are a skilled qualified group of individuals who know what they're doing. He wont be learning anything more from this table and hopefully will find more ways to develop his gaming skills elsewhere.
The difference is we have good intentions towards our player and his development of his gaming skills and wish to continue to include him in the learning process. The OP's post seemed much more concerned with 'how do i staunch the possibility of adversity at my table' or at best 'how to I make this player realize they're wrong and i'm right' and less on how help the player short circuit his own feelings of unfairness, which clearly the rest of the table were of the concensus to be unfounded.
I was interested in pointing out that the decision doesnt have to be so unilateral and in fact may be exacerbating the feelings of inadequacy experienced by the player. I encourage using different methods than the 'fairness of treating him the same' as it clearly hasnt worked for him so far. If what you're doing isnt working you change the channel and try something different. This group may very well have been doing the same thing and expecting different results and though I did not insinuate that they were, I did insinuate that I got a feeling that taking a softer approach might work better. Several posts were dedicated to the suggestion that the ruling be table wide, which we discovered it was and I entirely supported.
CLAP CLAP CLAP
you have managed to bring in religion in to the discusion I am so proud of how this is spiraling out of control...
now can somebody make Godwins law true and we can be on our merry way for this thread to be shut down....
It's like a party in this topic. A Nazi party.
And dont get me wrong. POS is great. Theres something to be said for establishing a set of rules that everyone can agree on so you can just sit down at a table and know what to expect. Its simply one more step down the sterile unified symmetrical path of (balance?)(law?) that pathfinder as a system has been trying to achieve, and thats just my own admittedly biased opinion of it.
Liking summoners and magic item crafting kind of makes pathfinder society the wrong group for me. If pathfinder didnt have that stuff I'd go back to 2e. WBL and CR and class balance arent strong sales points for me since I'm mostly of a 2e/palladium stock. In palladium you pretty much throw the map and and possible ideas of game balance out the window. Its rip snorting crazy theater of the mind, but its not for everyone.
Generally I have noticed that pathfinder society members seem to make their arguments in the forums a little more dictatorial/unilateral and i'm not sure if that comes from arguing the rules of the society or if its just the nature of a more lawful gaming table to come across as more of a Judge Dredd about the way gms should be treated or players should be treated or rules should be treated. Its just something I've noticed and further steers me away from society play, but it definitely has its strong points and its place. I totally picture ciretose as the Stallone version of Judge Dredd.
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?.
Looks like your link went to another IF statement. Bravo for consistancy?
I definitly havent been on these forums long enough to know what the Nazi thing is all about. But I agree with you two that its sometimes a tough but necessary call. Theres no doubt some people cant be fixed.
Oh, man, he did it he really went thereIt's like a party in this topic. A Nazi party.CLAP CLAP CLAP
you have managed to bring in religion in to the discusion I am so proud of how this is spiraling out of control...
now can somebody make Godwins law true and we can be on our merry way for this thread to be shut down....
If we're using cliched internet tropes i'll play along!
I did Nazi that coming!
i c wut u did thar
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.
Hush!!
This thread hasn't been about the OP since page 2. Just sit back, Watche the flames... and wait for the next paladin/alignment thread to pop up. ;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vincent, you've missed my point completely.
If this player had asked in a more polite and respectful manner, the GM would probably ruled differently. This is what he's saying when he mentions the other players in his group, since they're polite and reasonable.
However he wasn't. Therefore his belligerent and annoying tone has now set the precedent for this gm's table if ever this situation arises again. In essence, the rude player has ruined the option of special consideration for everyone else from this point on.
This GM treated this guy with respect on numerous occasions, letting him play character despite GM reservations, giving him options and compromise after the event, and even checking here to see if his rules interpretations were correct (and they were).
You're not asking for the DM to be fair at all. You're asking him to do whatever the players ask of him, no matter the situation. That is unfair, On the DM.
Now imagine if he'd given in to this player. Ignore anything about the behaviour, just the bit about the rules. If he sets a precedent that characters should survive despite bad decisions and inspire of the rules, then he's effectively telling his players there are no consequences and no real danger for your actions. That is obviously not what he wants at his game. Nor do the rest of his players it seems.
Indeed, this is what distinguishes table RPGs from computer games with save functions.
Cheers
Knowing his other players are polite and reasonable its possible that the gm could make a decision that would both be good for the whiner and not offensive to the dynamic of his non whiner players...
In the end we discover this happened. The GM tried, and sadly it didnt do the trick. Its true, you can't win 'em all.
Belligerent and annoying doesnt have to set a precedent at a table full of polite and reasonable players. If you get a new player at your polite and reasonable table, and you help him along a little bit to adjust to your table do the rest of your polite and reasonable players suddently become a table full of whiners? I feel sorry for the table where this is true but I'm uh... 'leery of its pervasiveness?'
Granted thats biased since my table is full of rational intelligent gms and maybe not every table is like that so take it with a grain of salt.
By the time my suggestion was made the only thing we knew about the gms generosity towards the whiner was that he had begrudgingly accepted the players choice of class and had not yet even decided if or how to bring the character back.
To make 7 pages of posts short your definition of fair is the 'fair by same' version of fair and to treat the whiner differently than the non whiners is 'unfair'. That definition is not the only version of the word fair, but...
By that definition you're absolutely right that my suggestion to the dm is to make an unfair decision, though it is a far cry from me asking the gm to 'do whatever the players ask of him no matter the situation'... This is a fallacy of scale.
eg: because I can bring down a house consisting of six over-lapping cards by blowing on it, it is therefore very likely I can also bring down a full-size brick house by blowing on it.
eg: because i give a whiny player a freebie i will only deal with nothing but whiners for the remainder of my days till I die and all kind, intelligent reasonable 'fair' players around me will forget every courtesy and become whinerbaby entitlement vampire leeches.
This is what distinguishes a table full of experienced role players from a bunch of 6 year olds playing calvinball, but hopefully any given RPG table is populated by sterner stuff.
But again thats bias because one whiner at a table doesnt screw up all my players.
|
Your quote.
"If what he's whining for is for the gm to stop unfairly singling him out then yeah. Give him that."
Implies the GM is unfairly singling him out, does it not?
You're position on fairness might be a bit in question when it includes group cheating to teach a new GM a lesson is more fair than not breaking the rules to appease a complaining character.
|
|
But again thats bias because one whiner at a table doesnt screw up all my players.
Because the 4 of you collude to cheat against the GM who doesn't rule in your favor?
Edit: Also the irony of you using calvinball as a reference when you have explained that your group makes up the rules by committee as you go is pretty funny.
This thread hasn't been about the OP since page 2. Just sit back, Watche the flames... and wait for the next paladin/alignment thread to pop up. ;)
What alignment do you think is the player who was ejected from the table?
Do you think it was a lawful act for the group to eject him?
What alignment are ciretose and Vincent Takeda given their vocations?
My apologies as I can't think of a way to invoke Godwin's Law in the same post.
|
|
Oh, man, he did it he really went thereIt's like a party in this topic. A Nazi party.CLAP CLAP CLAP
you have managed to bring in religion in to the discusion I am so proud of how this is spiraling out of control...
now can somebody make Godwins law true and we can be on our merry way for this thread to be shut down....
If we're using cliched internet tropes i'll play along!
I did Nazi that coming!
I went to the fridge to get some O.J.
Unfortunately earlier I drank the last of it. I have eliminated all of the juice.
|
|
This thread hasn't been about the OP since page 2. Just sit back, Watche the flames... and wait for the next paladin/alignment thread to pop up. ;)What alignment do you think is the player who was ejected from the table?
Do you think it was a lawful act for the group to eject him?
What alignment are ciretose and Vincent Takeda given their vocations?
My apologies as I can't think of a way to invoke Godwin's Law in the same post.
I think he believes he is lawful good, but in reality he is more chaotic neutral.
Your quote.
"If what he's whining for is for the gm to stop unfairly singling him out then yeah. Give him that."
Implies the GM is unfairly singling him out, does it not?
You're position on fairness might be a bit in question when it includes group cheating to teach a new GM a lesson is more fair than not breaking the rules to appease a complaining character.
Once again 'Implies' is your goggles, not mine and the reason the if is so important is because it only implies that theres unfairness going on if there is indeed unfairness going on. Feel how you want to feel about how I handle people at my own table dude. It's your ballgame. Its all you.
But again thats bias because one whiner at a table doesnt screw up all my players.Because the 4 of you collude to cheat against the GM who doesn't rule in your favor?
Edit: Also the irony of you using calvinball as a reference when you have explained that your group makes up the rules by committee as you go is pretty funny.
Its not irony. Its the point of the excercise. If everyone at the table agrees upon the rules and one person at the table decides to change the rules from day to day and moment to moment then you're just playing calvinball. Did this truly not register with you?
And dont even make the connection that bringing a whiner's character back to life is calvinball because thats making one concession to an upset player, not invalidating the rules of the game entirely which would be another fallacy of scope that you're probably already making at this very moment.
I think he believes he is lawful good, but in reality he is more chaotic neutral.
I believe that ciretose was correct from the beginning but that is besides the point. I think that this thread has sort of spiralled out of control and there is now only one way to sort it out.
We need ciretose and Vincent Takeda to both pick 10th level characters and fight it out in an online gladitorial arena. There's been a few threads on gladitorial arenas and how this can be handled.
I think that this would generate a fair amount of interest from the Pathfinder community and would just be awesome. A thread detailing the fight and the eventual winner would generate a lot of hits and replies.
What do you 2 say to this?
What alignment do you think is the player who was ejected from the table?
Do you think it was a lawful act for the group to eject him?
What alignment are ciretose and Vincent Takeda given their vocations?
If you dont recognize these alignments check out
Dragon Magazine Issue 124: August 1987: Front End Alignments
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you dont recognize these alignments check out
Dragon Magazine Issue 124: August 1987: Front End Alignments
I must admit I am curious to check it out. Unfortunately, I don't own any Dragon Magazines.
[he was a] Synthesist summoner, so he WAS the eidolon.
Seriously, what is a player who has as poor a handle on the rules as this guy clearly does, doing playing a Synth Summoner?
Every single rules issue goes against him. You just need to read the relevant spells and conditions.
Re: what you can do while falling, that is covered by the Environment Chapter:
A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall.
I had been remembering 600 ft/round for some reason, but it looks like you fall 500'/round. So he would hit the bottom before the next turn comes around.
This guy just sounds really immature and can't handle his character dying, ESPECIALLY when his own incompetence leads him to believe that anything he's not totally familiar with is wrong if it goes against his character. Why not ask him "If I realize I used the wrong modifier on this roll in an encounter 2 weeks ago, so your character should really be dead, is that OK?" If you realize something before your next turn, then some re-do is reasonable. (I don't see how that applies here, since he's totally in the wrong, and it should have gone down like it did, so ret-conning doesn't even apply)
Basically, his decision to ask to be knocked out the window is a sign of extreme immaturity and failure of role-playing. In-character, unless his character is suicidal, there is no reason to do that. He could have continued trying every round, and every round he has a minimum chance of rolling Natural 20 to escape, and the Revenant a chance of rolling Natural 1. Not to mention if the CMB odds are better than that. Heck, the Wizard could have cast Invisibility or Mirror Image on him to give him a Miss Chance vs. Grapple attacks. His personal immaturity meaning he doesn't like his ego-avatar to have to stick around combat not doing anything empowering and having to rely on marginal chance events occuring, isn't an excuse to drop roleplaying and throw an immersion-destroying temper tantrum, in-game and out.
Since the rules obviously DON'T allow for spending multiple rounds falling 500', he couldn't have known that FOR A FACT when he made that decision, so making that decision rashly without asking about it first was just his stupid immature move. That he has obviously unleashed much rabid negativity on you, when you were in fact in the right re: the rules, and certainly you were just acting in good faith as a GM, makes me say you should clearly communicate what happened and how it's affected you, and barring DRASTIC TOTAL REPENTANCE, you should just kick him out from the game. Immature d%%$#eads aren't fun.
I've seen similar cases (but much better behaved), where in an arena game some players just gave up and stopped participating because their character was stuck in a combo black tentacles + stinking fog for 7-8 rounds or so. when they left, i was left to run their character. in the end, we kicked ass, in fact in good part thanks to their character, who after finally escaping and the nausea wearing off, hadn't really taken that much damage and was free to let loose fireballs and hold persons to decimate the remaining enemies (along with my bad ass barbarian-fighter-dragon-disciople ;-) ). that player missed out on the ultimate triumph, and was a jerk to their co-players by abandoning their responsibility and putting the burden on others. fact is, nobody should get into this game thinking 'i will always get my way and be forever glorious'. the game is skewed to the PCs, but not so completely. such an attitude is obvious compensation for real life, where that doesn't fly either. playing along with this sort of dick-head attitude doesn't help you or this d!*@+ead player.
are we done yet? the DM made his decision do we really need to continue on this thread?
Sorry Lobolusk, but this thread has achieved critical mass...only Gandalf can save us now!
|
|
Vincent, you've completely misstated what I was saying again.
I never said that giving in to this player would result in everyone becoming a whiner. In fact, I clearly stated that taking the decision completely free of emotion .....
What I was saying was, if the DM gave in to this player, despite the rules showing he no grounds for being alive after the incident, that would set a precedent that rules didn't matter in terms of player death and resurrection.
The DM didn't want to do this clearly, but in in an effort to appease the player, he tried to compromise. It's what then led to whining and abusive emails which caused him to be booted.
You keep adding hyperbole to my statements and adding entire sets of emotions and agendas to people that haven't been mentioned at all, except in your posts.
Not once did I say that whining behaviour would set a precedent for more whining behaviour.
I did say that giving in to players demands despite the rules would set a precedent for future such occurrences, which could be completely polite. The whining and whinging just made it easier for the DM to make the call.
Welp, what I've learned is that when players argue with you during the game, you have a major problem as DM.
As such, you have to nip it in the bud, for a lot of reasons, most of which involve the fact that it stops the game dead in its tracks.
So, I have made it a house rule to do this: When you as a player object to something that I'm doing as a DM, you have about a minute to 30 seconds to present your case. I will listen, believe me! If I at least partially understand your point, I will give you a 50/50 chance via a roll of a d20. If your call of evens or odds is correct, you get your way, but only THIS time. I will do the research in between games to find out the truth. Fail, and we do it the way I was going to before you argued.
Continue arguing, and I start sending random monsters to kick your tuckus. In fact, any time my players devolve into long arguments, that's what I do. Snaps 'em right out of it.
Get insistent with me, and I zorch your PC. Make a new one, and like it or leave. I have to consider how often you are dragging the game to a screeching halt for some bit of minutiae. That kind of thing drives other players away from the game, and gives me a migraine.
How's that for a policy? I hate rules lawyers, therefore I break them of it right quick. They try to get their way with rule stomping, then conveniently ignore when they themselves are getting away with breaking the game rules.
Well yes, treating everyone equally regardless of past conduct is an ideal, not a realism. I mean, even if it is not as overt as a guy punching you in the face, people will subconsciously adjust their treatment of others due to past events. Potentially even things that don't really matter or register on a conscious level, such as manner of speech, dress, posture, etc., can have an impact. A complete "I treat everyone equally" philosophy is something that someone can aspire to, and even have relative success in achieving beyond the initial encounter (barring extreme conduct by other parties involved), but I view it as an idealistic impossibility due to human nature.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.Generally a good post and one I agree with, except one part in this section. Yes, I am going to quibble, but it is an important one.
Fair = everyone treated equally should only be the ideal setting when one meets a stranger, once one engages in a social interaction with a stranger this stance becomes detrimental. By subscribing to those stance "Fair = Everyone treated equally" you are saying that actions don't matter. That all actions should have the same response. The guy who punches you in the face should be treated the same as the guy who shakes your hand. This does not work.
Sorry, I misread what you wrote. I thought you were saying it is ideal as in, the best way of doing things, not an ideal as in a way of thinking of things. Then disregard my quibble and thanks for taking the time to clarify.
In an unrelated note, we can maintain civility to people who are jerks. That does not mean we have to be accommodating or nice.
If what you're saying is that 'having to deal with a whiny player' has created a 'gm that is no longer willing to give mulligans to the players that are left at his table' I'd say on the one hand that based on the sounds of it, it's likely thats not even true, but if it were it wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing.
If what you're saying is that giving one player a mulligan means the rest of the table cant count on any consistency in the rules from here on out I'd call that hyperbole.
And finally if what you're saying is that giving the player a mulligan 'created' 50 pages of whining then I think you've failed to pick up ciretose's point about 'illusion of authority' since nobody can 'make' a whiner be a whiner. We call this 'correlation does not equal causality'. I wont say its impossible that giving a player a mulligan sets of some sort of whinerbomb inside of him but its a hillarious idea and one i'm glad I have never seen in person. I suppose on the smaller scale what you'd be saying is that catering to whiners creates 'entitlement' and thats a valid point.
Of course if that is your valid point then it was ninjad by ciretose back on wednesday
I think if whining leads to getting what you want, you get more whining.
And whining makes the game less fun for the rest of the table. Including the GM.
Do I think doing that one time when it seems like the right thing to do is going to hose your table? Probably not. YMMV.
Do I think doing that one time even if it doesnt seem like the right thing to do is going to hose your table? Again. Probably not. YMMV
Does every table handle this differenly? Oh yeah they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
400 posts, really ?
When the only thing that needed to be said
DUDE! Rule of Cool Trumps all ;)